So The Shape of Water at this year’s Oscars took not only Best Picture but Best Director as well. I saw the film, enjoyed it, but frankly I think Get Out was a stronger film and should have taken statue over The Shape of Water. (But what do I know I still think that L.A. Confidential was robbed when Titanic won that year.)
What has spurred this particular post is watch some of the reaction to The Shape of Water’s win and the similar reaction that has caused me to remember.
Over at the American Conservative, columnist Rod Dreher titles his piece about the movie Triumph of the Freaks. Dreher is one of those conservative who sees the downfall of Western Civilization and a coming dark age due to the recognition of such ‘unnatural’ and or sinful aspects of humanity such as transgender, homosexuality, and other non-traditional sexual mores. In the column Dreher admits that he has not seen the film and based his entire reaction on what he has heard and reading the Wikipedia synopsis. I always find it astounding that people, usually paid content creators, are so willing to elaborate opinions and dissect pieces that they have not personally seen. For Shape it is clear that the romantic story between Elisa, a mute cleaning woman in a secret government facility, and that facility’s latest ‘acquisition’ and amphibian humanoid. (We can’t call him a gill-man without incurring the wrath of Universal.) For Dreher this relationship is pure and simple bestiality. That the Amphibian is a thinking, feeling creature, capable of language and emotion is meaningless, it is not human and therefore the relationship is unnatural and sinful. Apparently even in such a fictional setting only humans are ‘people.’ However if you have seen the movie — and you need to stop reading if you fear spoilers — then you know that his basic facts are wrong. Either the Wikipedia synopsis omits crucial plot twists, albeit one I foresaw quite early in the film but that’s a danger of plotting your own stories, you can see the magician palming the card, or he failed to understand how revelation destroyed his entire argument.
It reminds of another conservative columnist, Michelle Malkin, and her reaction to the film Death of a President.
Released in 2006 Death of a President deals with the fallout produced by a fictional assassination of George W. Bush. The film used actual news footage as part of the flashback to the assassination in an attempt to create a sense of reality. At the time of its release there was quite a stir in the conservative media about the subject matter with perhaps the most strident voice belonging to Michelle Malkin. She referred to the movie as ‘assassination chic’ and felt that the movie revealed the desires for Bush’s murder by people on ‘the left.’ (Side note; I am always suspicious whenever motivation is describe for a third party without any supporting evidence or citation.)
As with Dreher and The Shape of Water it seems clear to me that Ms. Malkin never actually watched the film she criticized. In the movie’s narrative the assassination has taken place years earlier and the country now labors under the heavy authoritarian hand of President Dick Cheney. There is mass round-up of ethnic minorities and other police-state tactics, hardly the sort of dream world envisioned by ‘the left.’ The film itself is rather pedantic, predicable, and ultimately boring. I know this because, unlike Malkin, I actually watched it on DVD. It hardly revels in the murder of a conservative president, but acknowledging that would destroy her entire thesis about ‘the left.’
I believe that it is vitally important that people actually watch the media that they critique. You cannot rely upon synopsis, second hand accounts, or skimming to arrive at a fair judgment. It is also equally important to set aside personal bias and pre-conceived notions, otherwise all you will end up with if a big fat case of conformational bias.
