Better than the Kevin Costner Version
April 6, 2011 11:15 AM Subscribe
Bottle, a lovely stop-motion film by animator Kirsten Lepore [NSFW], explores a long-distance relationship fueled by communication via not-so-instant message. [Kirsten Lepore previously, kinda]
Obviously a depiction of online dating.
posted by tomswift at 11:30 AM on April 6, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by tomswift at 11:30 AM on April 6, 2011 [1 favorite]
I wonder why the artist felt the need to make sure we knew one was male and the other was female. The film could have been about how love is universal, but it wasn't.
posted by fritley at 11:50 AM on April 6, 2011
posted by fritley at 11:50 AM on April 6, 2011
Eh, fair enough, but I liked it. It was sweet and sad. There's not enough simple sweet and sad in the world.
posted by Kitteh at 11:58 AM on April 6, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by Kitteh at 11:58 AM on April 6, 2011 [1 favorite]
Depicting a quasi-hetero relationship between an anthropomorphic pile of sand and an anthropomorphic pile of snow does not negate the universality of love.
Also: beans. You has them. On a plate.
posted by shiu mai baby at 11:59 AM on April 6, 2011 [3 favorites]
Also: beans. You has them. On a plate.
posted by shiu mai baby at 11:59 AM on April 6, 2011 [3 favorites]
And not to hammer on this or anything, but why are you so certain the sand is male? How do you know that the snow is not a cross-dresser? Both characters display no geneotypical or phenotypical sexual characteristics, so really, you're just projecting your own assumptions, yes?
More beans!
posted by shiu mai baby at 12:10 PM on April 6, 2011 [4 favorites]
More beans!
posted by shiu mai baby at 12:10 PM on April 6, 2011 [4 favorites]
Because the snow grew magic seashell-breasts. With snow cleavage. When was the last time you saw a cross-dressing snow creature grow magic snow cleavage?
(saying "Not to hammer on this" does not change the fact that you are hammering on it)
posted by fritley at 12:18 PM on April 6, 2011
(saying "Not to hammer on this" does not change the fact that you are hammering on it)
posted by fritley at 12:18 PM on April 6, 2011
I loved this SLYT. Thanks for posting, bayani!
posted by Shfishp at 12:28 PM on April 6, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by Shfishp at 12:28 PM on April 6, 2011 [1 favorite]
I was expecting another mediocre piece of quasi-stop motion. But this is awesome, as is her other work. Thanks for posting!
posted by ghastlyfop at 12:35 PM on April 6, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by ghastlyfop at 12:35 PM on April 6, 2011 [1 favorite]
I wonder why the artist felt the need to make sure we knew one was male and the other was female.
She may possibly be heterosexual.
posted by barrett caulk at 12:41 PM on April 6, 2011 [1 favorite]
She may possibly be heterosexual.
posted by barrett caulk at 12:41 PM on April 6, 2011 [1 favorite]
I wonder why the artist felt the need to make sure we knew one was male and the other was female.
She may possibly be heterosexual.
And also, god forbid we have something that ISN'T politicized.
posted by cerulgalactus at 12:46 PM on April 6, 2011 [2 favorites]
She may possibly be heterosexual.
And also, god forbid we have something that ISN'T politicized.
posted by cerulgalactus at 12:46 PM on April 6, 2011 [2 favorites]
Also wanted to say that the sound effects were great -- for some reason I really liked the glassy chunk! and clink! noises as they slid objects into the bottle.
posted by bayani at 12:47 PM on April 6, 2011
posted by bayani at 12:47 PM on April 6, 2011
Because the snow grew magic seashell-breasts. With snow cleavage. When was the last time you saw a cross-dressing snow creature grow magic snow cleavage?
I confess that I have never seen a cross-dressing snow creature, so I cannot opine about their ability to grow or lose breast tissue.
But more importantly, why are you assuming the sand creature is male? And even if we grant that the snow creature is female, why does the fact that one member of the couple is female undercut any commentary on the universality of love? Must all subjects dealing with love be utterly gender-free to be powerful?
posted by shiu mai baby at 12:50 PM on April 6, 2011 [2 favorites]
I confess that I have never seen a cross-dressing snow creature, so I cannot opine about their ability to grow or lose breast tissue.
But more importantly, why are you assuming the sand creature is male? And even if we grant that the snow creature is female, why does the fact that one member of the couple is female undercut any commentary on the universality of love? Must all subjects dealing with love be utterly gender-free to be powerful?
posted by shiu mai baby at 12:50 PM on April 6, 2011 [2 favorites]
Awesome. Thanks.
posted by arse_hat at 1:03 PM on April 6, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by arse_hat at 1:03 PM on April 6, 2011 [1 favorite]
how the heck did sandperson get those shells and that big dead crab through that narrow necked bottle? My beans, they perplex me
posted by Redhush at 5:38 PM on April 6, 2011
posted by Redhush at 5:38 PM on April 6, 2011
I wonder why the artist felt the need to make sure we knew one was male and the other was female.
BECAUSE IM BOTH
posted by humannaire at 6:29 PM on April 6, 2011
BECAUSE IM BOTH
posted by humannaire at 6:29 PM on April 6, 2011
« Older Might as well ask me to go without Internet | Which of shape is insane? The Pierly/Redford... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by shiu mai baby at 11:27 AM on April 6, 2011 [1 favorite]