The Lobster

[WhizzerMarvin]

I saw The Lobster this morning and what a trip! Definitely lives up to the hype as one of the weirdest movies you'll have seen in a while. I really dug the world Lanthimos created; I haven't seen his other films, but now I want to investigate. Everything was visually exciting and some of the shots he got in the forest were just stunning. The soundtrack was great too. 

 

I liked the slow reveal of the world building in the first half, and I also appreciated that Lanthimos didn't feel he needed to explain every little thing about how this way of life came to be, how it is controlled, etc. 

 

The actors were terrific, especially Farrell, Weisz and Whishaw. Everyone delivers their lines in a bored monotone that what have made Bresson proud. Whishaw's big day two introductory speech was perhaps the most powerful moment in which this technique was employed. Despite the one-note quality in his voice, I was very moved by the story of his mother and first wife. 

 

The theater was surprisingly full for 10am on a Saturday morning, but it was a little less full by the end. There was a steady stream of walkouts from about the midpoint on, but I couldn't have imagined walking out. Maybe the first true "must see" of the year. Would love to hear other thoughts. 

[hork]

I thought Dogtooth was just okay, but this one looks great. Unfortunately, it's currently only playing in two theaters in LA, neither of which take MoviePass. Grrrr.

[Someone in a Tree2]

We caught it yesterday at the Arclight Hollywood, at a mostly empty house (but it was Friday afternoon). Man, it's a deeply disturbing story and the most troubling parts will stay with you the next day (and probably well after). Can I recommend it? Hmmmmm....

The setup says a lot: In Act I, Colin Farrell arrives at a seaside hotel (in maybe Wales?) for 45 days during which he must pair up with a mate or else he'll be turned into an animal of his choosing. (Hence the title). The catch is the hotel is the most banal, soulless, libido-sucking place in the free world run by this horrifyingly totalitarian couple of managers, and punishments are severe for any alternatives to bedding that mate. (Masturbating is expressly verboten and violators get their own unique Hell.) Act II takes place mostly in the forest primeval nearby where "Loners" try to survive off the grid, and their leaders appear to be no less dictatorial. Despite all this, the movie tries desperately to be a love story against insurmountable odds.

If that all sounds like the kind of film you'd like to spend 2 hours with, you will be rewarded with some spot-on affectless acting by a great cast who have deleted every bit of "acting" from their vocabulary. The camera work is smart, the design is impeccable in its oppressive beige-ness, and the music is kind of brilliant, as Whizzer has mentioned. Violence is a constant hum beneath the surface, and there is some onscreen bloodletting, yes, although certainly this is no torture-porn. The real violence is all psychological throughout. I promise you, you won't be able to shake the button-pushing sequences for ages.

[WhizzerMarvin]

I've been reading up on his other stuff this morning. It seems like Dogtooth inspired quite the wide range of reactions...do you have any more detailed thoughts on it? 

 

I want to catch High-Rise tomorrow and at first thought it was at two non-Moviepass theaters, but I mistook one of the locations and now it looks like I'll get to see it. Have you caught that yet?

[hork]

There were many individual scenes in Dogtooth that I loved, but mostly I just found it immature and, ultimately, not very clever or cogent. It's been several years so I can't really get more detailed than that.

I haven't seen High-Rise. I'm not sure I will, since I'm not a Ben Wheatley fan. Although, I did like Sightseers. I don't know, maybe I'll check it out.

[WhizzerMarvin]

I ended up seeing High-Rise this morning and was overall not a fan. The shots are often composed well and Hiddleston gives the best performance I've seen from him, but the screenplay was lacking. The scenarios were often far too on the nose for me; The Lobster was a satire and often quite funny whereas I think High-Rise was trying to do something similar except it couldn't deliver the laughs. 

 

The whole thing was basically Snowpiercer all over again, but instead of a train it was the lower floors of a building revolting against the upper, wealthier floors. The protagonist is from the middle floors here and Hiddleston plays him like a friendly version of Patrict Bateman. The set-up was fine, but the last hour became tedious and boring. 

[John Adams]

I saw The Lobster this afternoon. I admit that I had to do a LOT of extracurricular reading of reviews, and articles about surrealism, and Dali’s use of lobsters as symbolism of erotic pleasure and pain, etc., etc., afterwards to try and get a better sense of what the whole movie might mean, but I loved it.

I’m still in the process of exploring. I’m curious about the singular animals that drifted by, as background in the woods; one peacock, one horse, that huge pig… I’m sure I will be thinking about and exploring elements of this movie for days.

Someone in a Tree2 said: “spot-on affectless acting by a great cast who have deleted every bit of "acting" from their vocabulary.”
For me, this movie was a romantic love story, but it was the antithesis of how romances are typically made for the screen. There were absolutely no warm lighting setups, or colors, or costumes to create a romantic mood. The soundtrack was cold and humorously ominous. Most of the dialog was spoken without emotion or warmth of any kind, yet the love story was still obvious and clear.

Regarding the acting, I thought Rachel Weisz was superb. I didn’t see the cast as having to delete “acting” from their vocabulary as much as having to act as people who in nearly every scenario they are placed, are (literally) required to hide their emotions, or behave falsely. (Again, moving in the completely opposite direction of a typical romance movie.)

One of my favorite scenes is where Weisz and Ferrell go to the city with the Loner Leader, on their first visit to Loner Leader’s parents’ home.

 

Click Here To Toggle Spoiler Content

Weisz does a brilliant job of portraying a woman who has to hide the fact that she’s falling in love while Farrell is “acting out” a description of how he would keep their love alive “even if we didn’t have kids”. Ferrell has the advantage of speaking the monolog, and Weisz is just brilliant in the subtlety of her facial reactions and body language in silent response.

At the end of the monolog, Ferrel says, “I love… my wife so much… I could die for her.” He turns his face away from her, and reaches his hand back to take hers. Again - wordlessly - Weisz looks downward, blushingly and smiling, then instantly realizes the danger of exposing her honest reaction, purses her lips and turns her eyes upward to the ceiling of the room. Ferrell turns back to face her and kisses her awkwardly. Weisz, brilliantly again, plays right on the the line of wanting to express love for him, yet fearing being discovered by Loner Leader. She smiles somewhat weakly and takes a sharp breath in through the nose, as if she were choking back tears. It’s a spectacular example of really fine acting. Even before that final moment of the scene, Weisz’ reactions are beautifully acted. I loved her eyes when Ferrel first invents their kids.

The other romantic scene I absolutely loved was the final scene, where Weisz is sitting alone in the restaurant booth, and you’re wondering, “Did he (Ferrell) do it?”

 

Click Here To Toggle Spoiler Content

The focus of the scene is happening within the frame of the restaurant’s window, behind the actors (Weisz and the waiter) who are in shadow. Surrealistically, there are cars, trucks and industrial vehicles passing back and forth like people on a sidewalk. Mostly there are yellow and orange industrial vehicles, orange traffic cones and orange construction traffic signs. A grey dump truck with a white cab crosses the screen from right to left at a slightly slower pace than the other, previously seen vehicles. As that truck arrives mid-screen, another similar-looking grey dump truck, with a similar white cab, slowly drives onscreen from the left, in the foreground. Just as the noses of the cabs (visually) touch onscreen, like a kiss, the scene abruptly cuts to black, and the movie’s over.

We never get to actually see what Ferrell’s character does in the end, but I want to believe the "dump truck love" was significant.

[Someone in a Tree2]

John Adams, so glad you liked LOBSTER so much, and found so much to chew on after it was done.

For me the parade of random animals seen in the woods is simply the new identities of some recent guests of the hotel who were unsuccessful at finding a mate. Since guests could choose any animal they wanted to become, hence the dromedary, peacock, etc. No mysterious underlying meaning there.

My personal take is that you put WAY too much importance on the utility vehicles driving around in the background of the final diner scene. By that point I myself was exhausted by the film and more than delighted to reach its final blackout before I had to witness any more violence inflicted on the lead characters. 

Speaking of those fake/real love scenes staged in the home of the Loner Leader's parents, I was utterly mystified why on earth the Farrell and Weisz characters would EVER start macking on eachother to such a degree when they KNOW the punishment for any kind of kissing is the barbaric "Red Kiss". (Don't ask, but it involves the offending mouths and razor blades...) It doesn't make sense in ANY reading of the story, no matter how many allowances you may want to make on account of the "surrealism" in the story.

Admittedly, I clearly admired the film somewhat less than you did. No worries-- glad it worked so well for you. Reading your take was itself nicely entertaining.

[John Adams]

Someone in a Tree2 said: "John Adams, so glad you liked LOBSTER so much, and found so much to chew on after it was done.

A great way to spend my Sunday afternoon! Glad I read about it, here.

For me the parade of random animals seen in the woods is simply the new identities of some recent guests of the hotel who were unsuccessful at finding a mate. Since guests could choose any animal they wanted to become, hence the dromedary, peacock, etc. No mysterious underlying meaning there.

Duh! Of course.

My personal take is that you put WAY too much importance on the utility vehicles driving around in the background of the final diner scene. By that point I myself was exhausted by the film and more than delighted to reach its final blackout before I had to witness any more violence inflicted on the lead characters. 

I would agree with you if the final cut to blackout weren't so precisely placed, and the trucks weren't so different from the other trucks, yet shared a "defining characteristic", as mentioned in that meet-and-greet scene in the Hotel.  

Speaking of those fake/real love scenes staged in the home of the Loner Leader's parents, I was utterly mystified why on earth the Farrell and Weisz characters would EVER start macking on eachother to such a degree when they KNOW the punishment for any kind of kissing is the barbaric "Red Kiss". (Don't ask, but it involves the offending mouths and razor blades...) It doesn't make sense in ANY reading of the story, no matter how many allowances you may want to make on account of the "surrealism" in the story.

However, Loner Leader had given them strong praise regarding the great acting job they had done after their first visit to her parents' home. The second visit created tension for me as the viewer, seeing that they had lost control of their emotions. My fears were realized when Loner Leader did notice what was going on, and then set into motion what was to happen next. I believe her choice of punishment was selected because she was in love with Short-Sighted Woman, and wouldn't subject her to the kinds of torture she inflicted on others.

Admittedly, I clearly admired the film somewhat less than you did. No worries-- glad it worked so well for you. Reading your take was itself nicely entertaining."

Agreed about 'no worries. I really loved the film because I saw it as a love story where every/all the conventions of telling a love story on film were completely stripped out of the filmmaker's process, yet "love survived". It's probably too trite/literal to also say that, in the end, "love is blind" might be a major theme, but - there it is.

[devonian.t]

I caught this film, too.  Maybe I'm pessimistic, but my interpretation was that Farrell simply abandoned her in the cafe.  Ultimately he was unable to commit to anyone- the lobster would be his most fitting state.

I really loved the way the film demanded that you come to it, rather than force its aesthetic and ideas on you as a viewer.

Beautiful, disturbing, thought-provoking, true and quite a bit of a downer.  Just the way I like it.

[John Adams]

devonian.t said: "Beautiful, disturbing, thought-provoking, true and quite a bit of a downer.  Just the way I like it."

After the murder of Short-Sighted Man's (Ferrell's) brother, all the subsequent atrocities to humans seemed tame.

 

[Fantod]

Saw it today and loved the first half, with its psychotic precision and deranged sensibility, but found that once David leaves the hotel it becomes rather forceful in its strangeness. The message about humanity's obsession with the norm did come across rather nicely, though. Kind of reminds me of what World of Tomorrow kind of wanted to be, but lacked the humanity to be able to do successfully.

In any event, this movie has some great music and it's always nice to see movies that actually do something interesting with the capabilities of filmmaking

Just once, though, I would like to see a movie set in a dystopian future (though time period is never specified here) where the main character didn't break out from the norm. The movie might have been even stronger if David just lived out his 45 days and found somebody.

[John Adams]

Fantod said: "The movie might have been even stronger if David just lived out his 45 days and found somebody."

I didn't think he could have after his brother was murdered, and what he did in retaliation.

[Fantod]

I was talking more in the theoretical sense, like if this movie had him actually find somebody he liked and just became an offbeat and effed-up romantic comedy it may have been pretty exceptional. The darkness felt oppressive.

[John Adams]

Fantod said: "...an offbeat and effed-up romantic comedy... The darkness felt oppressive."

That's how I would describe this movie. I saw it as a rom-com.

I agree that the darkness was oppressive, but (for me) so are TV shows like The Bachelor/Bachelorette, apps like Tinder, speed dating, and other methods used today to define and navigate the worlds of dating and love. I think that's what Lanthimos was commenting on.

I find TV reality shows to be the worst offenders. For my old-fashioned tastes, The Bachelor/Bachelorette are examples of dystopian worlds. I can't watch either of them.

[devonian.t]

I think I'd be happier if he got to the end of the 45 days and just accepted his lobster fate.

[John Adams]

devonian.t said: "I think I'd be happier if he got to the end of the 45 days and just accepted his lobster fate."

Would I find it satisfying to cover Collin Ferrel in some melted butter, or eat him in a Po' Boy sandwich...? Hmmmm. Sadly, I need to think about that.

[~FloweryFriend~]

I felt like he gave up too quickly on trying to find things in common with her. Certainly, they could have used something like "we both used to live in the woods" as a shared defining characteristic if they could have used liking berries or having good hair.

And what about Breakfast at Tiffany's? I think I remember the film, and as I recall, I think, they both kinda liked it...

[hork]

I finally caught up with this, and, well, I pretty much had the same reaction as I did from Dogtooth. It amuses me that it's being marketed as a quirky romantic comedy. I bet there are a lot of walk-outs. It's crazy to me that it's now playing in mainstream cineplexes.

[hork]

devonian.t said: "I think I'd be happier if he got to the end of the 45 days and just accepted his lobster fate.


Going in, I thought for sure he'd end up as a lobster at the end. But that's more like a Charlie Kaufman movie, I guess.

[trentsketch]

I loved it. I thought Dogtooth was largely nonsense and appreciated it as an artistic statement, but The Lobster took that awkward anti-society thesis and crafted a world defined by the worst aspects of human expectations. 

I thought it would be 45 days and done, too, but I'm happy with the shift in the second half. We basically got the transformation without him turning into a lobster.

 

Click Here To Toggle Spoiler Content

He winds up joining a society of animalistic loners who can do whatever they want so long as they don't try to couple up in The Woods. Then, when he meets his could-be match, we go through a far more dangerous and absurd version of the coupling tests in The Hotel. 

Besides, with the level of shocking violence in the film--anticipated, described, or fully shown--do you really want to see what heinous thing are done to turn a pudgy man into a teeny tiny lobster? I thought the random shots of flamingos and such in The Woods more than demonstrated the grotesque absurdity of it without showing full operations. 

[hork]

They wouldn't have had to actually show the operation. I thought he would fall in love on the last day, but then something would happen, like she dies or something, and the last shot would be a lobster in a tank.

I agree with Fantod, the first half was much stronger than the second. There's a real sense of menace and urgency in the first half, but the second half just has one French girl to provide conflict. I got pretty bored.