Skip to main content

Gods and Monsters Indeed


By far the better Beauty and the Beast movie this year!
The Shape of Water is Guillermo del Toro’s passion project. Equal parts fairy tale and monster movie, there’s an abundance of affection to this film that’s very easy to detect. Del Toro puts all the effort he can muster into every frame, and it results in the most beautiful movie of 2017.
Set in the 1960’s, Elisa Esposito (Sally Hawkins) is a mute living a lonely life in Baltimore with an unemployed advertising artist, Giles (Richard Jenkins). She works with Zelda (Octavia Spencer) as a custodian at a government research institute where Colonel Strickland (Michael Shannon) is keeping a mysterious amphibian creature (Doug Jones) he found in South America where the locals worshipped him. Curious, Elisa begins to form a connection with the creature, bonded by their mutual inability to communicate and works to save it from Strickland’s sadistic wrath.
There’s nothing all that unusual about this synopsis. It’s the classic Beauty and Beast story, repurposed in a new context. Luckily, del Toro knows that the audience knows this, so he works to give the movie a lot of personality. This means setting the story in Red Scare-era America, which both provides a unique backdrop while giving the narrative a more believable atmosphere of fear. It also means the film can have a sense of humour. There are some great jokes and a plethora of wonderful homages to classic film. The pacing never lags because of this; every scene the movie is giving you something to engage with. The screenplay by del Toro and Vanessa Taylor is much the credit of this, the characters and plot being so well-written and enjoyable it gives the film an unbelievable freshness.
It’s worth noting the commentary that each of the heroic characters in this film is an outsider: Elisa is mute, the creature is an “aberration”, and Giles and Zelda are gay and black in a time when neither were socially accepted. Partly as a result of this theming, these characters are the movies’ subtle strengths and the cast is marvellous. At the centre of it is the bewilderingly good Sally Hawkins, who even manages to top her performance in Maudie as the adorable silent protagonist. Without saying a word she conveys every emotion flawlessly, every action, mastering sign language, and convincingly shares chemistry with the strange fish-man. Speaking of whom, Doug Jones deserves a lot of credit for his performance. He’s played numerous fantastical creatures for del Toro before, most notably in Pan’s Labyrinth, but here he’s especially earning his screen-time, emoting and performing with ease through incredible make-up and prosthetics. And I’m so happy to see this creature rendered so impressively and creatively through practical means! The romance between Elisa and the creature, bizarre though it is, is actually sweet, and you find yourself caring immensely for both characters from their first appearance.
Michael Shannon reminds us how scary he can be as the villain of this picture. There are times his characterization as irredeemably evil is a tad overdone and irrelevant, particularly a couple casually racist remarks to Zelda and one uncomfortable scene with Elisa. But overall, he manages to be a serious and intimidating presence. The often under-appreciated Richard Jenkins is terrific as the most human character of the film: a sad, disgruntled, cynical, but still kind and loyal best friend to Elisa. Octavia Spencer, who provides a lot of comic relief, is quite good too. And I love Michael Stuhlbarg in this movie, who plays a scientist called Dr. Hoftstetler, with his own feelings on the creature and a secret that leads to its own subplot. I’ve been a fan of Stuhlbarg since he stole every scene he was in on Boardwalk Empire, and the dedication he puts into this performance is top notch. Jenkins’ performance is nominated for an Oscar, but Stuhlbarg’s is just as great.
The visuals of this movie are breathtaking. Which is funny, because aside from the creature you’d think there wouldn’t be many special effects. But del Toro is an artist who composes his scenes very intricately. The result is a lot of stunning shots and captivating moments of beauty. The scene from the poster is a perfect example of this, with the creature and Elisa floating agitated under water.  The first interaction between the two leads is similarly mesmerizing, but with a slight macabre edge that has the essence of myth. The lighting and shadow usage contribute a lot to this, so too does the production design -utilizing an environment’s state, whether vacant or cluttered, cavernous or claustrophobic to enhance its visual mood. Alexandre Desplat’s score and the musical choices are another really exceptional quality, capturing the dramatic intensity, while at the same time a sense of fairy tale whimsy. And all this is quite a lot for a movie that ultimately boils down to being Beauty and the Beast (though less Disney, more Cocteau) but with the Creature from the Black Lagoon.
The Shape of Water is masterful; with compelling characters and a tapestry of rich visuals to enliven an age-old poetic story. That it’s exceedingly well-made, well-performed and constantly evident that del Toro’s heart is in every beat only adds to the endearing elegance of this strange but absolutely alluring love story. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Strange History of the American Spoof Movie

Parody movies have been around for a lot longer than we tend to think of them. Even from the earliest days of Hollywood there were movies meant to satirize a particular subject or genre. In the silent era, Buster Keaton was responsible for a few. And in the early sound era, almost as soon as the monster pictures took off did you see comic versions of them -Abbott and Costello hosting a few. But parody movies tended to be subtle for most of cinema history, or parody came in conjunction with another goal of the comedy. It really wasn’t until the 1980s and 90s that it took off and became popularly understood. And there is perhaps a line to be drawn to the counterculture comedy explosion that began in the 1970s through avenues like  Saturday Night Live , which frequently parodied from even its earliest years popular movies and cultural properties of the time. But that is still a way’s back. To my generation though, ‘parody movie’ is perhaps a less known term than the more blunt ‘s...

Notes on the Title Cards of The Lord of the Rings

It might be sacrilege for one who both considers The Lord of the Rings  trilogy to be one of the greatest triumphs of cinema and has been an avid lover of the films since adolescence, to declare that the original theatrical cuts of the films are better than the much beloved extended editions. Easily it’s my most controversial opinion regarding these movies. Don’t get me wrong, I do like the extended editions quite a lot, especially as someone who just enjoys spending time in that universe. They flesh it out more, add extra flavour, and in increasing the length by about an hour really emphasize the epic quality of these films. But I find that the original cuts are generally more cleanly paced, more seamlessly edited, and much more accessible to audiences. All the stuff there is to love about The Lord of the Rings  is there in the original versions, the plethora of new and extended scenes merely add to that for fans. And of those, they fall into three camps for me: 1....

Back to the Feature: New York, New York (1977)

New York, New York  is a two hour forty minute musical movie largely about a toxic relationship and I understand why it was Martin Scorsese’s first big flop. Some have blamed its poor reception on the kind of movie it was, of a style and tone Scorsese wasn’t known for, but I find that hard to believe. Even after only five films, he’d proven himself an extremely versatile director, and Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore  found an audience. Sure this jazz musical love letter to New York City was following up Taxi Driver and its’ far more cynical take on the city, but then it’s also ‘from the director of Taxi Driver ’ which itself was a big hit. Was it a matter of public appetite for musicals, or mere word of mouth and early critical reception that dissuaded viewers? Irrespective of that, I was stunned to discover this movie was the origin of the titular song, which I’d assumed was much older (it’s definitely got the sound of something that might have come out of the Jazz sce...