Film Reviews: Two films explore gay teen romance from a 21st century perspective

Call Me by Your Name

Directed by Luca Guadagnino

Written by James Ivory

Starring Timothée Chalamet and Armie Hammer

Love, Simon

Directed by Greg Berlanti

Written by Elizabeth Berger and Isaac Aptaker

Starring Nick Robinson and Jennifer Garner

Young gay man coming-of-age movies are a tried and true commodity in European film, and some American low budget indies, but are not so mainstream in Hollywood (young lesbians even show up even less, perhaps because of the relative paucity of woman directors). Recently two such films have cracked a mainstream US audience, likely reflecting the inclusiveness of today’s young people. For them, gay movies need not show marginalized, ostracized, or unhappy victims. Nor must they cater to a niche minority audience simply wanting affirmation and titillation. Both movies are well done, entertaining, and remarkable for their matter-of- fact approach to the subject. That said, they strikingly reflect the differing mainstream US (Love, Simon) and European cinematic (Call Me By Your Name) traditions so, despite similar subjects, are as unalike as oil and water.

Love, Simon is touted as the first film by major American studio to focus on gay teenage romance. This is true, but its real revolutionary aspect is that it is almost boringly normal in doing this. The director Greg Berlanti is gay, married to one of the first out professional sports guys, and has a background in TV and popular fare such as Dawson’s Creek, so knows exactly how to make a mainstream movie. The lead is played by (straight) 23-year-old actor Nick Robinson (The Kings of Summer, Jurassic World), who features a boyish face, lots of charm, and very little angst or neurosis. 

The simple plot is that a. 17-year-old Simon wants to come out but cannot make himself do so, b. wants to be seen as himself, not some exemplar of gay culture, c. forms an online romance with an unknown guy, and d. finally figures out and makes out with the mystery man (a high school classmate) in an amusingly but sweet finale on a Ferris wheel. Cue fireworks. There is little to meditate on here, other than that the cast is uniformly genuine, charming, and earnest (millennials always seem to have focus), and acts well as an ensemble. There are some very clever fantasy sequences as he imagines meeting various candidates for his mystery man. It is very similar to John Hughes’ Sixteen Candles (1984) and The Breakfast Club (1985) in spirit and execution…it just seems to have taken Hollywood 30+ years to have gotten to the same winning style in a gay film. Even familiar plot episodes, such as when Simon is outed, have a new coat of paint here. Simon is devastated, not because he’s ashamed to be known as gay, but because he wanted to announce his gayness on his terms, his way. Like the musical Dear Evan Hansen, teen life is shown to be about cultivating your own “presence”, brand, and identity. Roger Ebert reported that when he saw the film in a preview packed with teens, they completely immersed themselves in the plot, talking back, yelping, and applauding when Simon succeeded in life and love, just as they would with any well-done teen picture. This is a nice marker of generational change.

Call Me By Your Name is a very different kettle of fish, or bouillabaisse. It oozes European cinema, with long, panning shots of Italian landscapes, and of star Timothée Chalamet’s angular body. 

Ninety (!)-year old writer James Ivory wrote the novelistic screenplay. For years he partnered with his lover Ismail Merchant making excellent films like Maurice (1987), A Room With a View (1985), and Howard’s End (1992); (Maurice remains my favorite gay-themed movie). 47-year old director Luca Guadagnino is also gay, and this film is his first that prominently features a gay romance (it is the third in his “Desire” trilogy, after I Am Love (2009) and A Bigger Splash (2015)). This one is the only one of the group to make a big American splash, receiving a Best Picture nomination and winning Best Screenplay at last year’s Academy Awards. The remarkable thing here is that such an arty film would do so well in general US distribution. Perhaps this is again due to the attention of a young audience. Like Love, Simon, the plot is very basic. 17-year-old Elio, son of an academic doing research in a remote village in northern Italy, is bored, bedding some local girls. A 30-ish male graduate student from the US arrives to work with his father. He also falls for a local girl. But young Elio has an eye for him, haltingly tries to seduce him, then is himself seduced by the older man. The older guy leaves, and later gets married to a woman. This film has all sorts of ambiguity around sexual orientation absent from Love, Simon, with a torrid gay romance presented as just one of the options available in passionate Italy where sex is seemingly everywhere. So where Love, Simon takes a very traditional high school plot and presents it with clarity and charm, Call Me By Your Name creates a stew of passion, art, and sometimes pretentious dialogue in the name of sexual flexibility, also a theme of today’s young people. It was a bit odd (and pleasant) for me, from an older gay generation, to see a very straight acting older man go for the exotic youth without any of the lurid predatory overtones seen in prior cinema…again, it was all so normal-appearing.

 While these films have much in common--gay directors, straight young leads playing gay characters, lack of neurosis or tragedy--they are VERY different in feel and experience. Among these contrasts are:

1. The films’ openings predict their approach. Love, Simon begins with Simon narrating how normal and conventional his life is, conveying both comfort and mild irritation as most teens do…then says “Except, I have one big-ass secret!” as he leers at a muscular gardener outside. Call Me by Your Name opens with soft classical music (and credits) playing over photos of Greek nude male torsos, then cuts to the shirtless body of young Elio. Enough said.

2.       The names of the two lead actors are themselves predictive of their performances. Nick Robinson (Simon) is an almost classic boy-next-door US teen, handsome but almost nonsexual in approach. The movie is chaste--no nudity or sex, remarkable in itself in a high school movie.  We never really focus on Simon as a whole person too much, and there is minimal psychoanalysis. In contrast, Timothée Chalamet (Elio) is lanky, exotic, complex, and intellectual (he is trilingual and composes classical music)—the prototype European lead. He seems to be thinking sexually at all times. There is a moderate amount of sex shown, but no full-frontal nudity (this felt odd and out of place, and apparently was due to both actors signing no-nudity clauses in their contracts). The director seems to be in love with Elio, and the film ends with a remarkable 3+ minute closeup done in a single take, of Elio silently reliving the entire film while sitting by a flickering fire (tears, grins, lurid eyes), his family in an out-of-focus background. Arty and remarkable!  Of the performances, Chalamet’s is the more virtuosic, Robinson’s the more natural and transparent. Joyce vs. Hemingway.

3.       Love, Simon occurs in a faceless, familiar Atlanta suburb, but presented without the criticism or irony of films like American Beauty, Happiness, or Revolutionary Road. Lighting is bright, focus crisp, editing non-obtrusive and clear. Call Me by Your Name is set in a mysterious Italian village (perhaps the lake district) with soft focus, subtle colors, and ingenious camera angles and shots of nature, Greek male sculpture, and trickling fountains.

4.       Love Simon plays out busily and socially amidst familiar high school (stereo)types, with lots of social media used at key moments (online activity drives the main plot theme). The romance of Call Me by Your Name plays out in the isolation of a villa and small town, with brief appearances by colorful locals. There are some earnest words on following your passion by the intellectual father, but the film largely allows us to focus on the two lovers, especially Elio. We sometimes feel we are voyeuristically peering into his most private activities. This voyeurism felt a little uncomfortable at times, like I was walking in on a private sexual moment between director and star, but I think that was intentional.

5.       Women/girls are marginal in both films. In Love, Simon they serve as loyal supporters for the lead’s evolution (including, as always, a disappointed friend-wanting-to-be more). Elio’s mother serves the same role, but there is a little more complexity here, as neither Elio’s nor the graduate student’s jilted girlfriends goes gently into the night as their boyfriends experience gay love…somewhat more realistic in my view. Yet both films are male-centric universes, like most films of yore.

In the end, both films succeed because of excellent acting and writing. They do not make gay love anything special, or different, or tragic. Stereotypes are jettisoned, there is no familiar sense of impending gay doom (e.g. AIDS, loss of employment), just two nice love stories, each of which resonated with my own experience. Both advance upon prior big Hollywood efforts like the “AIDS movie” Philadelphia (1993) or Brokeback Mountain (2005), which for all of their sensitivity and star power were still stuck in the gay-romance-leads-to-tragedy stereotype. While neither of these recent films is a great work of cinema, I enjoyed both a great deal, and I think I will be left, in the end, cheering along with those teens in the Love Simon preview—kids who could fully engage with the story neither in spite of nor because of its gay character…just because it was a nice romantic film that resonated with them. Progress!