The Lobster (2015)

→ in
Tools    





The Lobster, by Yorgos Lanthimos

Another very good film by Yorgos Lanthimos (still far from the excellence of his 2011 movie "Alpeis"), who seems to have found his magic formula for telling good stories.

Again, a distopic society is presented as the perfect canvas to create a disturbing movie filled with grotesque characters that makes you reconsider if companion and love are really as necessary as we like to think. In a world where bachelorhood is not an option, these characters need to fight not only the system, but their own internal conflicts, in order to find an answer other than death (which, as the movie shows, is another valid option). Each character will find different answers to this problem, each more atrocious than the previous one, but every one of them share one thing: a bleak and hideous pain, both physical and spiritual.

I have to admit that I am one of those people who fail to perceive the humorous tone behind Lanthimos' cinema. Yes, there are absurd situations in each of his movies, but they seem to work as isolated narrative elements that help the viewer to swallow all the rawness the Lanthimos presents in front of his/her eyes. Without these comic "disruptions", it seems to me that the process of asimilation of the movie would be too harsh, too unbearable for any decent human being, and the sickness that it would produce would make the experience a personal via crucis. By doing so, Lanthimos confirms his talent for story-telling that he first showed in "Kynodontas" (2009) and wonderfully mastered in "Alpeis" (2011).

Lanthimos' jump to English language has offered him several advantages, especially the remarkable cast of stars that he has used for the movie. Colin Pharrell is very good, and seems to have understood to perfection the ambiguity and coldness of Lanthimos' characters. Rachel Weisz and Lča Seydoux are good, too, although their characters are a little bit framed in convention. The case of the superb greek actress Angeliki Papoulia saddens me deeply, as she is relegated to a residual role and plays a predictable character.
On the other hand, among the disadvantages of Lanthimos' English adventure, I'd highlight the absence of that indifference and coldness that comes so naturally with the accent of Greek language, and that sometimes I found a little unnatural and strained in the English speech of Colin Pharrel, John C. Reilly and, particularly, Rachel Weisz.

All the neat distopic paraphernalia seems to be subject to the main question that Lanthimos is making in The Lobster, which is: "Is love really worth it?", that is, "Is it worth all the pain and suffering that it brings along?". The answer to this question, as is typical with his cinema, is up to the viewer, who will position himself in one extreme or the other, whether they emphazise with Pharrell and Weisz, those self-blinded lovers who would pay any price for true love, or with the loner Lča Seydoux, who decides to fight the institution of love from the distance, with cynism and violence as her only weapons.

A highly recommendable film, both sensorially and intelectually gratifying. It shouldn't have been so overlooked at Cannes.




SPOILERS AHEAD!

I also really liked this film.

The only main criticism I have, is probably that the first half is far more interesting than the second half. Before the story leaves the hotel, everything is unpredictable, the dark humor works perfectly and there's that sense of a nearing climax. From the moment he leaves, the film goes to narrative places that I kind of knew already. It still remains gorgeous to look at, the choices make sense and there still are some original concepts being tranferred, but part of me always wanted the story to go back to the hotel...

Anyway, I still very much recommend this film. It's one of the best I've seen this year!



28 days...6 hours...42 minutes...12 seconds
This film expands this weekend, so I figured if anyone has seen it they can talk about it here.

Until then....there is this.

I apparently would be an EAGLE.
__________________
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."

Suspect's Reviews



I have never heard of this before, but after watching the trailer I am very intrigued.

At the end of the quiz I had the choice of cat, starfish, or spider. Went with cat obviously.



the samoan lawyer's Avatar
Unregistered User
I've had too much to drink to understand the quiz. Similar enough to the film although I did watch it some time ago sober. Really enjoyed it. Pretty certain it's like nothing you've seen before. Take from that all you will.
__________________
Too weird to live, and too rare to die.



This film expands this weekend, so I figured if anyone has seen it they can talk about it here.

Until then....there is this.

I apparently would be an EAGLE.
Saw it last weekend, didn't like it. Dumb, emotionally unengaging and then dumb. I didn't even want to spend an hour writing a review, since I had already pissed away 2 hours seeing this flick.



Welcome to the human race...
You can at least tell us why you think it's dumb and emotionally unengaging.

Here is my review. Suffice to say, I liked it.

Also, turns out that there is an existing thread for this film.
__________________
I really just want you all angry and confused the whole time.
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0



Subsequent to my scathing comment, I have spoken to several other people who have seen this movie and comment seems to be quite polarized. When I saw it, I was actually one of about 1/3 of viewers who even stayed to the end and I only stayed because I had bought a ticket and wanted to see it through. On the other hand, I have heard people say that they loved it.

I didn't like it because it was emotionless and disappointing. I plot that has such an obviously fairy tale setup (people being turned into animals if they don't wed? Huh?) needs to have a lesson, a history or a larger context or an explanation, or needs to be followed by a rebellion that frees people to live their lives as they want...or something, none of which happened in TL. The acting was flat, there was little conflict OR resolution and without some sort of mythic ending, it just seemed, after all, dumb and contrived. I don't know what else to say, except that I really had to force myself, squirming in my seat, to make it to the end and stay awake.



Thursday Next's Avatar
I never could get the hang of Thursdays.
I disagree. It would have ruined the movie if there had been any kind of lesson or victory, and the whole thing was so bizarre it only really worked without context.



Welcome to the human race...
I didn't like it because it was emotionless and disappointing. I plot that has such an obviously fairy tale setup (people being turned into animals if they don't wed? Huh?) needs to have a lesson, a history or a larger context or an explanation,
Thursday Next covered this already, but yeah, The Lobster doesn't really need a lesson (at least not an obvious one) or a history or anything like that because that's simply not relevant.

or needs to be followed by a rebellion that frees people to live their lives as they want...or something, none of which happened in TL.
It's especially interesting how you think that a dystopian film needs a rebellion that fights back against the oppressive regime in the name of personal freedom because The Lobster seems intent on deconstructing this idea by having the rebels be just as viciously myopic as the regime in their own way (as evidenced by the brutal punishments they use on people who break their rules). A third party that opposed both the hotel staff and the loners would have undermined the film as a whole by providing an easy out - having no such option works on both narrative and thematic levels.

The acting was flat,
The acting is flat by design in order to further illustrate how blunt and emotionally stunted the inhabitants of the world are (especially when they talk to one another), plus it draws attention to the transparently fake nature of the world itself - it may not feel natural, but it's not meant to.

there was little conflict OR resolution and without some sort of mythic ending, it just seemed, after all, dumb and contrived.
I'm not sure what you consider to be conflict in this case, but I thought there was enough - Farrell's attempts to find a date in order to avoid becoming a lobster make a decent main conflict for the first half, while the second half has him and Weisz trying to hide their romance from the uncompromising Loners. Conversely, I think the film is better for not having a concrete resolution or a mythic ending:

WARNING: "The Lobster" spoilers below
Leaving us hanging on whether or not Farrell would blind himself to be with Weisz was a good point at which to end because of how easily it could have gone either way. Considering how both sides of the question - the couples-only hotel and the singles-only loners - are both disagreeable, to have him come on the side of one (by blinding himself and giving in to the hotel's logic) or the other (abandoning Weisz and going free like a loner) would not have been so satisfactory.


I don't know what else to say, except that I really had to force myself, squirming in my seat, to make it to the end and stay awake.
Fair enough. I'm not saying you're wrong for disliking The Lobster (it is a deliberately difficult and contentious film, after all), but reading your post did make me wonder exactly what you had against it. You called it "dumb and contrived" while also complaining that it didn't have the same factors that make up the typical "fairytale" film, which does seem self-contradictory since such factors could easily end up being contrived as well (especially the idea that a dystopia movie not only needs a rebellion in it but also needs the rebellion to win at the end). I thought that one of the main strengths of The Lobster is how it doesn't feel like it's trying to tick off a checklist of Things That A Movie Needs In Order To Work - I didn't automatically expect it to follow a strict set of rules, so I wasn't disappointed when it ended up doing things differently. That doesn't mean that you have to like the film, but I'd suggest not holding it or other films up against your preexisting concepts of how a film should be. You'd just be setting yourself up for disappointment.



Thursday Next covered this already, but yeah, The Lobster doesn't really need a lesson (at least not an obvious one) or a history or anything like that because that's simply not relevant.



It's especially interesting how you think that a dystopian film needs a rebellion that fights back against the oppressive regime in the name of personal freedom because The Lobster seems intent on deconstructing this idea by having the rebels be just as viciously myopic as the regime in their own way (as evidenced by the brutal punishments they use on people who break their rules). A third party that opposed both the hotel staff and the loners would have undermined the film as a whole by providing an easy out - having no such option works on both narrative and thematic levels.



The acting is flat by design in order to further illustrate how blunt and emotionally stunted the inhabitants of the world are (especially when they talk to one another), plus it draws attention to the transparently fake nature of the world itself - it may not feel natural, but it's not meant to.



I'm not sure what you consider to be conflict in this case, but I thought there was enough - Farrell's attempts to find a date in order to avoid becoming a lobster make a decent main conflict for the first half, while the second half has him and Weisz trying to hide their romance from the uncompromising Loners. Conversely, I think the film is better for not having a concrete resolution or a mythic ending:

WARNING: "The Lobster" spoilers below
Leaving us hanging on whether or not Farrell would blind himself to be with Weisz was a good point at which to end because of how easily it could have gone either way. Considering how both sides of the question - the couples-only hotel and the singles-only loners - are both disagreeable, to have him come on the side of one (by blinding himself and giving in to the hotel's logic) or the other (abandoning Weisz and going free like a loner) would not have been so satisfactory.




Fair enough. I'm not saying you're wrong for disliking The Lobster (it is a deliberately difficult and contentious film, after all), but reading your post did make me wonder exactly what you had against it. You called it "dumb and contrived" while also complaining that it didn't have the same factors that make up the typical "fairytale" film, which does seem self-contradictory since such factors could easily end up being contrived as well (especially the idea that a dystopia movie not only needs a rebellion in it but also needs the rebellion to win at the end). I thought that one of the main strengths of The Lobster is how it doesn't feel like it's trying to tick off a checklist of Things That A Movie Needs In Order To Work - I didn't automatically expect it to follow a strict set of rules, so I wasn't disappointed when it ended up doing things differently. That doesn't mean that you have to like the film, but I'd suggest not holding it or other films up against your preexisting concepts of how a film should be. You'd just be setting yourself up for disappointment.
I don't mind "dumb and contrived" movies if there's a point to it, usually some sort of illustrative lesson about life, a metaphor, narrative, story retelling, allegory, or something other than the dumb part, none of which hit me in TL. I can live without a beginning, middle or end, don't have a lot of contrived or fixed ideas about what a movie has to be, but there has to be SOMETHING that makes me want to sit there and watch it. That's usually a plot line or some sort of conflict and resolution. Otherwise, an editor could just go about studios, sweeping up pieces of film left on the cutting room floor (or its digital equivalent), piece them together at random until it was 90 minutes long, and call it a movie.

I'm guessing that's why opinions on TL are so polarized. I saw the movie in a venue with a reputation as part "art-house", so it wasn't just the usual date night crowd, and half of them walked out before the end, shaking their heads. The ticket guy said (with a sarcastic snicker) that some wanted their money back. I'm guessing that this all made sense to the film makers, but it seems lost on the audience.



Welcome to the human race...
I don't mind "dumb and contrived" movies if there's a point to it, usually some sort of illustrative lesson about life, a metaphor, narrative, story retelling, allegory, or something other than the dumb part, none of which hit me in TL. I can live without a beginning, middle or end, don't have a lot of contrived or fixed ideas about what a movie has to be, but there has to be SOMETHING that makes me want to sit there and watch it. That's usually a plot line or some sort of conflict and resolution. Otherwise, an editor could just go about studios, sweeping up pieces of film left on the cutting room floor (or its digital equivalent), piece them together at random until it was 90 minutes long, and call it a movie.

I'm guessing that's why opinions on TL are so polarized. I saw the movie in a venue with a reputation as part "art-house", so it wasn't just the usual date night crowd, and half of them walked out before the end, shaking their heads. The ticket guy said (with a sarcastic snicker) that some wanted their money back. I'm guessing that this all made sense to the film makers, but it seems lost on the audience.
I mean, if we're going to take that route, then there is definitely a point to The Lobster. Taken at face value, it's supposed to be a satirical dissection of modern relationships work that trades in exaggeration to illustrate certain underlying truths. The ways in which modern Western society conditions people to pursue romantic relationships while also ostracising single people is taken to an absurd extreme in the world of The Lobster, where single people are given the choice of either engaging in relationships or being literally dehumanised by being transformed into the animal of their choice. The hotel staff also demonstrate this absurdity through their various actions, whether it's painfully obvious pantomimes that compare single life to married life with absurd examples (e.g. single people will choke on dinner since they don't have a partner to give them the Heimlich) or their sadistic punishments for people who stray even slightly from the path towards marriage (such as the scene where they stick John C Reilly's hand in a toaster).

The ways in which the hotel guests interact with one another also reflects the shallow nature of modern romance, with people being paired up and/or choosing to pair up on the basis of sharing a single characteristic (which said people are willing to fake by any means necessary, such as Ben Whishaw secretly giving himself nosebleeds in order to date a woman who suffers chronic nosebleeds). Even though the part where the Loners become the focus is definitely the weaker part of their film, the fact that they are shown to be just as cruelly dogmatic as the hotel staff despite the geometrically opposed ideology also suggests that one cannot truly disregard actual society's conditions and don't actually have to be playing the dating game to be warped by its effects. One theory I read somewhere is that the film might be a response to declining birth rates in Lanthimos' native Greece, which does make the prospect of forcing people to marry one another and reproduce by threatening them with a literally life-changing punishment seem horrifying and absurd yet not totally implausible.

These are just a few different points to the film that I could think of off the top of my head, but they are by no means the only ones that I could identify.

As for conflict and resolution, here's how the film fits into a standard three-act beginning-middle-end structure (complete with conflicts/resolutions):

WARNING: "The Lobster" spoilers below
Act 1 - Farrell joins the hotel and tries to find a partner so he doesn't get turned into a lobster. He eventually pretends to be a heartless sadist to win over "the heartless woman".
Act 2 - Farrell must flee from the heartless woman and the hotel and join the Loners living in the forest. He does this, which leads to him falling in love with Weisz.
Act 3 - The Loners decide that Farrell and Weisz have broken their rules and decide to punish Weisz by blinding her. Farrell and Weisz escape and the film ends on the open question of whether or not Farrell blinds himself and stays with Weisz or chickens out and abandons Weisz.


Obviously, this doesn't mean that you have to like the film anyway, but I can still illustrate the metaphor/allegory at work in the film's premise and also point out the conventional narrative that's buried underneath the film's whole slow/weird/arty approach. It's alright if you feel that this film doesn't offer you "SOMETHING" as you put it, but if that something is a conflict then it doesn't really lack for conflict considering that its (point-packed) premise builds off people trying to escape a nightmarish scenario (being forcibly transformed into a non-human animal) by any means necessary, whether it's by trying to find love in a building full of the most undateable people alive or by hiding in the woods and carrying out guerilla warfare. As for a resolution, well, I guess that depends on your tolerance for open endings.