The Shape of Water

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Cinema Discusso > The Shape of Water

Timeless Appeal: May 28, 2006

HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:

This is exactly my take on it. The fishman doesn't really have a character.

I think that's sort of a tension of the film though, if Elisa is right in what she's seeing in him. Even Giles, who is sympathetic and forgiving of the creature, doesn't see him as a person. Even Elisa's song to a degree is her assuming that the creature can never truly understand her emotions for him which is proven wrong by the end of the film. I think there are moves the movie could have made to give him more personality, but that would just deflate the tension of if this creature truly is a person. I think it's also hard to give the creature a personality in a traditional sense without having him operate sort of on the same plane as a human being which he isn't. Strickland is right at the end of film, the creature is a god. That parallels Elisa basically being a genius (Her musical talents, her ability to easily stage a mostly successful heist), but disregarded because of what makes her different. I think for those themes it's important for the creature to never really be comfortable or able to fully exist in human terms. Because the end of the movie isn't really about general acceptance. It's about love between two outsiders elevating those outsiders from the poo poo and hatred they've faced. It's why we're not able to see those lithe and beautiful movements of the creature till the very end.

Also, weird out there thing I noticed: Strickland is modeled after Ronald Reagan. Really. The "You can tell a lot about about a fella's character..." spiel is directly from a similar Reagan quote about jellybeans. Strickland literally says, "There you go again." There is another reference to Reagan's love of simple candies like jelly beans. My theory is the conception of Strickland is that he's a protagonist from another movie. Another film exists that shows him braving the Amazon and conquering the creature. We're just seeing the continuation of that stock B-Movie where Stickland is played by Reagan.

# ¿ Jan 7, 2018 14:28

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 21, 2024 10:05

Timeless Appeal: May 28, 2006

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

Timeless Appeal: May 28, 2006

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.

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.

I dunno, I think that's a bit of a narrow view of what being a god means. The line is calling back to previous comments about how the natives viewed the creature as a god. Strickland dismisses them because they are non-white and "uncivilized" people, but assuming the natives know about the healing powers, it makes the Americans and Russians look asinine. They're impressed by the fact that the thing can breathe under water, and literally have no idea what they're dealing with. The natives who Strickland looked down upon had essentially discovered a cure for all ailments, but they don't align with what Strickland sees as civilization. I get the argument that Strickland's use of the word god might be imprecise and the creature is an emotional being, but I do think validating the natives is an important beat for the themes of the film.

# ¿ Jan 25, 2018 17:26

Timeless Appeal: May 28, 2006

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

Timeless Appeal: May 28, 2006

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.

Yes, but there is more going on in the song than her wanting a voice. One of the first things we see from Eliza is her doing a complicated dance move on her first try. The song isn't just a desire to speak, but a desire to express and fulfill her potential. But the bigger thing is the lyrics of the song. The implication is that Eliza does really doubt if the creature can fully understand her feelings for him. That I think is proven wrong by the film's end, and that's important: Eliza is wrong. She's wrong in doubting the creature and she's wrong in seeing herself as incomplete for her lack of voice.

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

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Cinema Discusso > The Shape of Water