Monsters are primitive creatures and when we go to movies
about them we are going to be confronted by primitive material. Well, there is plenty of sex, violence and
black and white thinking in this movie for it to qualify as a primitive movie
but, despite that, or maybe because of it, it is a delightful love story – one that
is surprisingly warm – at least for the older members of the crowd who went to
the movies together. In talking about it
afterwards it was surprising that the reluctant wife and I, along with her
parents, were fully supportive of the interspecies coupling that was depicted,
while the two reluctant (and old enough to go to a movie like this) stepdaughters
found that aspect of the film to be not just off putting but morally
reprehensible. They, who are generally on
the side of all things liberal and progressive, became quite dismissive of the
idea that humans should pair with anything but other humans.
We enter the film on an underwater ocean dive where we come
across a doorway that leads to a hallway that leads to an apartment where the
furniture is hovering, held up by the water but not buoyant enough to float out
of the rooms and, in the final room, we discover a woman sleeping, suspended
above her couch, peaceful in her watery space.
We have entered a dream world where one can live underwater and the
light that shines in on us is murky – it has filtered down through layers of
water and reflects in odd and unworldly ways – things are dreamy and unclear –
not sharp and definitively depicted.
The story told in this film is of a top secret research lab
in Baltimore operating at the height of the Cold War, and a brutal agent – a man
who is as all-American as apple pie – who has discovered and brought back from
South America a hominid creature that is capable of breathing both in air and
in water – and the agent believes that the creature might be useful in our
space project – an answer to the Russian dogs.
But he treats the creature – he calls him the asset – like a dog – or worse
– using chains to restrain him and attacking him sadistically with a cattle
prod. Little does he know that the
physician on the team who is charged with keeping the asset alive and doing
research on him is a Soviet Spy.
The woman we spied sleeping in the water is a janitor at the
facility – Eliza Esposito played by Sally Hawkins. She was an orphan – raised in an orphanage
where her vocal cords were apparently cut.
Mute, she signs to the closeted gay artist who lives next door and also
her to her African American co-worker who interprets her signs to their
supervisor and the other workers at the research lab.
The tension in this film between ideologues who want to
control the world to meet their own ends – the brutal agent and the general he
reports to, but also the spy apparatus supervisors that the Russian spy reports
to – and the people who are invested in caring for and about each other and the
creatures that live in the world with them – Eliza is at the head of this
troop, and she enlists the aid of her next door neighbor, her fellow janitor,
and the Russian spy to free the trapped and endangered creature. When the humanists outwit the ideologues, the
ideologues don’t get it – people who are concerned couldn’t be involved in the
drama they have created- it must have taken a crack team to have accomplished
what they have done – and the crack team must be intent, as they are, on
domination – on control – on winning the war.
When we meet Eliza her world is pretty circumscribed and her
existence is largely grim. She commutes
to a job where she works the midnight shift cleaning up after others. Her moments of joy include masturbating in
the tub while she cooks the three minute eggs that she will eat for lunch and watching
old musicals on her neighbor’s TV and mimicking the dance and tap
routines. We can easily look past her,
the way we do when we pass people who are doing janitorial work, her features
are plain and she is slight and seems to want us to look elsewhere, but in the
moments when she is doing a little soft shoe – and she is smiling – we see that
there is much more there.
The other person – or, as the girls point out – creature who
notices her is the asset. We get
fleeting glimpses of him at first – and she is curious about him (as are we). She draws him out by offering him her lunch eggs – and by
playing music to him and dancing for him.
They become attached to each other even as he engages in mortal combat
with the agent. Eliza both wants to
protect him from the agent – but she also comes to want him for herself and, it
turns out, he comes to want her as well.
They learn to communicate through signing – it is pretty rudimentary,
but, the old folks maintained, this demonstrates that the creature is capable
of communicating and thus of relating – indeed, we framed the relationship as
one between consenting adults. To avoid
spoiling the whole thing (haven’t I spoiled enough already?), suffice it to say
that Eliza and the creature take care of each other’s needs across a spectrum
of physical, sexual, and emotional levels.
And the creature – who at first seemed scary and ugly - turns out to be
beautiful, as does Eliza.
So this film could be seen – as the reluctant father in law
proposed – as a morality play. The bad
guys are the government agents who are interested in exerting control in a
world that feels filled with threats.
The good guys are the caring ones who see the others not as threats, but
as fellow creatures – Eliza’s inability to speak is mirrored by the creature’s –
but they share a desire to communicate, not control. Viewed from this angle, it would be possible
to see the film as criticizing the powers that be – the Trumps of the world
that would keep us safe from nuclear threat by strangling those who threaten us
– and I think this is a viable reading of the movie. But I also think it can be read as a conflict
within ourselves, between that part of us that would keep us safe by
controlling the world around us – and that part that would endanger us by
becoming attached to those we care about.
These two parts of ourselves on some levels would appear to be allied – aren’t
they both interested in our well-being? But
they can be surreptitiously at war – we can try to control those we love rather
than appreciate them – we can try to subdue others – and our own passions –
rather than listen to and express them.
Del Toro – the co-author and director of this film – is encouraging us
to embrace that which is different and scary and dangerous – to embrace the
monsters we discover and to find within them something human – something sentient
– something warm and loving.
I think the girls in the family’s repugnance at the
interspecies love reflects the resistance Del Toro ran into in creating this
film. He originally pitched a remake of
the Creature of the Black Lagoon to be told, this time, from the perspective of
the creature – with a happy ending where he makes off with the girl. The studios didn’t buy it. I think that, as advanced as the girls are on
many fronts, there are limits to our capacity to embrace things that are
different. Freud’s attitude towards our
sexuality was amazingly liberal given his background – he believed us all to be
essentially bisexual – and he believed that our primary mature attraction was
driven by our early navigation of the (sublimated) sexual relationships within
the family. Psychoanalysts, especially
American psychoanalysts, jumped on this to label homosexuality as a “pathological”
resolution of those familial sexual relationships. Gays and Lesbians had to fight like mad to
get analysts to get it that mature object attractions towards either sex can be
healthy. When the transgender folks
wanted to tread the same path, though, some gay and lesbian analysts were not
so sure that having something as primary as one’s gender being alien could be
anything but pathological. As we move
into a world that is increasingly accepting of connecting with others (and our
own) otherness, we are going to have our abilities to connect sorely
tested. We are going to find limits
where what and who we love (including parts of ourselves) is very hard for us
to embrace.
The girls pointed out that not everything is OK. Having sex with children is not OK, for
instance. Within my profession, it is
clear that having sex with clients is not OK.
There is something monstrous about both of these things. The irony is, I think, that it is the agent
and the Russians who are more likely to engage in these activities – the ones
who want to exert control. Indeed, it is
the agent who wants to impose himself sexually on Eliza – to make her cry out
(while he doesn’t want to hear anything from his wife when he has sex with her - it is as if he wants the other to be other than who they are when they are with him).
The creature, who is worshipped as a God in his native
habitat, has healing powers. He heals
both an unintended wound that he inflicts on the balding neighbor – but he also
causes the neighbor’s hair to regrow – something about which the neighbor is greatly
excited. The ways in which he cures
Eliza are, then, telling. She becomes
vocal in her dreams – and we expect her to become vocal in her life – she seems
to be approaching it and I, at least, expected it to happen. But the healing that he offers is very
different. Again, you will have to see
the movie, or if you have seen it to remember it, and to think about the ways in which
he offers her healing that allows her not to live more fully in her world, but
in his. He bridges a divide – not just
seeing in her something that is like him, but offering her something that
allows her to be in his world, something that allows them, then, to be more
fully in each other’s.
This crossing of boundaries is dicey stuff – as the girls
point out. It is the stuff of morals and
ethics – as the father-in-law proposes.
What Del Toro offers as the result of this particular boundary crossing between
this creature and this woman is a kind of reassurance that our monstrous
selves, when loved by others (and perhaps by ourselves) can produce a profound
kind of healing. We should think about
that.
To access a narrative description of other posts on this site, link here. For a subject based index, link here.
To subscribe to posts (which occur 2-3 times per month), if you are on a computer, hit the X button on the upper right of this screen and, on the subsequent screen, hover your cursor over the black line in the upper right area and choose the pop out box that says subscribe and then enter the information. I'm sorry but I don't currently know how you can subscribe from a mobile device - hopefully you have a computer as well...
No comments:
Post a Comment