|
 The Lobster, directed by Greek director Yorgos Lanthimos and starring Colin Farrell, Rachel Weisz, and John C Reily. In a dystopian near future, single people, according to the laws of The City, are taken to The Hotel, where they are obliged to find a romantic partner in forty-five days or are transformed into an animal of their choosing and sent off into The Woods. This movie is beautifully shot, intruiging, well-paced, and full of mystery and symbolism. I highly recommend it.
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 18:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 01:59 |
|
|
blue squares posted:This movie is beautifully shot, intruiging, well-paced, and full of mystery and symbolism. Also very funny.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 09:56
|
|
|
That, too. Can't believe I didn't mention how funny it is. The entire thing is absolutely absurd.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 13:20
|
|
|
My girlfriend nearly broke up with me because of an argument this movie caused. She said my enjoyment of it proved that I had a deeply hosed up idea of what love is.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 13:36
|
|
|
What do I even do about this movie? I saw it last Friday and spent the subsequent ride home- and about three hours in bed trying to sleep- thinking about what it even is saying, and wondering whether a) I liked it or not; and b) would I recommend it or not. I think I'm pretty solid on the first (my interpretation anyway, it's one of those movies), but still struggle with the latter two, so maybe this thread will help with that. So, the facts: The Lobster is the first English language effort of Greek filmmaker Yorgos Lanthimos, who's done a couple other things, the most famous of which is probably Dogtooth, with which I understand it has more than a few similarities. It won a ton of awards in the European circuit and was nominated for several more, and was released in America earlier this month. The best way I can describe it is that it's a movie about relationships, but the most cold, unromantic movie about relationships I've ever seen. Nobody uses any names to refer to people (only Colin Farrell's character is named at all, and for the life of me, I can't remember if it was ever even mentioned or brought up); the camerawork is utilitarian to the extreme, never really doing anything special other than pointing the camera at a scene (although the scene composition is usually great); the settings are dreary and sparse with no warm colors and either too dark or too bright; and everyone speaks with this weird, affectless tone at all times that don't ever modulate to a whisper or shout- people insult and threaten violence on people in the same flat, bored tones that they explain brochures or offer coffee. It's not lovely or compassionate in the slightest, since what is being sought by the guests at The Hotel isn't love or one's completion of spirit, but compatibility- whether one is a goods match for each other, which is pretty much always determined by a shared trait, like a love of music, or blue eyes, or nearsightedness. It's the logic of speed dating and internet chat-rooms taken to a real world conclusion, and here's the thing: this viewpoint on partnership isn't enforced by The City at any point, and even people who hate the idea of relationships or forcing people into them take it as rote that that's how love works. This allows us to see the absurdity of some of the conventions and expectations of relationships, and invites the question to be ask: is it actually relationships we pursue, or the trappings of the same? Are we getting married because we want to, or because we are pressured by our family and friends to hook up? Is it funny? I guess it is, but only of the pitch blackest sort, one that evokes confused laughter at the absurdity of some things, and nervous laughter to release genuine tension being built. Here is an example of the humor (and this is the opening scene of the movie, but I'm going to spoiler it anyway just to be safe): The cold open is of a woman driving through the rain until she comes to an open field with three donkeys grazing. She gets out of the car, walks over to the largest donkey, produces a gun, and shoots it dead. And then she goes away. This action is neither explained, nor comes up again. Colin Farrell does a great job as this sad-sack that gets shunted between two extremes that he really wants nothing to do with, and Rachel Weisz brings some really great nuance to the mysterious lady he meets. Everyone does a really good job at distinguishing themselves with what screen time they have, even more so when you consider that no one is named and the dialogue is meant to be affectless. Some really good wrangling of animals too, but if you can't stand animals getting hurt on screen, you ought to know that there is some animal death in this, at least a few examples (one of which is a lovely old dog  I miss my dog).
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 14:06
|
|
|
Mr. Flunchy posted:My girlfriend nearly broke up with me because of an argument this movie caused. She said my enjoyment of it proved that I had a deeply hosed up idea of what love is. hahahaha I can 100% believe this was Lanthimos's desired reaction. You should tweet this to him or something.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 14:42
|
|
|
resurgam40 posted:What do I even do about this movie? I saw it last Friday and spent the subsequent ride home- and about three hours in bed trying to sleep- thinking about what it even is saying, and wondering whether a) I liked it or not; and b) would I recommend it or not. I think I'm pretty solid on the first (my interpretation anyway, it's one of those movies), but still struggle with the latter two, so maybe this thread will help with that. How can you possibly be confused by the opening scene? It's the most straightforward scene in the entire movie once you know what's going on in this world.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 17:50
|
|
|
GonSmithe posted:How can you possibly be confused by the opening scene? It's the most straightforward scene in the entire movie once you know what's going on in this world. I don't think confused is what the poster meant. It's superficially baffling and absurd as an introduction, but the movie doesn't go out of its way to say "well she went out to shoot the donkey because..." You then figure it out as a viewer by watching the rest of the movie unfold. (I have not seen the movie, but that's my understanding of the post)
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 18:17
|
|
|
Correct, I was merely offering an example of the kind of surreal, almost absurdist humor that the film engages in, rather than asking why the opening scene happened.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 21:53
|
|
|
I was really loving this movie then they ran away and it just went straight to poo poo in my eyes.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 22:04
|
|
|
Mr. Flunchy posted:My girlfriend nearly broke up with me because of an argument this movie caused. She said my enjoyment of it proved that I had a deeply hosed up idea of what love is. movie is a relationship test, if both like it then they are ok if both hate it then they are ok, if they disagree its trouble. I loved this movie. I love the end and how it doesn't redeem or resolve itself in any way.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 23:24
|
|
|
I thought this story would've been more enjoyable as a piece of short fiction than a 2 hour movie
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 21:55
|
|
|
Something Else posted:I thought this story would've been more enjoyable as a piece of short fiction than a 2 hour movie 100% agree. It just kept going and going when it really didn't need to. Also I thought it was awful and only funny in the darkest, subtlest, and most awkward of ways.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 02:36
|
|
|
blue squares posted:That, too. Can't believe I didn't mention how funny it is. The entire thing is absolutely absurd. I loved it. Beautiful film, seemed to keep digging deep into this completely alien world. It's fascinating how I thought the director couldn't dive any deeper than he did with Dogtooth in terms of ridiculous depths, but he straight up went from a single household to turning the whole world into one that is built on black and white. It's probably not going to be for everyone with how darkly dry the humor is or even how long in the tooth it gets, but there's so much I know I'll be thinking about in the next few days or weeks regarding this movie. Kind of reminds me of Anomalisa, which I saw in January.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 05:27
|
|
|
I found the movie really hard to watch and boring after the first hour. It makes its point but like a lot of art films, it goes so deep into the emotions its trying to evoke that it removes any enjoyment. Relationships are hard, match making is contrived. Those are really hard points to make over and over for 2hrs and keep it interesting. The relationship between the men and the characters over all were interesting but the film seem to forget about that in favor creating more situations to make the same points.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 04:52
|
|
|
Something Else posted:I thought this story would've been more enjoyable as a piece of short fiction than a 2 hour movie The movie definitely could have used some trimming but I think it works best with the timing and delivery of an audiovisual experience. It does feel pretty bookish, though
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 07:38
|
|
|
Looper posted:It does feel pretty bookish, though
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 07:56
|
|
|
I haven't seen this yet but I saw they have a quiz on their website that asks questions like "do we all die alone?," the trolley problem, and a free repsonse Rorschach blot. http://thelobster-movie.com/ 
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 17:36
|
|
|
I got penguin, which is pretty cool because I love penguins. As for the movie, I didn't dislike it, but I don't think I'd recommend it. It's at least something that had me thinking about it for a while afterward, even if it felt flawed. I kind of had the same reaction to it as I did to Upstream Color, to which I just realized it bears some superficial resemblance. I guess my biggest criticism is that to say anything interesting, it has to struggle against the absurdism, and that makes it feel a bit incoherent, especially by the end.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2016 07:39
|
|
|
I got a loving ant. What the hell
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2016 07:44
|
|
|
blue squares posted:I got a loving ant. What the hell Did you scroll down? It should give you three choices. Also post the description. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2016 08:56
|
|
|
Sebadoh Gigante posted:I haven't seen this yet but I saw they have a quiz on their website that asks questions like "do we all die alone?," the trolley problem, and a free repsonse Rorschach blot. This seems very improbable to me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2016 15:52
|
|
|
Picked rhino over water bear (lmao), I think I'm satisfied with my new fursona.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2016 21:56
|
|
|
I just watched this and I have some questions about the loners. Who's making their rules? Is it the red haired woman? Is she operating independently of the hotel? Why does she try to break people up and punish people who fall in love, does she just want everybody to be alone? Anyway, the phrase "emotional rollercoaster" is overused, but The Lobster left me dizzy and wanting to throw up by the end. And I mean that as a compliment. Looper posted:The movie definitely could have used some trimming but I think it works best with the timing and delivery of an audiovisual experience. It does feel pretty bookish, though The stilted dialog and shallow conversations reminded be of Don DeLillo, but the initial premise almost sounds like a Roald Dahl book.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 03:25
|
|
|
Just got out of this one. I was dragged to it, so that might color my perspective on it, but I seriously disliked it. There were some moderately interesting character interactions near the beginning and the occasional funny disjointed conversation or humorous take on a 'friendly' dystopia (for lack of a better word). Then, about halfway through (relatively minor spoilers) the film starts to focus on the loners who have their own strange customs and live out in the woods, and then they even go to the city where people are sent to the hotel from. I think I get what it is supposed to be about. My guess is it's about (possible theme spoilers?) the falsity of the structure and tradition of interpersonal relationships and their societal enforcement through lies, but only portions of the film seem to support that theme. That makes me think it could be about something else, but I don't have a clue of a coherent theme that could connect the second half of this movie. The closest I come is talking about (more possible theme spoilers?) loss and going through the motions, fearing becoming less than human? Since most people seem to be in this predicament after losing an existing partner. Maybe being in the woods is supposed to be a spiritual transition to the woods, but I don't think that is well supported either. I'm left wondering if it's supposed to be some sort of anti-art, but I doubt that as well. It feels too coherent to not be a genuine attempt at art but it's far too incoherent to be a successful one. I'm tempted to say this is a project made by a person who either doesn't know how they feel on a topic (which is okay though I don't think this film is about confusion) or doesn't have anything to say (which isn't okay, just don't make a movie). That might not be fair to say or even accurate, but that is my honest impression. Overall, it is occasionally clever or funny, but it spends enormous amounts of its two-hour runtime spinning its wheels. I suppose I'm still digesting it, so maybe my feelings will change, but something tells me tomorrow I will feel nothing about this movie. It will go right through me like poo poo through a goose. For the record, that is why I would not choose to become a goose if I failed at this hotel.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 04:44
|
|
|
GonSmithe posted:How can you possibly be confused by the opening scene? It's the most straightforward scene in the entire movie once you know what's going on in this world. One thing I was wondering is, is the donkey the animal nobody wants to become that you get turned into if you build a relationship on a lie? They're sterile, and there are a couple points in the movie where they make a big deal about the possibility of intimacy and fertility even when you're turned into an animal
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 08:56
|
|
|
goferchan posted:One thing I was wondering is, is the donkey the animal nobody wants to become that you get turned into if you build a relationship on a lie? They're sterile, and there are a couple points in the movie where they make a big deal about the possibility of intimacy and fertility even when you're turned into an animal It must have been a mule then.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 15:00
|
|
|
Sebadoh Gigante posted:It must have been a mule then. Oh no I got the two confused. She's the first person in the cast credits and listed as Donkey Shooter so there goes my idea
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 16:15
|
|
|
Sebadoh Gigante posted:I just watched this and I have some questions about the loners. Who's making their rules? Is it the red haired woman? Is she operating independently of the hotel? Why does she try to break people up and punish people who fall in love, does she just want everybody to be alone? yes there is no real system, just a whole lot of arbitrary rules someone at some point along the line made up and everyone accepts uncritically as just the way things are. everyone's desperate to belong to something, even if they're just belonging to aloneness. A Wizard of Goatse fucked around with this message at 16:43 on Jun 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 16:38
|
|
|
Yeah, I think the fact that the loners have rules is just an extension of the metaphors in the film about couples and singles. Being single/a loner doesn't actually mean true freedom--it's just another set of arbitrary rules and obligations just like in the hotel. I loved The Lobster. Thought it was funny and truly committed to its dark vision. Would definitely warn people about the violence towards animals, especially *that scene*.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 17:39
|
|
|
goferchan posted:One thing I was wondering is, is the donkey the animal nobody wants to become that you get turned into if you build a relationship on a lie? They're sterile, and there are a couple points in the movie where they make a big deal about the possibility of intimacy and fertility even when you're turned into an animal I think they never specify the worst animal so you can imagine your own personal worst
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 22:01
|
|
|
Looper posted:I think they never specify the worst animal so you can imagine your own personal worst That was my interpretation as well. Same with whatever animal the Girl With No Feelings gets turned into
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 17:19
|
|
|
Sebadoh Gigante posted:I haven't seen this yet but I saw they have a quiz on their website that asks questions like "do we all die alone?," the trolley problem, and a free repsonse Rorschach blot. Black philip is my spirit animal
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 02:13
|
|
|
OhAreThey posted:Yeah, I think the fact that the loners have rules is just an extension of the metaphors in the film about couples and singles. Being single/a loner doesn't actually mean true freedom--it's just another set of arbitrary rules and obligations just like in the hotel. Eee. Can you or someone maybe throw the details in a spoiler tag? I've gotten really sensitive to animal stuff recently, but this movie is appealing to me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 07:37
|
|
|
Chili posted:Eee. Can you or someone maybe throw the details in a spoiler tag? I've gotten really sensitive to animal stuff recently, but this movie is appealing to me. There's some hunting that goes on, but in one scene a woman kicks a dog to death, and we see the aftermath, which is probably the most horrifying part of the movie.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 07:51
|
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:There's some hunting that goes on, but in one scene a woman kicks a dog to death, and we see the aftermath, which is probably the most horrifying part of the movie. Aaaaand that's gonna be a hard pass for me. Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 08:08
|
|
|
Chili posted:Aaaaand that's gonna be a hard pass for me. Yeah it was amongst the hardest scenes I've ever had to sit through in a movie, especially since it was so unexpected
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 12:03
|
|
|
if you can tolerate man on man violence you should grow a stomach for this stuff, it's a really cool movie not to be missed for delicate sensibilities.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 14:19
|
|
|
hemophilia posted:if you can tolerate man on man violence you should grow a stomach for this stuff, it's a really cool movie not to be missed for delicate sensibilities. Yeah I mean it's not like they really did that, it's just special effects and puppet doubles and stuff (in fact, I thought it looked kinda fake). You can even close your eyes during that entire scene, you'll know it's coming up well before it happens.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 15:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 01:59 |
|
|
hemophilia posted:if you can tolerate man on man violence you should grow a stomach for this stuff, it's a really cool movie not to be missed for delicate sensibilities. Eh, it is what is. After some life changes, I've had to switch over to not eating meat and any forms of animal cruelty, even fictional depiction, just stick with me for too long. It's certainly my hangup and I don't fault the filmmaker for doing whatever he thinks is best for his film, but I don't want to lose sleep over it. And yeah, I've heard the whole "you can watch ________ happen to people, but not animals?" thing before. And all I can really do is agree, it's a silly thing I have. And there are hundreds of movies I haven't seen that I want to see, that just don't have this. If I hadn't heard about this from the thread, I likely would've watched up until it happened, and then stopped watching it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 15:06
|
|