Call Me By Your Name

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anther thing that made me feel it was sort of propaganda was the way the father reacted. As if every man could completely understand why the son would be drawn to a relationship like that and the way the father glorified it. To me, it was a really supportive treatment of pederasty.

Then you are warped. Or live in the bible belt, or maybe both.

[Anonymous]

Glad it was shut out at the Oscars. Glorifying child molesters isn’t cool just because Armie Hammer is buff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anther thing that made me feel it was sort of propaganda was the way the father reacted. As if every man could completely understand why the son would be drawn to a relationship like that and the way the father glorified it. To me, it was a really supportive treatment of pederasty.

Then you are warped. Or live in the bible belt, or maybe both.

I haven't seen this yet, but that is not the impression you get from the book. The father is supportive and understanding of his son and understands what it's like to fall in love when you're young. But I didn't find the age difference at all inappropriate in the book. I found the book a bit tedious in parts, but as a description of the amazing highs and terrible lows of a first love I thought it was incredible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Think off the top of your head all of the movies with heterosexual relationships involving a 17-year-old female and a male in his early 20s, and then wonder why you think this is so unacceptable.

Off the top of my head I really can’t think of any. Help me out.

Is Big with Tom Hanks unacceptable because he’s 12 but looks like he’s mid 20s?

Actually, I heard the auther speaking about it, and he said the age difference in this movie is the same as it is for the characters in Dirty Dancing.

[Anonymous]

The story takes place in the 1983, so it's a portrayal of a different time. Norms around age appropriate relationships were different back then. On top of that, homosexuality was taboo in a way that it isn't today- that made it harder for people to find someone in their age group.

Timothee Chalamet, who plays Elio, is 23 but he looks much younger. Arnie Hammer, who plays Oliver, is 32 but he looks much older. Their physical appearance made the age difference seem bigger. If they used two actors who were the same ages but looked 25 (very conceivable), it wouldn't have been as visually jarring. When I first saw the ad for the movie, I thought that there was a 20 year old difference between the actors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Glad it was shut out at the Oscars. Glorifying child molesters isn’t cool just because Armie Hammer is buff.

It won best adapted screenplay

[Anonymous]

Wait now. I haven't seen the movie or read the book, so I can't comment on that, but NO. Any combination of a 17 year and an adult is NOT pederasty or pedophilia. Not in any, way, shape, or form. What is wrong with some of you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Think off the top of your head all of the movies with heterosexual relationships involving a 17-year-old female and a male in his early 20s, and then wonder why you think this is so unacceptable.

Off the top of my head I really can’t think of any. Help me out.

Is Big with Tom Hanks unacceptable because he’s 12 but looks like he’s mid 20s?

Actually, I heard the auther speaking about it, and he said the age difference in this movie is the same as it is for the characters in Dirty Dancing.

Jennifer Grey was 27 and Patrick Swayze was 34. The actors were playing younger but they didn't elicit the ick factor on screen vs. 17 and 31 as in call me by your name.

[Anonymous]

I haven't seen the movie -- but if they have a sexual relationship, that is child rape.

[Anonymous]

I saw the movie and thought Italy looked beautiful and the coming of age story memorable. However, the casting of Army Hammer was a mistake. He didn’t look 24 he looked 35. Also, he isn’t a strong enough actor to make me believe he cared about Elio as anything other than an adoring conquest. He lacked an emotional availability and, for me, made the age difference seem creepy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I saw the movie and thought Italy looked beautiful and the coming of age story memorable. However, the casting of Army Hammer was a mistake. He didn’t look 24 he looked 35. Also, he isn’t a strong enough actor to make me believe he cared about Elio as anything other than an adoring conquest. He lacked an emotional availability and, for me, made the age difference seem creepy.

Armie is kind of a more handsome Kevin Costner.

[Anonymous]

loved the movie and armie hammer

[Anonymous]

I agree it was uncomfortable but visibly beautiful and the cinematography was fantastic. Th subject however made me squirm in my seat. Husband hated it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The story takes place in the 1983, so it's a portrayal of a different time. Norms around age appropriate relationships were different back then. On top of that, homosexuality was taboo in a way that it isn't today- that made it harder for people to find someone in their age group.

Timothee Chalamet, who plays Elio, is 23 but he looks much younger. Arnie Hammer, who plays Oliver, is 32 but he looks much older. Their physical appearance made the age difference seem bigger. If they used two actors who were the same ages but looked 25 (very conceivable), it wouldn't have been as visually jarring. When I first saw the ad for the movie, I thought that there was a 20 year old difference between the actors.

+1
Armie Hammer is in his thirties and looks it! With a pre pubescent looking 17 year old.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Finally saw it last night. Thought it was visually beautiful, but couldn't shake the feeling it was NAMBLA propaganda/fantasy porn. Kind of ick.

I have thought this too. I’m surprised it’s getting so much praise considering how Hollywood has gone all in on the Me Too movement. The age difference is gross and inappropriate.

Nonsense. Age of consent in Europe, is 14-16. Only the Vatican City in Italy has it at 18 and they definitely were not there.

Idiot.

I think what made it creepy is that the 17 year old actor looks much younger ( like 15, even though he is in his 20s) and the older actor looks much older than 24 ( because he is) Personally, people talk about the "attraction" those two had but, I didn't see it. Book displayed more compatibility and I didn't like the changes from the book.

Is he 17 or in his 20s?

I do agree that someone in their mid-teens with someone in their mid-20s is inappropriate, even if it is legal in some places. I'd cut them a little bit of slack since this was apparently portraying an era when homosexuality was more taboo and you didn't have Grinder to easily find age-appropriate guys who were ready to go. Also, when are already cast as a sexual "deviant" by society, it becomes much easier to start doing even more "deviant" things. I think this sort of age difference would be less common in gay circles today.

The actor is 22 but he plays a 17 year old ( Timothee Chalomet? sp )and he looks about 15.