This movie was going to make it on here eventually.I saw this one in an independent theater in Manhattan’s West Village with my friend Marisa and fellow singletons Kate and Matt.After my first and second viewings, I was drawn by the scathing critique of couple culture, as displayed in the hotel’s dynamics.But I felt it went off the rails once Colin Farrell’s protagonist, David, sojourned into the forest and that the ending was a copout.
This summer, I’ve been picking at my book project, the one where I analyze the matrimaniacal discourse present in film, and The Lobster ended my mind, and I had a different perspective on the ending.
The film is set in a dystopian universe where if one doesn’t couple up by a certain point, they’re turned into the animal of their choice.After having been divorced, David is brought to a drab-looking hotel and informed that he if doesn’t fall in love with a fellow guest within 45 days, he’ll be turned into an animal of his choice.He’d like to be a lobster, whereas most would love to be dogs.I want to be a house cat, but that’s just me.
Anyway, the portion that takes place in the hotel is right on the money with its critiques, though I wonder: everybody’s been single at some point in their life, so at what point after they can marry legally must they do so.The movie doesn’t explain that, but it takes a bigger picture approach, so I guess that detail doesn’t matter.Oh well.
At any rate, some of the rules are clear: no masturbation.The volleyball and tennis courts are for couples only, though singles can play the solo sports of golf and squash.And most notably, one must find someone with a major thing in common (for example, David’s new friend, who has a limp, would ideally find someone with a limp).
The hotel is portrayed in a bleak fashion.Everybody there seems to talk in a monotone, and declarations of love appear to be more routine than passionate (which is the point of the makers’ critique).And people will lie to avoid being turned into an animal.Another friend of David’s bangs his head against furniture to fake getting nosebleeds so he can couple with a woman who is subject to those (how many of you have ever twisted your profile on a dating app or website so you can match with a particular person?Show of hands…).My favorite: if the couple has problems, they’re assigned children, which “usually helps.”So real.
Eventually, David links up (as opposed to coupling) with a group of Loners, those who live single in the woods.There, he beings a romance with another Loner, which is strictly forbidden according to their rules.The makers attempt to critique this “mandated asceticism,” but they didn’t do this as successfully, mainly because our culture doesn’t really value it outside of certain religious sects.The message of the film seems to be that any type of extreme is unreasonable.SPOILERS AHEAD - Read no further if you plan to see the film.
David’s romance is with a woman who is short-sighted, a characteristic he has.When the leader of the Loners finds out, she blinds him, and the two lovers discover they don’t have much in common.The ending of the film has him walking to a restaurant bathroom to blind himself so they can have something in common, but we don’t actually see him doing this.Did he stab himself to be with her?Or does he actually like being alone as he tells his friend and is he going to preserve his eyes?Between the second and third viewing, I realized this was intentional, a send-up of those artificial endings in movies where two lovers get together despite all obstacles and even any indications from common sense that they shouldn’t be together.Absolutely brutal.
I might have liked the movie a bit more if they’d stayed in the hotel, where the critique belongs. The romance might have even had more power if it had taken place there, outside of their rules.That said, I still like the ending, and I appreciate the movie.