I just finished reading the original novel, let me talk about my personal impression: The biggest similarities and differences are: the film subtracts the original novel to the greatest extent. The external environment has been simplified, and a large number of "external perspectives" have been eliminated. The first half (when the relationship between the two is not specified): Although the original work is also from the single perspective of the young Elio, in Elio's eyes, Oliver has more or less emotional exchanges with many people around him, some of which are real Yes, some were just imaginary. The real part of it is Oliver's touching friendship as a guest with his parents, housekeeper, driver, gardener, and more. There are many detailed descriptions in the book. Through these details, Oliver's whole person is very three-dimensional. He smacks his lips like a child, expressing his love for the apricot juice that Malfada makes, he teaches Malfada how to serve better, he learns how to harvest apricot trees from the gardener that everyone hates, he and the servants in the villa People eat together in the kitchen, learn to sing Neapolitan folk songs with them, etc., all these little details are not shown in the film (as for his friendship with the 10-year-old leukemia girl in the lead house, I personally feel that the three-dimensionalization of the characters is not helpful. large, can be deleted or retained). These small details have two functions in the book: one is to reflect what kind of person Oliver is, and the reason why he is quickly loved by everyone is not just because he looks like a big star; the other is in the book. , These details are all seen in Elio's eyes. During this process, there are too many ambiguities between the two of them, which are indescribable and indescribable ( It also includes in-depth discussions between the two on topics such as literature, art, music, etc.), which are not shown in the film. Perhaps it is precisely because of the lack of these details that many viewers feel that Oliver has an undistinguished personality. He seems to have nothing to do with the villa owner's family except for the little male protagonist. Something else Elio imagined (Oliver goes to town every night to sleep with a different woman), is very subtle in this film. The second half (three days when the two traveled together): In the original book, it is in Rome, focusing on describing the process of the two people drinking with a group of cultural celebrities on their last night and then wandering until dawn. At first glance, what is the purpose of spending so much detail on these trivial matters? But after reading it, you will find that this chapter is really wonderful. A pair of deeply loved people spends the last precious time together in a noisy crowd. I have experienced this experience, and I am very familiar with it, and I cannot accurately interpret it from a psychological perspective. For the situation where there is only each other, I want to deliberately enrich every minute of time, go and stay Let a group of people help "us" to witness and remember. The original author is really a very experienced person! These are dealt with in the film as two people's time in the mountains, and some other very simple small clips. Let me tell you my personal feelings; I have rewatched the film 7 times (less than a month), so I couldn't help but read the original. Unlike a lot of people, I feel good about Oliver in the film and think the actor's performance is well done, but I also know that many people think that Hammer is not good and is more of a functional role. So when I just finished reading the book, I was a little bit angry. I felt that the director gave Oliver so few scenes, and gave Elio a lot of delicate portrayals. This is because of his own scheming. But after thinking about it calmly, I began to understand and appreciate the way the director handled it. If the original book is like a dense and meticulous meticulous painting, then the film is like a five-character quatrain with a vague meaning. It removes all the external mirror images that are not related to the main point, and only retains the small world of two people. There are also plenty of gaps left for the audience to imagine and fill. Although there are some small regrets, it still touched me and many viewers so deeply that it made me watch it again and again. So after calming down and thinking about it, I can't help but secretly admire the director's (or screenwriter's) skills, and the choice of materials is very good. Removing the complex and making it simple and still keeping the core unchanged or even more prominent is the homework that many directors in mainland China have to study hard today. Congregation to imagine and fill. Although there are some small regrets, it still touched me and many viewers so deeply that it made me watch it again and again. So after calming down and thinking about it, I can't help but secretly admire the director's (or screenwriter's) skills, and the choice of materials is very good. Removing the complex and making it simple and still keeping the core unchanged or even more prominent is the homework that many directors in mainland China have to study hard today. Congregation to imagine and fill. Although there are some small regrets, it still touched me and many viewers so deeply that it made me watch it again and again. So after calming down and thinking about it, I can't help but secretly admire the director's (or screenwriter's) skills, and the choice of materials is very good. Removing the complex and making it simple and still keeping the core unchanged or even more prominent is the homework that many directors in mainland China have to study hard today.
View more about Call Me by Your Name reviews
