|
Irony.or.Death posted:And if you've seen any of del Toro's previous movies nothing in here comes across as remotely shocking. This is a much more absolute statement than I think you can actually make, or meant to make, given what a varied filmography the guy has and also given what's actually in the film. You're also equating risky with shocking, and the two aren't the same thing in film making at all.
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2018 04:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 30, 2024 08:27 |
|
|
I'll grant you the varied filmography; I can't even claim to have seen all of his work so maybe something in there is mainstream and family-friendly. I think risky is an even harder sell than shocking would be, though. As far as I can tell there has been absolutely no attempt to market the movie to audiences who would find anything in it objectionable. Obviously I don't have a global view of this or anything, but properly contextualized "safe" feels like a pretty fair charge to me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2018 05:24
|
|
|
Irony.or.Death posted:As far as I can tell there has been absolutely no attempt to market the movie to audiences who would find anything in it objectionable. This is a marketing flaw, not a film making flaw. Having the only white man in the movie as a villain and having a woman (in her 40s) masturbate in the opening scene is objectionable to quite a few people. Having her gently caress the merman and describe his genitals is also objectionable to plenty of people. Irony.or.Death posted:I can't even claim to have seen all of his work so maybe something in there is mainstream and family-friendly. What? That wasn't the point of that statement at all.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2018 05:30
|
|
|
It doesn't really strike me as necessarily a flaw with either the marketing or the film. If nobody involved wanted to make it for a wide audience and nobody involved thought it would be a good fit for a wide audience, that seems...totally okay?
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2018 05:33
|
|
|
Irony.or.Death posted:It doesn't really strike me as necessarily a flaw with either the marketing or the film. If nobody involved wanted to make it for a wide audience and nobody involved thought it would be a good fit for a wide audience, that seems...totally okay? I have no idea what your point is anymore.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2018 05:34
|
|
|
The point was just that I can see where that guy was coming from, calling it a safe movie. Not the first word that came to my mind, but not totally dissimilar from what I felt when I left the theater. That it contains elements which many people find objectionable does not seem relevant if there was never any serious hope that those people would watch the movie in the first place, as I am suggesting appears to be the case here.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2018 07:15
|
|
|
Irony.or.Death posted:The point was just that I can see where that guy was coming from, calling it a safe movie. Not the first word that came to my mind, but not totally dissimilar from what I felt when I left the theater. That it contains elements which many people find objectionable does not seem relevant if there was never any serious hope that those people would watch the movie in the first place, as I am suggesting appears to be the case here. So, despite it excluding a decent chunk of its potential viewing audience, it's a safe movie because it knew it was excluding a decent chunk of its potential. By this definition it would be impossible to make a risky film unless you had never met a person and had no idea what they liked.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2018 07:40
|
|
|
I think it could be considered safe when you compare it to its own potential for really lush weirdness. You get a lot of minor oddities divertissements sprinkled throughout but the actual meat scans more like a cutscene, which is a shame because so many of the moments are so lovely. It needs the beefy grotesquery of Delicatessen or the whirling grace of Amelie to keep the story from feeling like a grinding obligation (or just better pacing).
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2018 07:50
|
|
|
Watched this again last night. What struck me this time was that while I've seen this movie criticized because the fish man didn't really have much personality, I think that was the point. On second viewing he comes across as much less human than I'd previously thought, and when, for instance, she starts to sign to him that he won't know how much she loves him and then begins singing, he barely seems aware of what's going on and his only comment is "egg." With this viewing I thought a lot about the criticism that the movie presents Eliza as being unable to connect with another person, sending the message that the disabled can only really connect with other outsiders. What I picked up on second viewing though was that Eliza is in fact objectifying the fish man, just as Michael Shannon's character objectifies her. The fish man has affection for her, but most of the time he just seems curious about new things; his intellect basically seems to be that of a child. Just as Shannon's character declares that he likes the fact that she doesn't speak, she likes the fact that the fish man can't speak; but just like Shannon's character, she doesn't actually really know anything about the person she's pining after. She presents herself as only being able to connect to this other differently-abled entity, but in fact she is not really being honest with herself about why she feels that way. I also caught this time that the framing device of her neighbour's commentary really casts doubt on the ending -- for all he and Zelda know, the fish man healed himself, killed Michael Shannon, and disappeared into the depths with Eliza's dead body. The last scene really comes across as a fairy-tale ending slapped on to satisfy the audience, with the neighbour's comment strongly suggesting this ("If I told you about her — the princess without a voice — what would I say?").
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2018 09:20
|
|
|
Snowman_McK posted:So, despite it excluding a decent chunk of its potential viewing audience, it's a safe movie because it knew it was excluding a decent chunk of its potential. Very few movies have a target audience of "everyone in the world", dude. I don't think Halloween 5 gets a lot of credit for boldness despite the fact that there are lots of people who aren't going to watch a movie about teenagers being stabbed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2018 16:21
|
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:I think it could be considered safe when you compare it to its own potential for really lush weirdness. You get a lot of minor oddities divertissements sprinkled throughout but the actual meat scans more like a cutscene, which is a shame because so many of the moments are so lovely. It needs the beefy grotesquery of Delicatessen or the whirling grace of Amelie to keep the story from feeling like a grinding obligation (or just better pacing). Which is pretty much exactly like Crimson Peak, come to think of it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2018 21:06
|
|
|
Irony.or.Death posted:Very few movies have a target audience of "everyone in the world", dude. I don't think Halloween 5 gets a lot of credit for boldness despite the fact that there are lots of people who aren't going to watch a movie about teenagers being stabbed. Halloween 5 is a terrible lazy sequel to what was, when released, a very bold film. We're still at a point where 'safe' is a useless descriptor. As you point out, very few films are made for everyone, but big budget films go out of their way to ensure they exclude as few as possible. This didn't. Even outside of blockbusters, it cannot be described as safe when utterly middle of the road films like 'Wonder' exist. Snowman_McK fucked around with this message at 01:13 on Feb 10, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2018 00:41
|
|
|
I saw this movie just today and really liked it. I don't know how much meaningful discussion I can add but I think it's worth adding that Michael Stuhlbarg's character, Bob Hoffstaedtler, is Larry Gopnik. This is canon.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 21:00
|
|
|
The film was fantastic, but how fricking hard can it be to find native Russian speaking actors in Hollywood? The pronunciation in this wasn't as bad as in Red Dawn for example, but still made my ears turn red. At least it was grammatically correct and an attempt was made. And yeah, for me that's the only major thing to complain about in the whole movie. Big Blood Bovine fucked around with this message at 22:19 on Feb 18, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 22:12
|
|
|
MeinPanzer posted:Watched this again last night. Well okay, but if that's true then the commonly perceived message is a complete load because a woman and her gay friend save a fish and she delusionally rapes it while it goes around killing whatever seems to be small and made of meat. Though that's not an inherently unworkable premise as such, it would be stating that the cattle-prod status quo was actually Correct and Good. If that's what the film really wanted to say, I can't say it succeeded there either.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2018 15:42
|
|
|
I mean... that doesn't make torturing the poor thing morally correct, though. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2018 04:26
|
|
|
The creature was fine with the cats later. It just ate poor Pandora (who happens to have the same name as one of my old cats, so that was weird as well as shocking)
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2018 01:01
|
|
|
Just watched it. Found it very visually brilliant, but some critiques, e.g. Fishman's consent and lack thereof, kinda... Obvious.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2018 19:47
|
|
|
Anybody have an idea what’s the deal with Elisa knowing and speaking sign language but everyone around her not doing so despite obviously understanding it? It seems so jarring. How does she keep up her fluency with no one around to converse with?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2018 23:15
|
|
|
Looking at Elisa having sex with Gill Man as non-consentual misses the point of the film. For all intents and purposes, Gill Man is another flavor of human being, just from a different evolutionary path. That's why Dr. Hoffstetler takes such precautions to save Gill Man because he's not just an animal. Strickland's attitude towards Gill Man is the same sort of reasoning bigots use to justify racism and it's not even subtle in the film. There's also the conversation between Elisa and Giles about whether Gill Man is an "it" or "he." Besides, the film already frames characters as starved for sex, so who's to say Gill Man hadn't needed some loving for some time, especially if he's the last of his kind?.Zwille posted:Anybody have an idea what’s the deal with Elisa knowing and speaking sign language but everyone around her not doing so despite obviously understanding it? It seems so jarring. How does she keep up her fluency with no one around to converse with? Only Giles and Zelda understand her and it's probably just because she's around them the most. And Giles clearly has to slow down to understand and Zelda doesn't know everything Elisa signs. Giles has motivation to be fluent because Elisa is really his only friend and Zelda is around her eight hours a day/night. Any other characters seem to only be guessing. And Strickland certainly didn't know he was being told to gently caress off  Anyways, this is up there with Phantom Thread for my favorite 2017 releases. The audience where I saw this was loving every moment of it. Elisa's "morning routine" and later describing Gill Man's junk brought the house down. Also, I don't recall hearing as loudly of a theater audience moan in disgust when Strickland rips off his necrotized fingers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2018 15:38
|
|
|
DeafNote posted:The creature was fine with the cats later. It just ate poor Pandora (who happens to have the same name as one of my old cats, so that was weird as well as shocking) In this scene, one of the cats notices the camera and wanders over to sniff the corner or the camera. And since it's in the bottom left corner of the shot, it gets all distorted. In a film full of unironically great shots, it's ironically the greatest.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2018 17:35
|
|
|
Wait, there are people who seriously think that eliza raped the fish man? The hell?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2018 21:10
|
|
|
DeadFatDuckFat posted:Wait, there are people who seriously think that eliza raped the fish man? The hell? i mean... a fish person that's incapable of human communication doesn't really have any way of showing consent, so it's not that big a stretch  e: like, it's clearly not what the movie wants you to take away, but i don't think that makes it wrong
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2018 21:36
|
|
|
LORD OF BOOTY posted:i mean... a fish person that's incapable of human communication doesn't really have any way of showing consent, so it's not that big a stretch He repeatedly, passionately embraces her. So, he does.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2018 22:51
|
|
|
Egbert Souse posted:Only Giles and Zelda understand her and it's probably just because she's around them the most. And Giles clearly has to slow down to understand and Zelda doesn't know everything Elisa signs. Giles has motivation to be fluent because Elisa is really his only friend and Zelda is around her eight hours a day/night. Any other characters seem to only be guessing. Exactly, they understand what she signs but they don't ever sign themselves. I think this is kind of weak. Understanding sign language is much harder than producing it, so why wouldn't they sign themselves? It seem so very jarring and to be honest it's a missed chance: Why not have the characters use sign language as a secret mode of communication? They could've even used that with the surveillance cameras.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2018 23:11
|
|
|
The only ways that I can think of it as nonconsensual are if 1. A bestiality kind of thing 2. A quid pro quo "I freed you from captivity therefore you must sex me now" 3. A pedophilia statutory rape kinda thing? The first seems irrelevant because the film emphasizes strongly that fish man is not just some normal dumb animal, but is genuinely intelligent. He begins learning sign language from Eliza no? 2 doesn't seem right because Eliza is not really shown to be the manipulative type at all. 3 I have no idea. Fish man is probably loving ancient.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2018 23:17
|
|
|
He mimics one sign that he sees Eliza make. Whether this is an attempt at intelligent communication or not is deliberately ambiguous.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2018 03:19
|
|
|
Just let Gill Man gently caress. Zwille posted:Exactly, they understand what she signs but they don't ever sign themselves. I think this is kind of weak. Understanding sign language is much harder than producing it, so why wouldn't they sign themselves? It seem so very jarring and to be honest it's a missed chance: Why not have the characters use sign language as a secret mode of communication? They could've even used that with the surveillance cameras. Maybe someone who's been around mute people have some insight into this? Elisa was probably taught ASL from an early age, but I don't get why others would need to use sign language with her since she is able to hear fine. Isn't that the point of the scene between her and Giles having him repeat everything to show he understands? I'd imagine Del Toro and Hawkins did plenty of research, so maybe that's normal.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2018 03:22
|
|
|
I do wish there had been a couple of scenes of the fish dude leaving a gift/art for Elisa or like, dancing for her in the water or something to show his personality. I dunno, maybe with the hand-healing, let it have some telepathic empathy transference or something to give him more communication skills. He's a bit one-dimensional as-is. Other than that, I don't have any other problem and think it's a very solid film.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2018 04:27
|
|
|
Well, Del Toro just won Best Director. That doesn't automatically mean Best Picture is a lock, but more often than not, the Best Director directed the Best Picture.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2018 05:28
|
|
|
BEST PICTURE
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2018 06:04
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:Though the creature is also at least partly green. Late reply as I only saw the movie last night after being cooped up for two months with a broken ankle, but Del Toro mentioned on Twitter recently that there's no green on the creature. Just layers of blacks, blues, and metallics. I don't think anyone mentioned how Shannon fishhooked the doctor towards the end. Not my favourite Del Toro but I liked it a lot and as usual it was a feast for the eyes. Glad to see him getting some recognition too, apparently!
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2018 06:33
|
|
|
I still rate The Devil's Backbone as his best but like Scorsese I'm glad for these directors to get recognized with wins regardless of which movie the Academy finally clues in on
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2018 06:37
|
|
|
Punkin Spunkin posted:I still rate The Devil's Backbone as his best but like Scorsese I'm glad for these directors to get recognized with wins regardless of which movie the Academy finally clues in on I feel like that’s what happened with Retun of the King. And Shape is waaay ahead of Return. Hell, Fellowship is better than Return.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2018 06:59
|
|
|
Punkin Spunkin posted:I still rate The Devil's Backbone as his best but like Scorsese I'm glad for these directors to get recognized with wins regardless of which movie the Academy finally clues in on Funny way to spell 'Blade 2"
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2018 07:03
|
|
|
This is also the first time any kind of "monster movie" has won Best Picture, so that's cool. (And I think it's only the second fantasy film after RotK?)
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2018 07:43
|
|
|
Pick posted:Well okay, but if that's true then the commonly perceived message is a complete load because a woman and her gay friend save a fish and she delusionally rapes it while it goes around killing whatever seems to be small and made of meat. Though that's not an inherently unworkable premise as such, it would be stating that the cattle-prod status quo was actually Correct and Good. If that's what the film really wanted to say, I can't say it succeeded there either. There're gradations between something being an entity with the awareness and capabilities of a fully able adult human and being a thing worthy of being tortured and vivisected. On second viewing it's pretty clear that it's a sentient creature that shows affection for Eliza but certainly doesn't have the same cognitive capabilities as a human and probably wouldn't be considered capable of consenting. quote:Looking at Elisa having sex with Gill Man as non-consentual misses the point of the film. For all intents and purposes, Gill Man is another flavor of human being, just from a different evolutionary path. Again, if you actually read his actions, the fishman is not presented as being "another flavour of human being;" he's clearly not fully aware of what's going on, or even capable of communicating more than basic ideas. But whether fishman consented or not is kind of beside the point, I think. This movie is all about characters and relationships being more than what they first appear to be. Superficially we can celebrate Eliza and the fishman connecting as two outsiders, but when you actually scratch below the surface the dynamics are not nearly as pat and satisfying as they at first appear. The real point I think the movie makes -- whether advertently or inadvertently -- is that Eliza objectifies the fishman in the same way that Michael Shannon objectifies her, or even that her neighbour objectifies the server at the pie place: the other is a blank canvas onto which they can project their fantasies. Just like this movie is an aesthetically pleasing romantic fairy tale onto which the viewing audience can project their fantasies of seeing justice prevail and the downtrodden getting their comeuppance... MeinPanzer fucked around with this message at 08:34 on Mar 5, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2018 08:31
|
|
|
MeinPanzer posted:Just like this movie is an aesthetically pleasing romantic fairy tale onto which the viewing audience can project their fantasies of seeing justice prevail and the downtrodden getting their comeuppance... I like that interpretation though I think it's giving the film too much credit. Egbert Souse posted:Maybe someone who's been around mute people have some insight into this? Elisa was probably taught ASL from an early age, but I don't get why others would need to use sign language with her since she is able to hear fine. Isn't that the point of the scene between her and Giles having him repeat everything to show he understands? As someone who's been deaf his whole life and has known a ton of deaf people, maybe it's just that this combination is super loving weird. I haven't ever heard of anyone using sign language because they couldn't speak, though yeah it's not out of the realm of possibility. Usually sign language is used so deaf people can understand and not the other way round. Ehh. Anyhow, the "eggs?" thing reminded me of the controversy about sign language in ape research. Some scientists said that apes don't really understand the sign language they use in research and that it's just a glorified skinner box, essentially the ape going "if I make this motion I get food/pets/attention" and not comprehending anything beyond that. Now imagine the same film but with a gorilla instead of Fish Man.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2018 08:58
|
|
|
Zwille posted:I like that interpretation though I think it's giving the film too much credit. Justice does prevail in this movie. The downtrodden do get to hit back at those who down-tread them. That's what happens.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2018 09:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 30, 2024 08:27 |
|
|
Zwille posted:I like that interpretation though I think it's giving the film too much credit. Again, just to be clear, I don't think this needs to have been the intention of Del Toro, though I think that there's enough there to suggest that he did intend for this to be taken as more than just a quirky romance. I mean, the whole thing is framed as a story told by one of the characters who assumes that the audience will doubt the accuracy of what he is saying. quote:Anyhow, the "eggs?" thing reminded me of the controversy about sign language in ape research. Some scientists said that apes don't really understand the sign language they use in research and that it's just a glorified skinner box, essentially the ape going "if I make this motion I get food/pets/attention" and not comprehending anything beyond that. Now imagine the same film but with a gorilla instead of Fish Man. This is exactly the point I was thinking of also. Chimpanzees or gorillas could probably exhibit the same range of emotion and cognition as the fishman, but we would rightly see anyone who had a sexual relationship with a great ape because they were convinced that they had a true, meaningful connection with them as seriously deluded.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2018 09:47
|
|