I heard Chris Nolan yell at the top of his lung at his producer when were shooting out in palm dessert for Tenent....."Thats the F'ing POINT!!!" .......quite....set, smoke....go
But is it okay to have a sexual relationship with an animal? Wouldn't this be considered beastility? To win the Oscar for best picture validates sexual activity with animals. Is this responsible? If I made a movie about a man who falls in love with a dog, or a sheep or a horse, and having sexual acts with these animals, is this moral? Wouldn't I have serious backlash & resentment from the audience? And would I deserve it? And if its ok to portray sex with animals, and this becomes exceptable to the audience, what happens when someone makes a film where adults are having sex with children, because the characters love each other? Does the audience overlook the woman & the creature's relationship because the creature has some human traits or some intellectual traits? Is this deceptive, irresponsible filmmaking? Ziegfried and Roy had a tiger. They loved the tiger. They raised it from birth. There was mutual love and trust. But then one day, the tiger ravaged Roy horn because they forgot the tiger was an animal. Does this film normalize beastiality? And is it morally ok? Any thoughts on this subject?
Really interesting question to ask. Great films are works of art, and thus often depict things that are not normal. They take the familiar and make it unfamiliar - sometimes, screenwriters and filmmakers use objects, animals, or other things to paint images and/or symbols of concepts like love, loss, betrayal, and such. In this case, The Shape of Water is a testament to humanity's power of love: we are able to find good even in those who look hideous and menacing on the outside. The monster or animal is used to create a metaphor - it's poetry. Whether you like the film or not, you have to look past the surface. To answer your question, I think the majority of viewers are intelligent enough to understand the film does not promote beastiality. It's fantasy. But also, great films are not necessarily "moral films" either. Some of the most memorable films in cinema history have had endings that are immoral or upsetting.
@@PrincessElspeth Take Schindler's List for example. The jews are murdered. Yes, the murders are immoral, and the film condemns the actions of the nazis in the film. We the audience knows these acts are immoral, because, as human's we know the difference between moral, and immoral acts. But the actions in the film Shape of water don't claim the acts of having sex with an animal were immoral or not. I was also disappointed by the ending. I thought it would have been better if the monster, rather than killing the antagonist, portrayed by Michael Shannon, instead- healed his hand, revealing the monster had every right to defend itself and could have slashed the man's throat, killing him, but elected to save his hand instead. Perhaps this mercy would have softened the man's heart and his humanity would have been restored. I enjoyed this film, for the record and I am a huge fan of Guillermo Del Toro. Pan's Labyrinth is a masterpiece. I just feel Del Toro was using this film to push a gender identity agenda. He is a liberal and an atheist, so who knows. I do think there were some missed opportunities here. Not having sex with the creature and saving the antagonist at the end, changing his understanding of the creature would have been more satisfying to the audience. Of course, there is the fact the woman had gills, so perhaps, she's is a hybrid of both human and creature, and the intimacy to me is more reasonable. But still, very entertaining, thought-provoking film.
@@jorgetvilla I was asking a genuine question. Your response is rather flippant. I've been a long admirer of Del Toro. Pans Labrinth, (one of my all time favorite films) the first 2 Hell Boy film, Devils backbone, etc. Why would you call me a hater? I'm asking a legitimate question. This woman fantasized about dancing with this creature. She had sex with this creature, who ate a cat. Hes an animal. The film supported these ideas. There are organizations trying to legalize pedophilia. These are facts. There are those who think thats OK as long as it is consensual. This doesn't make it morally right. Instead of giving a lazy answer, how about an authentic answer? Otherwise, dont waste your time. Or mine.
@@josephdarkhelmet9494 yes you did, its very obvious the film parallels beauty and the beast, except the beast is mankind and this creature is the beauty that kissed the beast and turned it into a loving creature. I hope that answers your question.
Sometimes "just go and make it" is all you need to hear.
"nobody has organized those shiny bits the way you do". love it. what a guy
So good! Thank you for this curation work you do!
Finally I was waiting for this video only.
Magic!!!!! Thank you so much!!! 👏😁👏
Love em, keep them coming!:)
Love like water has no shape. It can take the shape of whatever you pour it into.
GREEEEAT video. :)
Interesting thinking from a creative director ✨😍👌
Beautiful perspectives.
I love his dislike of Hollywood parties. If I were a director I too would avoid them.
Success = Failing in Your Own Terms 👏👏👏
I heard Chris Nolan yell at the top of his lung at his producer when were shooting out in palm dessert for Tenent....."Thats the F'ing POINT!!!" .......quite....set, smoke....go
God. Believe in yourself .
We need more and more tips, not advice pls
But is it okay to have a sexual relationship with an animal? Wouldn't this be considered beastility? To win the Oscar for best picture validates sexual activity with animals. Is this responsible? If I made a movie about a man who falls in love with a dog, or a sheep or a horse, and having sexual acts with these animals, is this moral? Wouldn't I have serious backlash & resentment from the audience? And would I deserve it? And if its ok to portray sex with animals, and this becomes exceptable to the audience, what happens when someone makes a film where adults are having sex with children, because the characters love each other?
Does the audience overlook the woman & the creature's relationship because the creature has some human traits or some intellectual traits? Is this deceptive, irresponsible filmmaking? Ziegfried and Roy had a tiger. They loved the tiger. They raised it from birth. There was mutual love and trust. But then one day, the tiger ravaged Roy horn because they forgot the tiger was an animal. Does this film normalize beastiality? And is it morally ok? Any thoughts on this subject?
Really interesting question to ask. Great films are works of art, and thus often depict things that are not normal. They take the familiar and make it unfamiliar - sometimes, screenwriters and filmmakers use objects, animals, or other things to paint images and/or symbols of concepts like love, loss, betrayal, and such. In this case, The Shape of Water is a testament to humanity's power of love: we are able to find good even in those who look hideous and menacing on the outside. The monster or animal is used to create a metaphor - it's poetry. Whether you like the film or not, you have to look past the surface. To answer your question, I think the majority of viewers are intelligent enough to understand the film does not promote beastiality. It's fantasy. But also, great films are not necessarily "moral films" either. Some of the most memorable films in cinema history have had endings that are immoral or upsetting.
@@PrincessElspeth Take Schindler's List for example. The jews are murdered. Yes, the murders are immoral, and the film condemns the actions of the nazis in the film. We the audience knows these acts are immoral, because, as human's we know the difference between moral, and immoral acts. But the actions in the film Shape of water don't claim the acts of having sex with an animal were immoral or not. I was also disappointed by the ending. I thought it would have been better if the monster, rather than killing the antagonist, portrayed by Michael Shannon, instead- healed his hand, revealing the monster had every right to defend itself and could have slashed the man's throat, killing him, but elected to save his hand instead. Perhaps this mercy would have softened the man's heart and his humanity would have been restored. I enjoyed this film, for the record and I am a huge fan of Guillermo Del Toro. Pan's Labyrinth is a masterpiece. I just feel Del Toro was using this film to push a gender identity agenda. He is a liberal and an atheist, so who knows. I do think there were some missed opportunities here. Not having sex with the creature and saving the antagonist at the end, changing his understanding of the creature would have been more satisfying to the audience. Of course, there is the fact the woman had gills, so perhaps, she's is a hybrid of both human and creature, and the intimacy to me is more reasonable. But still, very entertaining, thought-provoking film.
hater
@@jorgetvilla I was asking a genuine question. Your response is rather flippant. I've been a long admirer of Del Toro. Pans Labrinth, (one of my all time favorite films) the first 2 Hell Boy film, Devils backbone, etc. Why would you call me a hater? I'm asking a legitimate question. This woman fantasized about dancing with this creature. She had sex with this creature, who ate a cat. Hes an animal. The film supported these ideas. There are organizations trying to legalize pedophilia. These are facts. There are those who think thats OK as long as it is consensual. This doesn't make it morally right. Instead of giving a lazy answer, how about an authentic answer? Otherwise, dont waste your time. Or mine.
@@josephdarkhelmet9494 yes you did, its very obvious the film parallels beauty and the beast, except the beast is mankind and this creature is the beauty that kissed the beast and turned it into a loving creature. I hope that answers your question.