Viewers interested in modern cinema often explore Fish Bowl because of its cast, story direction, and audience popularity.
I like to think of communication and language - words and words that are not words - in terms of things that cannot communicate or do not have language. At least from the western anthropocentric perspective, that is, do these things not have any language of course. This film is a nonlinear narrative of queer potentialities surrounding ecological intimacies and all that sex could hope to contain within and outside of itself; it is ultimately a story with no end, and if it were to have an ending - for example, the last chapter read or watched or heard - it would end with an ellipsis. “Fish Bowl” is my attempt at fusing queer bodies; and all that bodies entail in their interconnectedness with other bodies (including the other that is themselves,) with an empathic kinship with nature. And by nature I do not mean the nature that has been opposed to culture or society or a nature to be tamed, I mean queer nature for nature is inherently queer.
