Review of The Shape of Water (2017) by Raven D — 06 Mar 2018

Wow. Hollywood has become so incredibly transparent. So after The Artist, this is the movie that we have to fall in love with now. Because it is set in the early 60's, so nostalgia. Because the characters watch old black and white movies in their retro tv sets, while talking about how wonderful they are, so meta-nostalgia. Because the movie theater, the signs, the cars, the clothes, the pies and the diner...because nostalgia.

Honestly, the story seems forced. Some characters and their relationships seem forced and placed/written just to make a point. The sassy black woman who complains throughout the movie about her husband (one could say she's actually complaining about all husbands, on behalf of all women), and finally puts him down at the end as the spineless coward he is. The old man who is unnecessarily shown to be a homosexual just so we can feel bad for him when he makes a totally uncalled for advance on the man who works the diner, who is an obviously straight white dude, who, for a twofer, gets to have a random black couple walk into the diner just so he can be racist on top of homophobic. I'm not going to focus on the other "good guy" being an actual communist, because even though the whole Russians subplot felt unnecessary and a bit forced, I understood his character as a scientist with a conscience, which made me understand his actions beyond his political and patriotic allegiances. And I honestly don't believe there is any relevance to him being a communist good guy. It's more about him being a non-U.S. citizen good guy. Did you know russians can be good people too? now you know.

Now on to the bad guy. I'm not going to remark on him being a heterosexual white male, because a person in his position, in that time, would invariably fit that description. It's the fact that he is cold, emotionless, detached, cruel, racist, arrogant, classist, sadistic, tortures animals, is probably misogynistic, and is a general "meanie". the only thing missing is if they had literally named him "donald". the character feels like the product of the worst fears of a group of radical liberals assembled in a safe space, for the purpose of symbolizing in one man everything they consider to be evil in today's world. The funny thing is how they attempt to make the character profound or interesting, by making him get philosophical about pissing/washing your hands, and teaching us, I mean, the protagonists, about biblical characters and the meaning of certain complex-sounding words. And the whole bit about the candy. I don't get it. I don't buy it.

I'll admit I was impacted by the loneliness and detachment that the protagonist must have felt to have engaged in such a relationship with a non-human creature, and I actually had no issue with the sexual aspect of the relationship, because, love is love. This is undoubtedly the most extreme version possible of that message, but it was only the underlying theme of the main story, as opposed to feeling like a message disguised as a story/character. and yet, upon reflection, I can't agree with this either. their romance is incredibly forced and rushed, and she basically has sex with him just because he has a humanoid shape. consider the relationships we build with cats, dogs, or other pets. it never crosses our minds, no matter how lonely we get, to have sex with them, because they look like animals. this creature barely communicates with her, but she decides to have sex with it because it resembles a human and stands on two feet. she's basically fucking her dog, if the dog could stand on two feet and had longer legs and arms. Think about this: There are gorillas who can communicate with sign language. you can have entire conversations with them, hundreds of times more complex than the 2 things the creature "says" to her. The gorilla has the most humanoid shape of any animal. so, basically, if he could stand on two feet and look her in the eyes, you could replace the lab with a zoo, the creature with a gorilla who knows sign language, and she ends up, inevitably, fucking a gorilla.

The scene that perfectly encapsulates why you will be told to love this movie, is the fantasy sequence where the mute girl starts singing beautifully, and then tap dances with the sea creature on a beautiful stage backed by a big band. All in black and white, of course. Because, nostalgia. even people who liked the movie find this scene laughable and forced.

The end also comes out of nowhere, when the creature somehow turns her scar tissue into functional gills. This is the only moment, other than the intro, when the movie felt to me like a fairy tale story. The movie itself didn't feel to me like it was trying to emulate Beauty and The Beast or some other tale, rather it was just inspired by it and other similar tales. The story felt like it was doing its own thing (unlike something like Pacific Rim, for example, which is meant to be viewed as an anime), which makes the fairytale intro and ending feel out of place and forced.

If you like Guillermo Del Toro, who I'm not too much of a fan of, other than of his visual imagination, check out any of his other stuff. If you liked Sally Hawkins' performance (which is not "stellar", or "phenomenal"), you'll be much better off seeing her in Happy-Go-Lucky or Made In Dagenham. Or watch her in this too (she does a good job) and make up your own mind about the whole thing. Just don't let Hollywood awards shows and critics dictate what you should watch and much less what you should like and love. Remember The Artist. Remember The Last Jedi. Remember The Shape Of Water.