The Oscar-winners for Best Picture and Best Director often leave me baffled. Except for Titanic more than twenty years ago, the winner is rarely the most popular film. The Shape of Water certainly fits that mould. It’s a surreal cold-war tale about a monster from the sea and people on land who can’t seem to connect with others. Elisa is mute and her best friend is her gay neighbor, an out of work reformed alcoholic played by Richard Jenkins. Elisa works as a cleaner at a military research facility in Baltimore. Her best work-friend is played by Octavia Spencer. British actress Sally Hawkins plays Elisa with depth and feeling to spare despite uttering (almost) no words. The fish man – the “asset” – is given life by Doug Jones. There’s a huge Russia-versus-America element, of course, including a double-agent scientist with a conscience (Michael Stuhlbarg). The villain is a by-the-book racist and purely awful commander in charge (Michael Shannon). It’s The Creature from The Black Lagoon meets Free Willy set in the 1960s.
The Shape of Water is moody and dark, like an episode of the Twilight Zone but with elements of fantasy and warmth I didn’t expect. Unspoken undertones bubble up. Did Giles (the gay neighbor) have an illicit affair with a male colleague, and that’s what sunk his career? No one even utters such a suggestion but circumstances bring it to mind. It’s an unusual movie in every way and I enjoyed it more than I thought I would. However, hate isn’t a strong enough word for Derek’s reaction to it. I was so absorbed in the film that I didn’t notice his disdain until it was over.
Movies are like foods; they taste different on every palate. I knew nothing about Three Billboards Outside Ebbing Missouri (except for who starred, and the accolades they attracted) and enjoyed it for what it was. Yet I know people who refuse to see it because a couple of the leads (especially Sam Rockwell’s character) are stereotypical southern racists. (It’s a story, not a comment on all southerners.) Frances McDormand is exquisite in it, as always.
Another friend called Lady Bird a “perfect film”. I found it a fluffy bit of nothing about a dysfunctional family. Predictable and flat, like dry Melba toast. Still another said the previous two looked too disagreeable to him, so he was going to watch Call Me By Your Name. In other words, he would rather see a film about a teen and a man in a sexual relationship than any of the other offerings.
There’s a movie for everyone and this is why I’m uncomfortable recommending a film. Tastes vary. If we disagree, my taste isn’t “correct” while yours is wrong, or vice versa. They just are, and they’re both valid. I will say this about the fish sex movie; the fish sex isn’t graphic or gratuitous. And he is a fish-man, and she is lonely and … oh just see it and decide for yourself!