I’m saying though that I reject the notion that, to the viewer, the Beast in B&tB is particularly monstrous or hideous. We’re informed that he is as the premise but the presentation doesn’t hold up. Just as the Avatar cat-chick whose name I can’t be bothered to look up is portrayed as traditionally feminine, the Beast is portrayed as typically masculine. Even their bestial components play into that with the Avatar girl being lithe and cat-like and the leonine Beast being powerful and carrying an aura of nobility. So when examples are rejected because the female isn’t monstrous enough, it doesn’t carry weight against the primary example of the B&tB stereotype.
Penelope, despite being a romantic comedy, actually does a better job of this than the Beast does since there’s little positive implications of a pig snout. No one looks at that and thinks “Sure, those porcine features reflect her typically feminine… uh… intelligence? Pigs are smart, right? Penchant for cannibalism?” It’s just a straight-up unattractive bestial feature on her.
I was thinking just a few days ago how this is no Beauty and the Beast, in the sense that the woman is no Beauty at all. This to me was a horror movie disguised as a fairytale. But I could see why many would draw comparisons.
Stephen Sondheim’s Passion (musical) has a handsome man fall in love with an ugly woman. It is apparently based on a movie that is based on a novel. I saw it, but I don’t remember it that well.
I haven’t seen it but I don’t think that would qualify. For one thing, both characters are human beings.
Incidentally, from other descriptions I’ve read of the play, doesn’t the woman somehow manipulate the man into marrying her even though he’s not attracted to her? Also, I recall reading reviews saying that even with make-up and a fat suit, the actress who played the woman was still attractive enough for her “ugliness” to be an informed attribute.
A straight-up genderflipped version of The Shape of Water is unlikely, not least because there is a strong aversion to making sympathetic / romantically viable female characters truly unattractive just in general (as previously noted by a couple of posters). In fact, I suspect that this is a stronger contributor than the “men are only after sex so he must be a real loser to be interested in that ugly chick” angle.
Uh, I agree that Disney picked a design that would not be overly off-putting, but unless you are a furry the whole “has an animal head and is covered in hair” thing kind of overrides “masculine” in terms of physical attractiveness. If you offered women a choice between “romantic partner who is very masculine but ugly” vs. “romantic partner who is smoking hot but not very butch”, all else being equal the majority are going to go for #2.* (This also goes for the “well, the fish-guy is totally buff” comments - muscles aren’t enough to compensate for the rest of him.**)
Yeah, but in both of those the woman doesn’t stay unattractive. Which is also true for Beauty and the Beast, but not for The Shape of Water.
Conversely, a lot of gay men seem to value masculinity per se to the point that they might respond differently.
** Guillermo del Toro may think fish-guy is hot, but Guillermo del Toro is weird.
The fish-man (“Charlie,” they called him on-set, I read) had a definite alien beauty. Consider the lights; consider the physique. I definitely thought we were supposed to find him lovely, and should be able to understand why she found him attractive.
Also, I’m a straight guy and everything, but fish guy is hot. If I had to choose between world peace and a rig like that, the rest of you would be fighting in the ruins.
As I mentioned previously, the reason this is largely true is because men rather than women have a greater reputation for being shallow superficial jerks. That’s why an effective gender-flipped version of the story would have to be a comedy that would satirize and lampoon sexist male attitudes and gender stereotypes.
This site that I stumbled across a few days ago has the interpretation that the print is a parody based on a pun.
Anyone know enough Japanese to support/debunk the pun angle?
Either way, here is a translation of the text. The next time you are in the proper moment, you must say “your bobo is ripe and full, how wonderful!” I dare you.
The closest movie I can think of to a gender-flipped Beauty and the Beast story is indeed a comedy: Shallow Hal. It doesn’t fit your specifications because the woman (Rosemary) is a human. She’s morbidly obese, but not horribly disfigured or anything. Interestingly, Shallow Hal also flips the effect of the magic spell – instead of a curse that makes an attractive human look monstrous, Hal is “cursed” with the ability to see inner beauty as outer beauty and believes that a good-hearted fat woman looks like Gwyneth Paltrow.
I don’t think Shallow Hal is a very good movie, mostly because it’s preaching a message about not judging people by their looks but is full of fat jokes at Rosemary’s expense. However, in fairness the ending of the fairy tale Beauty and the Beast also undermines its own moral. As soon as Beauty is able to look past the Beast’s appearance and love him anyway, he turns into a handsome prince. In Shallow Hal, Hal loses his ability to see inner beauty but realizes he still loves Rosemary even though she doesn’t look like a Hollywood starlet to him anymore.
My Japanese isn’t very good, and if there’s really a specific term in Japanese for “octopus penis” I figure it’s probably for the best that I never had cause to learn it. However, the Japanese word for “octopus” is “tako”. A quick look at Wiktionary indicates that “inkyo” means “retirement”, although there are a lot of homophones in Japanese so there might be a similar-sounding word with a smutty meaning.
All this is only true if you left the movie believing “he’s a completely different species”. If you left understanding that Elisa Esposito is in fact an Amphibian Woman on the more humanoid end of the spectrum (which explains both her loneliness, and the necessity of the balancing act that allows the viewer to see the Amphibian Man as alien yet plausibly attractive,) then the movie becomes a very profound and powerful rejection of gay/straight and black/white dichotomies. I realize this interpretation makes a lot of what is discussed in this thread moot, but I believe it is correct.
I agree with what you said in that spoiler, and I think a lot of critics missed this point.
Yeah, I’m a hetero cis male, so I was not entirely sure how to interpret the sex scene. But more than one hetero cis female critic has said the scene was “hot” or “erotic”, so I think you’re right.
Which is pretty wild when you consider not only how alien his face looks, but the fact that somewhere around the same time, he had been chewing on a cat’s head!
It’s often said that there is more fluidity to women’s sexuality; this would appear to be a particularly stark illustration of that. Yet at the same time, women are also thought to be more sexually choosy for obvious evolutionary psychology reasons. And I do think if it were a straight man and a female creature, it would be seen as an example of a man being desperate and willing to fuck anything that moves.