The movie starts with Elisa, the mute woman, arriving at work. She is a custodian at a top-secret government lab. Elisa has scars on her throat from an injury that rendered her mute as an infant. Some officials bring in the sea monster in a tank, warning that it is "their most valuable asset." It is so valuable that everyone leaves it alone and Elisa walks right up to it and starts tapping on the glass. If only one of the millions of mute women who have taken care of otherworldly fish monsters in secret government labs had directed or acted this scene, it would have been more accurate.
Richard Strickland, a hilariously over-the-top villain, gets his fingers bitten off by the creature. This made me hopeful that the movie would depict a more realistic otherworldly fish monster and mute woman relationship. However, Elisa goes into the lab to clean up and starts feeding the monster hard-boiled eggs.
Keep in mind that nobody knows anything about this creature. All Elisa knows is that this creature is extremely rare and is being studied in a top-secret lab. So she feeds it hard-boiled eggs.
Strickland's superior wants to dissect the creature to study its breathing apparatus in order to further the space race. Dmitri tries to tell them not to dissect it, because he is actually a Soviet spy. The Shape Of Water (2017) trots out the tired story of exploiting fish monsters during the Cold War instead of presenting another narrative. Strickland tortures the creature with electric shocks because he is the villain.
This monster is so important to the space race that they let the custodians have access to it at any time and only install camera after catching someone interfering. Congratulations Elisa, you could have just set the space race back with hard-boiled eggs.
The use of the government officials as villains is problematic because, if you read the accounts of all the mute women tasked to care for otherworldly fish monsters in secret government labs, the fish monsters are usually more dangerous than the government officials.
I demand that every movie about an individual facing a systemic problem represents everyone who faces that systemic problem, even if those experiences are diverse, because I don't trust audiences enough to separate a single, fictional story from real life.
Elisa, her coworker, her husband, and Dmitri smuggle the otherworldly fish monster out and into Elisa's bathtub. The monster gets out of the bathtub while the husband sleeps and the movie becomes E.T. (1982) He tries to make sense of the television programs, the kitchen appliances, and then he eats the cat. This is a good effort to show how harmful these otherworldly fish monster tend to be, however it is not enough.
The monster runs away. Elisa finds it in a movie theater, watching The Story Of Ruth (1960). I feel like this is a missed opportunity. The monster could have been watching a movie that tied into the meta theme of representation of sea creatures in media like this:
Then the otherworldly fish monster touches her husband and glows. The next day, his hair grows back. Yep, this otherworldly fish monster has healing powers. What a blow to the experiences of mute women who take care of otherworldly fish monsters in secret government labs and find violent ends! I can not believe that they released this movie in 2017 without listening to the voices of women who have experienced this systemic problem.
Then...
Then...um...
This is my only serious criticism in my review. I really did love this movie, but this part irritated me. The first part of the movie makes a half-hearted attempt deal about ethical concerns regarding the otherworldly fish monster. Elisa seems to be on the side of treating the monster humanely, which is good. Then when she gets home, she, uh, has...sexual intercourse with the otherworldly fish monster in the shower. And she has no idea how sentient this thing is and whether it can consent. Feeding it hard-boiled eggs without knowing it's diet was already a red flag. I'm not an ethicist, but I'm pretty sure there's a huge normative difference between hard-boiled eggs and sexual intercourse. My problem isn't that this is unethical; my problem is that Elisa is so adamant about treating the monster humanely and then doesn't care about the sexual intercourse. My other problem is that I had to think about the normative ethical difference between hard-boiled eggs and sexual intercourse for the first time in my life.
Most mute women in similar situation have been severely injured due to the violent nature of the otherworldly fish monster, and depicting a positive relationship is erasure.
With the monster getting weaker and the government investigation narrowing in on Elisa, they decide to set the monster free into a canal. However, they have to wait for a rainfall so the water will be high enough for the monster to swim over the wall.
Strickland interrogates and tortures people until he finds Elisa and her husband bringing the otherworldly fish monster to the canal and shoots Elisa. This is problematic because it portrays the government officials as the villains and ignores the violence of otherworldly fish monsters on mute women.
The otherworldly fish monster kills Strickland and heals Elisa. Then he drags Elisa to the water and turns her scars into gills so she can live in the water. And I'm just wondering, if the scars weren't in the same place as gills would be, would this not work? Not claiming it's a plot hole, just something to think about.
The title refers to Elisa's presence filling every space like "the shape of water."
People should boycott this movie until Hollywood gives us better representation of mute women who are tasked to care for otherworldly fish monsters in secret government labs.
Seriously, this is a really good movie. I'd feel bad if I didn't give my actual thoughts.
No comments:
Post a Comment