MovieChat Forums > Shelter (2015) Discussion > The ejaculatory fluid on her face scene ...

The ejaculatory fluid on her face scene was completely unnecessary.

posted 9 years ago by primemover
12 replies | jump to latest

Just watched this on Netflix. I cried a couple of times. Why do Jennifer and Marion Cotillard make so much Misery Porn?

And the semen on Jennifer's face? Why?

[–] hollywood-65167 9 years ago

It was necessary to show that she decided to stay in the boiler room and do what the security guard's wanted, rather than to go out in the cold weather to get to the other homeless shelter.

[–] primemover 9 years ago

No it wasn't necessary. It was pure shock value. The audience didn't need to see remnants of an ejaculation on her face to figure out what was going on.

[–] pug32 9 years ago

i agree, that was unnecessary. on her knees and pants unbuckled was indication enough for me. beside when he first offered her the room you could see he was a creepazoid and what was to follow.

also i didnt get the necessity of her showing vajayjay to pump poison into her veins. what was that scene suppose to do for the audience?

i freaking love jennifer connerly

[–] primemover 9 years ago

"what was that scene suppose to do for the audience?"

The entire film was an exercise in hipster edginess. Jennifer and her husband Paul Bettany (who director this) want to show the world that, despite being wealthy actors, they're in touch with the pain and plight of the disenfranchised.

Jennifer loves to suffer on screen. Remember Requiem For A Dream?

[–] benman46 9 years ago

Absolutely unnecessary. Quite comical though as it looked like milk. It's just a first time director and well paid film star's misguided idea of what is shocking.

[–] sette2903 9 years ago

I was absolutely disgusted and offended. I have no words.

Just because your last name is heroin don't mean you have to go around selling it
- Harlem Nights

[–] Scooby_WRX 9 years ago

Wow everyone in this thread should watch PG-13 movies. So they wanted to show you a lil semen for 'shock' value.. no big deal. Actually I was impressed because it looked pretty realistic buhahaha

It's a movie about 2 homeless people.. there's bound to be some harshness. Actually, I thought the security guard was going to rape her when she initially said no.

Don't get so 'offended' over 15 seconds of something so trivial.

[–] kidjay83 9 years ago

no reason other than the obvious reason its sleazy and it panders to the perverts and the lowest common denominator typical hollywood porn trash.we didn't need to see it at all and to those who made sense out of it are just bunch of fuqin idiot hipsters

I love having some mystery to the character without having to question who he is "

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ShackyWack 9 years ago

It was for shock value to show how degrading the act was for her. Those of us who have warm, cozy homes in the winter cannot understand this kind of pain and desperation.

[–] Seth_Rogue_One 8 years ago

It wasn't unecessary at all, they needed to have a scene to show what she had to go through to give them both shelter. And it's not like they showed the act.

Death to mainstream cinema!

[–] arkayenether 8 years ago

My god what a bunch of sensitive little snowflakes you all are. Can't take a little dose of the realities of being a junkie and homeless?

I thought I could paint it red, but I couldn't find enough goats.