So after watching the Oscars with a bunch of friends, most of whom had seen nearly every film nominated, I decided to watch The Shape of Water last night, given that I had really only seen Blade Runner 2049, Get Out, The Last Jedi, and Coco.
First of all, The Shape of Water, I thought, was fantastic. It didn't try to be anything more than it needed to be. I'm really glad they didn't go too hard into the complications of the Cold War tensions, because that would've detracted away from the main story, which is really just that of love crossing physical and biologicial boundaries.
Of course, a lot is left open ended at the end of the film, such as "What happens next?", or "Who's gonna face consequences for a couple of these killings" or "How do Giles and Zelda react to Elisa being with the creature seemingly forever now (since she has gills)"...but when I thought about those (I had a similar thought process for the Last Jedi)- what exactly would those answers have added to the story? It's not about the Cold War, or focused on the relationships between Elisa and the people around her. In the same vein that knowing Snoke's backstory doesn't add anything important to The Last Jedi because this trilogy is Kylo's story, answering those kind of questions wouldn't add anything to this story because the story is simply about Elisa and the creature.
Michael Shannon, who I may be biased towards because I'm one of the few people who loved Man of Steel (there are literally *dozens* of us!), so needless to say his portrayal of Zod warmed me up to seeing him be a villainous character, however, I really enjoyed the way his character was written, because it's so believable. Kinda like Syndrome from the Incredibles, he's a classic example of a villain who just thinks he's doing good- he self-righteously quotes Bible verses in nearly every scene, and follows his orders, even though he has no sort of empathy for Elisa and the creature's relationship, much less for the creature himself, as he tortures the hell out of him.
Honestly, he's a scary type of villain to me, because it feels so familiar to someone you know in real life- those people who disguise themselves as selfless people while simultaneously committing extremely selfish- just another level of self-righteousness and lack of empathy that honestly scares me because it could so easily exist today (and it does, but I'm not gonna get too political for the sake of amiable discussion)
This brings me to my second point. I always hear about the concept of "Show, Don't Tell", either from my journalism professors, or from video essays on YouTube, or in screenwriting masterclasses, etc. That's certainly an effective technique that utilizes the medium of film and motion picture to the highest extent that it is an art form, however, I feel like the concept should be reimagined as "Show, *THEN* Tell". "Show, Don't Tell" works very well in this movie because they don't tell us that Michael Shannon's character is an awful human being. They show him torturing the creature, torturing Dimitri, making unrequited sexual advances towards Elisa, displaying racial bias towards Zelda, and the list keeps going.
They don't tell us "This guy is evil, he's gonna kill the creature and he doesn't care for the creature like Elisa does" (in the same way that in Revenge of the Sith, Obi-Wan literally tells Anakin "Chancellor Palpatine is Evil!" or "I have the high ground" [we can see that, bruh], or when Padme says "Only because I'm so in love" [k thanks for just telling us and not showing us that they're in love George Lucas]). They show us that he shows no empathy.
But further connecting to the love/relationship that's central to the story... they show us that Elisa and the creature are in love *BEFORE* they tell us. They show us the scars on Elisa's neck, as well as her communicating in ASL, before they explicitly tell us (maybe even to remind us) that her vocal cords were cut and she's mute. They show us that Elisa can communicate with him through sign language, that she's more comfortable around him, etc. before she has the confrontation with Giles where she explicitly states these kind of things (albeit, through sign language). Similarly from that same confrontation, we see that Elisa desires an interpersonal connection that transcends her physical boundaries, before she reminds Giles of that.
By showing before you tell, the viewer is allowed to make inferences and gather important character and plot details, however, by reinforcing this through telling, I'd argue that this is the most effective approach to storytelling because, especially if the viewer picked up on what they were supposed to pick up, it's extremely emotionally satisfying for the viewer, knowing that they read the film how they were supposed to read the film. This, I believe, makes the "higher art films" that people hate on the Oscars for selecting, much more accessible to the general public.
Examining the extreme ends of the tell vs. show spectrum, I already mentioned the Star Wars Prequels, but I'd argue that 2001: A Space Odyssey (while one of my favorite films of all time), does nearly no telling, but almost purely through showing. While that's an incredible feat to pull off, while telling a coherent story in the way Kubrick did, that's also the reason why, I think, I couldn't make it through the whole thing in one sitting until maybe my 6th or 7th viewing. There's definitely a lot more mental capacity involved in comprehending works like that, which rely on the viewer to pick up on metaphors, pay constant attention to the visuals, and stay invested in the story/characters. The Shape of Water, in my opinion, does an excellent job of finding a great medium of these two extremes, by showing THEN telling.
Do you agree? Disagree? I'd love to hear your thoughts.
Submitted March 08, 2018 at 09:02AM by MisundrstoodMagician http://ift.tt/2IdtoOE
