Loved your review -- very intelligent and comprehensive. I'm on the fence about seeing this -- especially due to the 3rd act, which sounds quite bizarre, but we'll see. Thanks.
Wonderful thoughtful review. You are the first film person on TH-cam to acknowledge William S. Burroughs and the novel the film is based on. Knowledge of Burroughs is key here. Enjoyed your take very much. Also the drug they take is ayahuasca which is indeed real and popular with seekers. Burroughs was a notorious drug user and outsider writer. I can't wait to see this!
I don't see Allerton as a cipher. He had great power over Lee. And he sensed it from the start. The reason why he doesn't speak so much throughout the film. Is that early on, when he was more animated with Lee he quickly learned how sharp tongued and yet wise Lee could be. The music also played a huge role in drowning out the banal banter they had in the beginning. Quickly we began to see Allerton's marine corps persona fade away. And Lee emerged in the dominant role. The jungle experience seemed to have really awaken's acknowledgment that he prolly was a bottom hungry queer. Which was too much to take on so quickly. And he seemed to have literally ghosted Lee from that point forward.
I think your review is more perceptive than most I've read or watched. But I'd like to take it to a somewhat deeper and more contextual level, if I may. I think this is an excellent movie in so many ways. It is well written, the acting (especially Daniel Craig and Drew Starkey) is superb. The cinematography and music are phenomenal. It definitely represents the lives and the psychology of gay men at two very different stages of self-acceptance in the early '50s. So, why is it so divisive? Why do some love it and some hate it? I think it has to do with a few things. First, there are people who are homophobes and hate queer movies. Not sure why they went (LOL--yes, I am pretty sure, at least). Second, it has a lot of metaphors in it. People's brains tend to be dichotomous as to whether they are linear thinkers and like movies in which everything is spelled out for them OR they are less concrete and more associative thinkers and like the many interpretations of metaphors. Of course, it's really a continuum, but these are the extremes. People at the first extreme (more concrete thinkers) would hate this movie and not understand its true meaning. Those at the other extreme probably would love it. As you say, it's the story of a gay man in middle-age (former military) who lives in Mexico. He's a drug addict, which likely represents the misery he experiences as a gay man in the '50s. He says he's in Mexico because his drug habit would get him imprisoned in the U.S. Remember, though, this was the era of McCarthyism, and his homosexuality also may have gotten him imprisoned--as a "communist"). So, he lives in Mexico and is seeking a meaningful gay relationship. Unfortunately, all he finds is superficial hook-ups. He sees and becomes infatuated with Eugene, a younger man who is struggling with his queer identity and is unable to accept it. Yet, he is drawn to Lee, the older man. This sets the stage for what is to occur. The part that I think really confuses people and is off-putting for them is Chapter 3 with the telepathy augmenting drug in South America. This is the metaphor for the struggle that Eugene is going through, knowing that he is attracted to men, specifically Lee, and denying his own homosexuality. Lee "hears" the thoughts of Eugene during their drug intoxication, "I AM NOT QUEER!" Ultimately, Eugene runs away in an effort to escape his sexuality. And Lee lives on alone, lonely, and grieving over the loss of Eugene, and dies a miserable death. Whie the movie has a bit of romance; it really is a tragedy of two gay men who are at very different stages of their lives and unable to connect in the early '50s. That is my assessment of the movie.
After watching this one, I have come to the conclusion that Guadagnino's internalized homophobia is his driving force -- he has to end his movies with sad gay tragedy. If you're a gay man and you really really hate yourself, he's the director for you. (but yeah, he is a genius at the visual and the soundtrack.)
I dunno. Challengers, CMBYN and Queer are about lovers who have waaay too many barriers to make it long term. Still, that doesn't the affection and love the characters show one another during their journey is a waste. Plus, I suspect that the organsmic tie-breaking match point when they crash into one another in Challengers was a break through. I could see super hot sex happening after that game. Maybe even as a threesome.
it is based on a book, and in the book the two main characters don't suddenly end up married and adopting two kids in a suburb. For nearly ALL gay men in the 1950s, there was no beautiful "in love with a life partner/husband" ending. Giving you a sappy, easy, comfortable ending would not be authentic to the lived experience of the author or of most gay men in the 50s. And framing that truth as just "homophobia" is really insulting.
Loved your review -- very intelligent and comprehensive. I'm on the fence about seeing this -- especially due to the 3rd act, which sounds quite bizarre, but we'll see. Thanks.
Thank you!! I appreciate it! I’d say it’s worth a shot, but if you’re unsure maybe wait till it hits streaming to see if it works for you :)
Great review of detail and depth. Looking forward to see it in the theater. Thanks!
Thank you! Hope you enjoy it!
Wonderful thoughtful review. You are the first film person on TH-cam to acknowledge William S. Burroughs and the novel the film is based on. Knowledge of Burroughs is key here. Enjoyed your take very much. Also the drug they take is ayahuasca which is indeed real and popular with seekers. Burroughs was a notorious drug user and outsider writer. I can't wait to see this!
Thank you! I appreciate your thoughtful comment and insight. I hope you enjoy the film!
An Ayahuasca that contains Telepathine. I can’t believe that telepathy is real once they use this drink.
I don't see Allerton as a cipher. He had great power over Lee. And he sensed it from the start. The reason why he doesn't speak so much throughout the film. Is that early on, when he was more animated with Lee he quickly learned how sharp tongued and yet wise Lee could be.
The music also played a huge role in drowning out the banal banter they had in the beginning. Quickly we began to see Allerton's marine corps persona fade away. And Lee emerged in the dominant role.
The jungle experience seemed to have really awaken's acknowledgment that he prolly was a bottom hungry queer. Which was too much to take on so quickly. And he seemed to have literally ghosted Lee from that point forward.
“The timeless story of an old gay man obsessed with a young twink who isn’t even interested in them” - me at 36, watching this channel.
Interested to check this out for Craig’s performance
Very good review.
Thank you!
I need to see this ASAP 😫
Saw this at TIFF - I liked everything up until the third act. Just too much
Better too much than not enough. Cinema is supposed to be surreal - why stick to what’s expected?
i will be seated if A24 lets me actually see it
where can i watch it??
I think your review is more perceptive than most I've read or watched. But I'd like to take it to a somewhat deeper and more contextual level, if I may. I think this is an excellent movie in so many ways. It is well written, the acting (especially Daniel Craig and Drew Starkey) is superb. The cinematography and music are phenomenal. It definitely represents the lives and the psychology of gay men at two very different stages of self-acceptance in the early '50s. So, why is it so divisive? Why do some love it and some hate it? I think it has to do with a few things. First, there are people who are homophobes and hate queer movies. Not sure why they went (LOL--yes, I am pretty sure, at least). Second, it has a lot of metaphors in it. People's brains tend to be dichotomous as to whether they are linear thinkers and like movies in which everything is spelled out for them OR they are less concrete and more associative thinkers and like the many interpretations of metaphors. Of course, it's really a continuum, but these are the extremes. People at the first extreme (more concrete thinkers) would hate this movie and not understand its true meaning. Those at the other extreme probably would love it. As you say, it's the story of a gay man in middle-age (former military) who lives in Mexico. He's a drug addict, which likely represents the misery he experiences as a gay man in the '50s. He says he's in Mexico because his drug habit would get him imprisoned in the U.S. Remember, though, this was the era of McCarthyism, and his homosexuality also may have gotten him imprisoned--as a "communist"). So, he lives in Mexico and is seeking a meaningful gay relationship. Unfortunately, all he finds is superficial hook-ups. He sees and becomes infatuated with Eugene, a younger man who is struggling with his queer identity and is unable to accept it. Yet, he is drawn to Lee, the older man. This sets the stage for what is to occur. The part that I think really confuses people and is off-putting for them is Chapter 3 with the telepathy augmenting drug in South America. This is the metaphor for the struggle that Eugene is going through, knowing that he is attracted to men, specifically Lee, and denying his own homosexuality. Lee "hears" the thoughts of Eugene during their drug intoxication, "I AM NOT QUEER!" Ultimately, Eugene runs away in an effort to escape his sexuality. And Lee lives on alone, lonely, and grieving over the loss of Eugene, and dies a miserable death. Whie the movie has a bit of romance; it really is a tragedy of two gay men who are at very different stages of their lives and unable to connect in the early '50s. That is my assessment of the movie.
William S Burroughs murdered his spouse. What a lovely chap!
Can this guy say 3 words without one of them being "like"? Maddening!
8:43 oh! oh? oh??? lol
Lmao definitely woke me up
Ayahuasca
After watching this one, I have come to the conclusion that Guadagnino's internalized homophobia is his driving force -- he has to end his movies with sad gay tragedy. If you're a gay man and you really really hate yourself, he's the director for you. (but yeah, he is a genius at the visual and the soundtrack.)
I dunno. Challengers, CMBYN and Queer are about lovers who have waaay too many barriers to make it long term. Still, that doesn't the affection and love the characters show one another during their journey is a waste.
Plus, I suspect that the organsmic tie-breaking match point when they crash into one another in Challengers was a break through. I could see super hot sex happening after that game. Maybe even as a threesome.
it is based on a book, and in the book the two main characters don't suddenly end up married and adopting two kids in a suburb. For nearly ALL gay men in the 1950s, there was no beautiful "in love with a life partner/husband" ending. Giving you a sappy, easy, comfortable ending would not be authentic to the lived experience of the author or of most gay men in the 50s. And framing that truth as just "homophobia" is really insulting.
Guadagnino didn't write the story. He adapted an already existing novella.