Movies We've Just Watched discussion

20 views
LISTS, LISTS, AND MORE LISTS > THE LOBSTER -- Spoilers Ahoy!!

Comments Showing 1-15 of 15 (15 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Tom (new)

Tom | 5361 comments This thread is for discussion of the current film THE LOBSTER. This discussion assumes you've either seen the film, or aren't bothered by spoilers.

Beware!! We're talking about the whole movie here!!


message 2: by Tom (new)

Tom | 5361 comments ENDING SPOILERS!! Beevare -- take care!!

So she's blind, sitting at the table. He's in the bathroom, trying to work up the nerve to plunge the steak knife into his eye. She's sitting at the table. Waiting. Waiting. Waiting. Cut to black.

I found this fascinating and unexpected. Why would Farrell want to blind himself? To join Rachel Weisz in her disability? Is he going to flee again?


message 3: by Phillip (last edited Jun 16, 2016 03:42PM) (new)

Phillip | 10615 comments he saw his friend make success when (yes, posing) he convinced his love object that he had chronic nose bleeds.

so, it seems, he was searching for a way of establishing a connection that would link him eternally with her.

it seems the commentary is that there were no (socially acceptable) ways to establish a true connection in this society and that these individuals, who, unable to establish intimacy with feelings, chose to search for ways to create a true connection. they live in a society where the consequences for not forming intimacy equalled annihilation. so there is this longing for something that seems out of reach.

what i was most fascinated with in this film, in the midst of reading chomsky, who is talking about how the individual creates language systems in order to establish freedom to discover the self and the world that surrounds the self, is the way that these people established a world where that freedom was null and void.

and, that the film did such a good job creating a world with a logic all its own, that somehow reflects the world we live in.


message 4: by Tom (new)

Tom | 5361 comments But it seemed to me that Farrell and Weisz had in fact established a connection with feelings, certainly their relationship in the forest was pretty devoted. The other relationships were pretty clearly shown to be based on desperation and fear (of being turned into the animal of their choice) than anything else. I was thinking more of how those relationship conventions can be so self-destructive, what people are willing to do, or think they have to do, to conform.

I'll need to see this again.


message 5: by Phillip (last edited Jun 20, 2016 11:20PM) (new)

Phillip | 10615 comments straight up. i'm keen to take clr to see it.


message 6: by Julie (new)

Julie (brontesister) | 908 comments Tom wrote: "But it seemed to me that Farrell and Weisz had in fact established a connection with feelings, certainly their relationship in the forest was pretty devoted. The other relationships were pretty cle..."

It seemed like their relationship hinged on them both being near-sighted. Farrell made a big display of checking that the other loner in the group friendly with Weisz was not near-sighted. He desperately wanted that connection with her.

He seemed to have feelings for her, but who knows how genuine they were -- perhaps he was questioning those feelings at the end while deciding what action to take in the bathroom.

On a separate note, could either one of you tell me what happened in the first five minutes as I missed the beginning. Thanks.


message 7: by Phillip (new)

Phillip | 10615 comments i am going back to see this tonight ... if all goes well. more later.


message 8: by Phillip (last edited Jul 24, 2016 07:51AM) (new)

Phillip | 10615 comments Tom wrote: "But it seemed to me that Farrell and Weisz had in fact established a connection with feelings, certainly their relationship in the forest was pretty devoted. The other relationships were pretty cle..."

so, i saw it again last night.

fascism permeates the film.

back to your question about blinding himself - i think farrell has been so programmed to act this way, it doesn't matter that they really have developed a real relationship. the rules of the game - forgive the pun/reference - have taken over, the human quality fails to surpass the conditioning.

seeing it again had two conflicting effects.

on one hand, i found myself laughing more; the humor seemed more right there on the surface. the first time around i was paying so much attention to whether or not the film was following its own rules and logic that i missed some of the humor.

but apart from the humor, i found the film more tedious in its depiction of social fascism that i described above. it seems both mature in the way it establishes its own private universe and immature in the universe that it establishes. does that make sense? i mean, everything is stated so explicitly. a second viewing didn't improve the experience, other than the humor. it feels indelibly flat from start to finish. there's one tone and one tone alone - i get why they may have chosen to do that, because the first half and the second half are basically the same crap, whether you're striving to be in a couple or a loner - you have to follow the rules and there is hell to pay if you don't. and yeah, i get the social commentary, but as i said, i think it's not so interesting.

i think i would have enjoyed the film more if the directors did something to take the abject weirdness out of the narrative - somehow made it a little more closer to the world we live in. the distancing from "our reality" didn't, in the end, work for me. i liked the performances - the actors really seem to be doing what the director(s) want them to do, but i'm not sure i like what they're being asked to do.


message 9: by Tom (new)

Tom | 5361 comments Thanks for the words -- makes me want to see it again.


message 10: by Phillip (new)

Phillip | 10615 comments i'm glad to have seen it again, in case my post didn't communicate that.


message 11: by Julie (new)

Julie (brontesister) | 908 comments Regarding the film's narration by Rachel Weisz's character, I got the impression that she was recalling things that had happened in the past between her and Farrell. It seemed like she was no longer with him. That could be one answer to what happens at the end.

If Farrell returned to the hotel, did he get turned into a lobster or the animal no one wants to be?

This film is a real mind-bender, but I still liked it a lot.


message 12: by Lori (new)

Lori Holtzinger | 2 comments I just saw the film last night. Very interesting story! We had a lot of discussion about it afterwards. I think it speaks well to society's expectation that adults should always have a partner,...as though one cannot live a fulfilling life as a single person. I did not get married until I was 28, and many were the times in my early 20's that relatives would ask if I had a boyfriend, or when was I getting married, etc.

The one thing that I haven't worked out about the movie was why the woman shot the donkey in the beginning?


message 13: by Phillip (last edited Aug 06, 2016 01:20PM) (new)

Phillip | 10615 comments the opening scene, which lacked subtlety to say the least, was a shout out to those old films where in the first three minutes of the screening, something happens to set the stage. (i'm thinking of those old 50's sci-fi films where someone comes screaming down the street, screaming "they've arrived" and thus begins the alien invasion flick).

i felt it was off the mark and didn't work, mostly because it didn't reflect the insidious and repressed tone that the rest of the film posts.

if i stop to think why the film-maker opted for that choice, i would say that this woman killed the animal she might have wanted to become, if she wasn't able to hook up with a partner. it's her act of defiance against the system ... one of the few acts of defiance (other than the colin farrell character jumping ship). so in that way it also predicts his act of revolution against the system.


message 14: by Julie (new)

Julie (brontesister) | 908 comments Has anyone seen any of this director's other films? I want to see DOGTOOTH but can't find it. I did see ALPS but couldn't get into it. Didn't enjoy it as much as THE LOBSTER.


message 15: by Phillip (last edited Aug 07, 2016 01:27PM) (new)

Phillip | 10615 comments i watched DOGTOOTH on netflix late one night - i remember the first 40 minutes or so and then i think i crashed. i want to revisit it.

haven't seen ALPS.


back to top