thread to discuss Guillermo del Toro's THE SHAPE OF WATER

The musical was beautiful but it was completely antithetical to the whole premise of the movie: that this mute woman can be a person without speech. That the climax of her love has to be/can only be expressed in an imagined vocal performance undermines her humanity as a mute person. We can only understand her/relate to her in an imagined/impossible scenario that is the exact opposite of what she actually is. As ridiculous as an interracial love story ending with a fantasy number of one party turning white or that swamp thing turning human. It was a cop out for me.

Much too saccharine and corny a love story for me and the obvious identity politics of all the disenfranchised characters rallying together against the evil straight white cis male military guy (the most interesting character of them all despite his flatness) was a bit much for me. But beautifully shot (the overflowing tub/underwater sex) and the production was super stylish.

It would've been better if Michael Shannon just used his Kim Fowley character in the movie.

favorite thing about the movie: its fascination and disgust with the color green

But I couldn't get past a lot of violence in the movie. I never got over the dead cat, and Shannon is so unnecessarily sadistic he seemed pumped in from a different film (or Boardwalk Empire, since he was playing almost the exact same character, and his character was the worst thing about that show)

The sadism, yes, was revolting and unnecessary.

dead cat bummed me out :\

I didn't realize there were two cats so was super confused when the cat was suddenly alive.

I was also confused about what aquadong did with the eggs.

things that would have caused the MPAA to require a harsher rating

Just read this film as "Amelie on PCP" and you'll have more fun

The sadism, yes, was revolting and unnecessary.

― morning wood truancy (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, January 29, 2018 10:38 AM (four hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

The nudity and bean-flicking and fish-fucking was unnecessary too, tbh. You could have 100% told this story in a PG movie

no way, i thought the way they portrayed masturbation and female sexuality as everyday / part of her daily routine was refreshing. also by the time that she has sex with the monster you totally buy into it, it's not ridiculous at all, at least imo. it was still a very sweet and moving love story that included sexuality and wasn't 'obscene' or particularly graphic. i thought that was really important and cool.

Cosign. Why does nudity terrify people? Hollywood could do with some more sex positivity like this.

At least in this case it was used for character exposition, so not gratuitous imo

Yerac obviously a cat-hater irl, to not notice the wide range of felines adorning Jenkins' apartment

The sadism, yes, was revolting and unnecessary.

― morning wood truancy (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, January 29, 2018 9:38 AM (six hours ago) Bookmark

this was my mom's complaint
she found his sex scene gross and ott
she never ever swears and she said totally calmly "i did not want to see his ass"
i kinda feel the same way tbh but it didn't bother me enough to remember the scene tbh

the sex scenes between the main characters were generally lovely and at least significantly charged with more feeling than your average hollywood depiction of sex
it was loving
whatever!

someone else said upthread but my only issue w/ the sex-scene was the disregard for the people downstairs lol

I didn't mind the sex! At all! Or the nudity. The violence + Shannon bothered me.

alfred i know -- i drifted from one topic to the other in my post, it was confusing

i don't know why the world needs a PG love story when it can have an R rated one
we only spend so much of our time on earth under parental guidance and have the rest of our lives to watch movies made for adults

should i see paddington 2 on the basis of this?

I watched Paddington 1 last night and the Shape Of Water parallels were lol to me

They spent 3 years on that ass. Tell your mom to have some respect

I guess I found the violence "unnecessary" while appreciating that GDT is still beholden to his pulp forbears and proud of it

pulp for Bears?

water bears, maybe

Michael Shannon spent 3 years on his own ass?

oh, I misread you. Michael Shannon must have spent at least forty though. So if you think about it, it's even more disrespectful

I super don't know how I missed all the cats. I was confused by his hairpiece too, but granted I was distracted during the movie (aka drunk).

the hairpiece WAS the dead cat, duh

Michael Shannon is the.same.guy.in.just.about.every.film. .. Except for that brief moment in "Groundhog Day" where you actually see him laugh.

Whoa that was unintentional text formatting there!

You know the scene in Sullivan's Travels where everyone goes nutso with laughter at a Mickey Mouse cartoon? Every time I watch it, I wonder if people really thought Mickey was all that funny. I ask myself: were people more naive? more susceptible to pratfalls? less inured to the cadences of screen comedy? more certain of the social contracts around public laughter? how big of a factor was novelty? why did they love that silliness so much?

Or maybe Preston Sturges was just trying to prove a point. Now, I love Mickey Mouse (even if he's not laugh-out-loud funny), but I've got to admit a much greater fan on a (semi-)detached critical level than on an emotionally-invested one. And I feel the same way about James Whale films, and about the Universal horror / sci-fi flicks. I enjoy them so, so, much, but there's not a moment of fear or surprise in them. Not to an adult in 2018. But that doesn't touch my love them for their craft, artistry, rickety sets, occasional technical gimcrackery, etc. ... And it doesn't touch the fact that I'll rewatch some of them three times a year, and adore every frame.

But sometimes I wish I could watch a Mickey Mouse cartoon in the 1930s, or sit as a teenager in the 1940s and leap out of my chair when Lugosi lumbers out of the shadows. I *think* that's the experience that GDT was trying to create in Shape of Water – a sultry dames! weird monsters! crooked commies! mid-century pulp with the volume turned high enough provoke the same (or equivalent) emotional effect in a 2018 audience as it would in the era in which it takes place.

(which is a long way to say that the sadism/romance/OTT creepy Shannoning worked towards my appreciation of the film instead of against it)

good posts

Except for that brief moment in "Groundhog Day" where you actually see him laugh.

― Acid Hose (Capitaine Jay Vee)

it always stops me in my tracks when i'm reminded that michael shannon is in groundhog day

russian spy stuff was A+

But sometimes I wish I could watch a Mickey Mouse cartoon in the 1930s, or sit as a teenager in the 1940s and leap out of my chair when Lugosi lumbers out of the shadows. I *think* that's the experience that GDT was trying to create in Shape of Water – a sultry dames! weird monsters! crooked commies! mid-century pulp with the volume turned high enough provoke the same (or equivalent) emotional effect in a 2018 audience as it would in the era in which it takes place.

Man I really wish this movie had been more like that. I’m about as in the tank (pun fully intended) as it gets for the sort of OTT pulpy vibe you describe.

I thought this was pretty good, even if it did remind me at times a little too much of "Amelie," and even if its themes fell just shy of coherent. But I love Guillermo del Toro in general, and find his career fascinating. He's always linked to these projects he has no business pursuing (like a remake of Frankenstein or an over-ambitious Lovecraft adaptation) and you start to feel a little bad for him, like he can't catch a break or get work, and then bam, out of nowhere comes something like Pacific Rim or Crimson Peak - both flawed but worth seeing, especially the latter - or some oddball hybrid like this one.

The violence in this, fwiw, is very much of a piece with that in "Pan's Labyrinth," and as far as I can remember no one complained about the blood and gore and sadism in that one. Maybe it was more necessary, being a movie in part about war and fascism? Anyway, this movie totally could have been told as PG-13 or PG, but I think the decision to go R helped keep it from being too whimsical and precious. (People forget, maybe, that "Amelia" was rated R, too, though of course that didn't keep that movie from being too whimsical and precious.)

Year ago I interviewed Del Toro, over the phone, and he was as charming and generous and smart and energetic as you've heard. An hour or so after the phone call, when I was making dinner, I get a call, and it's Del Toro wanting to talk some more!

I’d kill for that phone call

That does sound amazing.

that's so sweet!

>The violence in this, fwiw, is very much of a piece with that in "Pan's Labyrinth,"

he seems to have a reoccurring thing for injuring people's mouth/cheek area.

Great story JiC!

fwiw i hated the violence in Pan's Labyrinth. that scene where he destroy's the man's face with a beer bottle is the reason i haven't seen any GDT since. i don't trust his films.

Crimson Peak is also super violent. I was surprised, since it seemed like a pretty harmless old fashioned ghost story.

he doesn't deploy violence cheaply, he wants it to disturb you because it's disturbing to be violent. Compare to the refreshing lack of onscreen civilian death in Pacific Rim. They knock down a bunch of Hong Kong but everyone is safely underground.

I just googled the Amelie comparison and am laughing about how many people have brought it up. I thought I had made some weird parallel and after JIC I guess it's pretty obvious.

Yeah, I had no idea before I saw it (I avoided most reviews and this thread) but the parallels are unavoidable, from the lead to the color scheme.

The best Michael Shannon film btw may remain the under-seen and underrated Premium Rush, which I've seen described as a human roadrunner/coyote move. My guitar teacher backed him up a couple of years back doing a set of Smiths covers (he sang; he did a night of Dylan covers more recently).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1wYOmXCJmI

otm, Premium Rush owns

(or Boardwalk Empire, since he was playing almost the exact same character, and his character was the worst thing about that show)

― Evan R, Monday, January 29, 2018 3:36 PM

I never imagined anyone would feel this way. He was terrific fun in that.

Disney wanted to make Pan's Labyrinth but he wouldn't remove the violence for them.

Jesus this blew me away

Masterpiece imo