the baby on the beach…….really disturbing.
-
Dejay — 9 years ago(November 11, 2016 02:10 PM)
Yeah of course, natural selection!
I'm not sure. Do you have scientific knowledge about this? Or a source? Really curious about this. It's hard to differentiate from other factors, but I would think genes do play a big role in intelligence. And yeah there are lots of different kinds of intelligence.
The other big part is interest and energy. If you are interested in something and have the energy to learn, you become good in a field.
Thinking back on the scene, I do think it shows the "stupidity" of some of our human traits. To put it a bit over the top: The scene wasn't about empathy, but about weakness. Both parents were abominable, disgusting creatures. They let their own baby die because they acted like animals instead of rational human beings. Your intentions can be as nice as you want, as long as you are too stupid or too weak or ruled by emotions, your actions are likely to have an evil outcome.
That is what the alien lady would most likely see with her uncaring eyes. It's been a while since I watched the movie but when I rewatch it I'll have to look out for that perspective. -
YuunofYork — 9 years ago(November 11, 2016 03:16 PM)
The NIH library page for intelligence studies has a mostly accurate summary (beware anything labeled 'twin studies'), and a short list of sources:
https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/traits/intelligence
Two good introductions are available in full text here:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4270739/
And here:
http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(13)00844-0
Regarding the parents in the film, I would say it is ultimately incidental that they each failed to judge the strength of the current and the risks and consequences of their death, or that they put the life of their dog before their own, or their child's. That is, whether it was out of empathy or out of weakness shouldn't matter. The point of the scene was the alien's attempt at understanding their motivations, which were completely irrational, but also completely human. -
Dejay — 9 years ago(November 12, 2016 01:26 AM)
Thank you! I'll check this out later.
The point of the scene was the alien's attempt at understanding their motivations, which were completely irrational, but also completely human.
That's a good question. Is that human? To act in accordance with your feelings without thinking about consequences? There is a considerable cultural bias towards this view (e.g. in movies), that feelings and emotions and opinions are equally valid as more rational behaviour.
Imagine the scene if the parents see the dog getting lost and they go nuts and very sad but they don't go in. Maybe the wife moves towards the water but the man holds her back and tells her it's too dangerous. And they are very sad but understand they are powerless in this moment.
Wouldn't that have been much more "human"? To feel sad and powerless in a cruel universe but holding on for dear life.
But you are probably right, we are all far more guided by our emotions than we'd like to think. Do you think that is what the scene is about? I definitely have to watch the movie again now
-
bonsai-superstar — 11 years ago(July 18, 2014 06:09 PM)
Are you people for real? Did you understand the movie at all? Every day, people kill bugs without a second thought. Do you care if you kill an
adult
spider or a
baby
spider? Humans were (initially) like bugs to these aliens. That was
the point the filmmakers were trying to make
. 2. It's
fiction
. Can you understand that no babies were actually harmed during the making of this FILM? 3. Grow up. Jesus. -
robhiphop — 10 years ago(April 14, 2015 07:39 PM)
Name me one mainstream, commercial film, like this one, which violates this rule of sympathy for the character(s). Without a sympathetic connection between the audience and the character(s) there is no commercial film.
Why is it important that the example must be from a "mainstream, commercial" film, as you put it?
I doubt very much you're familiar with the films of Bresson, Parajzhanov, Pasolini, or Bruno Dumont, i.e., abstract, noncommercial art films, which sometimes violate or ignore this rule on purpose. This is NOT one of those films. It is clearly intended for mainstream, commercial distribution.
What is it about
Under the Skin
that leads you to believe it's intended to be viewed as a "mainstream, commercial" film?
On the contrary, I would say that the makers of
Under the Skin
were all too aware that it was likely to be a polarising movie that would not necessarily achieve broader mainstream acceptance. If the aim was to achieve as much mainstream acceptance as possible, then almost certainly, the approach to the movie would've been very different than it was.
Naturally, the movie was still "commercially distributed". Without commercial distribution, film making would effectively cease to exist in any meaningful form. There would only be zero-budget fan enthusiast movies and shorts. Even directors working strictly in the field of so-called "arthouse" fare still seek commercial distribution for their movies, as this is the only way for them to sustain a career and continue to make movies. -
StaunchWoman — 10 years ago(February 11, 2016 06:47 AM)
Tormenting or killing off a baby is a no-no, even off screen.
Says you. This is a work of FICTION and to try and control what an artistic medium can and cannot contain is RIDICULOUS!
If you're so sensitive, that a scene in a film can have this effect on you, while knowing for a FACT it's a film You have to take it upon yourself to better control what it is you see. Look deeper into what it is you might watch, just in case.
We've met before, haven't we? -
mimosveta — 11 years ago(July 19, 2014 08:02 AM)
not really. It isn't a requirement that the main character be good, they just have to be interesting.
This. People need to stop thinking that overreacting to any scene in fiction, makes them a good person in real life.
Anyone who has ever read any spoilers,
knows that
Winter Is Coming -
archento — 11 years ago(July 19, 2014 03:58 PM)
This movie is not at all about rooting for the lead character. The lead character is fascinating precisely because we're not rooting, we're waiting to see what she does next. In a way, she is studying humanity, and in turn we are simply studying her. It's not as simple as caring or not caring about the protagonist in this film.