Post by The Social Introvert on Feb 13, 2018 13:20:45 GMT
For a video version of my thoughts, see here:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGOK3w4kWJ4&t=49s
Yorgis Lanthimos’ dystopian comedy drama, in which single people are taken to a hotel where they must find a romantic partner in 45 days or face being turned into an animal, is a dark but side-splittingly hilarious satirical mirror into our society’s obsession in wedging into a specific and rigid set of rules, regardless of how preposterous they are. We can all agree that we do many things, even on a daily basis, that we don’t want to be doing and yet we still do it, because it is the social norm, it is the cultural pressures we are subjected to. The Lobster tackles one such area of our society - romantic relationships, how they play by the rules and how people behave in order to fit into the established order of things. It is a delightfully weird film, full of more and more absurdities as the film goes on, and as it does so it digs its claws in you and I found my really not wanting it to end – always the mark of a great film.
One of the first things you notice about The Lobster is the blunt, deadpan, almost cynical and nihilistic humour etched into almost every frame. Characters say the craziest things but deliver it in such a straight laced way, so as-a-matter-of-factly given conversation subjects we might see as taboo are the social norm in this society, and it had me laughing my arse off so many times. It’s by far the funniest film I’ve seen in the last year or two. All the actors are on point, everyone is in on the joke – Colin Farrell our protagonist is as good as he was in the outstanding In Bruges and delivers an awkward and offbeat performance as divorced Architect David, and playing off of him are the likes of Rachel Weisz, John C. Reily and Olivia Coleman. It’s like the film is taking the piss out of the characters, or at least, taking the piss out of us and the society we live in through the characters. I was getting some heavy Barry Lyndon vibes from the picture from its tone.
Farrell’s time at the hotel is coming to an end, and in hastiness strategically decides to pair up with a creepy heartless woman who is said to be completely without feelings and comes across as a right sociopath. It’s a fine commentary on how often desperate people who are reeling after a break up or in fear of ending up alone convince themselves to settle for whomever for completely implausible reasons. The hotel has a set of crazy rules in place, rules that don’t seem so crazy when you link them to our world, like the fact that successful couples who are experiencing arguing and quarrelling in their relationships are assigned children to solve the problem, and how often have we seen cases in peoples’ lives, even our own, where the troubles of downward-spiralling couples are masked or ignored by them because they share children. At times the film comes off as an anti-advertisement for marriage and companionship.
The heartless woman is one of the most interesting characters in the film. She’s the hotel’s longest serving guest, being unable to find a mate and extending her stay by shooting down single people who are let loose into the woods, one of the hotel’s weird sporting activities. She is pretty scary, but perhaps in a weird way perhaps she is the only character at peace with herself. After all, she’s aloof all the time and makes no attempts at talking to people. Maybe she just isn’t interested in finding a mate? Maybe this limbo, along with its free drinks and hot tub, is all she needs? Or perhaps she’s been in the game for so long that she’s become numb to the whole thing? Who knows?
After the film pokes fun at partnerships, which it treats as a commodity more than anything else, Farrell escapes and finds a rag tag group of fellow escapees in the woods, the leader of which invites him into their group. But the irony is that there’s so many rules, mainly centred on not being allowed to have a romantic partner, in this rebellion that Farrell is stuck yet again, and his position made even more complicated that he and Rachel Weisz’s character form an interest with each other. It’s a pessimistic loop, a cynical paradox of conformity. Farrell rebelled, and he ended up in a rebellious group, but the rebellious group, the counterculture, has so many rules that limit him he ended up being just as much of a prisoner as he was in the hotel, the mainstream culture.. It reminds me of a movie idea I had in my head in the shower or the toilet or whatever, where a freedom-loving rebellion overthrows an evil bureaucratic government and after doing so they put rules into place to form structure and order, but ironically in order to enforce the order they end up eventually just like the original evil government. Had the woods folk took over the hotel, I can see this exact scenario playing out. The film does indeed has something to say the sheep or herd mentality. I mean, has anyone in the film’s universe even questioned whether they actually do turn you into an animal after 45 days, and don’t just outright kill you?
In the second half of the film Farrell spends more time with the rebels, and it’s here where the anti-partnership…’propaganda’, shall we call it, flips and through the handicapping of a character and another’s defiance in taking care of said character, it’s almost like the film is saying “hey, maybe being alone isn’t the answer. Maybe if it’s organic and real, not forced, partnership can be a beautiful thing.” Where before it mocked people’s need to be together, in the second half it was now mocking those who feel the need to be independent just as mercilessly.
I really want to talk about the fantastic ambiguous ending but seeing as though that would delve into spoiler territory I think I’ll leave it there for now. I am really glad I saw The Lobster. It was an absolute laugh out loud riot, a bizarre and insane screwball comedy but rich, intelligent and it does leaves you thinking. I give it an 8/10.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGOK3w4kWJ4&t=49s
Yorgis Lanthimos’ dystopian comedy drama, in which single people are taken to a hotel where they must find a romantic partner in 45 days or face being turned into an animal, is a dark but side-splittingly hilarious satirical mirror into our society’s obsession in wedging into a specific and rigid set of rules, regardless of how preposterous they are. We can all agree that we do many things, even on a daily basis, that we don’t want to be doing and yet we still do it, because it is the social norm, it is the cultural pressures we are subjected to. The Lobster tackles one such area of our society - romantic relationships, how they play by the rules and how people behave in order to fit into the established order of things. It is a delightfully weird film, full of more and more absurdities as the film goes on, and as it does so it digs its claws in you and I found my really not wanting it to end – always the mark of a great film.
One of the first things you notice about The Lobster is the blunt, deadpan, almost cynical and nihilistic humour etched into almost every frame. Characters say the craziest things but deliver it in such a straight laced way, so as-a-matter-of-factly given conversation subjects we might see as taboo are the social norm in this society, and it had me laughing my arse off so many times. It’s by far the funniest film I’ve seen in the last year or two. All the actors are on point, everyone is in on the joke – Colin Farrell our protagonist is as good as he was in the outstanding In Bruges and delivers an awkward and offbeat performance as divorced Architect David, and playing off of him are the likes of Rachel Weisz, John C. Reily and Olivia Coleman. It’s like the film is taking the piss out of the characters, or at least, taking the piss out of us and the society we live in through the characters. I was getting some heavy Barry Lyndon vibes from the picture from its tone.
Farrell’s time at the hotel is coming to an end, and in hastiness strategically decides to pair up with a creepy heartless woman who is said to be completely without feelings and comes across as a right sociopath. It’s a fine commentary on how often desperate people who are reeling after a break up or in fear of ending up alone convince themselves to settle for whomever for completely implausible reasons. The hotel has a set of crazy rules in place, rules that don’t seem so crazy when you link them to our world, like the fact that successful couples who are experiencing arguing and quarrelling in their relationships are assigned children to solve the problem, and how often have we seen cases in peoples’ lives, even our own, where the troubles of downward-spiralling couples are masked or ignored by them because they share children. At times the film comes off as an anti-advertisement for marriage and companionship.
The heartless woman is one of the most interesting characters in the film. She’s the hotel’s longest serving guest, being unable to find a mate and extending her stay by shooting down single people who are let loose into the woods, one of the hotel’s weird sporting activities. She is pretty scary, but perhaps in a weird way perhaps she is the only character at peace with herself. After all, she’s aloof all the time and makes no attempts at talking to people. Maybe she just isn’t interested in finding a mate? Maybe this limbo, along with its free drinks and hot tub, is all she needs? Or perhaps she’s been in the game for so long that she’s become numb to the whole thing? Who knows?
After the film pokes fun at partnerships, which it treats as a commodity more than anything else, Farrell escapes and finds a rag tag group of fellow escapees in the woods, the leader of which invites him into their group. But the irony is that there’s so many rules, mainly centred on not being allowed to have a romantic partner, in this rebellion that Farrell is stuck yet again, and his position made even more complicated that he and Rachel Weisz’s character form an interest with each other. It’s a pessimistic loop, a cynical paradox of conformity. Farrell rebelled, and he ended up in a rebellious group, but the rebellious group, the counterculture, has so many rules that limit him he ended up being just as much of a prisoner as he was in the hotel, the mainstream culture.. It reminds me of a movie idea I had in my head in the shower or the toilet or whatever, where a freedom-loving rebellion overthrows an evil bureaucratic government and after doing so they put rules into place to form structure and order, but ironically in order to enforce the order they end up eventually just like the original evil government. Had the woods folk took over the hotel, I can see this exact scenario playing out. The film does indeed has something to say the sheep or herd mentality. I mean, has anyone in the film’s universe even questioned whether they actually do turn you into an animal after 45 days, and don’t just outright kill you?
In the second half of the film Farrell spends more time with the rebels, and it’s here where the anti-partnership…’propaganda’, shall we call it, flips and through the handicapping of a character and another’s defiance in taking care of said character, it’s almost like the film is saying “hey, maybe being alone isn’t the answer. Maybe if it’s organic and real, not forced, partnership can be a beautiful thing.” Where before it mocked people’s need to be together, in the second half it was now mocking those who feel the need to be independent just as mercilessly.
I really want to talk about the fantastic ambiguous ending but seeing as though that would delve into spoiler territory I think I’ll leave it there for now. I am really glad I saw The Lobster. It was an absolute laugh out loud riot, a bizarre and insane screwball comedy but rich, intelligent and it does leaves you thinking. I give it an 8/10.