|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 07:51 |
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|