Director: Luca Guadagnino
Story: Luca Guadagnino
Screenplay: Luca Guadagnino, Barbara Alberti, Ivan Cotroneo, Walter Fasano
Producers: Luca Guadagnino, Francesco Melzi d’Eril, Marco Morabito, Tilda Swinton, Alessandro Usai, Massimiliano Violante
Starring: Tilda Swinton, Flavio Parenti, Edoardo Gabbriellini, Marisa Berenson
Country of Origin: Italy
MPAA Rating: R
Running time: 120 min.

(4/5)

While the stuffier movie goers (such as myself) are going to find a lot to salivate over in Guadagnino’s I Am Love, the Italian’s answer to Terrence Malick, the more typical movie goer might find much of the substance (if you can call it that) within the film to be rather yawn inducing and some of the “overwrought artfulness” of the experience to be so excruciatingly detailed in its pretentiousness that it might be almost laughable. Yet it is exactly that ambitious attention to detail and the filmmaker’s exact intention of stirring all five of the audience’s senses that is possible for a film to provide that has kept this picture stirring around in my brain for the last five days. There might not be a whole lot going on, but there is a whole lot going on from a visceral perspective.

Tilda Swinton leads the cast as Emma; a Russian immigrant who has married into an extremely wealthy, Italian textile tycoon’s family. As the patriarch reaches old age, he announces his son (Emma’s husband) and his now of age grandson as successors to the family business. The grandson then juggles the demands of being a co-CEO of a million dollar corporation along with his real passion of opening a fine restaurant with his Italian friend, Antonio, in the mountains of Italy. The central story thread then follows Emma on an ill-advised affair with Antonio, while the subplots involve family jealousy within the business, corporate ethics, struggling with outing oneself as a homosexual and keeping up appearances within a household holding lavish dinner parties whilst keeping important political ties.

Most of the camera work is designed to give the audience a visceral sensation within the film rather than progressing the storyline with too much dialogue. It is a clear cut case of showing us what to feel rather than telling us. The camera spends an inordinate amount of time lingering on seemingly mundane details of a locale or often times with metaphorical imagery or at the very least, imagery that adds to the emotional context of the scene. Simple edges of a gravestone or a raindrop banging off a crack in the sidewalk or simply some dust in the air adds to the thickness of For instance, a sexual encounter in a sun-soaked field is juxtaposed with shots of crickets or steamy leaves cooking off morning dew. While these shots might not actually have anything to say, specifically, they do somehow add a certain amount of emotional texture to what otherwise might be a rather typical love sequence. Watching food being prepared with extreme close-ups is not only another example of how the filmmaker is able to appeal to his audience’s senses with a marvel flair, but it is also a unique way in which a plot can be furthered without actually using any dialogue. Flirting with celluloid to arouse the sense of taste is yet another example of show and not tell. Though to be fair, some may find this use of imagery to just be artistic “wankery” and nothing more.

The narrative that does exist in the film is well conceived. Like the aforementioned Terrence Malick, the use of personal narration throughout the film is a staple. Not always to give the story a thrust, but rather to give a more introspective thought process from the characters. The narrative dialogue is even more impressive as it spans five different languages. The bulk of the spoken word is Italian, but because the cast is so diverse and the story deals lightly with immigration as well as global corporate partnerships, we also hear English, Russian, Spanish and if memory serves, even a little bit of Arabic. This further attention to detail and willingness to go for broke rather than cut corners simply for ease of production, affirms my belief that the artistic intent within the movie not only goes against the argument of the aforementioned wankery proposal, but is the result of a skilled and caring film maker.

The plot is so simple that one might actually believe that they’re missing something or that the plot is convoluted in incomprehensibility what with all of the sidetracking and language barriers and sheer number of characters wandering in and out of the story. In truth, the film rather lavishly indulges in sensory overload (in a good way) rather than a plot filled with twist or mystery.

Nothing articulates the idea of sensory overload more than the score. Particularly at the bookends of the movie, the bombastic nature of the music almost single handedly is able to get the audience on the edge of their seat with anticipation. In anticipation of what is unclear; but to be certain, the ground work for the tone of these scenes is laid with an emphatic, chaotic and crescendoing rhythm that some might actually describe as a cacophony of uncomfortability. A sentiment I wouldn’t necessarily disagree with, but one that I would argue exists in a good way.

The art crowd should be enthralled here with great performances and a masterful use of technique. Sure it drags a little bit here or there as some of the narrative isn’t as exciting or even as deep as it could be. But for the most part the movie captures the spirit of film in almost every emotional way a film can. And truthfully, I don’t believe the movie’s intent is to necessarily tell a captivating story or shove a plot down your throat. It exists as character focused and an example of a family dynamic; one that most of us aren’t going to be privy to otherwise. If nothing else, it is recommended as a sheer piece of beauty; both visually and aurally.