|
Xealot posted:I’ve met Spanish speakers named Esposito, too, but yeah I’m pretty sure she’s not supposed to be Latina. She does have a disability, though, which feels like a rare minority category to represent let alone star in a movie. And there’s the literally voiceless thing, so it’s not subtle. It's not like Italian Americans were in a particularly good spot in the 60s, so it works either way. I think that's the part of this I liked the most. For whatever reason, nostalgia for the 60s is really common, and Del Toro has no rose tinted glasses at all. I love that the cosy diner is a cynical franchise manned by a racist faking an accent. That whole setting seems constructed to dispel nostalgia.
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2018 01:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 30, 2024 08:10 |
|
|
Doesn't Strickland explicitly say the name means "orphan?"
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2018 19:06
|
|
|
Sinding Johansson posted:Eh, I think being sprayed with a hose signifies a related but different idea of dehumanization/devaluation more than blackness. Rambo got sprayed with a hose. A lot of prison movies feature similar scenes. Well... a film set in the 60s with the Other being dehumanizingly hosed down by white agents of the State is a pretty specific reference to Birmingham/Civil Rights marches. Bringing up Rambo borders on being willfully obtuse unless you see a lot of other Rambo signifiers in the film? 
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2018 21:16
|
|
|
mary had a little clam posted:Well... a film set in the 60s with the Other being dehumanizingly hosed down by white agents of the State is a pretty specific reference to Birmingham/Civil Rights marches. Bringing up Rambo borders on being willfully obtuse unless you see a lot of other Rambo signifiers in the film? You literally see protesters being sprayed with fire hoses on TV in the film.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2018 21:17
|
|
|
mary had a little clam posted:Well... a film set in the 60s with the Other being dehumanizingly hosed down by white agents of the State is a pretty specific reference to Birmingham/Civil Rights marches. Bringing up Rambo borders on being willfully obtuse unless you see a lot of other Rambo signifiers in the film? I had watched First Blood that day. I said that being hosed down references dehumanization. Rambo is hosed down in a jail, by power tripping cops who dehumanize him for being a drifter. Rambo's superpower is his connection to nature. He is disconnected from civilization. He was used and abused tool of the government. They are very different films obviously but the characters do have elements in common. Unlike in this film, Rambo does not kill his persecutors. Is the fishman; a silent, savage, demure, heavily fetishized character really a good depiction of blackness in 2018? Seriously? And to reiterate the point of that article posted earlier; is Eliza, a woman who sees herself as less than human, and who can only find acceptance by leaving society, a good depiction of disability? The actual merit in the idea of the fishman is associated with blackness is the connection between him and Zelda's downtrodden, browbeaten husband. Sinding Johansson fucked around with this message at 04:31 on Jan 24, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2018 04:03
|
|
|
Sinding Johansson posted:The actual merit in the idea of the fishman is associated with blackness is the connection between that character and Zelda's downtrodden, browbeaten husband. Well, yeah, that's the point, both are conspicuously depicted in the same film.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2018 04:06
|
|
|
Well iirc the black man only has one scene, to show us that he's physically and spiritually broken, confined to his home like the fishman to his bathtub. He is cowardly and his marriage aromantic. This is a cynical movie where the relationship between him and Zelda reflects the reality of Eliza and the fishman's fantasy. What if the fishman never left the bathtub basically. The vengefulness of the fishman stems from the resentment of the husband. I link these characters by their relationship to Eliza/Zelda. I don't see how you can link the fishman to blackness specifically without interpreting him as a questionable caricature. I'm trying to be charitable here. E: More specifically, blackness is a human quality while the fishman is inhuman. It is the absence of blackness that propels the fishman power-sex fantasy. Sinding Johansson fucked around with this message at 07:40 on Jan 24, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2018 04:24
|
|
|
Punkin Spunkin posted:still should've beaten Heath Ledger YEAH I SAID IT correct, with the caveat ledger should have won for brokeback
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2018 07:20
|
|
|
Sinding Johansson posted:And to reiterate the point of that article posted earlier; is Eliza, a woman who sees herself as less than human, and who can only find acceptance by leaving society, a good depiction of disability? That society wasn't worth being accepted by. There is no point to her fighting for approval, to be seen as valuable. The "decency" monologue explicitly states what that society sees as valuable, and it isn't anything good. There is more conviction and strength in rejecting that value system and insisting upon your own, as Eliza does. The society she rejects is the one that is broken, less than human.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2018 14:57
|
|
|
It's also worth remembering that Eliza isn't simply depicted as someone who is a nice person. She's presented as an incredibly smart, talented, brave, and sensual person. The film depicts the treatment of Eliza as not just a tragedy of people being mean or dismissive to her, but this amazing person who isn't allowed to reach her potential. It's reflected in the dramatic question of the film (Is this fish creature who eats cats on the same level as human beings?) being blown up by the answer: No, but because he's a God. It's a movie that's asking you to not judge the disabled or the different in general by how they meet the benchmarks of what is considered normal.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2018 16:54
|
|
|
I just saw this last weekend, and one detail I really liked was the way Shannon's character immediately pivots to "You are a god" when he sees what the Creature can do at the end. His worldview is so narrow that he can only see the Creature in one of two ways - either as an animal or a god, and it's entirely dependent on the power dynamic he has with the Creature at the moment. The Creature goes from subhuman to superhuman in his eyes instantly, and he's wrong in both instances. I feel like it would have been very safe and easy for Del Toro to end the movie with the Creature healing Shannon, but the fact that he slashes Shannon's throat highlights just how human the Creature is. Rather than being an alien personality "too pure for this world," the Creature is instead very relatable in that moment, and Shannon's character presumably dies without learning that about him. A really good movie.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2018 17:02
|
|
|
Liberal Idiot posted:I just saw this last weekend, and one detail I really liked was the way Shannon's character immediately pivots to "You are a god" when he sees what the Creature can do at the end. His worldview is so narrow that he can only see the Creature in one of two ways - either as an animal or a god, and it's entirely dependent on the power dynamic he has with the Creature at the moment. The Creature goes from subhuman to superhuman in his eyes instantly, and he's wrong in both instances.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2018 17:26
|
|
|
Moon Atari posted:That society wasn't worth being accepted by. There is no point to her fighting for approval, to be seen as valuable. The "decency" monologue explicitly states what that society sees as valuable, and it isn't anything good. There is more conviction and strength in rejecting that value system and insisting upon your own, as Eliza does. The society she rejects is the one that is broken, less than human. In this film, Eliza has heartfelt confession about why she loves the fishman, it's because he doesn't know how she is, "incomplete". The differently abled of course don't have the luxury of simply abandoning society. Society, to this day, pushes such people to the margins, keeps them out of sight and sees them as lacking some essential element of the human experience. In reality the differently abled seldom feel that way about themselves. Running away isn't some heroic act, it's falling in line exactly with society's expectations. No society is simply made up of bad and irredeemable people. Should Zelda and Giles (who have it just as bad really) leave too? It would be a mockery of the progressive movements and struggles of actual gay and black people in the 60s if they had. Aren't they part of the society that Eliza abandons? I mentioned another film earlier, 70s screwball comedy See No Evil, Hear No Evil. The main characters are a blind and deaf man. Both characters explicitly reject the idea that they are 'incomplete', especially when society tries to tell them they are. 40 years later and Del Toro is moving us backwards, not forwards.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2018 18:40
|
|
|
Liberal Idiot posted:I just saw this last weekend, and one detail I really liked was the way Shannon's character immediately pivots to "You are a god" when he sees what the Creature can do at the end. His worldview is so narrow that he can only see the Creature in one of two ways - either as an animal or a god, and it's entirely dependent on the power dynamic he has with the Creature at the moment. The Creature goes from subhuman to superhuman in his eyes instantly, and he's wrong in both instances. The fishman literally has magic powers though and executing people who have wronged you is not an essential element of the human experience. In fact the most common criticism of the film is that the fishman is devoid of personality. A pagan god is probably the most apt description of him. The character who is too pure for this world is (somewhat bizarrely) the communist.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2018 18:54
|
|
|
Sinding Johansson posted:The character who is too pure for this world is (somewhat bizarrely) the communist. Haha, yes. The romantic surrogates are less caricatured than the actual protagonists.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2018 19:23
|
|
|
Sinding Johansson posted:In this film, Eliza has heartfelt confession about why she loves the fishman, it's because he doesn't know how she is, "incomplete". A movie directed and co-written by a man who isn't a native English speaker using a word that, while technically correct and accurate, has a problematic connotation seems to be getting a disproportionate amount of negative attention compared to the entire rest of the movie going completely against said problematic connotations. And that's assuming that you take it at the most uncharitable reading possible instead of interpreting it as, say, Eliza internalizing the language of the terrible world she lives in.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2018 19:29
|
|
|
I don't think "incomplete" is a mistake. She literally becomes complete at the film's end, it's just not by meeting the standards of normal but by transcending them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2018 19:48
|
|
|
Guy Mann posted:A movie directed and co-written by a man who isn't a native English speaker using a word that, while technically correct and accurate, has a problematic connotation seems to be getting a disproportionate amount of negative attention compared to the entire rest of the movie going completely against said problematic connotations. And that's assuming that you take it at the most uncharitable reading possible instead of interpreting it as, say, Eliza internalizing the language of the terrible world she lives in. Eliza goes on to dream that she can sing. Don't insult Del Toro, he is perfectly fluent and no one writes a film alone. Other films have dealt with disability much better than this one does. If you want a charitable reading, consider why Del Toro chose for Eliza to be mute. This isn't really a story about a woman's disability, it's actually a story about a woman who feels unheard, literalized. I'll restate my original point, that this movie has political trappings but not political substance.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2018 19:49
|
|
|
The real choice around her being mute is that it's a fairytale trope. She is the princess who lost his voice and the creature is the beast who's secretly a prince. And they live happily ever after without the princess regaining her voice and without the beast turning into a white guy. Sinding Johansson posted:Eliza goes on to dream that she can sing. Don't insult Del Toro, he is perfectly fluent and no one writes a film alone. Other films have dealt with disability much better than this one does. The movie is approaching discrimination the same way a lot of American Black literature does: Not by approaching discrimination's greatest crime as barring from normalcy, but by snuffing out excellence which is often depicted as magic. The People Could Fly and Joe Turner's Come and Gone are good examples. Timeless Appeal fucked around with this message at 20:07 on Jan 25, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2018 20:05
|
|
|
Sinding Johansson posted:I mentioned another film earlier, 70s screwball comedy See No Evil, Hear No Evil.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2018 23:01
|
|
|
LORD OF BOOTY posted:To enhance the mental image, I'm pretty sure this is the guy who voiced GIR on Invader Zim. You should be hearing Bloaty.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2018 00:52
|
|
|
tetrapyloctomy posted:Not that it invalidates what you're saying, but See No Evil, Hear No Evil came out in 1989. O poo poo
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2018 02:34
|
|
|
Sinding Johansson posted:O poo poo I saw it when it was released, and despite just being a kid it still felt to me like an old movie, like someone had kept it in a vault for a decade before remembering it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2018 20:06
|
|
|
IIRC Eliza's surname is literally the orphanage where she was found---her actual ethnic identity is apparently Gill Person 
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2018 02:55
|
|
|
Sinding Johansson posted:The character who is too pure for this world is (somewhat bizarrely) the communist. communism is too pure for this world, comrade
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2018 05:43
|
|
|
As someone with a mental disability I actually find the "incomplete" metaphor a lot more accurate and less condescending than naively insisting that I'm just different, despite the trend in academics towards the latter model. I don't know for certain that I would feel the same if were mute or blind or missing or a limb instead, and I can't speak for everyone's experience, but I don't think it's an inherently flawed way of looking at it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2018 08:36
|
|
|
I have huge anxiety issues and it ruins my life so yeah, incomplete is a good word. Very good movie though. Incredible even. But I wish there was more time between. Abe and Eliza. Just a lot more time. And yeah I’m calling him ducking Abe. He’s loving Abe.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2018 12:17
|
|
|
Even if people are offended by the phrase “incomplete,” I don’t see why it’s a flaw of the film because that’s how the character sees herself. It doesn’t speak to some objective belief del Toro has, just the rigid and hostile norms of the period, which the film criticizes openly. It’s not like the film ends with fishman fixing her voice or anything.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2018 16:46
|
|
|
there were things i liked about this movie but over all I didn't like it much. michael shannon in particular was really great and without him i probably would have turned it off
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2018 00:11
|
|
|
This movie was really bad Boring, safe, shallow as a kiddie pool. The visuals were nice though facebook jihad fucked around with this message at 06:20 on Feb 7, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2018 06:03
|
|
|
People need to learn how to use “I didn’t like this” over “this was bad”. It’s loving stupid.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2018 00:14
|
|
|
"This was bad" is fine as long as you can articulate your standards.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2018 00:47
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:"This was bad" is fine as long as you can articulate your standards. Therein lies the problem.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2018 01:08
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:People need to learn how to use “I didn’t like this” over “this was bad”. people need to learn that all movie opinions are subjective and that "this was bad" and "i didn't like this" mean basically the same thing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2018 01:44
|
|
|
Movie isn’t bad at all and I’m not even over the moon about it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2018 01:47
|
|
|
DC Murderverse posted:people need to learn that all movie opinions are subjective and that "this was bad" and "i didn't like this" mean basically the same thing. Not... really? I dislike films that I can recognize are extremely well made but didn't work for me and I like films I can say are pretty much awful trash. People's weird inability to recognize a film might not work for them but still succeeds at what it is doing or likewise to divorce "I really liked this!" from "it's well-made" is silly.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2018 17:13
|
|
|
facebook jihad posted:This movie was really bad Not to mention repeated emphasis on women being in control sexually. Safe in terms of getting Oscar noms maybe? But no way is that safe in terms of what audiences tend to think they want out of fairy tales.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2018 21:29
|
|
|
facebook jihad posted:This movie was really bad A take as shallow as the bath the main character masturbates in in the opening scene.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2018 23:08
|
|
|
Martman posted:It pretty much veered away from every super obvious safe choice. Gay man finds out his crush is just as fake as the lovely pie, he gets no sense of justice or revenge for being treated horribly (by the crush or his lovely former employers). Fishman confronts a cat, we cut away... oh shucks, he's gonna be petting the cat when we come back because he's so innocent and special and friendly -- oh wait he ate the cat's head. drat. Bad guy has a some dead fingers that his body is rejecting... welp, Fishman is obviously gonna heal him, thus showing him the error of his ways and convincing him to open his worldview and trust in Others -- wait no, Michael Shannon went full Zod and made that impossible, then got owned. Yeah exactly. I can see not liking the movie if whimsy isn't your thing, but calling it safe? It has a mute protagonist for starters. Safe is like a Marvel film or something.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2018 00:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 30, 2024 08:10 |
|
|
I dunno; there's plenty of stuff in here that I guess I could recognize as maybe transgressive from the perspective of a hypothetical mainstream audience, but is that audience even going to see the movie? I had to catch it at the campus arthouse theater. And if you've seen any of del Toro's previous movies nothing in here comes across as remotely shocking. Actually, I probably would have liked this a lot more if I had no idea who was involved and had not seen a trailer. Or any promotional art of any sort. As is I can recognize it as technically well executed and I have a sort of vague affection for most of the characters, but I didn't feel like I got anything more out of watching the movie than I did watching the trailer. They not only told me exactly what was going to happen in advance, they showed me how it was going to happen so there weren't really any surprises left and not much to learn. A few nice character moments, I guess, just...not much to make an impression. Maybe I need to give it a second chance when I'm in a different mood or something.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2018 04:44
|
|
