2017 Academy Awards Retrospective

A Little Princess...

Amores perros...

Y tu mamá también...

21 Grams...

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban...

Children of Men...

Pan's Labyrinth...

Babel...

Hellboy 2: The Golden Army...

Biutiful...

Gravity...

Birdman...

The Revenant...

The Shape of Water.

The Three Amigos. Cuarón... Iñárritu... del Toro. United in Oscar glory at last!

I will not lie, I may not have said that he was my favourite director of 2017, but when Guillermo del Toro won Best Director last night, I cried victorious tears... and then cried more victorious tears when The Shape of Water won the night entire!!! The first fantasy since Return of the King to win Best Director and Best Picture, and it's about damn time! I don't even care if it messed up my ballot to a tie with last year's all-time low of 14/24 correct. del Toro is my modern icon. He's a fantasist, a humanitarian, an incredible visual stylist, an incredibly sincere person, the best speech writer in history, he even gave a dedication to young filmmakers everywhere which gave me just the slightest bit of hope... You've earned this, del Toro! No one can take this away from you... not even Warren Beatty and Faye Dunaway!

Honestly, like 2015, even if I was wrong in an uncomfortable amount of categories, I'm happy that I was because I could not fault the films that won in each category. I know I came down hard on Three Billboards in my build-up to this point, but that was more paranoia over the possibility that I may end up having an all-new Birdman... and even in that case, I may be able to look at Birdman in a new light now that the three Mexicans finally share this honour. By the time the Screenplay awards came and went, I finally settled into the assurance that Three Billboards wasn't going to win, at which point, I could easily say, Rockwell and McDormand were the right people to honour from that particular movie - and that they were two of the other best speechifiers of the entire evening!  As I said in my live tweet when McDormand called for all the female nominees to stand up together at once, "McDormand, YOU WIN EVERYTHING!" Her speech was so good that even if you didn't know what 'inclusion rider' meant, you knew it was something powerful and important and it meant something to everyone there! I'll say it: I'm actually glad she won, because otherwise, we would not have gotten that epic a moment!

The rest of the ceremony, no matter however wrong I was, honestly goes without saying. Although, I was surprised by how few gaps there were between really great speeches. After Rockwell dedicated his Oscar to Philip Seymour Hoffman - bravo - I feel like it took until Sound Mixing and Gary Rizzo, who may not have given that unique a speech, but it was the cutaway to his daughter sitting in his seat, that made me think: Any nominee who brings their child with them to the Oscars is officially the BEST PARENT EVER!!! More great moments especially came from the screenwriters. James Ivory was beautifully subdued and honestly lyrical in his acceptance of Call Me by Your Name's one Oscar, proving that he's great at more than just writing speeches in scripts but in reality too... And then Jordan Peele won! And I screamed in joy! I had expected Greta Gerwig to be the upset in this category, but this was just as awesome, if not slightly more so, as the first African-American screenwriter to win this award! He may be one of the few filmmakers to actively thank the audience for going to see his film; it was our pleasure, sir! Gary Oldman had a lovely moment himself, paying tribute to his 99-years-young mother, asking her to 'put the kettle on', that was wonderful. Allison Janney could have stopped at 'I did it all by myself' and I would have unquestionably believed her, that was awesome. Rachel Shanton signing during her speech on behalf of her young star, what a wonderful way to represent her. Coco winning Best Animated Film, and the music being cut off just in time to allow Robert Lopez to pay tribute to his mother, amazing- Stop me now or I'll drown!

The winners that I got wrong were all pretty well-deserved in their own right. It probably counts as an accomplishment that Blade Runner 2049 won both Visual Effects and the long overdue Cinematography for Roger Deakins. Those two often go together, but it gives that film which not a lot of people saw in theatres a lot of well-deserved validation...

...

I guess that's the only one that I hadn't yet mentioned, so I'll just move on by saying, the rest of the ceremony was very entertaining too!

Now I will be fair, I did not get to hear all of Kimmel's punchlines during the evening, as I was too busy trying to think of my own jokes on Twitter, but I will continue to say this, he is absolutely a natural host for this show. The jet-ski skit was an amusing addition to the show, and hey, it went to the one award-winner from my favourite movie of the year, Phantom Thread! Nice job, Mark Bridges, you got something extra! What's more, though, the 'prank' this year, with the film-going audience and thanking them for going to the movies, that was friggin' awesome! It compensates for the bit of awkwardness that happened last year with the random bus tour, and it made the night feel so optimistic and friendly, which was a very good counterpoint to all the other very important statements that were made during the ceremony.

As expected, this was a very political evening, a potent reminder of the events of last year regarding female representation and the outing of Harvey Weinstein. There were so many very good moments of tribute, including the montage to the 'trail-blazers' of Hollywood, and those spectacular introductions to every single acting category! I want that editor's job so much, because they are absolutely boss! Emma Stone's got some serious spunk based on her line, 'These four men and Greta Gerwig'! YEAH! Also, if the Academy wants to do themselves some good next year, I have two suggestions... or three, just so that I can be fair to all of them: either hire Kumail Nanjiani... or Tiffany Haddish and Maya Rudolph as next year's host! They're all amazing presenters, they're hilarious, they gave life to the ceremony while also being very frank about current events, they'd do a great job next year! Make it happen!!!

I have been satisfied. There's nothing else that needs to be done. I do not need to win a ballot this year, because everything feels somehow right with the universe. It was a tense night for some time, but I can say that every winner for the year 2017 earned their piece and made their time to say what they needed to damn well worth it.

Now all that needs to happen is Nolan, Anderson and Gerwig tie for whatever they do next... how likely its that at this moment? Eh, it don't matter.

I'll see you in the coming year folks! Spread the love to each other!

"Inclusion rider!"

"He's a wild creature. We can't ask him to be anything else." - The Shape of Water

Directed by Guillermo del Toro
U. S., 2017
123 minutes

Titular quote by: Richard Jenkins as Giles


Happy Valentine's Day.

This was not planned in advance, it's just taken me this long to really dive into this review - 'dive' hehehehehehe- I'm sorry. Two viewings and several Oscar nominations later, I can summarize all of my rather unusual opinions about The Shape of Water, a movie which everybody loves at the moment, including myself... only I seem to love it just the slightest bit less than most people would expect me to. This is the burden of fanboying about a director so much. Even if the latest film from Guillermo del Toro has compelling characters, a strong narrative, stunning aesthetics and, most importantly, very sincere emotions... if I was to rank this film based on his previous filmography... it's approximately in 4th place... and could very well be in 5th (Could somebody please mail me the Criterion edition of Cronos!? Please!?) This is my preliminary warning regarding obvious bias based on loving someone's work too much. Allow me be a nit-picky fanboy this one time before I tell you how much I love this fantastical romance regardless.

Eliza Esposito cannot speak. Not for lack of trying to connect with people, though she does not have many friends. She is physically unable of using her voice. In her everyday life in 1960s Baltimore, she is able to get by. She enjoys watching black-and-white films with her next door neighbour Giles, eats well enough, and works the cleaning shift at a government laboratory with her coworker Zelda. She may have a life, but it is still lonely without anyone she can truly express herself to. Then the Asset arrives. A strange fish creature, captured in the Amazon and transported to the United States for study, at first appears to pose a threat to her. Gradually, though, she begins to connect with him; in many ways, she fall in love with him. The government does not see in this creature what Eliza sees in him, instead only intending to brutally exploit his features in the hopes that they will help them beat the Russians in the space race. When such a frightening but elegant creature's life is on the line, though, the people who have grown emotional towards him must act in order to save him.

I'm going to give you my main issue with this film as a fanboy before I get on to the more critical points about the film. This movie, Crimson Peak, and del Toro's book/TV series The Strain make me a little worried about del Toro potentially copying himself. I mentioned in my critique of Crimson Peak that I noticed similarities to his excellent early film The Devil's Backbone. This was something similar to what happened when I read The Strain, and noticed similarities in design between the vampires in that series and the mutant vampires in the del Toro-directed Blade II. This did paint my expectations in anticipation of The Shape of Water, as the only logical step would be that he may start referencing Pan's Labyrinth, my favourite film of all time.

Well... this suspicion was not unfounded.

The Shape of Water and Pan's Labyrinth are not exact analogues, but there is a certain amount of familiarity in the basic structure of the story. There are character types that are similar, story beats that are similar, lines of dialogue that are similar, and even shots that seem to exactly echo shots from Pan's Labyrinth. Even the major conceit of this film, the thing that many people are making fun of, bears a striking resemblance to an early draft that del Toro indulged on the commentary track for Pan's Labyrinth. This film was made with a different crew and shot in a different country, but has enough elements that I recognized that it seemed more like an issue with the script by del Toro and Vanessa Taylor being somewhat familiar. If you are as much a fan of del Toro as I am, that probably will paint your impression of what you see in the film and how much you can look past it.

So... did I look past it?

...

Is Crimson Peak still on my Top Ten of 2015?

As much as I did notice the similarities more readily in The Shape of Water, I was more than willing to embrace the elements that were so very true to del Toro's aesthetic, as well as the elements that did distinguish it enough from its predecessor. While the story beats are at times familiar, the thematic material for both films is very distinct. Pan's Labyrinth explores ideas of Choice vs. Obedience, the subversion of authority, and the simultaneous attraction and danger of fantasy. The Shape of Water is a parable on behalf of the outcasts, both literal and figurative. The heroes of this film are people on the fringes of society, not for lack of trying to live with what they have, though. For whatever reason, society doesn't appreciate them; their desires, their struggles, their pains, their voices, none of them are being heard or embraced. To live in the world that they live in, they can only rely on each other, as none of them can judge the other.

Sally Hawkins is simply amazing as Eliza. In many ways, her character is one that del Toro has been desperately trying to give life to for a very long time, as he has often expressed his love of silent storytelling. Without her voice, Hawkins can only rely on her ability to express herself through facial and body language. The result is a flawless, purely emotional performance. No other performance by an actress this year matches this one in terms of its versatility and its sincerity. Even in movies that I find to have a greater whole than this one, none of them possess the exact same quality as this one performance. Hawkins is perfect.

By contrast, nearly every other actor in this film uses dialogue to express their emotions, which both surprises me and makes total sense. It builds on the isolation that Eliza feels in this society. Even when they are being more explicit in saying what they feel, the writing on its own is really exceptional, full of double meanings and often great tension, and the actors give real weight to those feelings. Richard Jenkins is excellent as Giles, a genuine friend with hidden feelings of his own. A particular scene in a diner between Giles and the waiter marks the most potent emotional scene between two humans in the entire film.  Octavia Spencer also does fine work as Zelda, a character in a somewhat familiar vein of her last two Oscar nominated roles, but made distinct by keeping her constantly on edge. She's trying to get by without causing any trouble at all. Can you blame her when she's being threatened by a madman with a cattle prod and two rotting fingers? Colonel Strickland may be the most interesting parallel to Pan's Labyrinth of them all, though again made distinct. Where Vidal is the absolute representation of Fascist dictatorship and dominance, Strickland is constantly struggling to maintain that dominance over his family, over his inferiors, and in the face of his superiors. It's easy to find Vidal the more memorable entity as a result, but Strickland, largely thanks to Michael Shannon, is the better fit for this movie. He certainly succeeds in dominating the scene whenever he's in it.

Did I say that Strickler was the most interesting parallel? Maybe... but it's not the one that impacts me the most. One thing has never changed about my feelings towards del Toro. Regardless of what story he tells, one thing remains consistent: You always know how the monsters make you feel. I want to understand Santi. I want to converse and be friends with the Faun. I want to go on adventures with Hellboy. I want to fight the Kaiju.

I felt seen when I met the Asset.

The creature in The Shape of Water is the most empathetic creature del Toro has ever created... again... having not seen Cronos... I am sad. With that limited perspective, however, I felt more connection to the amphibious man than any other monster in del Toro's films. Doug Jones once again dons the elegant and frightening skin of the creature and inhabits a character who is one part Creature from the Black Lagoon, one part the Beast from Cocteau's La belle et la bête, and in one powerful image, Quasimodo himself. Jones and del Toro know how to make a creature feel like a classic Universal monster, but more than that, they have created one with a personality all its own. He does not speak. He does not comprehend human behaviour. He does not try to be anything other than himself. His character is almost entirely reactionary, but every one of his reactions is felt deeply. This is simplicity of character at its finest. They're no question why he and Eliza are absolutely meant to be together onscreen.

I have grown simultaneously very critical and very indulgent of del Toro's work in the last four years. I've grown to expect a great deal of innovation every time I see his latest film, but over the last few years, I've also come to expect some things that are more familiar. Nearly every director falls into these kind of situations if they mean to or not, and it's the fan's decision whether or not they can accept that or not. I accept The Shape of Water; to be more exact, I embrace it. I embrace it because it is just as confident and just as emotionally gratifying as any of del Toro's previous films. It brings out astounding work from some exceptional actors, two of which belong on a high pedestal for their ability to convey pure feeling without saying anything. And it goes without saying, the aesthetics of the movie are flawless. Art direction, cinematography, editing, score, sound, costume, they're all astounding; there isn't a single image that isn't stunning to behold. As a fan of del Toro, I do hope that his next film will be one that is distinctly different from anything else he's done before. He's always been at his best when he make the audience witness the unfamiliar. That said, there are still plenty of unfamiliar elements to this film on its own, with the relationship at its centre speaking more volumes than most human relationships in modern films. At its heart, The Shape of Water is a simple, beautiful, endearing story of outcast people finding solace in one another; how fitting for a man who has made his career out of telling stories about the relationship between humans and monsters.


**** 1/2 out of *****