The Shape of Water (Guillermo del Toro)

[Henry Gale]

IMDb (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5580390/) / Wiki (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shape_of_Water_(film))

http://arrestedmotion.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/The-Shape-of-Water-Poster-by-James-Jean.jpg

[Mal]

Everything is in the trailer and the conflict subplot isn't interesting. Despite Richard Jenkins and the creature design being great, I cannot recommend this.

[Henry Gale]

Saw this on Monday at TIFF, with Guillermo, his cast, and much of his crew unveiling it in the very theatre segments of it were shot, in the city he now looks to as a second home, showering his team and the city at large with endless genuine admiration, which was fairly lovely and moving enough in and of itself. And then the movie started.

I'm still not sure exactly how to articulate my feelings towards it since even days later, trying to talk about it makes a bit overwhelmed by the physical swell of emotion it finds a way to warmly reverberates through me. It's simultaneously so fresh and inventive as a story, while feeling like something you're shocked Del Toro has somehow never made before.

If and when this becomes an awards frontrunner, I'll love the fact that for all its prestige and beauty, it's also such a fundamentally weird, gnarly, gory, creature feature underneath it all. I'll be shocked if it isn't announced as the festival's People's Choice winner tomorrow (in which case I'll hopefully be seeing it again at said screening) and not just because it's such a Toronto movie, but because it's such an immensely beautiful and entertaining piece of work that just happens to also contain elements overtly dealing with The Power of Cinema™ in ways that, in addition to the outsider nature of all of its main, good characters, speaks to the inclusivity and freedom that the medium can offer at large.

It's just excellently crafted through and through, and deeply affecting, often with such simple, delicate gestures. There's a shot of Hawkins moving her finger with raindrops on the window of her bus that inexplicably just about made me bawl. I mean, look, I've held all of his films he's made since Pan's Labyrinth in their own high regards, but there's still no question this is his uniformly finest film since. I love it so. (Which means I now dread its inevitable backlash for being positioned as such a critical/audience/awards darling!)

[Henry Gale]

Everything is in the trailer and the conflict subplot isn't interesting. Despite Richard Jenkins and the creature design being great, I cannot recommend this.

Hahaha, the perfect coincidence of you posting this as I unknowingly typed my post, both effusive and fearful that it was bound to turn at any second.

[Grouchy]

This was very good, and I love Del Toro (Crimson Peak is an absolute classic), but I think his taste for overt sentimentality is a bit much for me at times. I also don't like that his villains seem to have every bad attribute he can think of - this is something I've disliked about this type of antagonist since Devil's Backbone. It's not enough that he's a violent racist, he also has to be a chauvinist at home. It would have been more interesting for me if he was a good family man who took his violent tendencies outside.

[Ivan Drago]

If and when this becomes an awards frontrunner, I'll love the fact that for all its prestige and beauty, it's also such a fundamentally weird, gnarly, gory, creature feature underneath it all.

This is an aspect of the film that I can't wait to see for myself. I've had to avert my eyes or get popcorn when I see the more violent trailers because they reveal too much. The only one I'll watch is the first one that sells the sci-fi/fantasy fairy tale side of the story, which looks absolutely beautiful. To read you gush about it only makes me more excited!

[number8]

938471025045536768

[baby doll]

It's alright. I mean, it certainly held my attention for all of its two hours, and Hawkins is great (of course), but the period details are never remotely convincing (every set feels like a set inspired by other recent movies set in the '60s), and I never believed that a woman--even a horny mute one--would fall in love with this sea monster. In contrast with Cocteau's La Belle et le bête (or E.T., for that matter), here the asset has a pretty limited emotional range; he's more akin to an abused gorilla with a limited grasp of ASL than Jean Marais.

[Henry Gale]

In other news I saw this again a couple weeks ago and enjoyed it very much again! Chills and tears for all the same bits.

A little, weird thing about it, which is maybe more about examining the gamut of how weird audiences find the romantic aspect of it, is that for all the talk I've seen in all sorts of outlets (from the more casual, vanilla all-around news to the more dedicated movie-only ones) of things along the lines of "Oh they really went there!!" with Eliza and the Asset's relationship, I honestly thought that, aside from Eliza's hand-made diagram to Zelda the morning after, that the movie keeps it pretty fairy tale-esque in its mythically quaint bestiality. And knowing how far these things have gone in movies over the years (even in say, the Del Toro executive produced Splice), when reading that sort of reaction between my viewings, I began to think I had maybe blocked out something more explicit than what the movie actually shows. But nope! It's literally just them naked (as the Asset always is) together in the shower before she pulls the curtain, cutting to her mood the following day,, letting the film leave it up to you to decide how much you want to picture it for yourself / question yourself.

I will say that I think it says a lot the movie's overall storytelling power that it has connected as much as it has with that kind of narrative content. As in, with it now being a big awards season player (which means more to me as "The Time of Year People See Stuff Just Because They Hear It's Good Not Because It Has Titles They Recognize"), it's seemingly destined to be the first Del Toro movie that your aunt or whoever might see. And I'm sure upon them telling you they saw it, they will tell you they thought it was "interesting", leaning on the emotion of that word like a bed of nails.

[Spinal]

This would make an excellent double feature with The Lure.

[Pop Trash]

This would make an excellent double feature with The Lure.

Wow. You've been in a good mood lately.

[Spinal]

Wow. You've been in a good mood lately.

Yeah, I absolutely adored this one. The main cast is uniformly excellent, with Hawkins and Shannon perfectly personifying goodness and cruelty. I've been working my way through Mad Men recently, so I was amused that it seemed to take place in about the same time period as the early seasons. Del Toro's design is gorgeous. It's a vivid, believable 1960's America with just a slight fairy tale twist. I'm someone who always rolls his eyes when King Kong movies try to sell me on a beauty and the beast kind of 'relationship'. But I totally bought into these two. Perhaps it's because del Toro convincingly communicates their needs and desires and illustrates how each character fulfills the other.

It's on par with Pan's Labyrinth in my opinion, or at least close.

[TGM]

This was a fine film, to be sure. Yet I can't help but feel like I wanted to like it a lot more than I actually did. :\

[Ivan Drago]

This was a fine film, to be sure. Yet I can't help but feel like I wanted to like it a lot more than I actually did. :\

Same here. The characters just came off as stock characters to me, especially Octavia Spencer as the sassy black friend and Michael Shannon's God-fearing 1950s purist villain. Other than that, I was captivated by everything about it, from the story and cinematography to the soundtrack and visual effects. It's Del Toro's love letter to cinema, and a beautiful film in its own right.

[dreamdead]

Not upper echelon for me, but engaging enough. The biggest problem to this film for me is how del Toro seems to give each of his main 1960s cultural issues about one or two lines of dialogue and then moves on:
there's the critique of Americans willing to look the other way and concentrate on pretty musicals rather than the reality of the civil rights marches;
there's the critique of how South Americans can, vis-a-vis the Asset, become Othered and be seen as less than human;
there's the quick movement away from the Asset killing Pandora to everyone forgiving him (even if this happens, it felt rushed and not delved into);
there's Zelda's husband, who quickly caves and gives the angry white man what he wants, but the film doesn't really reconcile this relationship between he and Zelda (especially if Eliza did "die") afterwards;
there likely needed to be one form of linguistic language from the Asset that didn't mimic Eliza's teachings, so that he can feel like less of a trainable pet;

I do like the look of the film well enough, and very much appreciate that the film's willing to embrace Eliza's sexuality far before her first contact with the Asset. In terms of a Beauty and the Beast story, it's a bit broadly drawn with Shannon's character, but del Toro has never been shy about appreciating broadness from his villains. And if the film had been willing to linger on the degree to which minorities are always the ones tasked with cleaning up messes, casting itself into other perspectives just a little more, it'd likely have worked for me more. It's hesitance to do so makes Zelda feel just a bit more one-note than she should.

[DavidSeven]

It's at times heavy handed and confused thematically (e.g., not sure how Stuhlbarg's character ruthlessly killing that innocent security guard comports with the film's messaging). But I have to appreciate a film that is so on top of its details otherwise. The performances are perfectly calibrated, and there is a consistency and fluidity to the film's visuals that feels very rhythmic and soothing. The craftsmanship, in several respects, is pretty awe-inspiring. Hawkins and Jenkins deliver performances that are so completely engrossing on screen that you can overlook some of the film's more unrefined thematic elements. Paired with the film's rich visuals, this makes for a very enjoyable 2-hour experience.

[Peng]

I hope the fact that I don’t do and care for Film Twitter-style hot takes will not make this sound like I’m being incendiary just for the sake of it, but here goes: I was feeling every bit of La La Land’s last-year criticisms (that I obviously don’t agree with (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?6488-La-La-Land-(Damian-Chazelle)&p=564617&viewfull=1#post564617)) during this. The reverent pastiches (without any of that one’s subversions), the overworked nostalgic charm (without that one’s ambition to update), and some "problematic" aspects, which I don’t exactly agree with this one either but am very surprised that it doesn’t get the same fiery reactions as La La Land in that department, since this really plays more into tropes -- I have seen mentions of Spencer’s character already, but I also nearly sigh at Jenkins’ arc, which is a throwback in the most tiresome way possible. And the merman never evolve into any real characterization, which may be the point, but that just renders the romance rather unconvincing, more like a one-sided infatuation with an object.

I mention an avalanche of objections first, just to say now that they are almost covered whole by Sally Hawkins’ performance, which radiates charm, hidden strength, and tender nuance into every simplistic turn of the story. Hawkins feels at home in every half-baked element and makes it better enough, whether tending to the creature, standing up fiercely to Shannon’s one-note villainy, or slipping into the too-short-to-register musical number. She and the production design really elevate the film to pleasantly watchable. But I have liked-to-loved all of del Toro’s films up to this point, so it’s disappointing that the film around her isn’t better (and bewildering that this is his breakthrough in term of awards attraction). 6.5/10

[Grouchy]

I think it's usually a rule of thumb that the movie that gets a director into Oscar territory is not going to be his finest work.

[Kirby Avondale]

Not upper echelon for me, but engaging enough. The biggest problem to this film for me is how del Toro seems to give each of his main 1960s cultural issues about one or two lines of dialogue and then moves on
And Guill sure did biff the order of the Birmingham march and the Cuban Missile Crisis. Boy, I bet he's red in the face.

[baby doll]

I think it's usually a rule of thumb that the movie that gets a director into Oscar territory is not going to be his finest work.Notable exceptions: John Ford (The Grapes of Wrath and How Green Was My Valley), Michael Curtiz (Casablanca), William Wyler (The Best Years of Our Lives), John Huston (The Treasure of the Sierra Madre), Michael Cimino (The Deer Hunter).

[Dead & Messed Up]

And it's extra tricky when you're the Coen Brothers and most of your work can be argued to be your best work.

[number8]

This is a perfectly fine monster movie with some Marvel Comics style metaphorical progressive posturing but my issue is that it presents first and foremost as a love story and I found it woefully unromantic. The relationship is very boring even as a fairy tale romance. Beauty and the Beast put in more work in the lead couple.

[Irish]

Jean-Pierre Jeunet accuses Guillermo Del Toro of stealing from 'Delicatessen' in 'The Shape Of Water' (https://theplaylist.net/delicatessen-shape-water-20180206)

Hmm.

[baby doll]

Jean-Pierre Jeunet accuses Guillermo Del Toro of stealing from 'Delicatessen' in 'The Shape Of Water' (https://theplaylist.net/delicatessen-shape-water-20180206)

Hmm.Boy, that article is terribly written.


Almost everyone has swooned for Guillermo del Toro's lovely blend of fantasy, romance, monster movie, and classical filmmaker, however, there’s one director with a bone to pick.


Jeunet brought up the two scenes to del Toro who brushed off the accusation, saying that they both have inspired from other directors, particularly Terry Gilliam.

Who's the editor who let that go to press? It reads like it a Google translation of an article originally written in Romanian.

[Grouchy]

Jesus. Jeunet, go direct a good movie.

[DavidSeven]

I will say, I thought a lot about Jeunet while watching this. And he was probably the only other director I was actively thinking about. Beyond those scenes, I guess, there are obvious tonal and stylistic echos.

But filmmakers channel other directors all the time, so...shrug?

[Grouchy]

I'm surprised how many people give this credit. I've seen the two scenes. It's an idea that could have been thought up by anyone and, even if it's an homage, it's a completely different scene with different characters and a different purpose.

Am I crazy here? I just think this looks embarassing on Jeunet.

[number8]

I do think it's a silly accusation about the scene in particular, but like D7, I could not stop thinking about Jeunet while watching this. It looks exactly like one of his movies, and I'm sure that fuels much of the basis of that scene comparison.

[Irish]

Likewise. I think the visual similarity is a weakness. The movie exists in a spectrum between "Delicatessen," "City of Lost Children," and "Hellboy." I've never thought Del Toro's films looked like anyone else's before.

[number8]

What's funny is that I saw the headline about Jeunet accusing Del Toro of ripping him off and I thought, "Ah so it's not just me," and then I read the article with his actual accusation about the tap dancing and was like, "...What?"

[Grouchy]

Now that you guys mention it I can see it in the color palette, but while I was watching it it was just a Del Toro film for me.

Anyhow, if you're going to call out a fellow director on plagiarism charges you better have something more solid than a scene of two characters shuffling their feet.

[Ezee E]

This is a perfectly fine monster movie with some Marvel Comics style metaphorical progressive posturing but my issue is that it presents first and foremost as a love story and I found it woefully unromantic. The relationship is very boring even as a fairy tale romance. Beauty and the Beast put in more work in the lead couple.

I think you articulated the reason I've been indifferent to it since I saw it back in September.

[Grouchy]

Yeah, you know what? I also feel articulated by that thought.

[Pop Trash]

I will say, I thought a lot about Jeunet while watching this. And he was probably the only other director I was actively thinking about. Beyond those scenes, I guess, there are obvious tonal and stylistic echos.

But filmmakers channel other directors all the time, so...shrug?

Somebody on letterboxd described it as a "goth-perv Amelie" to which I thought "a goth-perv Amelie is kinda awesome." It also reminded me of the type of film Spielberg would make if he wasn't such a prude. And given all the criticisms of him, I actually really liked the shading of Michael Shannon's character. I'm pretty positive del Toro based him off of Sterling Hayden's character in Dr. Strangelove, and I liked all the bits of business with his taste in books and the intriguing sex with his wife.

[Grouchy]

I used to think the main flaw of the movie was Shannon's over-the-top villain, but 8 is right, it's actually the curiously undeveloped romance. They even went through the trouble of establishing that she's sexually starved to make it work better.

[Pop Trash]

I used to think the main flaw of the movie was Shannon's over-the-top villain, but 8 is right, it's actually the curiously undeveloped romance. They even went through the trouble of establishing that she's sexually starved to make it work better.

Maybe it's a case of lust rather than love. I'm ok with that.

[number8]

I'd be very much okay with that if they made me buy it. But since the film cuts away from any sex scene (boooo... Show fish dick, don't tell) and instead includes a musical number where she sings how much she's in love with him, I chose to take that statement at face value, and it left me wondering why either of them would fall in love with the other.

I guess I did like the reversing of Beauty and the Beast's Stockholm Syndrome. They had so much to work with that would cause relationship drama and chose to ignore all of them. Like, dude ate a fucking cat and everyone just shrugged it off.

[Dead & Messed Up]

I used to think the main flaw of the movie was Shannon's over-the-top villain, but 8 is right, it's actually the curiously undeveloped romance. They even went through the trouble of establishing that she's sexually starved to make it work better.

I didn't read the masturbation as her being sexually starved, I read it more as her just being an explicitly sexual being. She enjoys her morning orgasm.

[Grouchy]

Well, not that masturbation necessarily implies that someone is sexually starved, of course, but that combined with the rest of her life as portrayed by the screenplay would imply that she doesn't get much action.

[Pop Trash]

Well, not that masturbation necessarily implies that someone is sexually starved, of course, but that combined with the rest of her life as portrayed by the screenplay would imply that she doesn't get much action.

Maybe her signing "fuck you" to Michael Shannon was meant to be taken literally?

[Morris Schæffer]

One of the year's best movies, but I echo some of the thoughts others have expressed. It's such a weird romance that it's difficult to buy into it all the way. I was moved and engaged, but that final pull, the one that would move me to tears, just wasn't there. I understand why this would remind others of a Jeunet movie, but I don't think that should be the basis of any criticism. It's just bitching because that's what people do, find reasons to start bitching. In the end, this movie should be celebrated for its remarkable visuals, not criticized for resembling the visual DNA of a director who's made dick all worth rejoicing about in the last decade.

[MadMan]

I really dug this, a lot. However, much like a few other great 2017 films I have watched, it needs a second viewing before I write any kind of review.

[StanleyK]

This was really underwhelming. I second the criticisms about the romance being unconvincing and the characters being two-dimensional. I get he's going for a fairytale feel but there can still be a little room for nuance. I feel that if del Toro had made Pan's Labyrinth 10 years later he would've made Captain Vidal a child molester who abuses Ofelia to really drive the point home. He exhibited some restraint back then which is totally absent here.

[Sycophant]

Something is off with the balance of this film. There's so much going on. If it's really the story of Eliza and the Asset's love, all the copious amounts of time spent on the various subplots distract, weaken, and crowd out what could've been an almost rapturous love story. That scenes with Strickland and Dmitri and Zelda and Giles receive so much time distract and weaken.

Instead, we get each strand with a lot of detail but a philosophy of narrative efficiency that makes a lot of what could be deep read shallow. With del Toro's sweeping portrait of the American sixties, he wants to talk about nostalgia in both a fawning and a critical sense, civil rights, homophobia, patriarchy and masculinity, workplace harassment and misogyny, the vulnerability of black bodies, and yet still more on top of a Beauty and the Beast story about lonely misfits finding each other. These are smart and vital things to address, but I'm not sure stuffing them in in this manner is the best way to serve them.

In a sense I've had with del Toro since Hellboy, I wonder if he wouldn't be better suited to write and direct six-hour miniseries realizations of his ideas. His love of detail crams a lot into the margins when I think it would benefit from giving characters and places opportunities to breathe and themes the chance to develop.

There's a lot I liked, even loved, about this movie. But ultimately I'm disappointed and frustrated by it.

[transmogrifier]

64/100

Basically runs at 70+ for the first hour, fuelled by Hawkins' great performance and a pleasingly adult view of a fairytale world, culminating in the genuinely unpredictable break out attempt (because of where it is located in the film, there is actual suspense generated from the fact that typically storytelling convention could allow either success or failure, whereas if it were placed firmly in the third act, success is much more likely), but then struggles to break 50 in the back half, as it runs out of ideas, forcing Shannon to overact desperately to drive drama of diminishing returns, and totally miscalculates the appeal of seeing a grown woman get it off with a fishy cipher that is basically presented as a mistreated puppy throughout and nothing more. That shit's just weird, bro.

[Grouchy]

I don't think this is a great film or anything but I don't understand why people react so weirdly to the sexual aspects of the story. Is this your first time seeing a lady cuddle up with a monster in fiction?

It reminds me of that famous Swamp Thing storyline where Swampy's girlfriend is on trial for obscenity.

[Sycophant]

I think the biggest discomfort is the ambiguous or seemingly lacking sentience/intellectual maturity of Eliza's love interest. As a friend put it, it'd be nice to see a use of language from the creature that is not wholly a repetition of what Eliza tells him. Is his intelligence like a human who simply doesn't know the language? Or is it like a dog?

[Idioteque Stalker]

I think the biggest discomfort is the ambiguous or seemingly lacking sentience/intellectual maturity of Eliza's love interest. As a friend put it, it'd be nice to see a use of language from the creature that is not wholly a repetition of what Eliza tells him. Is his intelligence like a human who simply doesn't know the language? Or is it like a dog?

I see this concern, but personally that ambiguity was key to my enjoyment of the film.

[Spinal]

They tell us that the creature is a god, so I take them at their word.

[transmogrifier]

I don't think this is a great film or anything but I don't understand why people react so weirdly to the sexual aspects of the story.

Because (a) it is another species and (b) the fact the other species is portrayed as little more intelligent than your average German Shepherd.

[transmogrifier]

They tell us that the creature is a god, so I take them at their word.

The cat scene kind of ruins this idea though, given that it makes our fishy friend out to be a bog standard wild animal.

[Spinal]

How does eating a cat equate to a lack of intelligence? It can just be chalked up to a difference in custom based on wildly different backgrounds and life perspectives. You know, like on ALF.

[MadMan]

The entire basis of this film is what if the Creature From The Black Lagoon fell in love. I am a big picture kind of guy, so the details do not matter as much to me.

[Grouchy]

Because (a) it is another species and (b) the fact the other species is portrayed as little more intelligent than your average German Shepherd.
The Creature of the Black Lagoon and King Kong weren't exactly rocket scientists either.

[transmogrifier]

The Creature of the Black Lagoon and King Kong weren't exactly rocket scientists either.

I can't speak for the first one, as I've never seen anything to do with it, but I don't remember Ann and Kong getting it on. Which is the point of my objection.

[Grouchy]

No, but there was plenty of erotic tension around them. The size difference would be hard to overcome.

[baby doll]

Fay Wray's vagina was famous for its elasticity.

[DavidSeven]

I get the critique, but it didn’t really bother me while watching the film. I think the film is more broadly about love born out of understanding, not “romantic love.” Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t think the film is aiming to give you flutters in the traditional rom-com sense, so the creature’s credibility as a sexual interest for Eliza is kind of immaterial to the overall experience, unless the mere idea of it is just that off-putting.

Plus, Eliza is kind of cooky and that itself was an obvious calculation on Del Toro’s part to make the whole thing more believable.

[Dukefrukem]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VggEmXPnGw

[megladon8]

Read an amazing post today.

They missed such a great opportunity not calling this “Grinding Nemo”.

[transmogrifier]

How does eating a cat equate to a lack of intelligence? It can just be chalked up to a difference in custom based on wildly different backgrounds and life perspectives. You know, like on ALF.

Fishman acts exactly like a wild animal in this instance and Richard Jenkins' character expressly states something along the lines of "Well, you don't know any better, you are just an animal".

I mean, it is possible to have scenes in your movie where people mistake a god for a semi-sentient wild creature based on their prejudices, but it would help to also have scenes where, you know, the creature acts as if it has an inner life and sentient thought beyond simple "Pain sucks" and "Eggs good". I would have bought Hawkins' character fucking Alf over what TSOW manages to deliver.

[Spinal]

I would have bought Hawkins' character fucking Alf

Sequel?

[transmogrifier]

Sequel?

But Elisa is dead, dude. That would just be gross.

[megladon8]

No one for Grinding Nemo? Really?

[Henry Gale]

But Elisa is dead, dude. That would just be gross.

Wait, wat? Are you misremembering how it ended or is this a reading I never bothered to consider?


No one for Grinding Nemo? Really?

Maybe this has just been a particularly long awards season that's skewing my perception, but it honestly feels like I started hearing this all the way back in the year 2017. Also Ben Shapiro now being a consistent champion/repeater of it makes it significantly less fun to think about.

[transmogrifier]

Wait, wat? Are you misremembering how it ended or is this a reading I never bothered to consider?.

The movie is bookended by narration from Jenkins’ character (for some reason) as if he was telling the tale. I think the ending we see is his embellishment because he frames the whole thing as a fairytale. Because otherwise I’d have to conclude that the ending was bloody stupid.

[megladon8]

Wait, wat? Are you misremembering how it ended or is this a reading I never bothered to consider?



Maybe this has just been a particularly long awards season that's skewing my perception, but it honestly feels like I started hearing this all the way back in the year 2017. Also Ben Shapiro now being a consistent champion/repeater of it makes it significantly less fun to think about.

I’d never heard it til yesterday and thought it was kinda brilliant.

[MadMan]

Sequel?

More Alf sounds good to me. And I feel the SOW's ending was left wide open.