Guillermo del Toro's "The Shape of Water"

[redhawk23]

Being an a-hole and being a murderer is two completely different things. There was not a single scene that established he was capable of disregarding his job. If anything, it was established he was all about his job. He was mean, he was a pig, he was a creep, he was materialistic (w/ his love for his car) - but in no way did I ever think it was in his character to kill an innocent character out of anger. He didn't even physically hurt Octavia Spencer in their scene in her house. He was mean, sure.. he used harsh language, but he didn't pull out a gun on her. Just randomly shoot the main character was shoehorned bc we needed that emotional moment between a fish and the human.

His job was to terminate and bring in the fishman. The whole middle of the film shows him breaking down and being threatened to be excommunicated if he didn't deliver.

Seriously man, what movie did you watch?

 

[Silvermoth]

Yeah plus you think a guy that was ok with torturing fish man would have a problem with killing him? That's a very weird logic.

Plus I assure you family men with a wife and two kids in the suburbs can be just as deadly as anyone. Maybe more so

 

[chamber-music]

There is a movie called cold skin that feels like it could be a companion piece to this movie in some ways.

Ray Stevenson's character also has sex with a fish person in cold skin.

 

[Spider-Fan]

I understand what del Toro was trying to say about racism and xenophobia, but the execution of those themes in the film doesn't really work. The concept of her getting with a non-human being is fine, but the creature as portrayed in the film is too childlike, too animalistic for it to work.

As InfinityWar said, none of the creature's actions in the film convey adult human-level intelligence or emotions. In fact, aside from some understanding of sign language all of his actions are violent or like those of a pet. He's basically equivalent to a chimpanzee (not the Planet of the Apes kind).

Again, I understand what del Toro was going for and if it had been handled differently I would've been totally onboard (in concept it's no different than interspecies relationships in sci-fi), but the way it's portrayed in the movie is pretty gross and borderline pedophilic.

This wasn't the only problem I had with the film, though. Even without this particular subplot I still wouldn't have enjoyed the film (though I concede that it was well crafted).

Here is the fault with this argument: we're projecting our view of what intelligence means onto the situation. This creature obviously had a lot of intelligence, just not the same as human intelligence. The creature was a manifestation of the idea of how mankind views other people and intelligence to be limited. People wrote off various characters in the movie out of race, sexual orientation, and handicap. The creature got the worst treatment of all because he clearly was not human. But, that doesn't mean it lacked intelligence or anything like that (nor was it a "child"). The creature saw the world in a way we cannot comprehend. To think of it as a child is again limiting the creature and doing exactly what characters like Shannon, the waiter, etc. were all guilty of.

 

[ban768]

I agree, chaseter.....Their sexual relationship didnt sit well with me. At all....

You guys remember that scene at the end of the original Planet of the Apes 1968 where Charlton Heston kissed the ape ? It was awkward and looked strange. This whole movie took that to a new level. Totally gross and unbelievable for their world the film established.

I think if you cut that love romance out of the film and make it about a mute woman and her 'big pet fish' and the idea of just having to free the thing, I would have been totally on board. But she has to have sex with a reptile ???? That is disgusting and I can't get into the film. Thats just me. Different tastes. Others might see something else entirely, but I think that single moment ruined the film. Its a well made film with a wonderful cast and amazing performances. I havent seen Three Billboards yet, so I cant say for sure Hawkings should win Best Actress, but it was a terrific performance. I personally hope Dunkirk wins Best Pic, but Hollywood will prolly give this awful movie the Oscar unfortunately. I wish Disaster Artist was nominated.

I found it gross as well with her having sex with the creature. People elsewhere have mentioned comparisons to Beauty and the Beast, but at least the Beast was in the mammal species. I truly can't comprehend how Nolan's been losing to The Shape of Water for Best Direction.

 

[Elayis]

Here is the fault with this argument: we're projecting our view of what intelligence means onto the situation. This creature obviously had a lot of intelligence, just not the same as human intelligence. The creature was a manifestation of the idea of how mankind views other people and intelligence to be limited. People wrote off various characters in the movie out of race, sexual orientation, and handicap. The creature got the worst treatment of all because he clearly was not human. But, that doesn't mean it lacked intelligence or anything like that (nor was it a "child"). The creature saw the world in a way we cannot comprehend. To think of it as a child is again limiting the creature and doing exactly what characters like Shannon, the waiter, etc. were all guilty of.

That sounds like postmodernist garbage to me. There definitely are and should be universal standards when it comes to sentience and intelligence. If one takes the attitude of "who am I to judge, I'm an outsider and don't understand their culture, everything is relative" then words don't mean anything and the world's a free for all. How can you then criticize anyone for doing anything?

We have to judge people by their words and actions. Sure, multiple characters in the film kept referencing the fact that the creature was a "god," but aside from his rapid healing abilities I saw no evidence of that. He wasn't all-knowing or all-powerful. I suppose one could make the case that he was more like the old pagan gods, but that doesn't change the fact that his level of consciousness seemed to be more ape-like than human-like. It never seemed like he was truly aware of what was happening to and around him, and therefore did not have the capability to give consent.

Perhaps if he was given a proper education and time to acclimate around humans he'd be able to properly grow and mature to the point that he'd be able to have adult relationships, but he never got to that point in the film. It also would've been impossible given the situation and environment of 1962, and he was clearly meant to return to his former way of life and not interact so directly with humans.

I found it gross as well with her having sex with the creature. People elsewhere have mentioned comparisons to Beauty and the Beast, but at least the Beast was in the mammal species. I truly can't comprehend how Nolan's been losing to The Shape of Water for Best Direction.

Beast was also formerly human and obviously still possessed human-level intelligence. That match-up I have no problem with.

 

[Spider-Fan]

That sounds like postmodernist garbage to me. There definitely are and should be universal standards when it comes to sentience and intelligence. If one takes the attitude of "who am I to judge, I'm an outsider and don't understand their culture, everything is relative" then words don't mean anything and the world's a free for all. How can you then criticize anyone for doing anything?

We have to judge people by their words and actions. Sure, multiple characters in the film kept referencing the fact that the creature was a "god," but aside from his rapid healing abilities I saw no evidence of that. He wasn't all-knowing or all-powerful. I suppose one could make the case that he was more like the old pagan gods, but that doesn't change the fact that his level of consciousness seemed to be more ape-like than human-like. It never seemed like he was truly aware of what was happening to and around him, and therefore did not have the capability to give consent.

Perhaps if he was given a proper education and time to acclimate around humans he'd be able to properly grow and mature to the point that he'd be able to have adult relationships, but he never got to that point in the film. It also would've been impossible given the situation and environment of 1962, and he was clearly meant to return to his former way of life and not interact so directly with humans.

If there needs to be a universal standard of intelligence, please provide me with the definition. The creature was able to learn language, which shows abstract thought. It was also able to learn the concept of love and attachment. Yes, it ate a cat and had some feral tendencies, but again those are by human standards. Does a creature have to speak perfect English and basically be a human with green skin in order to be considered intelligent in cinema?

This is why The Shape of Water is brilliant and why I love GDT, he strips away that comfort level and challenges you more. It's easy to see something as human or sentient if it acts human, regardless of appearance. But that also makes it easier for the audience to accept. GDT is presenting us with a creature that is definitively not human, but shows clear sentience. The film asks you to broaden your definition of sentience. If the movie had just had the monster become human with scales, there is no challenge and then it is just a cliche love story. Further, for many years, people saw black people, homosexuals, etc. as less than human (aka as lesser people). The monster is a symbolic representation of that bias. The film is a statement on race and prejudice against "undesirables" within our culture. This is why our heroes in the film helping the monster are all outcasts of society (a homosexual man, a black woman, and a mute). The rich white guy (representing the establishment) looked down upon it and treated him like a dog. But again, this message is dumbed down if the monster is too human.

 

[Schlosser85]

Exactly. It’s no coincidence that every “good guy” in the movie is an “other” in some way shape or form. The creature is just the most obvious and extreme example, but GDT was definitely making a social statement.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Exactly. It’s no coincidence that every “good guy” in the movie is an “other” in some way shape or form. The creature is just the most obvious and extreme example, but GDT was definitely making a social statement.

Exactly

I definitely can see where the romance made people feel uncomfortable. But what I don't think many are getting is that is EXACTLY what GDT wanted. It was meant to challenge the audience and ask them to look deeper.

 

[Elayis]

It's not challenging, it's nonsensical. It's the same problem I had with mother!, you can't anthropomorphize allegory/symbolism without serious character issues. I couldn't buy into the love story because it was never properly developed and the creature was never shown to have sufficient mental capacities. It's fine to have hypothetical levels of intelligence, but when interacting with humans it needs to be comparable and understandable to us, especially when engaging in a romantic relationship.

As I said, creature showed that it could feel pain and that it understood sign language; that does not equate to human level intelligence/sentience/consciousness. It doesn't need to speak perfect English, but it needs to be operating on a similar playing field as its romantic partner. It had no culture, no language of its own. It has more in common with a dolphin than it does with a human. If people can accept this kind of relationship, why is pedophilia or bestiality considered wrong? A human teenager is far more mature and intelligent than what the creature displayed in the film.

The film is essentially a children's story for adults; it paints in broad strokes and doesn't challenge the viewer or tell you anything you didn't already know. It certainly doesn't help that the bad guys are mustache twirlers without a single redeeming quality. This is not how you start a conversation or attempt to get people of a different opinion to change their mind. This is preaching to the choir at its finest and most redundant.

 

[Spider-Fan]

It's not challenging, it's nonsensical. It's the same problem I had with mother!, you can't anthropomorphize allegory/symbolism without serious character issues. I couldn't buy into the love story because it was never properly developed and the creature was never shown to have sufficient mental capacities. It's fine to have hypothetical levels of intelligence, but when interacting with humans it needs to be comparable and understandable to us, especially when engaging in a romantic relationship.

Not really going to debate mother! as it has little to do with this movie. As for intelligence comparable to humans, what would be acceptable to you? It speaking perfect English and drinking tea on a Sunday morning?

As I said, creature showed that it could feel pain and that it understood sign language; that does not equate to human level intelligence/sentience/consciousness. It doesn't need to speak perfect English, but it needs to be operating on a similar playing field as its romantic partner. It had no culture, no language of its own. It has more in common with a dolphin than it does with a human. If people can accept this kind of relationship, why is pedophilia or bestiality considered wrong? A human teenager is far more mature and intelligent than what the creature displayed in the film.

This is just crap. The creature learned human sign language in like a week, and got fairly fluent in it. That is beyond anything a dolphin could master. Animals can grasp basic words and commands, but this creature clearly understood emotions and concepts. Did it say them in the form of well spoken English dialogue? No, but it clearly knew what the idea of "love" was and could master full sentences in sign language, thus showing abstract thinking. That's beyond a dolphin.

The film is essentially a children's story for adults; it paints in broad strokes and doesn't challenge the viewer or tell you anything you didn't already know. It certainly doesn't help that the bad guys are mustache twirlers without a single redeeming quality. This is not how you start a conversation or attempt to get people of a different opinion to change their mind. This is preaching to the choir at its finest and most redundant.

Plenty of GDT's work are fairy tales for adults. But, that is not a bad thing nor devalues his work. He tells a more effective love story with a non-human fish monster than 95% of the film's I see with the young attractive man meeting young attractive woman. This movie had layers and a message, and yes making the monster less human adds a dimension I don't think you're considering.

 

[Elayis]

Not really going to debate mother! as it has little to do with this movie. As for intelligence comparable to humans, what would be acceptable to you? It speaking perfect English and drinking tea on a Sunday morning?

My point was simply that like mother!, this movie takes symbolism and metaphor and embodies it in real people. For me that creates a host of problems that prevents from engaging in and enjoying the story.

This is just crap. The creature learned human sign language in like a week, and got fairly fluent in it. That is beyond anything a dolphin could master. Animals can grasp basic words and commands, but this creature clearly understood emotions and concepts. Did it say them in the form of well spoken English dialogue? No, but it clearly knew what the idea of "love" was and could master full sentences in sign language, thus showing abstract thinking. That's beyond a dolphin.

As I said, the creature doesn't need to speak perfect English, but to engage in a sexual relationship with a human it needs be comparable to our species. The bits of sign language that it spoke were just parroted from what Elisa has already spoken. I wonder if it even understood what it was saying, and not just imitating what it saw without any comprehension. Obviously from del Toro's point of view it understood, but that wouldn't be immediately clear if this were real and one only had the creature's behavior to go on.

There was no sign that the creature came from a sophisticated culture. No tools, no language of its own, no artwork or structures.

The only reason why any of this matters is because Elisa entered into a sexual relationship with it, and without the foundation of equality it is exploitation, pure and simple. You can say it was operating at a level of sentience that's different than us, but that wouldn't change the fact that he and Elisa were not equals and that their union was fundamentally unbalanced. One could make the argument that Elisa entered into it out of desperation, but that still wouldn't make her actions morally right, they'd just be understandable. Besides, a lot of critics I've seen seem to think that Elisa was not broken and a fully functioning human being, so if that's the case that makes her actions even more inexcusable.

We don't necessarily have to judge her actions, but the movie is trying to make their joining as some deeply romantic love story which to me is delusional.

Plenty of GDT's work are fairy tales for adults. But, that is not a bad thing nor devalues his work. He tells a more effective love story with a non-human fish monster than 95% of the film's I see with the young attractive man meeting young attractive woman. This movie had layers and a message, and yes making the monster less human adds a dimension I don't think you're considering.

Sure, fairy tales for adults might not inherently be a bad thing, but I personally don't enjoy them. I'm not a big fan of del Toro's work in general. I dislike all of his English language films (and actually think most of them are quite poor). I love Pan's Labyrinth, which is also a fairy tale, but it's handled with much more subtlety, nuance and maturity.

And so what if most movies are crap. What does that have to do with anything? This film's message was hamfisted and about as subtle as an after school special.

 

[Spider-Fan]

As I said, the creature doesn't need to speak perfect English, but to engage in a sexual relationship with a human it needs be comparable to our species. The bits of sign language that it spoke were just parroted from what Elisa has already spoken. I wonder if it even understood what it was saying, and not just imitating what it saw without any comprehension. Obviously from del Toro's point of view it understood, but that wouldn't be immediately clear if this were real and one only had the creature's behavior to go on.

There was no sign that the creature came from a sophisticated culture. No tools, no language of its own, no artwork or structures.

We did not see where the creature came from so to say it had no culture is an assumption. And it showed understanding of what she was saying. Perfect example, he pointed to the egg and signed "Egg" thus showing he understood what an egg was and what the word meant. There are other examples, but this is the easiest one to notice. But he also made complex sentences in sign language and understood the responses he got.

The only reason why any of this matters is because Elisa entered into a sexual relationship with it, and without the foundation of equality it is exploitation, pure and simple. You can say it was operating at a level of sentience that's different than us, but that wouldn't change the fact that he and Elisa were not equals and that their union was fundamentally unbalanced. One could make the argument that Elisa entered into it out of desperation, but that still wouldn't make her actions morally right, they'd just be understandable. Besides, a lot of critics I've seen seem to think that Elisa was not broken and a fully functioning human being, so if that's the case that makes her actions even more inexcusable.

We don't necessarily have to judge her actions, but the movie is trying to make their joining as some deeply romantic love story which to me is delusional.[/quote]

The whole point was that while she couldn't talk she wasn't broken. Just like him being a non-human creature didn't mean he wasn't something above animal. He was a sentient being in his own right. But as far as what she was doing was right or wrong, once again this all comes down to how sentient you think the creature was. You clearly think he was a lesser being closer to an animal, and I disagree. I think the creature was very close to human, but again it wasn't raised human therefore it had its own culture and its own needs. That creatures way of life is beyond our understanding, but I think it showed enough individuality and intelligence to call it "human enough."

Sure, fairy tales for adults might not inherently be a bad thing, but I personally don't enjoy them. I'm not a big fan of del Toro's work in general. I dislike all of his English language films (and actually think most of them are quite poor). I love Pan's Labyrinth, which is also a fairy tale, but it's handled with much more subtlety, nuance and maturity.

And so what if most movies are crap. What does that have to do with anything? This film's message was hamfisted and about as subtle as an after school special.

This all is just coming down to a matter of taste, IMO. What you call "hamfisted" I call beautifully portrayed and poetic in this case. I think this is clearly GDT's best movie besides Pan's Labyrinth. Like I said, this film showed me more creativity and maturity than 90% of romance movies out there IMO.

 

[Elayis]

We did not see where the creature came from so to say it had no culture is an assumption. And it showed understanding of what she was saying. Perfect example, he pointed to the egg and signed "Egg" thus showing he understood what an egg was and what the word meant. There are other examples, but this is the easiest one to notice. But he also made complex sentences in sign language and understood the responses he got.

She pointed to the egg and signed "egg" first, though, so he was only mimicking her. And while saying the creature had no culture is an assumption, the film never implies that he did have one. Certainly Shannon's character would've mentioned it if he'd seen any. He might have been dismissive of it, calling it primitive or attributing it to humans, but I think it would've come up in conversation.

Again, though, it's only because he enters into a sexual relationship with Elisa that human normative standards even matter. Because if their coupling is okay, based on what we have to go on about the creature as provided by the movie, I see no reason why having sex with a minor or a dolphin would be any different. Yes, it's only a story and a fairy tale at that, but that's the reason why I have a problem with it. The story doesn't have enough depth or substance to it to properly make its case. The whole story hinges on their relationship and I just don't buy it.

But even if the movie had what it took to satisfy me in regards to the creature's sentience, the stylistic and narrative choices del Toro made would still leave me cold. This simply isn't my kind of movie.

 

[Spider-Fan]

She pointed to the egg and signed "egg" first, though, so he was only mimicking her. And while saying the creature had no culture is an assumption, the film never implies that he did have one. Certainly Shannon's character would've mentioned it if he'd seen any. He might have been dismissive of it, calling it primitive or attributing it to humans, but I think it would've come up in conversation.

Shannon saw no humanity in the creature, so he either never saw it show any humanity, or more likely, actively ignored it because of how it looked.

Again, though, it's only because he enters into a sexual relationship with Elisa that human normative standards even matter. Because if their coupling is okay, based on what we have to go on about the creature as provided by the movie, I see no reason why having sex with a minor or a dolphin would be any different. Yes, it's only a story and a fairy tale at that, but that's the reason why I have a problem with it. The story doesn't have enough depth or substance to it to properly make its case. The whole story hinges on their relationship and I just don't buy it.

Again, this is just hinging on differing of taste. I don't think the creature's romance with her was any less developed than most movies where guy meets girl and they fall in love. I think the film highlighted why they were drawn to one another quite well.

But even if the movie had what it took to satisfy me in regards to the creature's sentience, the stylistic and narrative choices del Toro made would still leave me cold. This simply isn't my kind of movie.

This is something I cannot force on you, LOL! All I can do is explain why people like me loved it and are pulling for it Oscar night

 

[Elayis]

Again, this is just hinging on differing of taste. I don't think the creature's romance with her was any less developed than most movies where guy meets girl and they fall in love. I think the film highlighted why they were drawn to one another quite well.

To me the film needed to go the extra mile because the relationship was so outlandish and potentially off-putting. As would've been the case if she had fallen in love with a dolphin, the film needed to properly develop their bond and demonstrate that it was between equals who properly understood and supported one another. But then I also feel most movies don't develop their romance arcs and rely too much on assumed empathy so this isn't a unique problem.

This is something I cannot force on you, LOL! All I can do is explain why people like me loved it and are pulling for it Oscar night [/QUOTE]

Unfortunately (for me), I fully expect this movie to win Best Picture. It has all of the feel good qualities the Academy loves, and its politics are timely. To me there are more deserving movies (Dunkirk, Phantom Thread, even The Post which didn't overly impress me), but I'd honestly be surprised if it doesn't end up winning.

It all comes down to different strokes for different folks, and there's nothing wrong with that. At least this isn't an objectively bad movie like Transformers. I can at least understand why somebody might like this movie, even if I disagree. Thanks for the conversation, congenial back and forths don't seem to happen online very often anymore.

 

[Spider-Fan]

To me the film needed to go the extra mile because the relationship was so outlandish and potentially off-putting. As would've been the case if she had fallen in love with a dolphin, the film needed to properly develop their bond and demonstrate that it was between equals who properly understood and supported one another. But then I also feel most movies don't develop their romance arcs and rely too much on assumed empathy so this isn't a unique problem.

I agree it is not a unique problem for movies. This is why it is so vital to maximize your run time. This is why so many pure romance movies feel the same to me, because they fall victim to the run time and have to cut corners (and insert cliches to do so). I agree this film had a greater challenge in developing that given the inherent idea is way out of the norm, and that is where I see much of the backlash from say you and chase in this thread. But, I do think that making the romance uncomfortable was GDT's intent. This is def not the type of movie that will work for everyone.

Unfortunately (for me), I fully expect this movie to win Best Picture. It has all of the feel good qualities the Academy loves, and its politics are timely. To me there are more deserving movies (Dunkirk, Phantom Thread, even The Post which didn't overly impress me), but I'd honestly be surprised if it doesn't end up winning.

It all comes down to different strokes for different folks, and there's nothing wrong with that. At least this isn't an objectively bad movie like Transformers. I can at least understand why somebody might like this movie, even if I disagree. Thanks for the conversation, congenial back and forths don't seem to happen online very often anymore.

No problem at all

I think this movie's biggest competition is Three Billboards. If I had to pick what I think WILL win, I think it is going to be Three Billboards. I think it is a 3 horse race between The Shape of Water, Three Billboards, and Dunkirk.

 

[redhawk23]

She pointed to the egg and signed "egg" first, though, so he was only mimicking her. And while saying the creature had no culture is an assumption, the film never implies that he did have one. Certainly Shannon's character would've mentioned it if he'd seen any. He might have been dismissive of it, calling it primitive or attributing it to humans, but I think it would've come up in conversation.

Again, though, it's only because he enters into a sexual relationship with Elisa that human normative standards even matter. Because if their coupling is okay, based on what we have to go on about the creature as provided by the movie, I see no reason why having sex with a minor or a dolphin would be any different. Yes, it's only a story and a fairy tale at that, but that's the reason why I have a problem with it. The story doesn't have enough depth or substance to it to properly make its case. The whole story hinges on their relationship and I just don't buy it.

But even if the movie had what it took to satisfy me in regards to the creature's sentience, the stylistic and narrative choices del Toro made would still leave me cold. This simply isn't my kind of movie.

He doesn't just mimic the sign language. He also uses it, like when asking why she turned off the music. How exactly do you think anyone learns sign language?

 

[redhawk23]

Dunkirk hasn't been winning a single top of line award. It isnt in the running at this point.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Dunkirk hasn't been winning a single top of line award. It isnt in the running at this point.

I think Dunkirk is a distant 3rd in the race, but with the academy's scoring system, always gotta pick a dark horse. It would be my dark horse pick.

 

[redhawk23]

Many of the academy voters make up at least part of the various guild awards. Dunkirk hasn't won any of them.

It doesn't have the votes from directors, actors, writers, producers, costume designers...basically nothing. It's possible that in a 5 film year, it might not have even been nominated for best picture.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Honestly, I kind of miss the 5 film format. Was easier to see the BP noms.

 

[redhawk23]

Honestly, I kind of miss the 5 film format. Was easier to see the BP noms.

While the nomination is an honor in and of itself, I don't really see the point of nominating several more films that aren't even really in the conversation of being possible winners.

 

[moviedoors]

It's not challenging, it's nonsensical. It's the same problem I had with mother!, you can't anthropomorphize allegory/symbolism without serious character issues. I couldn't buy into the love story because it was never properly developed and the creature was never shown to have sufficient mental capacities. It's fine to have hypothetical levels of intelligence, but when interacting with humans it needs to be comparable and understandable to us, especially when engaging in a romantic relationship.

As I said, creature showed that it could feel pain and that it understood sign language; that does not equate to human level intelligence/sentience/consciousness. It doesn't need to speak perfect English, but it needs to be operating on a similar playing field as its romantic partner. It had no culture, no language of its own. It has more in common with a dolphin than it does with a human. If people can accept this kind of relationship, why is pedophilia or bestiality considered wrong? A human teenager is far more mature and intelligent than what the creature displayed in the film.

The film is essentially a children's story for adults; it paints in broad strokes and doesn't challenge the viewer or tell you anything you didn't already know. It certainly doesn't help that the bad guys are mustache twirlers without a single redeeming quality. This is not how you start a conversation or attempt to get people of a different opinion to change their mind. This is preaching to the choir at its finest and most redundant.

Thank god, I'm not the only one that felt this way. I wasn't able to buy into this movie emotionally on any level. The romance would work as fable told orally, but not literally on film; this woman wanted to bone a golden retriever basically. I found it thuddingly obvious from the script straight thru to the casting. Seriously, how much more interesting would this movie have been if Michael Shannon and Michael Stuhlbarg had switched roles? This is a movie for adolescents that's been gussied up with a lot of sex and violence so it can pretend it's for adults.

There is a movie called cold skin that feels like it could be a companion piece to this movie in some ways.

Ray Stevenson's character also has sex with a fish person in cold skin.

Woah, is COLD SKIN finally available to watch?! I ****ing loved that book.

 

[JL Unlimited]

Many of the academy voters make up at least part of the various guild awards. Dunkirk hasn't won any of them.

It doesn't have the votes from directors, actors, writers, producers, costume designers...basically nothing. It's possible that in a 5 film year, it might not have even been nominated for best picture.

Dunkirk won at the ACE (American Cinema Editors) Eddie Awards. So it does have one guild win and over The Shape of Water in their category.

In a five film year, the DGA nominees would most likely match with Best Picture this year: Three Billboards, TSOW, Dunkirk, Lady Bird, and Get Out.