Skip to main content

The Shape of Water

This? This is what was judged to be the Best Picture of 2017? This is the (arguably) science fiction film that finally won the big prize? This...creature (which is totally not from the Black Lagoon)? This?!? Let me be clear: The Shape of Water isn't just an awful film, it's Guillermo del Toro's worst. That's right, I think Mimic is better than The Shape of Water.

It's 1963 and a strange creature is brought to a strange lab where strange things transpire. The creature attracts the attention of a mute cleaning lady, and the attraction proves to be mutual. Fishy matters ensue.

As with all del Toro films, the design of The Shape of Water is gorgeous (except for creature himself; he's little more than a make-up job for Abe Sapien from del Toro's Hellboy films). The cinematography is well nigh perfect. As the mute cleaning lady Elisa Esposito, Sally Hawkins does a fantastic job, a gentle performance that stands out all the more due to the dreadful writing she has to contend with.

I'm done with things I actually enjoyed. The rest of the film is a wreck. To say that it's heavy handed is to judge that a sledge hammer delivers the gentle touches of a butterfly's wings. The film pounds out its virtue signals.

Elisa's roommate and main assistant in helping her is, of course, gay. Her cohort at work is, of course, a black woman. And the one scientist who is sympathetic is, of course, a Soviet spy. Every other single human being in this film is either a blank nothing or downright evil; you can either ignore them or you are encouraged to loathe them. There is no gray, there is doubt, they are vile and you are reprehensible if this causes you angst.

The villain (he's too rotten to merely be referred to as antagonist) of the film is evil military agent Strickland, played by Michael Shannon. If he had a mustache he could twirl, it would have actually been an improvement. Seeing him in the trailers is the reason I had no interest in seeing this film at the theatre. Having now seen the film, I realize I made the correct choice.

Strickland is like this because...Bible? He treats everyone with contempt because...reasons. He tortures the creature he helped capture because...plot.

Strickland lacks even a single molecule of human decency. He's a bigot who treats women as cattle and "the help" as lower than the dog crap he steps in. It's sort of implied that he's pretty good at security, yet he overlooks Elisa and her friend as potential suspects because it's impossible for cleaning ladies to be involved. Which is stupid. This is a stupid way of making the point, that someone can be so elite that they can't even conceive of a cleaning lady of being capable of any independent thought or action. This isn't an original concept (egads, look all the way back to Nine to Five for a better example). This stupidity is indicative of the entire film.

Strickland ends up being a buffoon. Because he's a buffoon, as with the First Order in the current Star Wars films, it's impossible to see him as a genuine threat. The moment you meet him, how the film will end becomes a foregone conclusion, with all tension and suspense never standing a chance at even getting established.

It's as though it's now impossible to make a film with any sense of nuance. The villains must be EVIL (yes, all uppercase, shouting this fact at you) and the heroes, er, heroines, must be FANTASTIC (again, shouting at you their virtuous virtue of virtuosity). No quarter is considered, none is given. How very Manichaean.

No one feels real, there's no one to relate to, to identify with. Octavia Spencer, as Elisa's cleaning lady buddy Zelda, tries, but the script and all the characters around her make it impossible for her to succeed.

The Shape of Water isn't the only film with this affliction, it's a poison killing the entire industry. But it's depressing to see del Toro sink to this depth. I don't believe any of his previous films tried to make things so black and white, so cut and dry. Hell, that was true even of Blade II (love that film).

And since "that which is rewarded is repeated," I expect this is how he'll make films from here on out.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania

Wow, it’s been over a year. What a way to get back to this blog because… Are the films of the MCU getting worse? It’s a serious question because the latest that I’ve seen, Thor: Love and Thunder and Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania , are strong arguments that the answer is “yes.” Summary: Ant-Man & Ant-Family get sucked into the quantum realm, where skullduggery is afoot. A load of crap ensues. I’m an Ant-Man fan. I loved the first film despite its flaws. It would have been wonderful to see what Edgar Wright may have wrought. It was clear, though, that replacement director Peyton Reed kept some of Wright’s ideas alive. The result was one of the MCU’s most intimate films, a straight-forward tale of a Scott Lang (Paul Rudd) desperate to remain in his daughter’s life while being “gifted” the life of a superhero. Ant-Man and the Wasp sorta stayed that course, but naturally, because this is the modern MCU, we had to have a female superhero take over, the titular Wasp (Hope van Dyne,

John Wick: Chapter 4

No sense in playing coy, this is a great film. I’ve seen it twice and while I don’t quite love it in the way I love the first, original John Wick , it’s my #2. It’s a little overlong, has some wasted space and time, has one absolutely pointless and useless character, and generally ignores the realities of firefights, falling, getting shot, hit, etc. All that notwithstanding, it’s a great action flick, has a genuine emotional core, and is well worth your time if you’re into that sort of thing. Like I am. Summary: John Wick (Keanu Reeves), last seen saying he was fed up with the High Table, goes to war to obtain his freedom. Some of the most incredible action scenes ever filmed ensue, culminating in a very satisfactory finale and a devastating post-credit scene. The first Wick film was a surprise hit. It was a simple, straight-forward tale of vengeance told in a simple, straight-forward manner. Where it stood out was its devotion to human stunt work, on exploiting long camera shots that

Rogan

The entire Joe Rogan controversy is an example of the kids being left in charge and the adults refusing to teach them any better. I’m not a regular consumer of podcasts. There are a couple I listen to from time to time, but nothing on a regular basis. While I’ve caught a few minutes of the Joe Rogan Experience on YouTube, I’ve never listened to his podcast. One of the primary reasons for that is that you have to subscribe to Spotify to do so, and I prefer Qobuz, Tidal, or even Amazon Music. Rogan is behind Spotify’s paywall and that’s that. But the nature of the fight is about more than who does or does not listen to Rogan. This fight goes to the very nature of the First Amendment and the fundamental concept of the United States. And yes, I understand that cuts both ways. What’s his name and Joni Mitchell are free to yank their creations from Spotify, no ifs, ands, or buts. I’m not denying their right, I’m questioning their reasons. Rogan talks to people. He does so largely unfiltered.