James Ivory is still upset about CMBYN's lack of male nudity

Bitch, me too! It's obvious Luca did it so they wouldn't scare away viewers and lose the Oscar buzz.

He can go ahead and take solace in the dozen blowjob and peach-fucking scenes.

I get that he wanted to see some D, but there was zero need for it at all. Even Chalamet's one and only butt shot was unnecessary. The film works just fine as it is, and graphic sex would've done nothing but completely monopolize the conversation around it. Ask Éxarchopoulos and Seydoux.

I agree, but do you find it problematic that Esther Garrel is asked to show more skin than Chalamet and Hammer combined? And that the camera doesn't pan away from the opposite-sex couplings?

Both fair points, but reading the article it's clear that they didn't ask Garrel to show more than they did Chalamet and Hammer, it's just that she agreed to it and they didn't. Which is hardly a surprise when you consider that she's French, has been acting for a really long time and has a brother who won't keep his kit on for more than two consecutive films, while Chalamet was a 20-year-old in his first leading role ever. Seems to me that that came down to the actors deciding for themselves what they were comfortable with, and not to Guadagnino (who is himself gay) favoring female nudity and objectifying Garrel. Also, as far as I remember, even the opposite sex scenes aren't particularly graphic either; they're over very quickly and we hardly see that much.

The overwhelming acclaim that the film continues to get from audiences and critics alike is proof that the lack of frontal nudity didn't prevent people from connecting to it, especially since there's plenty of sex in it as it is. They didn't need more nudity to convey passion.

I haven't seen this movie yet, but has anyone seen Guadagnino 's movie Melissa P.?
Sex scenes are basically suggested there too. I guess it's just his style.

y'all truly have NO idea how much I hate that tree....

But in all fairness it wouldn't work, Guadagnino is more into sensorial language and the touching and the sound do all the work, it wouldn't feel right, Ivory has his style and he has pull it off beautifully ( I just remember the scene at the lake in A Room with a View with all the guys playing so in such innocent way   ) and I've heard a lot of people say it was a way to cheat and have massive appeal from audiences but as I said, I think is even more suggestive what Guadagnino does building the world and the whole experience and invites you to be immerse in the moment, which is downright erotic, and many shots in that scene objectify their bodies, is not like there's nothing to be seen, it simply works.

There's a far cry from the often sexless nudity in Ivory's films (take Maurice and A Room with a Few for example) and the free-for-all fuckfest that was Blue is the Warmest Color. I don't think a bit of nudity would have monopolized the conversation anymore than the age difference between Elio and Oliver already had among the film's detractors. Plus, interviewers were already hammering Chalamet and Hammer with an absurd amount of peach questions, I don't think some brief full-frontal nudity would have made the movie that much more controversial or be enough of a talking point to detract from the kinds of things interviewers were already asking.

I don't think the movie is weaker for not having any nudity, but I also don't think nudity would have detracted from it in any way.