5 ms·
The thing I didn't much like about this movie was that the ending tried to put an activist spin on what the filmmaker was doing. One of the last shots is of him
by freewilly1040 6y ago
The thing I didn't much like about this movie was that the ending tried to put an activist spin on what the filmmaker was doing. One of the last shots is of him and a bunch of his friends going out on a dive (as opposed to just him), as if this will help the octopus somehow.
In fact, the relationship between him and the octopus only works because the filmmaker has a large patch of pristine coast seemingly to himself. If it was some common thing to go diving there the habitat would likely be destroyed. As such the film is not really about activism at all, it's about a man enjoying privileged access to a natural resource.
- uhhhhhhhhhhhhhh 6y agoVery reductionist. But to carry it forward, this is more about a man's failure to extract labor out of an octopus and instead being forced to exploit its screen appeal. Imagine the output of an 8 armed ipad assembler, ah what could have been!
- ghawr 6y agoWhile I understand your sentiment, I think the primary objective of the filmmaker is to make a good film. Sometimes that means doing something to simply get an emotional response out of it. If it’s effective in giving people a deeper appreciation of the animal and that ecosystem, then I'd argue it was a good choice and not at all misguided as you're portraying it.
- sneak 6y agoJust because a film can make a large positive emotional response doesn't mean it was a good film, just as a film that can make a large negative emotional response is a bad film. I think GP was criticizing the cheap, low-hanging feelgood duct taped onto the end. It doesn't make the film better.
- sneak 6y agoedit: *is not a bad film
- HKH2 6y agoAny documentary with added music already has spin. I don't see how making it a bit more contrived will make much of a difference.