Has anyone else here seen “Call Me By Your Name”? I’ve seen it twice and cannot get it out of my head. I read the book a few times, anticipating the movie during its unbearably long roll-out. Would anyone here like to do an analysis of the movie? It isn’t in wide release yet—I think it comes out wide in mid-January. But if there are enough people interested now, we could roundtable it. Or wait until more have seen it in the early part of the year. Thoughts? Anyone game?
Okay so I finally managed to see this movie and BOY do I have THOUGHTS. . . . and spoilers, kids, so watch out!
I think this movie, like the book, is a lovely, sensual, touching failure. It has great potential, but unfortunately, the author never bothered to write a climax. Ignore the fact that this story has no developed OS. I’m actually fine with that-- sometimes you just want to create a story that explores deep feelings alone, without argument. You still need to hit all four signposts in your RS throughline, or else you’re going to wind up with a story that feels like it doesn’t have an ending.
I think that’s what happens in this movie. The “ending” where Elio finds out that Oliver is getting married should be the three-quarter mark, at which point Elio should hop on a plane and fly to New York to confront Oliver once and for all over his wishy-washy BS. I say this because otherwise, who changes in this movie? Oliver goes from not pursuing Elio, to pursuing him, to . . . not pursuing him again? And Elio just gives up. Which resolves NOTHING, which in turn is why half the people in the theater looked up in shock when the lights came on during the final scene, like . . . that’s it?
Elio is telegraphed as a steadfast MC. He pursues Oliver from start until the phone call. Oliver is telegraphed as the change character. He pushes Elio away at first, only to give in to Elio’s advances around the halfway mark. Whether this story is supposed to be a “success” or a “failure” is pretty up-in-the air, but even if we get the sense that the author intended a failure ending, he just cut to failure without sufficient confrontation.
After all, WHY, exactly, does Oliver push Elio away? They have this incredible bond, and Oliver walks away from it because . . . internalized homophobia, I presume. Which goes unchallenged. Oliver shows up in Italy wearing his star of David, so forward with his Jewish identity, and yet, for the purposes of this film, he’s a coward. He succumbs to his (implied) fears of being judged for being queer and disappears. How wonderful would it have been to have Elio show up in New York to make Oliver tell Elio to his face that it’s over between them? Not only would this have provided a lovely symmetry (Elio in New York at the end of the movie, being forward about his LGBT identity) to mirror Oliver’s appearance at the beginning, it would actually confront the central issue of the story (i.e. why it is that Oliver and Elio can’t be together.)
That speech that the father gives Elio near the end of the movie substitutes for a climax, but not very successfully. It should be and in fact reads as if it will be a pep talk, a “go get your man” speech, but instead, it turns into a “life sucks sometimes but you’ll always have Paris” speech, which is . . . less satisfying. I mean, seriously, look at what he says: “Our hearts and our bodies are given to us only once.” “I never had what you to have [note present tense].” These should be lead ins to a line like: “so that’s why I bought you this PLANE TICKET TO NYC, kiddo! Go get him back!” But instead, these lines lead . . . nowhere.
And maybe having Elio fly to New York during Hanukkah would seem cliché. A final confrontation between Elio and Oliver is obviously what’s supposed to happen in this movie, but I suspect that the author didn’t write that scene because he wanted to “subvert expectations” or something. Which, like, fine, but you don’t have to worry so much about an ending seeming cliché if your story has a well-developed OS. Because a well-developed OS proves why a story HAD to end the way that it did, not just why it felt like it was supposed to end that way.
None of this is to take away from the film-making, the directing, the cinematography, or the acting in this film, all of which are wonderful. I think they were all just doing their best with a broken (or at least incomplete) storyform, and nobody wanted to implement the kind of major structural overhaul the story required to make it work in the film, probably for fear of offending the author of the book. Which is kind of a bummer, if you ask me. Because this could have been a far more powerful story if it ever bothered to confront the issues it was raising head-on. In New York. During Hanukkah.
1 Like
But as a summary, here’s what I think of the structure:
MC: Elio (Steadfast)
IC: Oliver (Change)
Outcome: Failure
Judgement: Good
MC domain: universe
IC domain: mind
RS domain: ? (leaning towards psychology)
OS domain: ? (physics) (absent)
1 Like
This reminds me of a movie I saw about 10 to 15 years ago, from Italy if I remember right. It was about the gal and guy doing something during the day in their separate lives, then going to some kind of get-together, maybe families of friends then meeting each other, and I think an arrangement was made for a date. I remember she was extremely happy at the end leaving the house. I think she flung up her hands up like it was a glorious day for her or something finally worked out, as she left the house walking down some stairs. Literally nothing happened in that hour and a half. I remember walking out of the theater bemused that this film even got made. Then a man was walking out and I just involuntarily said I can’t believe this film…nothing happened. He answered, having obviously enjoyed the film very much, “Some films are just a slice of life.”
In other words you might have an audience.
1 Like
(HUGE SPOILERS ABOUND. SO IF YOU HAVEN’T SEEN IT YET, GO DO THEN COME BACK HERE TOO DISCUSS.)
Wow, Audz. You do have some rather strong thoughts (and similar feelings) already on CMBYN, though I disagree with you at least on some, maybe most, of your points.
First, I don’t agree at all that either the book or the movie are failures. When I read the book, I must admit, I wept the last part/the last hour of reading it. There may be reasons other than the book itself that contributed to that. But the book has stuck with me; I’ve read it several times since my first reading.
The movie has stuck with me too since I first saw it. And I’ve seen it several times since.
I dare say any book or movie that sustains that much attention from me, from critics (with 97% favorable on RT for instance) is not a failure. It’s often alluded to in Dramatica circles that a strong story form is probably what justifies movies having tip-top RT ratings. So I tend to think there is a storyform present here. It may not be immediately apparent, front and center, the way we typically look for it in American movies. This is a European director with European sensibilities, as you’ve noted. But it doesn’t mean a movie with more deliberative decision drivers rather than action drivers and with a slow-as-a-summer day pacing doesn’t have a story form. Consider taking another look at it.
If I recall correctly, another movie that CMBYN is compared too is “Moonlight,” which when it was first analyzed last year was deemed either a broken or incomplete story form. Since then Jim at Narrative First has reanalyzed it and outlined its correct and complete story form. Consider, you might be experiencing a similar gap in your reaction to this movie. I also think you’re thinking of this, like many love stories are, as having an Obtaining story goal. It’s not. I believe it’s a Progress story goal.
Regarding the storyform itself, to start with, I disagree on the positioning of the throughlines you’ve mentioned. This is how I see it (BEWARE: SPOILERS ABOUND):
OS throughline is Universe/Situation: One could title this throughline “The Usurper” or “The summer Oliver came to stay with the Perlmans.” The setting of this Northern Italian paradise is a universe unto itself. The circumstance of Oliver coming to stay for six weeks (as an intern for Prof. Perlman) sets up situational dynamics that become concerns for all major characters. When Oliver arrives, Elio Perlman refers to Oliver as the “usurper” while Elio is packing things from his room to move out so the Usurper can move in. For the six weeks Oliver is staying, Elio has to sleep in a smaller adjoining room and, understandably, resents it. Professor and Mrs. Perlman are concerned with sponsoring Oliver’s internship and hosting him during his stay. Elio, his parents and Mafalda comment on Oliver’s behavior, how he is “arrogante” and says “Later” all the time. They refer to Oliver as the “muvi star” and, in the book, as “il cowboy.” Malfada has to feed Oliver, wash his clothes, make his bed, even crack his soft-boiled egg open for him as he doesn’t know how to do it correctly (this is clearer in the book, but alluded to in the movie). Mrs. Perlman comments how Oliver is late for dinner and asks Mafalda to clear his plate away when he is not present for dinner. Marzia senses Elio’s attention diverted from her to Oliver. Marzia’s sister, Chiara, is obsessed with Oliver. All these dynamics are in motion because of the situation of Oliver being there. So I think the OS is clearly in Universe/Situation. It boils down to Marzia loves Elio; Elio falls in love with Oliver. But Oliver leaves. The next Christmas, Elio is still dealing with the love he feels for Oliver when he finds out Oliver is getting married.
I want to note there is a beautiful symmetry in the relationships between Marzia and Elio, the knight and the princess in the “Speak or Die” fable, and Elio and Oliver. All three mirror each other. Marzia is afraid Elio will hurt her and is afraid to tell Elio she loves him but eventually does. The knight is afraid to tell the princess he loves her and asks her “Is it better to speak or to die?”; The princess says it’s better to speak, but senses a trap. Elio is afraid he wouldn’t have the courage to ask a question like that, but summons up the courage (decides) to tell Oliver his true feelings. and thus moves their relationship into another realm. At least for a time; until Oliver leaves and decides to marry.
OS Concern = Progress. Elio’s sexual awakening is brimming that summer. He’s looking to make progress with Marzia, with a peach, and, after their friendship progresses, with Oliver. Elio tells Oliver he “knows nothing of the things that matter” and expresses his desire to make progress in that realm. Oliver and Elio consensually start a sexual relationship. Professor Pearlman wants to make progress with his archaeological dig. Marzia loves Elio and wants their relationship to progress. Chiara has the hots for Oliver and, it’s assumed, wants to get in his pants. After Professor Perlman, when he realizes Elio and Oliver had deeply loving, probably sexual, relationship which has now ended after Oliver’s return to America, he urges Elio to not snuff out his feelings, and with it the joy he felt. Let the feelings come (progress), and then there’s that absolutely brilliant final 3 minutes close-up shot of Elio. (More on that later.)
This would put the RS throughline in Fixed Attitude/Mind, which in my opinion fits the Elio + Oliver Love Story pretty well. In the beginning, Elio is fixated on Oliver calling him the “Usurper” and is resentful and annoyed by his arrogant behavior. But he’s also immediately attracted to Oliver too because of Oliver’s confidence, how Oliver wears his Star of David necklace openly and so boldly. Love stories often portray Love and Hate (or Dislike) as flip sides of the same coin/of the same mindset or fixation. We find out later in the story that Oliver was attracted to Elio from the beginning too, but felt (decided) he should restrain himself following the shoulder massage incident.
Another unique aspect of this RS throughline to consider is, while the movie is received by reviewers, critics and the audience mostly as a gay love story, one needs to consider that both Oliver and Elio are bisexual, and perhaps not strictly gay. In that respect, their sexual fluidity, as portrayed in the book and movie, are fixed aspects of each of them and thereby an aspect of their relationship. Given this, when a bisexual person chooses monogamy, as in the case of Oliver telling Elio he is getting married, they’d have to choose one of the sexes to marry. Someone inevitably, in this case Elio, will be disappointed. Just as Marzia maintains an unrequited love for Elio, Elio maintains an unrequited love for Oliver. Why is Oliver not returning love to Elio? That is a good question. Perhaps Oliver really loves his wife to be? Perhaps not? Perhaps he’s harboring internalized homophobia, and he’s afraid? If Oliver is the change character, what is his change? That he loves Elio, but ultimately gave up on Elio? The look on Oliver’s face before the train whistle pierced the scene was indicating something internal going on. So maybe the change was the confident American/Greek God turned out to be a wimp and turned his back on true love. Now that’s a tragedy.
Is there an argument for Elio being the change character? I don’t think so. I can’t see that.
The RS Concern is, I believe, in Preconscious. Elio’s innate reactions are troublesome in their relationship. Elio reacts to his “Laters” as evidence of arrogance. Elio’s reaction to Oliver massaging his shoulders is to recoil. After which, Oliver’s innate reaction was to avoid Elio and restrain his feelings toward him. Elio’s reaction after they kissed and he had the nosebleed and after Oliver got home late is to think Oliver is carousing with Chiara and to call him a “traitor.” (Elio’s imaginings of Oliver’s presumed sexual encounters with women are clearer in the book, but we do find out later in the book that Elio is mistaken about them.)
I believe the MC throughline to be in Psychology/Manipulation. Elio spends a lot of time thinking, obsessing over, and writing in his journal about Oliver. He fantasizes about Oliver. It is clearer in the book, but portrayed well in the red bathing suit scene. One can clearly imagine what Elio was fantasizing about with Oliver’s red bathing suit slid over his head and his body raised on all fours rocking back and forth. Elio obsesses over the right wording on the note he eventually slips under the door: Can’t stand the silence. Need to speak to you.
The IC throughline I believe to be in Physics/Activites. See below.
I’m still working out further down the model, but it is not clear yet. I think IC Concern is in Doing, as Oliver’s is there to finish his dissertation, play poker, lay in the Italian sun. He’s running into translation troubles with his dissertation and realizes some of what he’s been writing isn’t making any sense.
That would put MC Concern in Being/Playing a Role, which might be playing the role of the good host, showing Oliver around town, etc. There is even a direct conflict alluded to about this in the scene they get into the car to go to the lake; Oliver makes a sarcastic remark about him “playing the good host.” Elio pretends to be reading a book when Oliver catches him masturbating. He pretends to be asleep when Oliver comes in late. He doesn’t like pretending to like that Miami shirt the night “Sonny and Cher” come to visit. He pretends to be tired to excuse himself for his midnight encounter with Oliver. In general, at the beginning Elio pretends he doesn’t like Oliver when he does.
The rest is a little sketchier, but I think some of it is:
MC Resolve: Steadfast. Elio doesn’t give up his drive to progress. And even as the story closes, he stills loves Oliver, even though he’s getting married to someone else. This steadfastness of love mirrors Marzia’s steadfast love for Elio she expresses near the end.
MC Growth: Start
MC Approach: I think is Be-er.
Limit: Timelock. Elio and Oliver run out of time. Before that, they talk about how they wasted so much time. The six weeks are over, and Oliver goes back to America. Oliver tells Elio he is getting married in the spring.
As far as outcomes, you won’t believe this, but I think the story outcome could be Success. This is not an Obtaining story in which one needs to get the guy to succeed. I believe the story goal is in the realm of Progress. It’s a coming of age story. And Elio’s relationship with Oliver, even if it was timelock limited, allowed Elio to progress, to awaken, to experience “first love”. I think there’s a natural tendency for audiences to want obtaining outcomes as the resolution of love stories (the guy gets the girl, the guy gets the guy, or whatever). Or, if it’s an obtaining tragedy, the guy doesn’t get the guy or girl, or one of them dies, and it’s sad because they lose them. I think the tendency for audiences to want obtaining outcomes resonates in tension with the actual story goal of CMBYN which is in Progress. Also, what’s wrong with reaching a goal of progress and acknowledging it for what it is? Why does one have to keep reaching backward for it, trying to get back there to it, again and again, chasing the high, when it’s not the same anymore?
The Story Driver is debatable. But I think it is Decision rather than Action. In the book, we find out at the end that Elio decided Oliver was the intern he wanted his parents to pick and then made sure they did. So Elio’s decision, at least in the book, is the whole reason for the story to exist. I think within the movie, Elio’s decision “to speak than to die” drives their whole coming together. Elio’s parent’s decision to have Elio accompany Oliver to the city before he takes off to America allows them their own special time together. Oliver’s decision to get married and tell Elio ushers in the brilliant 3+ minute final close-up reaction shot of Elio’s face as he processes the news and their relationship right before our eyes. I think this scene is sheer cinematic brilliance; it allows the audience to process the story subjectively with Elio, in and through his eyes while he gazes at the embers of a crackling fire, and while the movie is literally running out of time (the credits are running while all this is going on) further emphasizing the movie’s timelock limit.
In Elio’s reaction, while there is sadness there is also joy. And that’s the whole point of his father’s monologue at the end. Don’t kill off the pain, and thus kill off the joy too. /you have to have pain with the joy. Elio gets it. In the end, literally as the credits are rolling and Visions of Gideon is playing we see on his face that he gets it. That’s your climax. It’s freaking brilliant.
This sense of the last scene keeps sticking with me. Is the fact that this movie is staying with me so much a result of it being a broken or incomplete story form? Could it be that the story judgment and perhaps the story outcome too are undetermined and up for grabs by the audience–for them to determine themselves and process along with Elio in the last few minutes of the film? So, there might be at least four story forms it could be (success-good, success-bad, failure-good, failure-bad) that the audience processes through themselves in their minds? Like a choose-your-own-adventure? Or an abstract painting on which you overlay the meaning? Is that even possible?
Even if it is broken like that, it’s kinda brilliant. I don’t think its failure, Audz… with all due respect. 
1 Like
I’m not sure what movie you’re describing, Prish. But honestly CMBYN bears no resemblance to that, in my opinion. It doesn’t occur like a slice of life movie with no point to it. At least, to me it doesn’t.
Have you actually seen CMBYN?
I don’t think many people have seen it yet. It’s only in limited release in NY, CA. It made it to CT, Not sure where else it is yet.
I wasn’t referring to the specific movie CMBYN, but was struck by the concept of exploring deep feelings without argument, and was left pondering the possibility. Audi’s words caught me between the eyes, and brought me back to that film. Now, I wonder what I missed. I’m sure there was a point to the film I saw, just so low key it is considered a slice of life, I guess, to some. It was an introduction to a different kind of audience. Should I delete my posts, here?
Oh, don’t delete. It’s all part of discussion. All good.
Do you remember the name of that movie?
Hey Miggs,
I should clarify, when I say the story is a failure, I mean that from a structural point of view. I.E. that this movie fails to make a clear argument about a way to solve a problem. I don’t think that need take away from the pleasure of watching the film, nor the quality of the storytelling. A “successful” movie, in the end, is really just a movie that you enjoyed enough that it was worth your time. By that criteria, many movies that are structural failures are nonetheless successes in the hearts of the viewers. I thought the film was beautiful, and often quite touching, but it didn’t inspire me to live my life differently, which is what stories that made clear arguments have forced me to do in the past.
But that’s just me. I read the book and watched the film, and while both made me a little teary-eyed, that was as far as it went. I was disappointed in both the book and the movie because I felt like they lacked real endings, but had I identified more closely with the characters or the story, I might not have minded so much. I didn’t mind when Carol ended ambiguously; I was so thrilled at getting to see a love story between two women done up beautifully on the silver screen that I must have gone to see it ten times in five different theaters. Are there structural weaknesses to that movie? Yes, but I don’t really care. It’s the closest I’ve ever come to seeing a love story between women that actually does them justice. That’s enough for me to love it to pieces.
With that said, I’m cautious of using the RT score of the movie as proof that the movie works from a structural point of view. It probably is true that people tend to best enjoy movies with complete arguments, but there are always exceptions. To my mind, there’s too many vagaries to be found in the rulings of the court of current public opinion to put much stock in it. A film can be good in many ways (incredible acting, beautiful cinematography, powerful scenes) that have little to do with the integrity of its overall structure.
With that said, I’m more than happy to reexamine my conclusions about this movie. If it has a solid structure in there, let’s pull it out. But I’m worried that may be a fruitless endeavor, b/c this movie seems to fail even basic principles of story structure. As you said in your post:
But in a well argued story, one of these characters must change, while the other must remain steadfast. And we should be able to tell which is which. Otherwise, the movie isn’t really making an argument about what to DO in the situation that the MC and IC share. Remember, these are all supposed to be different approaches to resolving the same central inequity. How can we tell whose approach is best if neither forces the other to definitively change his mind? This failure alone points to a serious structural weakness in this film (as far as I can tell) that makes me dubious that a well-articulated structure is actually present
There’s much more I have to say, but I’m out of time for now.
But more to follow!
Well, I’m up for a spirited discussion, as we’re having.
Perhaps it should wait until it’s release is national and more people who have seen it can join in. I feel I’ve already laid out huge spoilers perhaps too early in its theatrical run. What do you think? Should we continue now with the discussion, risk ruining people’s viewing experience? Or wait at least until mid-January, when it goes national? (I think I already have my answer.)
Okay. I put up big SPOILER signs.
Hopefully, others who have seen it will participate.
There is a ying-yang form and symmetry that keeps fluttering through the movie. The name “Call Me By Your Name” is somewhat of an enigma. But it resembles a ying-yang symbol and proclaims a vow of intense intimacy. I am in you, and you are in me. This formality along with other symmetries I’ve seen, again, suggest there is structure here.
You argue why doesn’t he go fly to New York and go get his man? Why do need a plane, when you have a phone in your hand? Elio uses the phone then and there (HUGE SPOILER) to call out “Elio… Elio, Elio, Elio, Elio, Elio, Elio, Elio, Elio” and Oliver responds with a breathy drawn out “Oliverrrr” and tells Elio, “He remembers everything.” That’s your ending, Audz. Why can’t the ying-yang of that, the formal and structural beauty of that be the ending image? All playing out on Elio’s face in front of a crackling fire. It’s human existence in a nutshell. Can one be with the joy and the pain at the same time? Can one live with pain in order to experience joy, rather than snuff it all out so as to avoid any pain. But then you’d lose all the joy too. The setting in front of the fireplace in this final scene is brilliant given this argument. The answer is yes, you can live with both. And Elio’s face proves it. It’s bittersweet.
So given that, and what I suggested as an overall story goal of Progress, maybe this story is a Failure, in that they never progress past the ying-yang of that joy and pain. But the judgment is good? Giving its bittersweet taste? I’ll have to play around with the structure under the 4 domains and see what works.
But I still wonder if any ambiguity here is purposeful and part of what makes the movie resonate with people. (You’re the only person I’ve come that’s had a negative reaction to the ending.) Most reactions I’ve come across, including my own, is it stays with you and you keep thinking about it after you’ve walked out of the theater, reliving it over and over, much like the ying-yang argument.
Hmm.
I think it’s worth considering what it means for a story to be ambiguous (or purposefully ambiguous). I would argue that a movie is ambiguous only when the underlying structure is incomplete. Ambiguity, purposeful or otherwise, means that your story’s argument has holes in it. Which may be fine from an artistic POV, but which makes the story much harder to analyze from an objective, structural POV, because part of that structure has been obscured, suppressed, or left out to ALLOW for the ambiguity to exist. Complete structure= unambiguous argument.
And as for the phone call, I think it would be different if Elio called Oliver, and in so doing pursued the resolution to the relationship (and his feelings). But that wasn’t what happened. Oliver called Elio instead. So the phone call is not something Elio chooses, it’s something that happens to him.
More about that phone call: I think it changes the context of the conversation that Mr. Pearlman has with his son about accepting his joy and pain instead of pushing them away, and makes it seem almost misguided. Had the movie then ended with Elio staring at the fire, accepting his feelings of longing and pain for what they are, then I might agree with you. But between the conversation and the final scene, there’s the phone call, in which we learn that not only is Oliver going to be married, but that he’s had a girlfriend (on and off) for the last TWO years. Elio, of course, was never informed of this.
Which really changes the tenor of the ending for me. Oliver is revealed to, at worst, have been a manipulative person who took advantage of an inexperienced 17-year-old by starting a sexual relationship with him under false pretenses. After all, would Elio still have pursued Oliver if he had known there was somebody else in the picture, somebody close enough to Oliver that she might, in sixth months, become his fiancee? Probably not. At the very least, we just learned that Oliver is not the man Elio (or we) thought he was. Oliver was not being up-front and honest with Elio about where he was coming from when the relationship between them began.
So it’s one thing to encourage your son to accept his feelings of loss and heartbreak for what they are, under the pretense that they are the result of a truncated (but otherwise healthy) experience of love and intimacy. It’s another thing entirely to send that message to a kid who in the end finds out he was taken advantage of by an older man who, evidently never really had his (Elio’s) best interests at heart. Oliver KNEW he already had a girlfriend back in the states, and he not only chose to pursue Elio anyway, he did so without informing Elio of the girlfriend until six months after they’ve already split up, essentially letting Elio know that he was just “the other woman” the entire time. What we learned through that final scene is that Oliver did not actually care about what was best for Elio, or at least did not care enough to behave in a way that put the kid’s well-being first. Otherwise, he never would have allowed Eliot to start a sexual relationship with him unless he knew it was CRYSTAL CLEAR to Elio exactly what the limits on that relationship were (i.e. my long-term girlfriend and i are taking a break over the summer, so a fling is all this can and will ever be). But that doesn’t happen.
The book handles this reveal better than the movie does, in my opinion. It showed Elio getting angry at having been manipulated. But it still allows him a confrontation with Oliver years later. The movie doesn’t do that, choosing to end immediately after Elio learns of the betrayal. It never really allows Elio a cogent moment of confrontation, and to me, that made me feel like it lacked an ending.
And maybe there’s another way to read the structure of this film. But to me, if you bring up the issues of a potentially abusive relationship between a 24-year-old and a 17-year-old, you owe it to your audience to confront those issues head-on. Otherwise, it just seems like the movie is arguing that this (the relationship between Elio and Oliver) should be seen as a beautiful love affair, which perhaps it could have been if we didn’t know that Oliver was lying (by omission) to Elio the entire time they were together about the fact that he was already seriously involved with someone else (enough to become engaged to her within sixth months after his return to NYC). Which to me, kind of makes it less a story about romance, and more about the way that imbalanced relationships can have toxic outcomes for the socially weaker party. After all, it’s Elio who winds up with his heart broken, and Oliver who winds up with a new wife. So who really paid the price here? The kid.
I don’t think you have to have Dramatica structure locked down to have it benefit a story. In regards to outcome and judgment, leaving one or both of these ambiguous allows for thought-provoking endings, like this movie has, and spirited discussions, like we are having.
There are interpretations you have of this movie I don’t see, nor agree with. First I don’t see this as a “potentially abusive” relationship. Elio is 17, Oliver’s character is 24. There is an age difference, yes. I don’t see this as a story of predation, which I think is what you’re getting at. Consent ages differ. In the US it’s 18. In Italy age of consent is 14. That seems a little young to me, but its context to judge the story from.
Oliver didn’t mention the girlfriend. Presumably, it was in the off again mode when Oliver was in Italy; maybe he didn’t feel he needed to mention if it was over then. I’m not defending him, just what-if’ing.
It’s clear to me Elio is the aggressor in the relationship. I didn’t find him a victim. Nor does he choose to be one by his reaction. The movie tries to sum it up in the last scene with his emotional close-up. But in the book, when they meet later, Oliver asks Elio if he regretted having a relationship. The answer was no. (That was the gist of the passage, not sure exactly where it was; I’d have to dig it up.) This answer matches the advice the father gives, don’t snuff out the pain and the joy along with it. Can you be with both? Elio’s answer is clear he can be with both. He chooses to be with both. But the relationship is doomed to not progress beyond what it has been.
Regarding the phone call, Oliver decides to make the phone call. Elio decides to pick it up. Oliver tells him his news. Elio interrupts the flow of the call, just cuts into it decisively, and calls out his name to Oliver and it changes the nature of the call. Suddenly it’s not a call about Oliver delivering the news. It’s about Elio calling out to Oliver.
And yes, you’ve hit on it. Oliver is the betrayer in the relationship. I think he realizes what’s going to happen when sitting on the bed before the train whistles. Maybe that’s what makes him the Change character? Unless Oliver changes back, the relationship will just continue to loop onto itself in memory only. Both can only experience it now as a memory, with both joy and pain.
Is this bittersweet? Is it Tragedy? Maybe the larger story isn’t over yet? I think this ambiguity is provocative. I don’t think Dramtica structure has to be locked in so much to have valid structure. The incompletion can be deliberate with deliberate effect. The ending is ambiguous. The audience gets to process various potential objective outcomes and judgments themselves, like a choose-your-own-adventure. Thus re-living the ending over and over and over again in and unending cycle of memory just the predicament Elio is in at the end. The audience gets to decide the outcome and meaning, carrying the story driver of decision with them as the exit the theater. This movie is brilliant in how it plays with structure!
There’s so many layers to this movie, I haven’t quite figured it all out in Dramatica yet. That’s why I want to bat it around awhile.
This discussion has me wondering if the argument of the OS throughline is “Is it better to speak or to die?”, mirroring the fable of the knight and the maiden. The maiden says it’s better to speak, but she senses a trap. Elio and Oliver talk about this right before their relationship transforms to overtly romantic. There’s a close-up reaction shot of Oliver as Elio says, “…but she senses a trap.” This is also the point where the movie begins to follow Oliver’s POV and you start to see his vulnerability.
If it is better to speak than to die, for the knight to confess his love to the maiden, then the knight has to be able to live with the answer the maiden gives as well. The maiden senses a trap. Perhaps, Oliver does too. He lives Elio, but repeatedly tries to stop the relationship from progressing, eventually giving into Elio’s advances. In the end though, he finally does stop it from progressing by leaving, by getting married. And dooms it to become only alive in memory. But wouldn’t you rather speak and live, whatever the outcome, than not and die? This is starting to get to the heart of the argument that the story is expressing.
I know you feel the movie lacks an ending. But I feel its one of the most emotional endings I’ve seen in a movie lately. One that is such a unique expression of a story limit of time lock that I’ve ever seen. Maybe it’s not a clear ending because of its ambiguity. But truly heart-wrenching in my opinion. And many others too. Which is why I believe its worth exploring deeper into this movie’s structure. There are layers and layers to be explored. It’s not a one off, slice of life, pointless and forgettable movie.
Hmmm. A lot to chew on here. I appreciate you batting this around with me, Audz.
I’d love to really delve into the storyform more. As a start, have you considered the 4 domains I suggest as an alternative to yours? I posed arguments for them after your intitial posts.
- OS in Universe/Situation
- RS in Mind/Fixed Attitude
- MC in Psychology/Manipulation
- IC in Physics/Activity
I’ll research it. It should be easy to find, since it was in a major downtown theater that showed popular international films that were not considered the ‘major releases’ as well as those. I guess what I was getting at is…“All good.” if there ended up not being a storyform…it had been done before and people liked it…haha. It does beg the question, though, would this not be a part of a complete storyform, with this being only a part? If there is emotional impact, wouldn’t there be an inherent storyform?
1 Like
Another thought on the OS argument… “Is it better to speak, or to die?” It’s of concern to all characters.
Mrs. Perlman translates the fable of the knight and the maiden to Elio and Prof. Perlman, introducing the argument. Elio confesses to his parents he doesn’t feel he has the courage to ask a question like that. His father replies with encouraging words and reminds him that they can always speak to them.
Elio and Oliver discuss the fable. Oliver asks what the maiden says. Elio says she says its better to speak, but senses a trap. (Close-up on Oliver, introduction of new POV on Oliver.) Oliver asks, does he speak. Elio says he flubs.
Elio deals with it in regards to Oliver. Does he risk telling him of his desire and love? He does. He finds the confidence after all.
Oliver says we mustn’t speak of such things and repeatedly tries to stop the progression. But eventually succumbs to Elio’s advances.
Marzi too deals with it. She loves Elio, but senses Elio’s attention on Oliver. She speaks of Chiara wanting to get together with Oliver at any cost, while she looks at Elio is looking at Oliver. And you sense the irony of the moment from her point of view. (There is such stunning storytelling is just the physical gaze of people looking at each other.)
Oliver introduces the idea of speaking, calling each other by the one’s own name. Which plays our romantical in as they lay in bed, as the hike the mountain.
Elio’s father asks him how the trip was. Sensing what’s happened between Elio and Oliver encourages to speak to him, opening the door if he wants. And encourages Elio to honor the feelings, joy and pain, the whole of it. (As a gay person myself, this is the parent anyone who comes out–a similar speak or die dilemma–wants to have. But many do not have. My parents were not this understanding, open and supportive. So Prof. Perlman’s monologue resonates with me quite a bit. Because I do know now, no matter how hard it may seem and no matter what terrible reaction one has to live through (as in my own case of coming out) it is worth it to speak rather than to die, or kill off your true self.
Ultimately Elio, not willing to accept their relationship will die, calls out to Oliver calling speaking his own name repeatedly across the phone line, across the ocean. Oliver hears and remembers. The love is not dead. But it will not progress as long as Oliver maintains his POV.
Of course! Thanks for talking about it with me!
And I feel like I’m coming across as a total killjoy here; I have mixed feelings about the movie, but there are a lot of aspects of it that I loved! As to what domains the four throughlines are in, that’s a tricky question. I tend to break down stories holistically, so I apologize if this is hard to follow. To me, those identifications you floated seem plausible, but I’m not entirely convinced. I first need to get a handle on what the central inequity of the story IS before I can meaningfully assign throughlines. Because the domains exist in the context of problems, we have to know what the problem is.
So what’s problematic here? Elio wants a sexual relationship with Oliver, but he can’t have it (at first) because he doesn’t think Oliver reciprocates his feelings, then because Oliver rebuffs his advances, then because Oliver goes back home to New York, and THEN because Oliver is with someone else. But what he wants (and what he is pursuing) remains the same: an intimate relationship with Oliver. The movie ends w/o him being in this relationship.
This is probably why I don’t think this movie has a OS goal of Progress. To me, the OS Goal has to be either Becoming or Obtaining, because I think Elio’s concern is The Future. This is why he is crestfallen at the end of the movie: his hopes of ever rekindling his relationship with Oliver die when he is told that Oliver is getting married. Out go his hopes of ever having a future with Oliver, which is what he (secretly) wanted all along. As a consequence, he must either let go of Oliver (obtaining), or grow up (Becoming).
To me, it seems like Elio is in Universe more than anything else. He is in love with someone he cannot have a future with b/c of his circumstances. Meanwhile, why can’t Oliver be with Elio? Simply because he doesn’t want to; he’d rather be with the woman who becomes his fiancee (Mind, fixed attitude). Nothing else is ACTUALLY stopping him from maintaining his relationship with Elio, if he so chose. People wait for other people all the time. Oliver doesn’t even wait six months before deciding to marry someone else.
This is part of the reason why I’d say this movie is ACTUALLY an optionlock, NOT a timelock. The characters treat it as a given that Elio and Oliver’s relationship must come to an end when Oliver goes back home, but . . . why? The book makes it clear that this was not actually a necessary outcome. They could have continued to have a sexual, intimate relationship with each other, BUT for the fact that Oliver chose someone else. Elio isn’t actually out of time, he’s out of options. Which is why he experiences the time w/o Oliver as if he were asleep (he says something like this in the book). he’s just waiting around in case his OPTIONS change. There is no true timelock on this relationship. They could resume it any time Oliver desired. But he doesn’t.
And to me, the relationship between Oliver and Elio seems much more dynamic than either of their individual throughlines. Their RS throughline explores the dynamic process of their coming together, then falling apart. Now, whether this is in Physics or Psychology is hard to say, because I don’t get a sense of a well-developed OS. Yes, there are other characters in the story who interact with Elio and Oliver, but not towards the achievement of some clearly defined goal that EVERYONE in the story cares about.
With that said, I could see arguments for either Physics or Psychology OS. I think that Elio’s parents are concerned about their son growing up to be alright. Perhaps the father is (inadvertently) pushing Elio and Oliver towards each other b/c he thinks that this relationship will help his son blossom into an experienced man? Weird, but interesting!
But let’s say, for argument’s sake, that the OS is in Psychology. This would give us an OS Goal of Becoming. Everyone in the story would then be concerned with Elio’s becoming a man (which seems at least plausible, and would fit in with the coming-of-age theme). This would also put the RS concern in Obtaining, which would make sense: the whole will-they-or-won’t-they tension that works its way throughout the film is driven by the question of whether Elio and Oliver will obtain a lasting relationship between the two of them (plot twist: they don’t).
1 Like
Thanks, Prish.
I do think there is an argument that if this doesn’t have a complete storyform–and I’m still not sure this is the case, I want to delve into the structure still–there is may be an elegance to it if, for instance, the ambiguity is in story judgment (good or bad) or story outcome (succeed or failure). And in the specific case of this movie’s ending, audience members have the opportunity to process the emotional ending of the movie along with the MC as the movie is literally ending and the credits are rolliing. What an elegant expression of timelock! This is why I think there is inherent structure here, contrary to Audz POV. But I guess I have to prove it. So I will look into it. I wish others who have seen the movie might also join the conversation and shed some light and open the discussion up.
Have you considered the thematic argument of “Is it better to speak or to die?” as being threaded throughout the story as I suggested above? I think that is a key to the OS throughline. And if it is, what domain is that in? Physics/Activity? That could point to concerns of Obtaining/Future/Becoming/The Subconscious as you’re suggesting.
I was originally thinking the concerns were in Progress/Being/Doing/The Preconscious. But I’m willing to reconsider. This is where I have trouble in tieing the sources of problems or conflict to the various appreciations, rather than then being just story telling.
But if the “Is it better to speak or to die” thematic argument works as a key, let’s see where that might take us. It’s the closest thing I see to a thematic argument so far in the movie.
Is it better to speak or to die? Is it the thematic argument of the OS? The MC? Or the RS throughline? I think OS, because it concerns more than Elio himself, and beyond Oliver too. Thoughts?
(Heading off to New Years celebration, so I won’t be checking in again until tomorrow probably. HAPPY NEW YEAR!)
Happy New Year!
I think the theme of speech vs death could fit into an OS that was about manipulation or Psychology. it seems at first like a stupid question; of course speech is better than death. But what if what you have to say was so awful that you’d rather die than hear it said or have to say it? Put another way, is it better to say what you want to say now, damn the consequences, or to hold your tongue for fear of what might happen?
It’s temptation vs. conscience.
. . . Okay, fuck, you’re right. This move DOES give us enough info to determine the storyform:
Call Me By Your Name.dr5 (1.8 KB)
For anyone who doesn’t want to click the link, here’s what I think we’re dealing with:
THE OBJECTIVE STORY THROUGHLINE: Making a Place for Oliver in All Our Hearts
DOMAIN: Psychology
CONCERN: Becoming (Being transformed by interacting with Oliver)
ISSUE: Responsibility vs. Commitment
PROBLEM: Conscience (holding back for fear of the consequences)
SOLUTION: Temptation (speak the truth, even if it kills you).
FOCUS: Uncontrolled (desire running rampant, out of control)
DIRECTION: Control (Everyone trying to keep their true feelings under wraps)
CATALYST: Rationalization
INHIBITOR: Hope
BENCHMARK: Being
SIGNPOST 1: Conceptualizing
SIGNPOST 2: Being
SIGNPOST 3: Becoming
SIGNPOST 4: Conceiving
GOAL: Becoming (Becoming one with someone else/merging with the person you love)~ A goal that, while impossible to achieve long-term, the movie argues it is still worth striving for
CONSEQUENCE: Obtaining (Ending the romance)
COST: The Subconscious (getting your heart broken)
DIVIDEND: The Future (having a future of your own making)
REQUIREMENT: Being (pretending to be something you’re not)
PREREQUISITE: Doing ( “call me by your name, and I’ll call you by mine.”)
PRECONDITION: The Preconscious
FOREWARNINGS: Progress (the oncoming end of the merging phase of a relationship as more is uncovered about the true natures of the people involved)
MAIN CHARACTER THROUGHLINE: Elio Pearlman
Main Character Synopsis:
MC RESOLVE: Steadfast
MC GROWTH: Start
MC APPROACH: Do-er
MC MENTAL SEX: Female
DOMAIN: Universe
CONCERN: The Future
ISSUE: Preconception vs. Openness
PROBLEM: Help
SOLUTION: Hinder
FOCUS: Uncontrolled
DIRECTION: Control
UNIQUE ABILITY: Openness
CRITICAL FLAW: Self Interest
BENCHMARK: Progress (How Elio’s life is changing through his interactions with Oliver)
SIGNPOST 1: The Present (Elio is annoyed to be displaced from his room, and must stay in his grandfather’s room for the six weeks that the Usurper is in the house).
SIGNPOST 2: The Past (Elio realizes and becomes obsessed with how much time he and Oliver wasted)
SIGNPOST 3: The Future (Oliver leaves, effectively ending his relationship with Elio, but Elio is still holding out hope for a possible future with the man he loves).
SIGNPOST 4: Progress (Through the phone call, Elio progresses vis-a-vis accepting his loss)
OBSTACLE CHARACTER THROUGHLINE: Oliver the Usurper
Obstacle Character Synopsis:
OC RESOLVE: Change
DOMAIN: Mind
CONCERN: The Subconscious
ISSUE: Denial vs. Closure
PROBLEM: Conscience
SOLUTION: Temptation (Look at those statues, it’s like they’re daring you to desire them.)
FOCUS: Hinder
DIRECTION: Help (
UNIQUE ABILITY: Closure (He’s the one who can end the relationship once and for all by leaving).
CRITICAL FLAW: Commitment (His commitment to abstain from a relationship w/ Elio wavers).
BENCHMARK: The Preconscious (Can he resist temptation in the form of a beautiful boy?)
SIGNPOST 1: Memory (Elio doesn’t remember that he was the one who picked Oliver to come as their grad student sixth months prior.)
SIGNPOST 2: The Preconscious (Elio tempts Oliver, wearing on his last nerve until Oliver agrees to begin a relationship.)
SIGNPOST 3: The Subconscious (Oliver asks Elio to call him by his name, an expression of his own desire through Elio. Elio becomes aware of the depth of Oliver’s feelings.)
SIGNPOST 4: The Conscious (Elio becomes conscious of Oliver’s true past and current relationship with someone else.)
SUBJECTIVE STORY THROUGHLINE: Will They or Won’t They (They Will)
Subjective Story Synopsis:
DOMAIN: Physics (knocking boots).
CONCERN: Obtaining (Obtaining a relationship w/ Oliver.
ISSUE: Morality vs. Self Interest (Doing what’s best for the one you love vs doing what’s best for yourself)
PROBLEM: Conscience (‘Don’t do this. You know why.)
SOLUTION: Temptation (Having a summer fling, damn the consequences)
FOCUS: Disbelief (Does he really want me, or does he hate me? I think he hates me! No, I never hated you, I gave you a sign!)
DIRECTION: Faith (Elio doubting that Oliver wants him back, but pursuing him anyway.)
CATALYST: Approach (Elio approaches Oliver)
INHIBITOR: Delay (Oliver delays, hoping to hold out until he can get out of there).
BENCHMARK: Doing (Doing stuff together).
SIGNPOST 1: Understanding (He likes me! He really likes me!)
SIGNPOST 2: Doing (Baby-makin’.)
SIGNPOST 3: Obtaining (Oliver leaves for NYC, ending their relationship).
SIGNPOST 4: Learning (Elio learns of Oliver’s betrayal).
Wow, Audz… I think you might have nailed it. Which amazes me, considering how much against you were about it even having a complete storyform.
I see now I had the domains wrong. I always seem to get the domains wrong when it comes to analyses. Such a basic thing. Sigh.
I tried my hand at several storyforms with some differences in issue, problems, solutions realms and kept comparing it back to yours. In the end, it seemed to keep confirming yours.
I think you could expand the illustrations of the various storypoints with more storytelling from the movie.
I’d be interested to see if the book has a different storyform, as we know the ending is extended. But is it different?
What I liked about this storyform you have come up with is that both the OS and SS Problems and Solutions were the same, namely: Problem of Conscience and Solution of Temptation. This creates a beautiful symmetry in both in which the illustration of the fable/question/argument “Is it better to speak (of your love) or to die?” can be used to illustrate in both OS and SS throughlines, because it does show up in both throughlines. In the OS it is: told by the mother to Elio and Prof. Perlman; Elio tells his folks he doesn’t think he’d have the courage to ask a question like that; Prof Perlman tells Elio he can always speak to them; Marzia grapples with similar fears as she is in love with Elio; at the end she tells him she loves him; they pledge lifelong friendship.) Of course, it’s clearly applicable in the SS throughline: Elio discusses the fable with Oliver. Oliver asks which she said was better; Elio says “she said it was better to speak, but she senses a trap”; Close-up of Oliver’s reaction then he asks, “Did he speak?”; Elio says the knight flubs; Elio is, of course, the “knight” and Oliver is the “fair maiden”; Elio summons the courage to speak; In the end, Oliver ultimately flubs (betrays/closes the relationship by getting married to a woman). On phone, Elio calls out to Oliver, “Elio… Elio, Elio, Elio, Elio, Elio, Elio, Elio, Elio.” Oliver responds, " Oliverrrr" and adds, “I remember everything”, both honoring and dooming their relationship to live in memory alone. Elio’s Unique Ability of Openness allows him the ability process and live with both the joy and the pain of remembering. But could it have the lingering effect that he never gets over? Perhaps he never has an equal or better relationship again? I think his characteristic Unique Ability of Openness is what we are witnessing in the iconic final shot. We are watching Elio process the relationship while watching the fire, heeding his father’s advice not to snuff out the pain and thus not snuff out the joy too: keep open the pain and the joy. This aspect of Openness is why the ending is both highly emotional and, even more importantly, sticks with you when you leave the theater. Elio and we are processing it in an unending open loop. Shear brilliance IMHO.
I do still wonder whether its an option or timelock. Its often been discussed in articles and interviews by the director and cast that the movie’s only antagonist is Time. So that seems to fit timelock. But you are right in that in the end, given Oliver’s flub (“I may be getting married in the spring… Do you mind?”) Elio’s only option now (optionlock) is to maintain the relationship in memory and his heart only.
Well done, Audz.