doodle
New Member
Posts: 221
Likes: 29
|
Post by doodle on Dec 25, 2017 19:22:33 GMT
Out of curiosity, what other queer movies came out this year? It's one of my favorite genres but I haven't heard of any others this year off the top of my head. CMBYN will be nominated for the following: Picture Actor Adapted Screenplay Song But I fear it will be Carol'ed in the sense that it gets wrongfully snubbed for: Director Supporting Actor (Hammer) Supporting Actor (Stuhlbarg) Cinematography Editing For me, Stuhlbarg is the biggest snub. His heartfelt performance is among the great queer characters of all time. As of now, he's my win and i don't see anyone topping him (no pun intended) God's Own Country - My favorite movie of the year and one of the best queer movies of all time. It's the movie that people should talk about instead of CMBYN. I am all for visibility, but the straight washing of the novel really pissed me off. Also all this talk about being intimate with each other on the award circuit made me mad. To me, God's Own Country, is like any other LGBT film you can see on Netflix. CMBYN is groundbreaking as it's a queer Jewish film. Also, I don't think "straight washing" is a thing here. Moonlight, Brokeback Mountain, Carol etc. all remarkable films and mostly played and produced by heterosexuals.
|
|
|
Post by dadsburgers on Dec 25, 2017 20:25:26 GMT
Other, better queer movies of the year include: 120 BPM - it's the movie I've been waiting for for many many years now. It's what Philadelphia should have been. God's Own Country - My favorite movie of the year and one of the best queer movies of all time. It's the movie that people should talk about instead of CMBYN. Hjartasteinn (Heartstone) - Great movie from Iceland. It's a tiny bit clichee, but amazing nevertheless. Great cinematography and outstanding young actors. A Fantastic Woman - Great movie about a Trans*woman. Beach Rats - Spectacular lead actor in an amazingly raw movie. Thanks, I'll add these to my list! The only one I knew about was 120 BPM.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Dec 25, 2017 20:27:51 GMT
CMBYN is groundbreaking as it's a queer Jewish film. Eh, the Judaism is practically a cosmetic detail in the film. Aside from a line or two about how Hammer's character was the only Jew in his town in New England, it hardly informs the characters the way that, say, race does in Moonlight or even culture does in Carol or Brokeback Mountain. The characters happen to be Jewish, but I wouldn't go so far as to call it groundbreaking in that respect.
|
|
|
Post by sterlingarcher86 on Dec 25, 2017 20:49:48 GMT
CMBYN is groundbreaking as it's a queer Jewish film. Eh, the Judaism is practically a cosmetic detail in the film. Aside from a line or two about how Hammer's character was the only Jew in his town in New England, it hardly informs the characters the way that, say, race does in Moonlight or even culture does in Carol or Brokeback Mountain. The characters happen to be Jewish, but I wouldn't go so far as to call it groundbreaking in that respect. I always thought the racial part of Moonlight was overstate during Oscar season and it was much more about sexuality and poverty. Is the movie really about race when every character in the movie is black and therefore the same race? It's a black movie but I wouldn't call it a movie about race.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Dec 25, 2017 20:55:22 GMT
Eh, the Judaism is practically a cosmetic detail in the film. Aside from a line or two about how Hammer's character was the only Jew in his town in New England, it hardly informs the characters the way that, say, race does in Moonlight or even culture does in Carol or Brokeback Mountain. The characters happen to be Jewish, but I wouldn't go so far as to call it groundbreaking in that respect. I always thought the racial part of Moonlight was overstate during Oscar season and it was much more about sexuality and poverty. Is the movie really about race when every character in the movie is black and therefore the same race? It's a black movie but I wouldn't call it a movie about race. Well, there is a prevailing image issue with homosexuality in the black community, and the film touches on that much more readily than Call Me By Your Name does with its perceived Jewishness. By definition, Elio and Oliver being Jewish is something that if you'd removed those lines, you never would know it. The same can't be said for Moonlight.
|
|
|
Post by sterlingarcher86 on Dec 25, 2017 20:58:39 GMT
I always thought the racial part of Moonlight was overstate during Oscar season and it was much more about sexuality and poverty. Is the movie really about race when every character in the movie is black and therefore the same race? It's a black movie but I wouldn't call it a movie about race. Well, there is a prevailing image issue with homosexuality in the black community, and the film touches on that much more readily than Call Me By Your Name does with its perceived Jewishness. By definition, Elio and Oliver being Jewish is something that if you'd removed those lines, you never would know it. The same can't be said for Moonlight. I'm not commenting on CMBYN. I haven't seen it. I'm just saying the race issue in Moonlight was overstate (often by people who wanted it to win BP)
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Dec 25, 2017 21:05:16 GMT
Well, there is a prevailing image issue with homosexuality in the black community, and the film touches on that much more readily than Call Me By Your Name does with its perceived Jewishness. By definition, Elio and Oliver being Jewish is something that if you'd removed those lines, you never would know it. The same can't be said for Moonlight. I'm not commenting on CMBYN. I haven't seen it. I'm just saying the race issue in Moonlight was overstate (often by people who wanted it to win BP) It was and it wasn't. The film obviously leaned more into studying Chiron's sexual blossoming as well as showing his shitty home life, but his race couldn't be ignored for many different reasons. The characters were black, the characters' living in a terrible socioeconomic place was an after-effect of the African-American community being marginalized for so long, and homosexuality is largely still a very powerful stigma in that community, perhaps moreso than any other racial or social group. It was a necessary detail for the film, even though I agree that pigeonholing the film as "the black gay movie" is a gross and glib oversimplification.
|
|
doodle
New Member
Posts: 221
Likes: 29
|
Post by doodle on Dec 25, 2017 21:22:02 GMT
|
|
doodle
New Member
Posts: 221
Likes: 29
|
Post by doodle on Dec 25, 2017 21:26:14 GMT
I always thought the racial part of Moonlight was overstate during Oscar season and it was much more about sexuality and poverty. Is the movie really about race when every character in the movie is black and therefore the same race? It's a black movie but I wouldn't call it a movie about race. By definition, Elio and Oliver being Jewish is something that if you'd removed those lines, you never would know it. Again, no.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Dec 25, 2017 21:37:31 GMT
The first three articles refer to the novel's detailing of the characters' Judaism and how that facilitates their relationship and characters. They barely talk about what the film does in that regard. Almost all of it is internalized detail that we never see explored beyond the cursory Star of David/"only Jew in New England" comment. The fourth one talks about how the Jewish community has embraced it as a film worthy of representing them, which is perfectly fine, but I don't think that the finished film explores that facet of their lives enough for me to consider it "groundbreaking." But to each their own, I guess.
|
|
|
Post by FrancescoAbides on Dec 25, 2017 21:42:55 GMT
Carol wasn't a lock for a screenplay win and CMBYN is (at least 90% I believe), that's my point Carol was up against 4 best picture nominees in Adapted Screenplay. I'm pretty sure Carol would win Adapted this year if their release dates were switched. You ain't wrong, but then again it's a completely different year
|
|
doodle
New Member
Posts: 221
Likes: 29
|
Post by doodle on Dec 25, 2017 21:46:05 GMT
The first three articles refer to the novel's detailing of the characters' Judaism and how that facilitates their relationship and characters. They barely talk about what the film does in that regard. Almost all of it is internalized detail that we never see explored beyond the cursory Star of David/"only Jew in New England" comment. The fourth one talks about how the Jewish community has embraced it as a film worthy of representing them, which is perfectly fine, but I don't think that the finished film explores that facet of their lives enough for me to consider it "groundbreaking." But to each their own, I guess. Can you answer why Elio decides not to wear his star of david necklace? (Without going back to watch it)
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Dec 25, 2017 21:50:40 GMT
The first three articles refer to the novel's detailing of the characters' Judaism and how that facilitates their relationship and characters. They barely talk about what the film does in that regard. Almost all of it is internalized detail that we never see explored beyond the cursory Star of David/"only Jew in New England" comment. The fourth one talks about how the Jewish community has embraced it as a film worthy of representing them, which is perfectly fine, but I don't think that the finished film explores that facet of their lives enough for me to consider it "groundbreaking." But to each their own, I guess. Can you answer why Elio decides not to wear his star of david necklace? (Without going back to watch it) Yes. His mom says that they are discreet Jews, which I guess means that they don't have to be formal and in-your-face about religion, but I thought that he ended up wearing his because he wanted to mirror Oliver.
|
|
doodle
New Member
Posts: 221
Likes: 29
|
Post by doodle on Dec 25, 2017 22:10:03 GMT
Can you answer why Elio decides not to wear his star of david necklace? (Without going back to watch it) Yes. His mom says that they are discreet Jews, which I guess means that they don't have to be formal and in-your-face about religion, but I thought that he ended up wearing his because he wanted to mirror Oliver. His relationship with Oliver is what led him to start wearing it again because Oliver wore it so openly without any fear or hesitation. It's not that he wanted to mirror Oliver but instead he admired and looked up to him. Elio was inspired by Oliver to be who he was. Had Judaism not been a part of the film, Elio and Oliver would never have been together because that was one of the few things they had in common. Their lack of common interests is why Elio did not like Oliver in the beginning. So that first article was correct in saying "they bonded as Jews first". IMO, I think Elio's mom realizes Elio and Oliver's relationship is more than just a friendship when she see's him start wearing his star of david necklace again. And no one is saying it's "groundbreaking" as in how race was groundbreaking for Moonlight. But the fact that a queer Jewish film that's getting enormous attention and praise finally exists to represent the Jewish LGBT+ community is what's groundbreaking. It paves a path for future queer Jewish films. So you just can't dismiss or downplay the importance Judaism serves in both moving this story and the affect it's had on Jews, LGBT Jews in particular.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Dec 25, 2017 22:18:02 GMT
Yes. His mom says that they are discreet Jews, which I guess means that they don't have to be formal and in-your-face about religion, but I thought that he ended up wearing his because he wanted to mirror Oliver. His relationship with Oliver is what led him to start wearing it again because Oliver wore it so openly without any fear or hesitation. It's not that he wanted to mirror Oliver but instead he admired and looked up to him. Elio was inspired by Oliver to be who he was. Had Judaism not been a part of the film, Elio and Oliver would never have been together because that was one of the few things they had in common. Their lack of common interests is why Elio did not like Oliver in the beginning. So that first article was correct in saying "they bonded as Jews first". IMO, I think Elio's mom realizes Elio and Oliver's relationship is more than just a friendship when she see's him start wearing his star of david necklace again. And no one is saying it's "groundbreaking" as in how race was groundbreaking for Moonlight. But the fact that a queer Jewish film that's getting enormous attention and praise finally exists to represent the Jewish LGBT+ community is what's groundbreaking. It paves a path for future queer Jewish films. So you just can't dismiss or downplay the importance Judaism serves in both moving this story and the affect it's had on Jews, LGBT Jews in particular. I'm not downplaying the effect it has on the Jewish community or on Jews in the LGBT community. But I don't think that the film itself treats the characters' Jewishness with enough focus for me to call it a groundbreaker in that regard. From what I can gather from those articles (having not read the novel), much of what the author put on page is internalized detail that we don't get in the final film. Yes, you can point to Elio wearing his necklace in emulation of Oliver as a way for him to be open and honest with his Judaism, but I never got the impression there was a fear to be seen as Jewishness from him or his parents. I took it as though the Perlmans were leading a more agnostic and "enlightened" lifestyle (where they'd pride philosophy and knowledge over religion), and that it was just one more detail in Elio's life to show that he didn't really know who he was.
|
|
doodle
New Member
Posts: 221
Likes: 29
|
Post by doodle on Dec 25, 2017 22:25:07 GMT
His relationship with Oliver is what led him to start wearing it again because Oliver wore it so openly without any fear or hesitation. It's not that he wanted to mirror Oliver but instead he admired and looked up to him. Elio was inspired by Oliver to be who he was. Had Judaism not been a part of the film, Elio and Oliver would never have been together because that was one of the few things they had in common. Their lack of common interests is why Elio did not like Oliver in the beginning. So that first article was correct in saying "they bonded as Jews first". IMO, I think Elio's mom realizes Elio and Oliver's relationship is more than just a friendship when she see's him start wearing his star of david necklace again. And no one is saying it's "groundbreaking" as in how race was groundbreaking for Moonlight. But the fact that a queer Jewish film that's getting enormous attention and praise finally exists to represent the Jewish LGBT+ community is what's groundbreaking. It paves a path for future queer Jewish films. So you just can't dismiss or downplay the importance Judaism serves in both moving this story and the affect it's had on Jews, LGBT Jews in particular. I'm not downplaying the effect it has on the Jewish community or on Jews in the LGBT community. But I don't think that the film itself treats the characters' Jewishness with enough focus for me to call it a groundbreaker in that regard. From what I can gather from those articles (having not read the novel), much of what the author put on page is internalized detail that we don't get in the final film. Yes, you can point to Elio wearing his necklace in emulation of Oliver as a way for him to be open and honest with his Judaism, but I never got the impression there was a fear to be seen as Jewishness from him or his parents. I took it as though the Perlmans were leading a more agnostic and "enlightened" lifestyle (where they'd pride philosophy and knowledge over religion), and that it was just one more detail in Elio's life to show that he didn't really know who he was. Again, I never said it's groundbreaking as in the same way Moonlight was for race. The fact that a queer Jewish film is finally being put "out there" for everyone to see is whats groundbreaking. CMBYN may not be the greatest queer Jewish film ever to be made. In fact, some in the future most likely will surpass it. But this is a good start. It paves a path. That's all I'm trying to say. You can't minimize that significance by saying "characters just happened to be Jewish".
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Dec 25, 2017 22:33:16 GMT
I'm not downplaying the effect it has on the Jewish community or on Jews in the LGBT community. But I don't think that the film itself treats the characters' Jewishness with enough focus for me to call it a groundbreaker in that regard. From what I can gather from those articles (having not read the novel), much of what the author put on page is internalized detail that we don't get in the final film. Yes, you can point to Elio wearing his necklace in emulation of Oliver as a way for him to be open and honest with his Judaism, but I never got the impression there was a fear to be seen as Jewishness from him or his parents. I took it as though the Perlmans were leading a more agnostic and "enlightened" lifestyle (where they'd pride philosophy and knowledge over religion), and that it was just one more detail in Elio's life to show that he didn't really know who he was. Again, I never said it's groundbreaking as in the same way Moonlight was for race. The fact that a queer Jewish film is finally being put "out there" for everyone to see is whats groundbreaking. CMBYN may not be the greatest queer Jewish film ever to be made. In fact, some in the future most likely will surpass it. But this is a good start. It paves a path. That's all I'm trying to say. You can't minimize that significance by saying "characters just happened to be Jewish". That's perfectly fine. I just don't think the film relies on the characters' Jewishness the way that Carol relied on the era, Brokeback relied on the "macho" cowboy culture, and Moonlight relied on race/society. Call Me By Your Name is much more subtle and downplayed about it, to the point that it's easy to miss (as one of those articles pointed out in its byline). If the Jewish community embraces it and champions it as a film to represent them, who am I to argue against that? I'm just pointing out that it comes off more as a character facet than a focus.
|
|
doodle
New Member
Posts: 221
Likes: 29
|
Post by doodle on Dec 25, 2017 22:47:59 GMT
Again, I never said it's groundbreaking as in the same way Moonlight was for race. The fact that a queer Jewish film is finally being put "out there" for everyone to see is whats groundbreaking. CMBYN may not be the greatest queer Jewish film ever to be made. In fact, some in the future most likely will surpass it. But this is a good start. It paves a path. That's all I'm trying to say. You can't minimize that significance by saying "characters just happened to be Jewish". That's perfectly fine. I just don't think the film relies on the characters' Jewishness the way that Carol relied on the era, Brokeback relied on the "macho" cowboy culture, and Moonlight relied on race/society. Call Me By Your Name is much more subtle and downplayed about it, to the point that it's easy to miss (as one of those articles pointed out in its byline). If the Jewish community embraces it and champions it as a film to represent them, who am I to argue against that? I'm just pointing out that it comes off more as a character facet than a focus. Right, well I still stand by my last sentence. And like I said 3 times already? I'm not comparing it to how Moonlight was groundbreaking regarding race. I don't know why you keep ignoring that lol
|
|
|
Post by levpoldkahnt on Dec 26, 2017 0:52:19 GMT
God's Own Country - My favorite movie of the year and one of the best queer movies of all time. It's the movie that people should talk about instead of CMBYN. I am all for visibility, but the straight washing of the novel really pissed me off. Also all this talk about being intimate with each other on the award circuit made me mad. To me, God's Own Country, is like any other LGBT film you can see on Netflix. CMBYN is groundbreaking as it's a queer Jewish film. Also, I don't think "straight washing" is a thing here. Moonlight, Brokeback Mountain, Carol etc. all remarkable films and mostly played and produced by heterosexuals. By straight washing Im referring to the fact that they cut almost all the explicit/sensual scenes from the book.. It feels like they didnt want to offend the straight white men in the Academy. The only sex scene we get to see is between Elio and Marzia, kind of an odd decision I think..
|
|