What was the point of the pie subplot?

What was the point of the pie subplot?

Just another bullet point on the list of random social issues he had to halfheartedly cram into the movie to make his fish porn socially acceptable

it was half research for his job, half flirting with the guy. being rejected on both levels (profesionally and romantically) is what prompts him to help eliza

Make the pie guy turning into a racist and homophobic in literally 20 seconds was top kek and cringe.

The gay character was obsessed with the pie dude because he believed him to be something he wasn't. The pie dude eventually showed what an asshole he was and the gay guy's ideal of him was crushed. He then wanted to help Eliza because he had nothing else good in his life at that point.

To be honest, every human-on-human relationship was shown to be shit in this movie. The only healthy one was the human and the fishman. I think that was the larger point.

He had a crush on the clerk, even though the pies were actually shit, but is completely rejected.

To show that he was lonely and unaccepted like she was

Given the time period it wasn't that weird. This was the 60s so blatant racism and homophobia was the norm.

Eliza and her friend had a perfectly good relationship

>turning into
I don't think you understand what that means

I meant romantic relationships.

Me too

...

Also he literally says he's following some script that comes with job, which is why he seems so affable. Him telling the blacks they could only order but not sit at the bar was also store policy (literally a different time) but came out harsh because he was in the middle of being fussed by older gay man. Him rejecting the guy was really him

>insert shoehorned "muh discrimination" here

Okay, but what was the point of this character?

What do you mean? He was just the dude the gay guy was trying to sell his paintings to. He thought they might be friends and he might be able to sell his shit but got turned down.

You just told me what happened in the movie. How did the painting stuff contribute to the main plot?

It was the gay dude's job. He painted stuff for advertisements. If you're looking for "why was this included" it's to show the guy's job and passion, and being rejected with it because he's not wanted or good enough. Kind of like his love life since he's gay in the 60s.

To show bad racist homophobe white male

I know, what I was refering is about showing both of them (homophobic and racist) one after another in matter of seconds.

The point was that the gay guy had something in his life and lost it, making him ready to risk his own life to help the girl who actually had something in her life not lose it too. Fuck, this movie was good

I was the only one who thought his old boss was also homosexual?

That scene was more or less a sloppily-handled version of the 'You're a good Joe'-scene where a character realizes that what he had loved was never real.

Jenkins character was the best one portrayed, and it's funny because of this
>Guillermo Del Toro wrote lengthy backstories for each of the major characters, some of them allegedly running over 40 pages long. After casting the roles, he offered them to the actors and said they could choose to utilize or ignore the backstories for their own character. The actors responded differently, with Richard Jenkins saying he ignored the backstory, stating "the only thing that matters is what happens on screen", while Michael Stuhlbarg said he read the backstory voraciously and found it helpful in his performance.