the trip to Rome seems to be "just a nice additive" BUT the most important subject in this chapter is a metaphor. A very old church, called "San Clemente (Syndrome)" which is used in a poem they both adore. A metaphor for life itself. No beginning, no ending, just layers over layers and caverns and hidden rooms, built in millenniums. Some parts broken down or burned and rebuilt afterwards.
Thank you for mentioning Vimini. I read the book before seeing the movie. Although I love the movie, I felt like her absence was noticed. Her relationship with Oliver endeared him to the reader. It sort of softened his edges. Also, her conversation with Elio after Oliver was gone, showed that other people were affected by him leaving. He was so consumed with Elio at the end, that he forgot that he would never see her again. Elio may meet with him again. But she will be gone and Oliver never said goodbye.
The book has Elio and Oliver go to Rome, but the movie has them go to another city (Bergamo?). This probably saved a lot of production money. Also, they were able to enjoy a freedom with the power of Nature in the background in the form of cascading water. I did not like the book's Elio as much as the movie's Elio. Also, I did not like the book's "epilogue." I think that Elio would continue to look for his Oliver in other men. Of course, he will never be able to relive that experience with another person, but will evolve into a good human being nontheless. I've written opinions on possible sequels at other RUclips postings, so I won't burden this comment with the same. But, I would like to say that I think James Ivory and Luca Guadagnino did an excellent job in transforming the book into a movie. I did enjoy your insightful analysis. Ciao!
I have mixed feelings about the epilogue myself. However, I do think that it ties in realism quite nicely. Their love felt like a dream sequence (at least to me), and while the epilogue was quite dismal, I kind of appreciate that. And thank you for watching/sharing your thoughts!
Hii. Just a quick question since I’m yet to read the actual book. So in the book Oliver comes back to Italy to inform them of the wedding. But in the movie he does it over the phone. Am I right?
Nice video essay! I have to respectfully disagree about one thing: I don't think Oliver suffered as a character because Vimini wasn't there. I think Armie Hammer managed to convey Oliver's vulnerable, caring and more playful side solely through his acting. The little things like his facial expressions, (both the radiant smiles and the pained expressions) body language and the way he talks in the private moments with Elio spoke volumes to me. I could really tell that with Elio, he could really be himself and that softer side of him really shines through. I think both mediums did a good job of portraying the character, just differently.
Thank you! I will admit, the more I watch the film, the more I notice in Armie's performance (the scene that sticks out to me the most in this regard is the one where Oliver is sitting on the edge of the bed the morning he must say goodbye to Elio). I truly think Armie's representation of Oliver is initially overshadowed by Timothee's Elio. To me, film Oliver is subtler than book Oliver. That being said, I still believe that Vimini did give another layer of dimension to Oliver's character in the book.
I can see why! I personally saw the movie first, then read the book, so to me Vimini was more like a small addition to the story I already knew. I had already made my analysis about the version of Oliver played by Armie. I think your view on it can depend on which you experienced first: the movie or the book. I can also see why you would overlook Armie a little since Timothee is definitely The Star of the movie. His acting is all the more impressive since he was only about 19 or 20 during filming. But I I think Armie embodied Oliver so well too. I said this somewhere else as well: I think he managed to bring character and emotional depth to a character that could have easily been just one dimensional eye candy. And yes I definitely agree movie Oliver is more subtle because of that. In a book you can't see someone's facial expression or hear the tone in their voice. Both of them are perfect in their roles, they complement each other perfectly!
No worries. Haven’t been able to stop watching this one since seeing it last November. I’ve only managed one essay on it in all that time, and this is so much better, lol!
Love the movie and book🥺 but like the ending of the movie more tbh. Because it ends and let’s you finish the rest and leaves it to your imagination! (In my head they get back together🥲) but the book goes more into after. And I just can’t! Made me sad 💔💔
I wanted to address your comments about the omission of Vimini from the film. I think, just from the standpoint of film length, the story had to go, though I am sure Aciman included it in the book to add depth to Oliver's character. Oliver, in the film, is an enigma. Here is what I think happened to Oliver's role: I think when the director and editor saw what they had and realized how good it was, they decided to make it more acceptable to American audiences beyond the art house crowd. They omitted several things that were in James Ivory's final shooting script, things that would have provided motivation, depth and--frankly--explanation for Oliver's character, which is left indistinct in the film. First of all, the initial sex scene was longer and far more explicit (though, apparently somewhat restrained). Second, the aftermath of the peach scene, which is the clue to the depth of Elio and Oliver's relationship, is in Ivory's script, but has been removed from the film. Ivory included critical passages from the book: one in which Oliver confesses he had wanted Elio from the very beginning, and another set of lines in which he insists that Elio remember that Oliver loves him, no matter what becomes of their relationship. Here are the lines from Ivory (and Aciman, almost verbatim): But OLIVER dips a finger into the core of the peach and brings it to his mouth. OLIVER The peach juice helps a lot. (offering it) Want to try it? ELIO (reaching for Oliver’s hand holding the peach) Let it go! No! OLIVER holds it farther away. ELIO (CONT’D) Look, you don’t have to do this. I’m the one who came after you. Everything that’s happened is because of me -OLIVER(still holding the peach away from ELIO) Nonsense. I wanted you from day one. I just hid it better. ELIO lunges out again to grab the fruit from Oliver’s hand, but with his other hand OLIVER catches hold of his wrist and squeezes it hard. ELIO You’re hurting me. OLIVER Then let go. ELIO reaches out to him, bursting into tears. He muffles his sobs against Oliver’s bare shoulder. Then OLIVER holds him close. OLIVER (CONT’D) (as if soothing a child) Whatever happens between us, Elio, I just want you to know. .ELIO (sobbing) What? OLIVER (taking hold of Elio’s hand) Don’t ever say you didn’t know. They kiss as lovers committing themselves. Everything that explains Oliver is right here, and they cut it out. Do you have any idea why? The only thing I can think of is that Oliver wanting Elio from the beginning might seem a bit predatory and we have already heard plenty about the age gap.
I think that it's often easier to have a distinct main character in a film and that maybe adding in extra information on Oliver might have overwhelmed the way the story played out on the screen. Things in the screenplay change during production all the time, and maybe this was a complication they ran into during filming. I'm not sure. My very best guess is that by cutting out those excerpts from the screenplay and making Oliver's intentions/motivation unknown played into the film's all-encompassing sense of ambiguity and subtlety. A stylistic choice made to streamline the story and overall tone of the film, perhaps?
![Gotye - Somebody That I Used To Know (feat. Kimbra) [Official Music Video]](/img/1.gif)
the trip to Rome seems to be "just a nice additive" BUT the most important subject in this chapter is a metaphor. A very old church, called "San Clemente (Syndrome)" which is used in a poem they both adore. A metaphor for life itself. No beginning, no ending, just layers over layers and caverns and hidden rooms, built in millenniums. Some parts broken down or burned and rebuilt afterwards.
Thank you for mentioning Vimini. I read the book before seeing the movie. Although I love the movie, I felt like her absence was noticed. Her relationship with Oliver endeared him to the reader. It sort of softened his edges.
Also, her conversation with Elio after Oliver was gone, showed that other people were affected by him leaving. He was so consumed with Elio at the end, that he forgot that he would never see her again.
Elio may meet with him again. But she will be gone and Oliver never said goodbye.
The book has Elio and Oliver go to Rome, but the movie has them go to another city (Bergamo?). This probably saved a lot of production money. Also, they were able to enjoy a freedom with the power of Nature in the background in the form of cascading water. I did not like the book's Elio as much as the movie's Elio. Also, I did not like the book's "epilogue." I think that Elio would continue to look for his Oliver in other men. Of course, he will never be able to relive that experience with another person, but will evolve into a good human being nontheless. I've written opinions on possible sequels at other RUclips postings, so I won't burden this comment with the same. But, I would like to say that I think James Ivory and Luca Guadagnino did an excellent job in transforming the book into a movie. I did enjoy your insightful analysis. Ciao!
I have mixed feelings about the epilogue myself. However, I do think that it ties in realism quite nicely. Their love felt like a dream sequence (at least to me), and while the epilogue was quite dismal, I kind of appreciate that. And thank you for watching/sharing your thoughts!
Hii. Just a quick question since I’m yet to read the actual book. So in the book Oliver comes back to Italy to inform them of the wedding. But in the movie he does it over the phone. Am I right?
+Chanel Waves I just finished the book today. Yeah he came back to italy.
"Sweetest gayest shit" OMG THIS KILLED ME HAHAHAHAHA
this is one of my favourite video essays I've seen!
aw thank you friend!
Nice video essay! I have to respectfully disagree about one thing: I don't think Oliver suffered as a character because Vimini wasn't there. I think Armie Hammer managed to convey Oliver's vulnerable, caring and more playful side solely through his acting. The little things like his facial expressions, (both the radiant smiles and the pained expressions) body language and the way he talks in the private moments with Elio spoke volumes to me. I could really tell that with Elio, he could really be himself and that softer side of him really shines through. I think both mediums did a good job of portraying the character, just differently.
Thank you! I will admit, the more I watch the film, the more I notice in Armie's performance (the scene that sticks out to me the most in this regard is the one where Oliver is sitting on the edge of the bed the morning he must say goodbye to Elio). I truly think Armie's representation of Oliver is initially overshadowed by Timothee's Elio. To me, film Oliver is subtler than book Oliver. That being said, I still believe that Vimini did give another layer of dimension to Oliver's character in the book.
I can see why! I personally saw the movie first, then read the book, so to me Vimini was more like a small addition to the story I already knew. I had already made my analysis about the version of Oliver played by Armie. I think your view on it can depend on which you experienced first: the movie or the book. I can also see why you would overlook Armie a little since Timothee is definitely The Star of the movie. His acting is all the more impressive since he was only about 19 or 20 during filming. But I I think Armie embodied Oliver so well too. I said this somewhere else as well: I think he managed to bring character and emotional depth to a character that could have easily been just one dimensional eye candy. And yes I definitely agree movie Oliver is more subtle because of that. In a book you can't see someone's facial expression or hear the tone in their voice. Both of them are perfect in their roles, they complement each other perfectly!
Very good video! Thank you for this. Wish it were longer!
thanks dude!
No worries. Haven’t been able to stop watching this one since seeing it last November. I’ve only managed one essay on it in all that time, and this is so much better, lol!
Love the movie and book🥺 but like the ending of the movie more tbh. Because it ends and let’s you finish the rest and leaves it to your imagination! (In my head they get back together🥲) but the book goes more into after. And I just can’t! Made me sad 💔💔
You should definitely read “find me” the sequel. It completes the story for sure.
@@thebabywasgreen2849 I’ll have to check it out, thank you!🥺❤️
I loved it good job. Thanks for the video.
I just listened to Armie read it🥲🥲
This was informative and funny...following
thank you!
I wanted to address your comments about the omission of Vimini from the film. I think, just from the standpoint of film length, the story had to go, though I am sure Aciman included it in the book to add depth to Oliver's character. Oliver, in the film, is an enigma. Here is what I think happened to Oliver's role: I think when the director and editor saw what they had and realized how good it was, they decided to make it more acceptable to American audiences beyond the art house crowd. They omitted several things that were in James Ivory's final shooting script, things that would have provided motivation, depth and--frankly--explanation for Oliver's character, which is left indistinct in the film. First of all, the initial sex scene was longer and far more explicit (though, apparently somewhat restrained). Second, the aftermath of the peach scene, which is the clue to the depth of Elio and Oliver's relationship, is in Ivory's script, but has been removed from the film. Ivory included critical passages from the book: one in which Oliver confesses he had wanted Elio from the very beginning, and another set of lines in which he insists that Elio remember that Oliver loves him, no matter what becomes of their relationship. Here are the lines from Ivory (and Aciman, almost verbatim):
But OLIVER dips a finger into the core of the peach and
brings it to his mouth.
OLIVER
The peach juice helps a lot.
(offering it)
Want to try it?
ELIO
(reaching for Oliver’s
hand holding the peach)
Let it go! No!
OLIVER holds it farther away.
ELIO (CONT’D)
Look, you don’t have to do this.
I’m the one who came after you.
Everything that’s happened is
because of me
-OLIVER(still holding the peach
away from ELIO)
Nonsense. I wanted you from day
one. I just hid it better.
ELIO lunges out again to grab the fruit from Oliver’s hand,
but with his other hand OLIVER catches hold of his wrist and
squeezes it hard.
ELIO
You’re hurting me.
OLIVER
Then let go.
ELIO reaches out to him, bursting into tears. He muffles his
sobs against Oliver’s bare shoulder. Then OLIVER holds him
close.
OLIVER (CONT’D)
(as if soothing a child)
Whatever happens between us, Elio,
I just want you to know.
.ELIO
(sobbing)
What?
OLIVER
(taking hold of Elio’s
hand)
Don’t ever say you didn’t know.
They kiss as lovers committing themselves.
Everything that explains Oliver is right here, and they cut it out. Do you have any idea why? The only thing I can think of is that Oliver wanting Elio from the beginning might seem a bit predatory and we have already heard plenty about the age gap.
I think that it's often easier to have a distinct main character in a film and that maybe adding in extra information on Oliver might have overwhelmed the way the story played out on the screen. Things in the screenplay change during production all the time, and maybe this was a complication they ran into during filming. I'm not sure. My very best guess is that by cutting out those excerpts from the screenplay and making Oliver's intentions/motivation unknown played into the film's all-encompassing sense of ambiguity and subtlety. A stylistic choice made to streamline the story and overall tone of the film, perhaps?
Yeah I was wondering why the little girl wasn’t in it!!
4:14
I have yet to read or watch it. Should I read the book first?!
I think that the accuracy rating was a bit harsh but otherwise great video essay!!
the audiobook version read by Armie Hammer is 1000000000000000% better than the movie.