![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
If we do nothing, neither are we
I read fiction like The Shape of Water (2017) and sometimes I try to write it; I hardly ever see anything like it on a screen. Of all the films I have seen by Guillermo del Toro, which at this point is everything English-language except Blade II (2002), I think it's the most successfully complex. It's a genre-blender of mid-century B-pulp animated by social justice and eroticism, a love letter to the Other in all forms of race, sex, class, nationality, and species; it is sometimes piercingly subtle and sometimes splatteringly over the top and I'm not even sure all of it works for me, but it is the kind of movie I am extraordinarily glad someone is making, because otherwise I wouldn't get to see it—it is entirely itself. It has fish people. Boy, does it have fish people. Lovecraft would have had a heart attack.
In the Camelot days of Kennedy's America, Elisa Esposito (Sally Hawkins) works as a night cleaner in a classified government facility outside Baltimore. She's thin, dark-haired, not young, her pointed face and her quick, forceful hands as expressive as a silent clown or tragedienne's; she is mute but not deaf, her signed dialogue subtitled as matter-of-factly by the film as its other non-English language. By day she dreams of her apartment underwater, weeds ribboning the wallpapered hallway where fish dart past the telephone, her furniture floating in a lily-green gloom; woken by the nightly razzing of her alarm, she runs herself a bath and gets off in the greenish, luxurious water while the eggs she packs for lunch hard-boil on a timer. Lights and sounds flicker up through her floorboards from the cinema she lives over, Technicolor dreams leaking in like rain. She checks in with her neighbor Giles (Richard Jenkins), an aging commercial artist with a passel of cats and a melancholic crush on the fresh-faced counterman of a local pie franchise; she dozes on the long bus ride. Inside the concrete bunker of the Occam Aerospace Research Center, she scrubs floors, dusts futuristic-looking jet engines, and mops up the bathrooms alongside the long-suffering Zelda Fuller (Octavia Spencer), who contends at home with a persistently unappreciative husband and at work with the greatest scientific minds of the nation who somehow can't avoid getting "pee freckles" on the ceiling. Home again at dawn, she catches up with Giles before heading off to bed, even her sleep mask as olive as pondweed. It's a time-clocked, self-contained life, and it is impossible to tell if it makes Elisa happy. And then one night something new arrives at the facility, thrashing and keening inside a thick-glassed cylinder the same industrial blue as the pipes and tanks of the laboratory Elisa is supposed to be sweeping up: the amphibious creature referred to only as the Asset (Doug Jones, credited as "Amphibian Man"), brought in chains from the Amazon in the fringe science hope of gaining an edge on the Soviets in the space race. Already it's an object of contention between the more military-industrial and more scientific factions of the facility, personified by grim-faced, cattle-prod-swinging G-man Strickland (Michael Shannon) and compassionately conflicted Dr. Hoffstetler (Michael Stuhlbarg). And it's not an object at all, as Elisa recognizes the first time she sees it—him—alone in the laboratory, a sleek, scaled, powerfully finned and clawed creature whose eyes blink phosphorescently sideways. "The natives in the Amazon worshipped it like a god," Strickland sneers, but the viewer taking in those graceful, muscular shoulders, the bronze and blue countershading, the stickles and spines and curiously soft-modeled mouth, should only think of course. He's like something out of Elisa's dreams. He sees her. She courts him with hard-boiled eggs and the music of Benny Goodman; he answers with dolphinlike clicks and trills and rapidly assimilated signs. Their romance at this stage is sweet, clever, a little goofy, chaste. One of the glorious pleasures of this movie is discovering how it doesn't stay that way. Of course, we are in a top-secret weird science bunker at the height of the Cold War and we were warned from the start that there was a "monster" in this story: this damp gossamer fantasy is going to have to darken before we're through. You just have to trust that del Toro who loves the strange, the outcast, and the unspeakable will not let his species-crossed lovers go the way of the Production Code.
If you detect from this summary that The Shape of Water is a fix-it riff on Creature from the Black Lagoon (1954), del Toro has made no secret of his childhood disappointment that Julie Adams didn't get the Gill-man; I would also be shocked if there weren't some influence from Splash (1984), especially the way the third act of that movie takes a level in government conspiracy because it was the '80's. Give me a voiceless protagonist falling in love across the boundaries of water and air and I have a hard time not thinking of Andersen while we're at it, but one of the nicest things about this movie is how much it doesn't feel like any of its source texts, a frankly sexual fairy tale that twists in and out of spy thriller, heist movie, Hollywood musical, and scathingly pastel caricature of American postwar good life without ever losing itself in pastiche for pastiche's sake or feeling too smug with its references, even when one scene finds Elisa encountering the Asset, blood-slicked, inhuman, and beautiful, at a late show of The Story of Ruth (1960). The script, co-written with Vanessa Taylor, is full of small wildnesses, jarring and refreshing. The Asset touches Elisa with tenderness, wonder, and an illuminating arousal that matches her own, but when left by himself in Giles' apartment he also gets hungry and eats a cat. Zelda, correctly detecting from Elisa's creamy smile that her friend has gone all the way with a man who looked about as endowed as a salamander, quite reasonably demands to know "How?" and receives an amazingly explicit little mime in return. Elisa, we learn, grew up in an orphanage: she was found as an infant in a river, the sides of her throat marked with the parallel slashes popularly assumed to explain her muteness; they have healed in adulthood into delicate red scars that the viewer all but holds their breath to see open, not quite sure if we're in a world where mermaids can walk secretly among us—unknown perhaps even to themselves—or merely one where unwanted children are abused and dumped. It's both, of course, because it's our world or the silver-screen consensus that's as near as makes no never mind, and the film leans surprisingly hard on the violence as well as the grace. I expected the third act to escalate in action, which it thankfully manages without letting slip the entire U.S. Army: it is relatively restrained in scope, if not in the Grand Guignol of Strickland's progressively deranged and diseased quest for validation and revenge. (Michael Shannon is basically playing toxic masculinity, but he's such a good actor that he pulls off even comic-book affectations like Strickland's simultaneous sweet tooth for hard candy and torture. While I'm in this parenthesis, where has Michael Stuhlbarg been all my life? I know, a big answer is A Serious Man (2009) and I have not bothered to see that movie since a friend who did his master's thesis on theodicy and the reception of the Job story was extremely unimpressed, but there's got to be something else. He was not movie-stealing here only because of the strength of the movie around him.) I did not expect the escalation in gore. I suspect I would have been better braced for it if I had seen Pan's Labyrinth (2006), but here we are. I don't feel any need to warn about the sexual content of The Shape of Water unless the sight of Sally Hawkins peeping over a bioluminescent shoulder with water rolling from her hair and one of the great shy, sly smiles of cinema curving her face is going to be a problem, but there are some things done here with bullet holes that maybe you want a heads-up on.
For me, however, the lingering impression of the film is much like the Asset himself, capable of a nasty bite but more often of numinous beauty and vivid physical presence. I love the sea-colors, swamp-colors, river-colors of the production design, an almost subliminal motif of scales and waves repeating naturally in tiles and rain stains and shadows through wet window glass. I love that when Elisa lays her head on the Asset's softly plated chest, she can hear both his heartbeat and a strange crashing hollow like the tide. Right now, there is nothing subtle about the way its human heroes are an assortment of American marginalization—disabled, non-white, queer, and not even American—and its villain a man who is all but "The Man," piloting his tailfinned teal Cadillac with more satisfaction than he screws his Stepford wife and remarking with complacent non-irony that God looks "a little bit more like me, I guess," but I would not call it a bug so much as a very deliberate feature, reminding me of comparable foregroundings in the work of Barbara Hambly and Ruthanna Emrys. There are angles from which it even resembles an episode of The Twilight Zone, which I don't think is a bad thing for a sci-fi parable circa 1962. And it has the courage of both its tropes and its subversions, allowing each of its characters the space to be more than their script requires while pulling all possible resonances from the way Elisa covets a pair of shoes or Zelda smokes a cigarette or Hoffstetler speaks his name. Depressive Giles keeps his TV tuned to black-and-white reruns of Carmen Miranda and Alice Faye, agitatedly changing the channel whenever reality intrudes with potential nuclear annihilation or the struggle for civil rights, but even he will abandon his Tinseltown shell for the many-colored, misfit comradeship of forging a laundry van and, very badly, pretending to be fifty-seven again and straight. The subject header of this post is the set of coldly furious signs Elisa lays down for him when he protests that her imprisoned, endangered love is "not even human." If the film has a rallying cry, that's it. Or just Elisa's face, wordless and alive, as she opens her eyes at last to the world she loves. This sea-spell brought to you by my passionate backers at Patreon.
In the Camelot days of Kennedy's America, Elisa Esposito (Sally Hawkins) works as a night cleaner in a classified government facility outside Baltimore. She's thin, dark-haired, not young, her pointed face and her quick, forceful hands as expressive as a silent clown or tragedienne's; she is mute but not deaf, her signed dialogue subtitled as matter-of-factly by the film as its other non-English language. By day she dreams of her apartment underwater, weeds ribboning the wallpapered hallway where fish dart past the telephone, her furniture floating in a lily-green gloom; woken by the nightly razzing of her alarm, she runs herself a bath and gets off in the greenish, luxurious water while the eggs she packs for lunch hard-boil on a timer. Lights and sounds flicker up through her floorboards from the cinema she lives over, Technicolor dreams leaking in like rain. She checks in with her neighbor Giles (Richard Jenkins), an aging commercial artist with a passel of cats and a melancholic crush on the fresh-faced counterman of a local pie franchise; she dozes on the long bus ride. Inside the concrete bunker of the Occam Aerospace Research Center, she scrubs floors, dusts futuristic-looking jet engines, and mops up the bathrooms alongside the long-suffering Zelda Fuller (Octavia Spencer), who contends at home with a persistently unappreciative husband and at work with the greatest scientific minds of the nation who somehow can't avoid getting "pee freckles" on the ceiling. Home again at dawn, she catches up with Giles before heading off to bed, even her sleep mask as olive as pondweed. It's a time-clocked, self-contained life, and it is impossible to tell if it makes Elisa happy. And then one night something new arrives at the facility, thrashing and keening inside a thick-glassed cylinder the same industrial blue as the pipes and tanks of the laboratory Elisa is supposed to be sweeping up: the amphibious creature referred to only as the Asset (Doug Jones, credited as "Amphibian Man"), brought in chains from the Amazon in the fringe science hope of gaining an edge on the Soviets in the space race. Already it's an object of contention between the more military-industrial and more scientific factions of the facility, personified by grim-faced, cattle-prod-swinging G-man Strickland (Michael Shannon) and compassionately conflicted Dr. Hoffstetler (Michael Stuhlbarg). And it's not an object at all, as Elisa recognizes the first time she sees it—him—alone in the laboratory, a sleek, scaled, powerfully finned and clawed creature whose eyes blink phosphorescently sideways. "The natives in the Amazon worshipped it like a god," Strickland sneers, but the viewer taking in those graceful, muscular shoulders, the bronze and blue countershading, the stickles and spines and curiously soft-modeled mouth, should only think of course. He's like something out of Elisa's dreams. He sees her. She courts him with hard-boiled eggs and the music of Benny Goodman; he answers with dolphinlike clicks and trills and rapidly assimilated signs. Their romance at this stage is sweet, clever, a little goofy, chaste. One of the glorious pleasures of this movie is discovering how it doesn't stay that way. Of course, we are in a top-secret weird science bunker at the height of the Cold War and we were warned from the start that there was a "monster" in this story: this damp gossamer fantasy is going to have to darken before we're through. You just have to trust that del Toro who loves the strange, the outcast, and the unspeakable will not let his species-crossed lovers go the way of the Production Code.
If you detect from this summary that The Shape of Water is a fix-it riff on Creature from the Black Lagoon (1954), del Toro has made no secret of his childhood disappointment that Julie Adams didn't get the Gill-man; I would also be shocked if there weren't some influence from Splash (1984), especially the way the third act of that movie takes a level in government conspiracy because it was the '80's. Give me a voiceless protagonist falling in love across the boundaries of water and air and I have a hard time not thinking of Andersen while we're at it, but one of the nicest things about this movie is how much it doesn't feel like any of its source texts, a frankly sexual fairy tale that twists in and out of spy thriller, heist movie, Hollywood musical, and scathingly pastel caricature of American postwar good life without ever losing itself in pastiche for pastiche's sake or feeling too smug with its references, even when one scene finds Elisa encountering the Asset, blood-slicked, inhuman, and beautiful, at a late show of The Story of Ruth (1960). The script, co-written with Vanessa Taylor, is full of small wildnesses, jarring and refreshing. The Asset touches Elisa with tenderness, wonder, and an illuminating arousal that matches her own, but when left by himself in Giles' apartment he also gets hungry and eats a cat. Zelda, correctly detecting from Elisa's creamy smile that her friend has gone all the way with a man who looked about as endowed as a salamander, quite reasonably demands to know "How?" and receives an amazingly explicit little mime in return. Elisa, we learn, grew up in an orphanage: she was found as an infant in a river, the sides of her throat marked with the parallel slashes popularly assumed to explain her muteness; they have healed in adulthood into delicate red scars that the viewer all but holds their breath to see open, not quite sure if we're in a world where mermaids can walk secretly among us—unknown perhaps even to themselves—or merely one where unwanted children are abused and dumped. It's both, of course, because it's our world or the silver-screen consensus that's as near as makes no never mind, and the film leans surprisingly hard on the violence as well as the grace. I expected the third act to escalate in action, which it thankfully manages without letting slip the entire U.S. Army: it is relatively restrained in scope, if not in the Grand Guignol of Strickland's progressively deranged and diseased quest for validation and revenge. (Michael Shannon is basically playing toxic masculinity, but he's such a good actor that he pulls off even comic-book affectations like Strickland's simultaneous sweet tooth for hard candy and torture. While I'm in this parenthesis, where has Michael Stuhlbarg been all my life? I know, a big answer is A Serious Man (2009) and I have not bothered to see that movie since a friend who did his master's thesis on theodicy and the reception of the Job story was extremely unimpressed, but there's got to be something else. He was not movie-stealing here only because of the strength of the movie around him.) I did not expect the escalation in gore. I suspect I would have been better braced for it if I had seen Pan's Labyrinth (2006), but here we are. I don't feel any need to warn about the sexual content of The Shape of Water unless the sight of Sally Hawkins peeping over a bioluminescent shoulder with water rolling from her hair and one of the great shy, sly smiles of cinema curving her face is going to be a problem, but there are some things done here with bullet holes that maybe you want a heads-up on.
For me, however, the lingering impression of the film is much like the Asset himself, capable of a nasty bite but more often of numinous beauty and vivid physical presence. I love the sea-colors, swamp-colors, river-colors of the production design, an almost subliminal motif of scales and waves repeating naturally in tiles and rain stains and shadows through wet window glass. I love that when Elisa lays her head on the Asset's softly plated chest, she can hear both his heartbeat and a strange crashing hollow like the tide. Right now, there is nothing subtle about the way its human heroes are an assortment of American marginalization—disabled, non-white, queer, and not even American—and its villain a man who is all but "The Man," piloting his tailfinned teal Cadillac with more satisfaction than he screws his Stepford wife and remarking with complacent non-irony that God looks "a little bit more like me, I guess," but I would not call it a bug so much as a very deliberate feature, reminding me of comparable foregroundings in the work of Barbara Hambly and Ruthanna Emrys. There are angles from which it even resembles an episode of The Twilight Zone, which I don't think is a bad thing for a sci-fi parable circa 1962. And it has the courage of both its tropes and its subversions, allowing each of its characters the space to be more than their script requires while pulling all possible resonances from the way Elisa covets a pair of shoes or Zelda smokes a cigarette or Hoffstetler speaks his name. Depressive Giles keeps his TV tuned to black-and-white reruns of Carmen Miranda and Alice Faye, agitatedly changing the channel whenever reality intrudes with potential nuclear annihilation or the struggle for civil rights, but even he will abandon his Tinseltown shell for the many-colored, misfit comradeship of forging a laundry van and, very badly, pretending to be fifty-seven again and straight. The subject header of this post is the set of coldly furious signs Elisa lays down for him when he protests that her imprisoned, endangered love is "not even human." If the film has a rallying cry, that's it. Or just Elisa's face, wordless and alive, as she opens her eyes at last to the world she loves. This sea-spell brought to you by my passionate backers at Patreon.
no subject
no subject
I would not call anything in The Shape of Water directly selkie-analogous, but I think you might find it worth your time.
Did you see Ondine (2009)?
(no subject)
no subject
no subject
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
Strickland is offputting. He wound up working for me for two reasons, one script-based and one idiosyncratic. The script-based reason is that however repulsive, however destructive, however just plain awful a person he may be, within the film's parameters of reality he is always a real person. He's shaped by the same forces that govern Elisa's world; they deform him differently and, crucially, he allows them to. There is an instructive moment right before everything goes off the rails where, in a bad way emotionally and physically as well as professionally, he reaches out to his five-star superior, his former commanding officer, really needing to hear the reassurance that one fuck-up does not wipe out a lifetime's loyalty, and the answer he receives is not just negative, it is a vicious little oratorio of contempt for even showing the weakness of asking in the first place—and Strickland accepts it. He internalizes it and doubles down on it and he almost certainly wasn't redeemable before, but now he's broken in some deep, irreversible way and nothing he does from here on can end well. It makes him scarier: he chose it. The idiosyncratic reason is that after being vaguely aware of Shannon as an actor for years, I noticed him first as the desperately loving, frightened, protective father in Midnight Special (2016), struggling to keep his not entirely or not at all human child safe from a cult, the government, the ordinary world of sunlight and electronics, and my associations with him were therefore so positive and so vulnerable that I was fascinated to see him play an all-American nightmare in a grey flannel suit. I think he is exactly what the film asks him to be. I understand if you don't need to see it demonstrated for yourself, though.
The detail about Elisa's possible aquatic origins is nice, though--that adds a level of interest.
I loved the film's handling of Elisa's affinity for water; it could be a simile or a fact or there's no reason it couldn't be both. Her apartment is tucked up into the attics of the theater, so one wall is partly a huge curving window and it gives the room an aquarium look; its dominant colors are browns and greens and blues, an evocative but naturalistic combination of the building's furnishings and Elisa's own tastes. The Asset just matches the decor when he takes up residence in her bathtub, his huge golden eyes blinking above the salt-thickened, pondweed-flecked water. Rain doesn't bother her even when it runs through the roof. (I have no idea how she feels about snow. Maybe that's not a big question in 1960's Baltimore.) Separately, but also importantly, I love that she's not a girl. The character looks about Hawkins' own fortyish. There are lines in her face; her wrists are bony. She's not a maiden. And the film sees her as wild and beautiful and deserving of love, passionate, sexual love as well as sympathy and romance, of being treasured, in Giles' opening words, as a princess. That is so quietly unusual that it passes almost unnoticed among the film's more obvious stands, but I still really enjoyed it.
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
no subject
Whoa. All right, he's a chameleon, which I would not have assumed from that distinctive a face.
no subject
Also, you totally should watch 'Pan's Labyrinth' immediately; I think it remains del Toro's best movie. It's not gory, exactly, but there's two moments that come to mind in which a sudden outbreak of violence are absolutely shocking in how quickly and viciously they appear.
no subject
I'm glad to hear that! I haven't been following the Oscars at all.
It's not at all the sort of movie that usually wins 'Best Picture', but wouldn't that be wonderful?
I would be delighted. It would feel like a Hugo win, of which I would also incidentally approve.
Also, you totally should watch 'Pan's Labyrinth' immediately; I think it remains del Toro's best movie. It's not gory, exactly, but there's two moments that come to mind in which a sudden outbreak of violence are absolutely shocking in how quickly and viciously they appear.
I will keep this in mind. It came out in 2006 when I was in very bad shape; it looked beautiful and potentially excruciating and I was not up for the latter. I think by then I had already seen Hellboy (2004). I associate it with the apartment of grad-school friends and Halloween.
(no subject)
no subject
During the latter part, I kept thinking of “Turtle Diary” (1985j, in which Glenda Jackson and Ben Kingsley play people who (with some inside help) liberate sea turtles from the London Zoo and release them into the ocean. Ofher life and death stuff happens, but that is the basic plot. I don't suppose del Toro had it in mind. No monsters.
His acceprance speech for the Golden Globe
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ykv23HpruCo
no subject
Had I known about the brutal violence, I, too, might've skipped it, but it was pretty well signposted in the movie itself, so I was quickly able to recalibrate my expectations. And I very much appreciated a number of things -- the luminous colors and the politics among them -- so I'm just as glad I did see it.
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
I had seen the posters, which were beautiful, and I had seen people reblogging images, and I had heard del Toro talk about the inspirations for the movie in ways that suggested it would not have a crushing ending, which I cared about. And Anthony Lane of The New Yorker liked it, which almost never happens with him and genre film. Other than that, I knew mostly that it looked like something I thought I would like, and it was.
If I had known about the brutality, I might have stayed home, but then I would have missed the beauty of it.
I'm glad it was worth it for you.
no subject
no subject
You're welcome. I'm glad this was useful!
no subject
no subject
You're welcome!
It doesn't come out here in the UK until (very fittingly!) Feb 14th
Oh, nice. I am just as happy not to have had to wait an extra month to see it, but that is much better thematic timing than a late December release.
and have been following the chatter around it with increasing interest. What you say here has only stoked that considerably higher, so that I am now definitely determined to see it.
I look forward to hearing what you think of it—and Creature from the Black Lagoon!
no subject
no subject
I'm glad to help out!
I am sensitive to depictions of gills.
no subject
I love how unabashedly political the film is. One of my favorite things about the film is the matter-of-fact way it foregrounds Elisa's sexuality in those early, quotidian bathtub scenes. A lesser film would not have shown Elisa as a sexual being until she gets together with the Asset.
(I could've lived without the cat-eating and a few other gross-out moments, but that's more a matter of personal taste than anything else.)
no subject
Yes. That was wonderful. The whole way the film handles sexuality was simultaneously sweepingly erotic and ordinary, which is not a combination I feel I see in a lot of mainstream film.
(I could've lived without the cat-eating and a few other gross-out moments, but that's more a matter of personal taste than anything else.)
Weirdly, I was fine with the cat-eating: I am usually very low-tolerance on animal harm—especially cats—but it was not graphic and it worked for me as a necessary reminder that although the Asset is sentient and sympathetic, he is very definitely not human. (Giles, slightly shocky, looking over at one of the surviving cats: "You're lucky.") Mostly it was the torture scenes that surprised me.
no subject
no subject
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
I must admit that I was repelled by Sally Hawkins' signing in the trailer. It looks positively robotic. I can't imagine any Hollywood director hiring someone who can't keep a tune to play an opera singer. (ASL is not my native language, but I've studied it a lot and worked as an interpreter in my youth.)
The color palette, on the other hand, is exquisite.
no subject
You're welcome. I'm glad you enjoyed it.
I must admit that I was repelled by Sally Hawkins' signing in the trailer. It looks positively robotic.
I understand being alienated by that. I have exactly that response to movie musicals which cast actors whose voices aren't up to the parts. It wasn't something I could evaluate; I know the alphabet and a very few signs of ASL. I liked her movement overall.
The color palette, on the other hand, is exquisite.
It's such a sea-soaked movie. I love seeing things like that.
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
no subject
Agreed. Also, gills.
no subject
no subject
Thank you!
no subject
no subject
I'm glad you enjoyed it! I hope you enjoyed the film as well.