Sally Hawkins, Richard Jenkins and Michael Shannon are three of my favorites and I really wanted to like this film more. It definitely kept my attention and I was invested in it as I watched it, but ultimately it was a throwback, the villian was two-dimensional, it was an exercise in recreating period stuff, etc.
What did click was the sexuality/realism of the Cinderella character. It reminded me of Enchanted where they had Amy Adams caress Patrick Dempsey and look interested sexually – like they had to establish that she had her own urges before having her go past a chaste kiss with her twoo wuv, or it would seem like he was being icky with someone pure.
Just got back from seeing this. Enjoyed it, thought it was really interesting. The one thing that bothered me about it, however, was already mentioned above:
At it’s heart, this was a wonderful romantic story, but I thought it was weak on the actual romance. What was their bond? I didn’t complete buy that.
Still, incredibly well done otherwise, beautiful, and tremendous acting. I’ve got it ranked 5th on my list of Best Pictures nominees that I’ve seen so far (out of 6), but that’s not a knock on “Shape” at all.
I think their bond was that both of them were outsiders. Elisa was terribly lonely and frustrated, both sexually and socially. The creature (did it have a name?) had nothing in common with the people who had trapped and tortured it. Each found acceptance in the other. And, of course, the creature was grateful to Elisa.
I think part of my struggle was that we saw very little communication between them. Directly, we only saw evidence that he had learned, what, maybe five words of sign language? Though I acknowledge that they communicated through music and other means. I think what struck me the most was that, during the fantasy sequence where you can clearly see how “in love” she is with him, he is shown to have not even been paying attention to her at all, instead being totally engrossed in his food (am I recalling that correctly?).
It seemed more to me like she was infatuated with him, and that he was grateful for her caring and tenderness. I never felt like there was mutual attraction and love. But this was obviously not a problem for most people who saw the film, and I again don’t want to make it sound like I didn’t enjoy the film.
There’s textual evidence against that (although it’s implied, not explicit):
Elisa was a baby found by the river who just happened to have scars where the gills on this aquatic man are? I think we’re supposed to take away from that Elisa may not have been born a land-dweller.
Elisa was a baby found by the river who just happened to have scars where the gills on this aquatic man are? I think we’re supposed to take away from that Elisa may not have been born a land-dweller.
[/QUOTE]
Thank you, even people who loved the film disagree with me on this. Even people who are aware of Del Toro’s well-publicized thwarted (? :D) wish to make a film within the Lovecraftian mythos.
Asimovian, I think you’re asking for something that’s it’s very hard for a feature-length movie to supply. Unless a movie is about a long period of time, it often seems that the couple fall in love too fast. A rare feature-length film that is able to show the couple taking their time is When Harry Met Sally, where the couple meet, five years pass, they meet again when they have started relationships with other people, five more years pass, they meet again after those relationships have ended, they become friends for a year, and then - finally - they fall in love. The history of a relationship is really more suited to a miniseries or a TV series than a feature-length film.
I don’t really think it would have taken more than a few seconds. All I would have liked to have seen was a little more sign language between them to indicate that there had been more depth to their conversations over their time together than “you,” “me,” “together,” “music” and “eggs.” Though I admit that I now don’t remember how much time was supposed to have passed between the day they got him out of the lab and the day they went to the docks. Was it a month?
I don’t think we’re supposed to see it as a deeply, emotionally mature, meeting-of-the-minds relationship between equals. It’s a bit lust, a bit caretaker, a bit exoticization/fetishizing, a bit trapped-in-this-together. Okay, a lot lust, but you get the idea.
With that messed up but super romantic brew, I thought their relationship made a lot of sense.
I saw this yesterday and really enjoyed it. Beautiful to look at. An interesting snapshot of people on the fringes of society in the 60s. Glad I caught it in a theater before it left.
I was surprised, going in already knowing it won Best Picture, by how much I loved this movie. Just so well done.
It’s not my favorite film of 2017—I ranked both “Loving Vincent” and “Blade Runner 2049” higher—but it is my favorite of the films nominated for Best Picture. (So far: I still want to see “Three Billboards”, both because it was said to be a top contender for the Oscar, and because I’m curious to see which side of its polarizing reception I land on. But that will likely be the last of the nominees I end up seeing, as I have no plans to see “The Post”, “Darkest Hour”, or “Call Me by Your Name”.)
I came out of the theater thinking “E.T. meets Amelie”. (Now I see snoe had a similar thought.) I understand Jeunet has his nose bent out of joint; but del Toro made a good counterpoint that Gilliam is the antecedent for both. In any case, I love the sort of steampunk aesthetic, regardless of its provenance.
Yeah, that was really the one part of the movie I had a lot of trouble with. Not only is there of the issue of where the water goes, but there’s no way that structure would have handled the weight. They should have had her sneak him into a swimming pool or something.
A lot of people have been saying the characters are very similar. But I actually think that’s a little unfair to his BE character, who was ultimately not just a one-note baddie. (I was fine with him having less here in the way of shades of grey because it is a movie and not a TV show.)
I agree with wevets and eunoia about Elisa’s implied background. I was really surprised hiw many critics missed this. They say they don’t like it when movies spell everything out explicitly, spoonfeeding the audience; but then something like this is a deal you have to read between the lines, and they’re totally oblivious.
Agreed. It seemed like an obvious connection that was put out there.
I enjoyed it a lot. I can’t see, however, how it got an Oscar over other movies. It’s a simple, simple story with great visuals. Yay. But clearly Lady Bird, Get Out and 3 Billboards split the vote for smaller thoughtful movies and Shape rose up.
I still plan to see “Three Billboards”, so I can’t comment on that one. But I just can’t see “Lady Bird” or “Get Out” as deserving. And it’s not because I can’t handle smaller movies, or those that are female- or black-centric: I loved “Frances Ha”, starring Greta Gerwig, the director of “Lady Bird”; and last year’s “Moonlight” was, I thought, very deserving of its Oscar. (If “Shape of Water” had to compete in the same year, I would definitely be for “Moonlight” all the way.) And one of my top ten movies of all time is a very small film called “Wendy and Lucy”, starring Michelle Williams and directed by Kelly Reichardt.
I just didn’t think “Lady Bird” or “Get Out” rose to that kind of level. If anything, I think they served as placeholders for those sorts of movies, due to there not being any truly exceptional such films released in 2017.
Technically it’s not, though. Her friend said she was abandoned in the river by someone who cut her vocal cords, leaving those scars. It’s “between the lines” to come to understand that this was an inaccurate surmisal of what happened. No one in the movie ever says “Wait, now I know what REALLY happened to you as a baby!”
My disclaimer: I saw this on the plane and I might have missed a part??
I wanted to love this movie. At the onset, it reminded me very much of Amelie/city of lost children meets the creature of the Black Lagoon. After watching it, it seemed like a low-rent version of Amelie/CoLC. It didn’t have any of Jeunet’s charm.
One of my biggest problems was this:
I didn’t get it either. It seemed forced and out of the blue. She meets him once or twice and is now madly in love? I’m not buying the “not enough time, it’s a movie”. Movies do this all the time. I would have invested the time in exploring their relationship than the pie scenes.
Bah. I wanted to love this, but was really disappointed.
Sometimes people get together and fuck, without a lot of emotional backstory behind it. A lot of times, actually. I’m don’t really get the love for this movie but that part doesn’t bother me at all.
Aha! I’ve been wondering what aesthetic the movie’s scenery reminded me of - and you’re totally right, it was The City of Lost Children. Thanks, Bad News Baboon!
Hated it. As soon as I saw the main character and this is mean to say was a deaf mute, I knew I was in for a long night. SPOILERS:
.
.
.
.
.
This was a very dangerous creature in a top secret facility with the Russians trying to steal it YET the cleaning lady had unfettered access to it?
It never occurred to Michael Shannon’s character to simply visit every lab employees home to see if they were hiding the creature?
Don’t even get me started with the dead mute fucking the creature, and the fact the bathroom would have exploded last by before being completely underwater.
