On the False Intimacy in Contemporary Gay Cinema:
Through the Comparison Between Happy Together and Call Me By Your Name
By Haoran Xia
October 29, 2023
Through the Comparison Between Happy Together and Call Me By Your Name
By Haoran Xia
October 29, 2023
Happy Together and Call Me By Your Name, two decades apart, respectively illustrate the intimacy in contemporary gay cinema. The former sets its story in Buenos Aires in the 1960s, where Ho Po-Wing (hereinafter referred to as Ho) and Lai Yiu-Fai (hereinafter referred to as Lai), two gay men from Hong Kong, wish to see the Iguana Falls while at the same time endeavouring to fix their wounded relationship: their intimacy is built on struggle, hardship, disruption, and disorientation in a foreign country. While the latter tells a story in Northern Italy in a summer of 1980s, where Elio Perlman (hereinafter referred to as Elio) and Oliver, both in their prime youth, encounter each other at Elio family’s suburban house and fall in love, remaining as friends after Oliver’s departure. Elio and Oliver’s two-month relationship exemplifies the intimacy that perhaps every gay man longs for: sweet, mutual, passionate, intimate. However, their intimacy is developed in an environment where crucial elements for gay intimacy, such as limitation and disorientation, as depicted in Happy Together, are eradicated. Thus, this intimacy creates a false intimacy grounded in a lack of disorientation and the knowledge of heteronormativity. Therefore, the goal of this essay is to analyse the current phenomenon of false intimacy under the dominant heteronormativity through the lens of these two films.
Heteronormativity and the False Intimacy
The intimacy between Elio and Oliver, at first glance, might seem genuine and representative of the concept of gay intimacy. However, when compared with the relationship between Ho and Lai, it becomes evident that their intimacy begins with a privileged backdrop: two young men meeting each other in the summer at an Italian country house, surrounded by intellectuals such as Elio’s parents. This privilege is also evident in other aspects: Oliver’s prestigious educational background, Elio’s father who would console his in-closet gay son before he comes out, and the enduring friendship between Oliver and Elio after Oliver’s heterosexual marriage in the United States.
Therefore, this privileged backdrop ultimately renders Elio and Oliver’s intimacy false. This falsehood is not a mere replication of a heterosexual relationship but rather an intimacy established based on the norm, idealizations, “coherence and privilege” (Berlant and Warner 548), inherent in the identity, individual and social structure, understanding, and institution associated with heteronormativity.
To be more precise, this false intimacy does not lie in the falling-in-love part but is evident in the false construction of this relationship, where two gay men are allowed to bond intimately without the experiences of challenging the heteronormative dating norm, questioning the heteronormative understanding of intimacy, and reimagining of an alternative space to nurture gay love. All of these aspects are deeply entwined with the discipline and institutionalization of heteronormativity.
In the contemporary era, where same-sex marriage has gradually gained legal recognition and societal acceptance, librated gay men have aspired to follow the identical path of the heterosexual couples. As Lauren Berlant and Michael Warner point out: heterosexuality is the mechanism by which a core national culture can be imagined as a sanitised space of sentimental feeling and immaculate behavior… (549). By following this “mechanism”, gay men date freely, get married, start a family, and participate in the construction and the reproduction of a new homonormativity. However, this homonormativity amounts to little more than a imitation of heteronormativity. It essentially transforms what was once considered a “temporary aberration” into a “species” (Foucault 43), resulting in the cultivation of numerous false intimacy, akin to the one between Elio and Oliver. Consequently, it gives rise to a false cultural phenomenon in which gay politics, identity, dating norms, and intimacy inevitably are rendered a surplus.
In contrast to the fantasy-like setting in Call Me By Your Name, the relationship between Ho and Lai offers a texture of roughness and rawness, which also echoes back with the complex of the history (since the outbreak of AIDS), loving relationship, social structure, cultural identity, and world-making of gay men.
With such texture, Happy Together lays the foundation of gay intimacy without relying on the heteronormative framework. This is evident from the opening scene, where Lai and Ho engage in rough yet passionate sex in a shabby hostel. It continues in the scene where Ho is awfully drunk in the tango bar while Lai stays outside, waiting for him.
The way they learn to construct their intimacy is established within a bleak and foreign environment where their identities are not socially recognised. In this setting, their understanding of intimacy and themselves is reshaped through challenges and disruptions. This intimacy not only emerges in a space where the heteronormative norms is absent but also solidifies its status by establishing a standard between two gay individuals. In a broader sense: Ho and Lai’s intimacy is further demonstrated as a We vs. World relation, or a Gay vs. World relation, by standardising their rules of dating, norms of understanding, forms of politics, and their gay-world making.
All of this validates that this form of intimacy serves as a means to construct a form of normativity that challenges the norms and discipline of heteronormativity, as well as the homonormativity. Its purpose is to conjure a blueprint exclusive to gay men. Within this bluepint, gay men can continue to create an intimacy that “bear no necessary relation to domestic space, to kinship,…to property, or to the nation” (Berlant and Warner 558), and establish a gay world where “spaces of entrances, exits, unsystematised lines of acquaintance…alternate routes…” can be included (Berlant and Warner 558).
The Intimacy Is Not Here Yet
In Happy Together, the color grading frequently transitions between monochrome to polychrome settings. Monochrome scenes often appear during Ho and Lai’s argument or in the moments of their break-up. For instance, there are scenes of Lai driving in his car, contemplating what went wrong and of them fighting in Ho’s hotel. These monochrome scenes convey a sense of distance, unconsciousness, and a desire to escape from the present. However, most scenes eventually adopt polychrome tonalities. These polychrome scenes depict their intimate moments, such as dancing in the shared kitchen or sharing silent moments on the rooftop. In these scenes, Ho and Lai seem to be getting back on track with their relationship, yet a feeling of not-here-yet persists. This feeling lingers for two reasons: 1. Ho and Lai are on a journey; as long as the journey is not complete, a horizon remains; 2. Ho and Lai’s intimacy is filled with unpredictability, making it impossible to anticipate what might happen to them before the film concludes.
In this case, there is always a potentiality. As José Muñoz argues: queerness is essentially about the rejection of a “here and now” and an insistence on potentiality and concrete possibility for another world (1). In Happy Together, this queerness is translated into a gayness that characterizes Ho, Lai, and their intimacy. It is never about “here and now” but always resides in a horizon beyond their tangible journey and the intangible destination of their intimacy.
Furthermore, the sense of not-here-yet in Happy Together between exemplifies the wrong-doing, alternative routes, and the inevitable struggles experienced by gay men in the real world. In a society where the “limit and the horizon is the reproductive futurism” (Edelman 27), gay men embrace their “disidentification from the promise of the futurity” (Edelman 27). Consequently, their intimacy and temporality are rooted in a potentiality. Within this potentially, gay men can establish their intimacy by achieving “something else” (Muñoz 185), beyond the limits of the here and now and of heteronormative doctrine.
In the end, Lai arrives at the site of Iguana Falls by himself, eventually returning to Hong Kong. His story is often seen as a failure when viewed through the general understanding of love. However, within the context of their relationship, it is rather a manifestation of gay failure. The gay failure in Happy Together is bound to happen because it is closely tied to the concept of “not-here-yet”, the pursuit of the horizon, and the endeavour to do something else. In this case, Ho and Lai are both doing “something else in relation to a something that is missing in the deeply flawed heteronormativity” (Muñoz 154). As long as Ho, Lai, or any gay man strives to attain this “something else”, their intimacy is destined to be a failure.
Yet it is this particular form of gay failure that allows gay men to break free from heteronormativity, bringing them closer to the utopian intimacy. Therefore, gay failure signifies an “always-ready state” for breaking out of the confines of heteronormative institution, a triumph of interrupting the protocols of “here and now”, and a “virtuosity” in constructing intimacy for gay men (Muñoz 173).
However, one might argue: Elio and Oliver do ultimately break up, and Oliver is even engaged in a heterosexual relationship in the United States, making it seem like a gay failure. Why can’t it be considered a gay failure according to Muñoz’s theory?
To answer this question, let’s take a step back and examine how Elio and Oliver built their intimacy and why their “gay failure” occurred: they meet at the country house when Oliver comes for a summer fellowship with Elio's father. After several weeks, through a few casual rendezvous, Elio realizes he has developed feelings for Oliver. One night, in Oliver's bedroom, they confess their feelings, share a kiss, and make love. From the beginning, Elio knows that Oliver will return to the United States once his fellowship concludes. Despite this knowledge, Elio creates more opportunities for them to meet and enjoy their one-month-long relationship.
Throughout their relationship, there is only one moment where both of them feel frustrated: sitting on the balcony outside of Oliver’s bedroom, Elio says in a regretful way:"we wasted so many days”. When Elio mentions “days”, he is truly expressing regret about “days of fun and pleasure”. Therefore, it is unquestionable that, in contrast to Ho and Lai’s relationship, the intimacy between Elio and Oliver is always about the present: the form, the pleasure, and the ease of the present. Moreover, with the aforementioned privilege background, the intimacy in Call Me By Your Name maximises its focus of here and now. It not only aligns itself with the flawed temporality of heteronormativity but also eliminates the potentiality of reaching a horizon, a future, and a utopia located elsewhere.
The always-present status of Elio and Oliver’s intimacy reflects its illusion of substituting the future with the present and its desire to become institutionally normalized. In this context, their intimacy is ultimately a false one. This is partly because they fail to envision an alternative political order to disrupt the discipline of heteronormativity. More significantly, they affirm the “here-and-now” status of their intimacy in relation to the intimacy prescribed in futurism, which is characterised as “transparent, straight, and allowed to survive” (Fontenot 254).
By embracing the notion of futurism, this false intimacy signifies an inaccurate portrayal for gay men, primarily by conflating the future with the present, misunderstanding the concept of a gay utopia, and failing to identify themselves as gay individuals who ought to challenge the political protocols and social norms of the straight world. In short, Elio and Oliver’s gay failure is not inevitable due to their gay identities but instead is a result of their falseness, deeply rooted in the framework of heteronormativity.
Loss of the Self in Disorientation
If the setting in Call Me By Your Name represents the “coherence and privilege” of heteronormativity, from a phenomenological perspective, it can be viewed as a space where the orientation and its spatiality are directed towards one direction — straight.
As Sara Ahmed states: the word “queer” is a spatial term, which means “twist”, and when it is translated into sexual term it simply means that the sexuality is twisted and does not follow the straight lines (67). She further explains: sexuality is a spatial and sexual formation in which the body itself inhabits the sexual space but also the body and the sexual orientation are sexualised through the way they inhabit space. (Ahmed 67). The queer way of inhabiting a space and forming a sexuality can also be applied to that of gay men.
However, in the case of Call Me By Your Name, the so-called gay space for gay men are entirely displaced. They transition from concrete spaces: the idyllic summer country house where dating norms are standardised and lines point straightforwardly to the ideal model of a intimacy: Elio’s parents’ straight, reproduction-centered intimacy; the downtown and the suburban settings where disruption is minizied, and anything homosexual is pre-approved and on lines — to abstract spaces: the financial and intellectual status of Elio’s family, which provides order; the unconditional acceptance for Oliver as “the other” from Elio’s family, laying the foundation for Oliver to be the object of Elio’s affection.
All concrete and abstract spaces become “a direction, an alignment, and a series of repetition”(Ahmed 92). This transformation turns what should have been a gay space for Elio into a straightness-orientated space. Consequently, this space becomes a "straightening device" (Ahmed 66) that bends Elio's gay body into a somewhat straight form, forcing him to grapple with his sexuality while inhabiting a somewhat straight space. When Elio falls in love with an approved gay object in a straight space, the intimacy that emerges no longer represents the disoriented intimacy among gay men; instead, it becomes a false one.
This false intimacy exists in a field dominated by repetitive straight patterns. As a result, Elio and Oliver’s dating, lovemaking, and feigned friendship lack disorientation. However, for gay men in a straight world, it is impossible to follow the straight path “without a detour, without a mediation” (Ahmed 16). Yet, through these detours and mediations, disorientation is profoundly established, offering alternative lines and directions for gay individuals to construct their gay selves. In the process of being disorientated, one must endure the painful experience of being lost, and it is within this “loss of self” (Ahmed 19, Bersani 218) that a gay man constructs his gay self, sexuality and his intimacy. Without experiencing disorientation, any form of intimacy that ensues is ultimately false.
In Happy Together, locations undergo significant changes, including several tango bars, the Chinese restaurant where Lai works part-time, various hostels, and numerous streets in Buenos Aires. Within these locations, either Ho or Lai frequently experiences disorientation, not in terms of geographical navigation, but in the context of emotional turbulence.
This disorientation can be attributed to three factors: 1. National and gay identity: two Chinese gay traveling in a straight-dominated foreign country; 2. Intimacy: Ho and Lai are constantly attempting to discern what to do with their relationship; 3. Loss of the self: experiencing geographical, social, political, and sexual disorientation. All of these factors collectively transform Buenos Aires into an unfamiliar gay space where Ho and Lai must “bring objects to life in their loss of the place” (Ahmed 165). After all, a direction is given (Ahmed 16), either by individuals or, in the context of the heteronormative world, by straightening apparatuses. In the case of Happy Together, the direction is absent, and thus, there is no orientation for Ho and Lai to follow. Therefore, in the process of creating their space, they disrupt conventional norms and subvert the social repetition of straight lines.
Through creating the gay space, both characters go “off line” (Ahmed 70), where their bodily and spatial direction align with one direction: the other. Midway through the film, Lai encounters Chang, a co-work at the Chinese restaurant, whose sexuality remains undisclosed. During a night of drinking with Chang, Lai realises that Ho still loves him. Overwhelmed by this revelation, Lai sheds tears. However, by this juncture, Ho has already departed. Despite having the opportunity to pursue a potential relationship with Chang, Lai consciously chooses not to do so. Within this encounter, Chang becomes “the other” for Lai. The reason why Lai does not turn to him is primarily rooted in the dynamics of his gay space. In this space, all of the routes inevitably guide Lai back to his object of affection - Ho. Their relationship essentially serves as the locus for Lai's disorientation. Even in Ho's absence, this locus endures, and Lai comprehends that Chang is not the object to replace Ho. In this context, the intimacy shared between Lai and Ho functions as the foundation for Lai’s spatial realm. It allows him to explore alternate lines and routes, ultimately leading him back to the established locus and toward his next intimacy.
In the context of reality, Buenos Aires serves as the gay space for every gay man. It is through the act of creating a gay space by experiencing disorientation within a straight world and by dismantling heteronormative lines, that gay men can discover their locus and construct their intimacy.
Conclusion
In contemporary society, false intimacy prevails not only in films but also in everyday life. This is because it offers an easier path, provides a clear direction to follow, and allows individuals to live in the present as though it were the future. What Call Me By Your Name portrays is an idealized institution for gay men. However, without envisioning the potentiality of the future, without reshaping political and social protocols, and without challenging the discipline and institutionalization of heteronormativity, this ideal remains inherently flawed, and the intimacy ensues is inevitably false.
To avoid the phenomenon of false intimacy, one must abandon the confines of the “here and now”, to embrace a state of disorientation and loss, and to establish a standard that opposes heteronormativity. This is precisely what Ho and Lai accomplish in Buenos Aires, and it is through such endeavors that gay men can achieve their gay-world making.
Works cited
Ahmed, Sara. Queer Phenomenology Orientations, Objects, Others. Duke University Press, 2006.
Berlant, Lauren and Michael Warner. “Sex in Public.” Critical Inquiry, vol.24, no.2, winter 1998, pp. 547-566.
Bersani, Leo. “Is the Rectum a Grave.” AIDS: Cultural Analysis/Cultural Activism, vol. 43, winter 1987, pp. 197-222.
Edelman, Lee. No Future: Queer Theory and the Death Drive. Duke University Press, 2004.
Fontenot, Andrea. “Review Work(s): No Future: Queer Theory and the Death Drive by Lee Edelman.” Modern Fiction Studies, vol. 52, no.1, spring 2006, pp. 252-256.
Foucault, Michel. The History of Sexuality, Volume 1: An Introduction. Translated by Robert Hurley, Pantheon Books, 1978.
Muñoz, José Esteban. Cruising Utopia: The Then and There of Queer Futurity. New York University Press, 2009.