Spoilers ahead……..
Greek film-maker Yorgos Lanthimos (now based in UK) is
fascinated in exploring humans, who are isolated within a fence known as
‘societal norms’. The alleged fence alienates his characters both
psychologically and physically. Lanthimos’ critically acclaimed debut feature
“Dogtooth” (2009) was about a family with three adult children, who have been
brought up all for their life, isolated within a walled compound, and believes
in all the absurdities concocted by their father (he teaches them that cats are
the most dangerous creatures in the world and trains them to bark like dogs,
down on all fours). Lanthimos’ sophomore effort “Alps” (2011) was more
meandering than“Dogtooth, which is about strange people, impersonating recently
died ones in order to console the grieving families. With “The Lobster” (2015),
Lanthimos not only makes his inaugural English language feature, but also
employs a large canvasses that of a dystopian society, to reflect on the human
uneasiness towards loneliness as well as relationships.
David (Colin Farrell), the middle-aged, short-sighted protagonist
of “The Lobster” moves to a ‘Hotel’ in an unspecified dystopian future. The
reason for David’s shift to hotel is that he has recently become single and in this
futuristic society, singledom doesn’t just exude a sigh of disapproval from the
regime; it is considered illegal. So, these entire single people should move to
the Hotel and are given 45 days to choose a perfect, new partner. If they fail
to find a partner, then he/she might transform to an animal of his/her liking.
David has already chosen his animal – ‘Lobster’. The reason he states for
choosing lobster is “They live for 100 years; they are fertile all their lives;
I like sea” And, vitally lobsters are ‘blue-blooded’, which when used as an
adjective gives a meaning of ‘aristocrats’. The hotel manager (Olivia Colman)
lauds David’s decision: “Most people choose a dog, which is why the world is so
full of dogs”. Of course, David could easily escape from the hotel and run into
the woods to survive with the ‘loners’. But, the ‘loners’ who don’t want to
follows the norms of society have their own strict norms too. And, there’s also
a risk of loners being hunted down by single people from ‘Hotel’. Hunting a
‘loner’ grants an extra day for the bachelors at the hotel.
David’s fellow hotel guests are a ‘Limping Man’ (Ben Winshaw), ‘Lisping Man’ (John C. Reilly), butter-biscuit woman (Ashley Jensen),
girl with nose bleeds (Jessica Barden) and a heartless woman (Angeliki Papoulia), who is a well-known sociopath, good at hunting the ‘loners’. In this
dystopian society, physical traits or disabilities are considered as the
foremost point in choosing a perfect partner. So, the man who limps couldn’t
find a limping woman, he smashes and cuts his nose often to marry the ‘girl
with nose bleeds’. When David eventually escapes from the structured &
repressive setting into a more sovereign territory jungle, things does seem
better. Unfortunately, here too the leader of loner (Lea Seydoux) insists on a
rule: “You can be a loner until the day you die, there is no limit. Any
romantic or sexual relations between Loners are severely punished” (with
gruesome methods called “Red Kiss” & “Red Intercourse”). David finds being
a single is good (“you can listen to music whenever you like, you masturbate
whenever you like), until he finds a perfect, short-sighted woman (Rachel
Weisz) in that idyllic, outlawed place.
Is Lobster the perfect dystopian film? May be not.
Personally, I felt that the innovative, absurdist vigor of the script gradually
fizzles out in the third act. But, this is definitely one of the best dark
comedies in recent times and Lanthimos’ most accomplished work. Lanthimos and
his co-writer Efthymis Filippou has mixed together the absurdist, dead pan
sense of humor with that of avant-garde theatrical mannerisms. But, despite
such trademark weirdness, the pathos of the primary characters nicely settles
in to engage us as well as to create an unsentimental facade. The monotone
dialogue delivery from the actors perfectly showcases the general hopelessness,
prevailing in the hotel. And, the characters employing all sorts of nonsensical
methods to find a mate and to shift to the honeymoon yacht portray the
emotional stiffening of people, wanting to confirm to the societal norms (with
strong doses of humor). The hotel staffs playacting in front of the single
people, explaining the dangers of singledom (“Man eats alone”; “Man eats with
Woman” sequence) are absolutely hilarious. Nevertheless, beyond exhibiting the
human absurdity, Lanthimos’ sarcastic vision is intent on contemplating on the
uncertainty of human mind, desperation, and loneliness and on how ‘obsessed’ we
are about our defining physical characteristics.
The film opens on a note of uncertainty. The opening shot
focuses on a woman’s face driving through the rain. She gets off at a point and
shoots a donkey. The woman is never again is seen in the film and the reason
for that scene is never explained. Is the donkey, the woman’s former lover? Is
she mad at the donkey for leaving her to lead a limited, single life? We don’t
know. May be she found a defining characteristic on the animal, like the one
she might have witnessed on her lover/partner. The same uncertainty is pondered
over by the ‘limping man’, when he talks about his mum, who was turned into a
wolf. He wanted a hug so bad from his mother and jumped into the wolf-cage,
although he was not sure which of the wolves his mother is. Eventually, he was
turned into a ‘limping man’ by a raged wolf. The uncertainty faced by some
minor characters is gradually entrenched in the narrative, where key events or
decision ends up on a note of uncertainty (like the loners’ mission sequences
at the hotel & yacht). Is there really a magic machine that turns humans
into animals? (“Lobster” never gives us a “people are soylent green” moment). When
the short-sighted woman, played by Weisz, gets blinded by Loners’ leader, she
asks “Why me, you could have blinded him”. Does that statement a reflection of
loners’ self absorption and ego or does it simply says that her interest in
love is only skin-deep? And, of course the biggest of uncertainty is saved for
the last, when we and the short-sighted woman frustratingly wait for a closure.
Director/writer Lanthimos’ features are always interested in
asking us about the doubtful nature of human feelings and experiences. The
dubious, sexual experiences of the siblings and the increasingly disturbing
behavior of the patriarch in “Dogtooth” blunt our senses because we aren’t
offered any window to grasp their intimate emotions. Desperation and loneliness
exudes from the actions of the characters. In “Lobster”, the plainly desperate
& lonely biscuit woman says, “Can I come to your room? I could give you a
blowjob or you could fuck me……” But love and other enlightening emotions are
mostly absent in Lanthimos’ characters. And, people in his film are always
intent on figuring out others' true emotions. The whole episode of ‘Heartless
woman’ rests on her testing David that whether he is truly hardhearted. But,
where Lanthimos’s cynical eye wants to take a dig is in questioning our preoccupation
with relationships. From David to limping man, everyone go to extreme lengths
to prove their compatibility to likely partners, although this relationship
never the pleasure of a true companionship. From seeking love to relationship
to sex, conforming to conceived social norms is at the forefront, where
pleasure remains some indecipherable thing. Herein lays the central irony of
the film: People seeking companionship to feel more alienated & repressed.
Lanthimos’ cynical view doesn’t contain itself to showcase
the structured ideals of the hotel; his view ponders over the options in a more
free-flowing ‘loners’ society too. The loners extremely hate the societal norms
set about relationships. Loners and the people in ‘Hotels’ take careful measures
to differentiate themselves from one another, although humans from both these
groups are trapped within some opposing, destructive ideal. And so these polarized societies, which David
encounters, become a metaphor for nonsensical, self-perceived ideals at two
extreme points.
Technically, “Lobster” is the best of Lanthimos’ three
features. From the ironic detachment of camera to sombre color palette to a
pushy score, everything conjoins well with the tonal arcs of the script and
performances. If you are an observant movie & literary lover, a mixture of
visions from Haneke, Kubrick (the slow-motion shots looks like a nod to the
directors’ dystopian vision), Luis Bunuel, Kafka, and Aldous Huxley could be
found. The uninvolved frames of the ‘hotel’ make us think of Bergman’s “The
Silence”, where a hotel itself becomes a separate entity. The existential,
poker-faced protagonist also reminisces of Charlie Kaufman and Spike Jonze
characters.
 |
| Director Yorgos Lanthimos |
“The Lobster” (118 minutes) is a brilliantly executed,
oddball love story. It simply asks, ‘whether true love a possibility in an
emotionally barren, dystopian landscape?’
The Lobster -- IMDb
The Lobster -- IMDb
No comments:
Post a Comment