The Lobster was the movie I was most looking forward to at TIFF b/c the plot sounded like one of my fantasies comes true: all single people have 45 days to pair up with a romantic partner, and if they don't find someone, they get turned into the animal of their choice and released into the wild.
This idea is very attractive to me. I'd basically be living my best life if given the opportunity to do this. Although I wouldn't waste any of the 45 days searching for a partner (haven't I been doing that for years anyway to no avail?) I would however spend the 45 days thinking long and hard about what animal I would want to be turned into, so that I could make the best choice. Now, having already spent a few weeks ruminating on this, I'm really leaning towards a sea turtle. Let me tell you why: they live a really long life (100+ years), they spend most of their life in the ocean, though they can be on land too, and despite there always being environmental dangers for turtles (pollution, destruction of habitat etc), I feel like no one really fucks with the turtles (versus, whales or sharks for instance).
Anyway, The Lobster wasn't what I thought it was going to be. Maybe that's because I was in such anticipation to see it (My brother Alex never watches trailers for movies he really wants to see in case it ruins it for him-maybe I should have implemented this rule for this movie). The film was MUCH darker than I had expected it to be, and that's not to say that it was bad, or that I didn't like it, I just had the impression the movie was going to be more of a satire/dark comedy. Don't get me wrong, there are funny/absurd moments in the film, but overall it is pretty bleak. The film follows Colin Farrell's character whose wife has recently left him, and as a result he must check into (and surrender himself to) the singles hotel (where all of society's singles are sent) and its strict rules. While there, you are given your meals, your clothes, your schedules etc and are not allowed to masturbate (and if you're caught doing so, as John C. Reiley's character is, it aint pretty). Each day singles are taken out to hunt the humans who have escaped the hotel. The more runaways you capture, the longer you are given at the hotel (i.e. you can buy your time and add to your initial 45 days by being a ruthless killer--see, this shit is a lot darker than I thought, right?) Also, in order to form a couple with someone at the hotel (and thus have a chance to leave the hotel and return to real life) you need to have a common characteristic with the person you pair with: i.e. you each have frequent nose bleeds, a limp, or are short-sighted etc.
Eventually Colin Farrell's character escapes the hotel and joins up with a seemingly rebellious militant group that lives in the woods (run by French actress Lea Sedoux) and are staunchly against coupling (also, they only listen to electronic music b/c there is to be no dancing with others!) Basically Farrell's character goes from one extreme to the other, though both groups are equally controlling and crazy (I think probably one of the director's points re: society). It is in this group where he meets Rachel Weisz' character (who like him, is short-sighted!) and they fall in love (strictly forbidden!) For the rest of the film they have to navigate their relationship and figure out what they'll do/can do in order to be together.
It's not that I didn't like this movie, it's just that with it's incredible premise (the world having no use or patience for single people) I thought the story could have gone in a much different (lighter and funnier) direction. I mean, my whole life is an exercise in the painful, inconvenient reality of being single amidst a world of couples. (Think: I am the lone injured bird circling above Noah's ark while all those animal duos board). That shit can be really funny, and would make for a great movie (a la "They Shoot Single People don't they?"). But instead, this movie focuses on the nature of controlling people's behaviours and an exploration of human nature can gets really dark really fast. So, this movie seemed like a bit of a missed opportunity for me. Also, there's a scene where a wonderful dog is killed, and that will always make me not love a movie, because obviously animals > humans.
(The weird thing is that 3 movies I saw at TIFF this year had scenes where dogs were murdered. WHY world, WHY???)
Another disappointment (especially since I was still reeling from the Tom Hardy no-show the night before) was that only member from the cast who showed was Rachel Weisz. No Colin Farrell, or Lea Sedoux (both who I've seen previously at TIFF) or John C. Reiley. Though Rachel did do an outfit change during the screening, so I at least got to see 2 different looks:
I prefer the first outfit. You?
All in all, this movie is worth a watch. I think it has some interesting things to say, just be prepared for some bleak shit.
To listen to the Q&A with Director Yorgos Lanthimos and actress Rachel Weisz (including a question asked by yours truly!) click below. Also, they reveal what animals they would be if they had to chose (answer: Rachel would like to be pony owned by a 13 girl in England and Yorgos would like to be an eagle).
This idea is very attractive to me. I'd basically be living my best life if given the opportunity to do this. Although I wouldn't waste any of the 45 days searching for a partner (haven't I been doing that for years anyway to no avail?) I would however spend the 45 days thinking long and hard about what animal I would want to be turned into, so that I could make the best choice. Now, having already spent a few weeks ruminating on this, I'm really leaning towards a sea turtle. Let me tell you why: they live a really long life (100+ years), they spend most of their life in the ocean, though they can be on land too, and despite there always being environmental dangers for turtles (pollution, destruction of habitat etc), I feel like no one really fucks with the turtles (versus, whales or sharks for instance).
Anyway, The Lobster wasn't what I thought it was going to be. Maybe that's because I was in such anticipation to see it (My brother Alex never watches trailers for movies he really wants to see in case it ruins it for him-maybe I should have implemented this rule for this movie). The film was MUCH darker than I had expected it to be, and that's not to say that it was bad, or that I didn't like it, I just had the impression the movie was going to be more of a satire/dark comedy. Don't get me wrong, there are funny/absurd moments in the film, but overall it is pretty bleak. The film follows Colin Farrell's character whose wife has recently left him, and as a result he must check into (and surrender himself to) the singles hotel (where all of society's singles are sent) and its strict rules. While there, you are given your meals, your clothes, your schedules etc and are not allowed to masturbate (and if you're caught doing so, as John C. Reiley's character is, it aint pretty). Each day singles are taken out to hunt the humans who have escaped the hotel. The more runaways you capture, the longer you are given at the hotel (i.e. you can buy your time and add to your initial 45 days by being a ruthless killer--see, this shit is a lot darker than I thought, right?) Also, in order to form a couple with someone at the hotel (and thus have a chance to leave the hotel and return to real life) you need to have a common characteristic with the person you pair with: i.e. you each have frequent nose bleeds, a limp, or are short-sighted etc.
Eventually Colin Farrell's character escapes the hotel and joins up with a seemingly rebellious militant group that lives in the woods (run by French actress Lea Sedoux) and are staunchly against coupling (also, they only listen to electronic music b/c there is to be no dancing with others!) Basically Farrell's character goes from one extreme to the other, though both groups are equally controlling and crazy (I think probably one of the director's points re: society). It is in this group where he meets Rachel Weisz' character (who like him, is short-sighted!) and they fall in love (strictly forbidden!) For the rest of the film they have to navigate their relationship and figure out what they'll do/can do in order to be together.
It's not that I didn't like this movie, it's just that with it's incredible premise (the world having no use or patience for single people) I thought the story could have gone in a much different (lighter and funnier) direction. I mean, my whole life is an exercise in the painful, inconvenient reality of being single amidst a world of couples. (Think: I am the lone injured bird circling above Noah's ark while all those animal duos board). That shit can be really funny, and would make for a great movie (a la "They Shoot Single People don't they?"). But instead, this movie focuses on the nature of controlling people's behaviours and an exploration of human nature can gets really dark really fast. So, this movie seemed like a bit of a missed opportunity for me. Also, there's a scene where a wonderful dog is killed, and that will always make me not love a movie, because obviously animals > humans.
(The weird thing is that 3 movies I saw at TIFF this year had scenes where dogs were murdered. WHY world, WHY???)
Another disappointment (especially since I was still reeling from the Tom Hardy no-show the night before) was that only member from the cast who showed was Rachel Weisz. No Colin Farrell, or Lea Sedoux (both who I've seen previously at TIFF) or John C. Reiley. Though Rachel did do an outfit change during the screening, so I at least got to see 2 different looks:
I prefer the first outfit. You?
All in all, this movie is worth a watch. I think it has some interesting things to say, just be prepared for some bleak shit.
To listen to the Q&A with Director Yorgos Lanthimos and actress Rachel Weisz (including a question asked by yours truly!) click below. Also, they reveal what animals they would be if they had to chose (answer: Rachel would like to be pony owned by a 13 girl in England and Yorgos would like to be an eagle).
No comments:
Post a Comment