The Shape of Water discussion

(***MINOR SPOILERS, is basically shown in the trailer***)
Watched the movie, and while I think the cinematography and production design was amazing and all, the story was horrible at many points. The scenes where gay topics were the focus felt completely out of place – they had nothing to do with the actual plot, and they moved nothing forward or added anything besides what I consider forced inclusion for the sake of following the new political Hollywood. There was absolutely nothing organic about that – and the out-of-nowhere deep relationship between Elisa and the creature.
Honestly, I believed it in the beginning, 'cause Elisa was curious AF which is understandable, as is it understandable that she would find the creature relatable. But to go from that and then litteraly two seconds later doesn't even get scared by it when it tries to act violent towards her (it's a giant hissing fish with legs and sharp teeth who litteraly just bit the fingers off a guy), but instead she looks like that emoji with heart eyes. WTF. Even to suspend disbelief in that situation, a few days goes by and she's completely fallen for the fish man. FISH man. It's a friggin' fish. I don't care what people say about it being a God and humanlike. It was also beastiality in Beauty and the Beast, but at least of what we know of they didn't have sex while he was an animal; here we SEE them have sex and even talk about how they did it, as if it wasn't enough to see it. That's completely disgusting.
Disappointed in the Academy for (clearly political reasons) recognising it as a Best Picture. Hope the sale of this book won't be as huge as it probably will. (like tf, I never thought I'd ask this question, but how could a movie which glamourises a romantic and SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP with an ANIMAL get this positively popular? oh my goodness, this world)

this is probably the funniest post ever written in that you missed the point so violently that you managed to legit spout exactly the same points as all the film's villains. please give me your autograph

That actually made me laugh out loud because my post is obviously written over-the-top. XD However, I’d like to hear you defend beastiality, since you didn’t mention anything about how I was wrong? Also, comparing me to the villains is just ridiculous, they tortured the creature physically and mentally and treated it like an object. How do I compare to them in any way?

Y wrote: "this is probably the funniest post ever written in that you missed the point so violently that you managed to legit spout exactly the same points as all the film's villains. please give me your aut..."

Preach

Well do tell me the points I'm missing 'cause you just seem like an obnoxious Del Toro fan in that you can't or don't bother to make a statement even slightly but either way make fun of what I say?

Lukas wrote: "(***MINOR SPOILERS, is basically shown in the trailer***)
Watched the movie, and while I think the cinematography and production design was amazing and all, the story was horrible at many points. T..."
Haven't seen the movie, but might when it gets to the library for free.
This feels sorta like a screenplay treatment, when someone takes a screenplay and then writes a page or so about each scene.
For me, this was "Creature From the Black Lagoon", a B-movie with a hundred million dollar budget (at least). And the gay story line was just weird and out of place. I don't know how the author makes the jump from lizard/person sex to gay sex. All sorta silly. BUT yes I've heard it's beautiful to watch the film. But so are sunsets, free, every night.

Oh, and no, I wouldn't find lizard/human sex too weird in a movie or in a book. But in real life? Yes, that would be besteaility and would be disgusting. To think of Texas, where the men are men and the sheep are afraid. Disgusting.

Lukas wrote: "(***MINOR SPOILERS, is basically shown in the trailer***)
Watched the movie, and while I think the cinematography and production design was amazing and all, the story was horrible at many points. T..."

Lukas, how did they get this creature out of the Amazon, into a small boat, then, into four airplanes to Balimore? They would have had to have known to take a tank and how would they have hauled the tank through the jungles? And all the while, they would have had to feed it. Raw chopped panther can't even be found in first class these days.

Greg wrote: "Lukas wrote: "(***MINOR SPOILERS, is basically shown in the trailer***)
Watched the movie, and while I think the cinematography and production design was amazing and all, the story was horrible at ..."

Exactly! It's like they forced the gay storyline in and excused it by being like, "oh this is a metaphorical comparison to the relationship between Eliza and the fish." That's completely ignoring the fact that they're comparing a human relationship to one which is bestiality; therefore morally wrong unlike the actual human relationship, which has no story purpose besides the unethical comparison.

Like metaphorically speaking I get the whole romantic/sexual thing; like you're saying it's not real life. The problem (to me, and I don't get why more people can't see this) is that the movie isn't indicating in any scene that anything is meant to be taken as metaphorical, as the plot is explored in a typical fantasy world where nothing (such as the movie's reality) is supposed to be questioned by the viewer. I suppose, however, that the storyworld is meant to be questioned by the viewer – as the only appropriate response to the bestiality is saying that it's a metaphor for relationships forbidden by the norms and that it's what's on the inside that counts. Hadn't the entire story not been told in a direct manner, but in a questioning magical realism style, it would've probably worked. Instead, here is a piece of common fantasy cinema that will turn on the same audience who watches Hentai tentacle p*rn and God knows whom else could adore and/or justify romance and sex between a woman and an animal in a story world portrayed as real life.

Look I really just have to ask - did you actually read this book? Because Elisa is the only one who wants to fuck the fish man and at the end of the book it turns out she is also a fish person and has gills and can breathe under water so your argument has literally no merit.

And another thing - the reason the three main characters are a disabled woman, a black woman, an fish man, and a gay man are because one of the major themes are people living on the fringes of society and those are all marginalised groups.

No no, as stated this is only about the movie as I haven't read the book, which is why I haven't rated it or anything. I'm really glad to hear that the book handled it all better; still it doesn't defend the movie at all as the two of them are seperate pieces, apparently.

I assume you have watched the movie, so I don't have to go in details and spoil much, but the gay scenes that it included were in no way related to the actual plot of Elisa and the fish man, although the theme behind the character were. I can definitely understand the reason why the characters (with different ethnicity, background and sexual orientation) are included in the story for theme reasons, but at least in the way I see it, it's no "excuse" for including full scenes only revolved about the gay character and his love story. It could've been pointed out in another scene where it fitted or even just hinting at the fact that he was gay in a subtle way, which would state the theme. Instead, they make out several scenes for his character only for the pinpoint of... showing off?
Now even if we could find the slightest of matter to the scenes besides forced inclusion, what really itches me is how they openly and in general compare gays – and black people – to bestiality. I think it's lovely that as you say, in the book that isn't the case. But in the movie they don't even hint that that could be the case. Again, assuming you have watched the movie, otherwise this will be a spoiler(!!!), they only hint at that the fish man has turned Elisa into a fish person in the end by covering her scars with his "godly" hands, making them gills. This obviously happens after the seduction, the sex scene and all, in which she was still a full-on woman. That's bestiality.
Of course I hope I've missed something important that isn't just some kind of lame excuse for how the subject matters were treated, but I really don't see it anywhere. To me, it just looks like Del Toro found an otherworldly romance with a human woman and a fish man fascinating and went over the line with it.

Defending the human/monster relationship
Let's approach this two ways--metaphorical and literal interpretations of the relationship between Elisa and the fi--

You know what? He's amphibious. He has a set of lungs and gills. I know that doesn't change your argument, but calling him a fish is incorrect. That's the only nitpick I have with this argument, let's move on.

If you wanna interpret this as metaphorical, than we can go through the concept of The Other, but that's been covered before in this thread and in video essays and the like.

But literally? Okay, lemme try to approach this--

He's not a real creature. It's not like seducing a sheep. It's a fantasy that's based on aesthetics, and it's purely fantasy. It's a desire for what the monster represents, and for that, please refer back to the video essay I linked, because Readus101 can explain it way better than me.

But if we wanna accept that this is a real creature, then let's look at why this is not bestiality. Please to put it frankly, he's not an animal. He's a monster. To me, there's a distinct difference because monsters have a human element to them.

This amphibious man has an intelligence level that is at least on par with a human's (as established in Dr. Hoffstetler's arguments and scientific notes). He is capable of communicating in the same method of language as Elisa--and he is intelligent enough to pick up this method quickly so they can understand each other.

So with that, it stands to reason--and suspension of disbelief--that he would be capable of accepting or refusing offers for sex.

I could go so far as to argue that the allure of alien babes is the same--it's purely a change of exterior aesthetics. It's still a relationship on a sentient level. Same with The Beast in Beauty and the Beast. He's still human in thought and mind, it's just his appearance that has changed.

Defending the scenes with Giles and the pie worker
Keeping it short, Giles is almost the same as Elisa, but he is able to hide his marginalization. If he didn't act on his attraction, he'd be viewed as a regular man in the 1960s. But when there's a chance to help someone who cannot hide who they are, he initially refuses. Then the incident in the pie shop happens and he realizes that he cannot just play a spectator in this scenario.

Or, those are my interpretations.

I HATED the movie and I was so disappointed when it won. It SUCKS. It's a snooze fest, so boring, and so disgusting. I was horrified when Elisa's friend was ok when she told her she had had sex with the creature, like, wouldn't you be worried about Elisa's mental health?

Also, it is said that the creature had been found in South America, where it was worshipped like a god. I'm from South America (Argentina), and I can assure that in the 60s we are not natives worshipping a lake creature. It's racist and offensive, it shows how little they care, even when the movie is featured all over the world, to show accuracy. Just because this is South America, we are still natives who think a the swamp lake creature is a god.

HATED HATED HATED THIS MOVIE

1. Beastiality is not a thing. The word is bestiality.
2. The book is beautiful. Sex is not the focus, bestial, gay or otherwise. To make sex the sole focus is to completely undermine the message of acceptance (lacking in 1960s America and, apparently now, as well). Saying something is "disgusting" when you missed the entire point says more about you than anything else I can point out.
3. I'm from Texas. The men here seem to be like men from everywhere else. Which is actually kind of sad sometimes. The sheep are no more afraid here than those in Wyoming or Montana, though none of them have told me personally.
4. Why do people who quote God's thoughts with such intimacy always seem to strike the rest of us as rather narrow-minded or, more succinctly, as idiots?

I couldn't have phrased it better than Lukas.

"To make sex the sole focus is to completely undermine..."

The movie begins with the protagonist masturbating in her bath.

The director himself puts autoerotic stimulation front and center from the first ten seconds.

I'll skip to 4.

"Why do people who quote God's thoughts with such intimacy always seem to strike the rest of us as rather narrow-minded or, more succinctly, as idiots?"

Because you like to practice religious intolerance.

While singing the praise of a movie which is so progressive about its message of tolerance. For sex with fish.

In other words because projection is so much easier a mechanism than - introspection. And than asking the right questions.

I'll stop at that. But, with these out of the bag, I'll invite you to take a much, much closer look at how exactly the movie is cut. What exactly the subtext is. Just think about it, but think about it without trying to be "trendy" or forum-aggressive.