Review CXXII - The Lobster

Review 122
The Lobster (2015)

Christmas is a time for family, for friends... It's a time where we take the time to be with those we love the most and try and think of a meaningful gift for them. So of course I went with Yorgos Lanthimos's The Lobster for the holiday season... Yeah, didn't I review Dogtooth not that long ago and say I didn't really get the film? Well, since The Lobster was an English film and I thought the plot was interesting, I was actually planning on watching it eventually. My boyfriend happened upon it recently, and with my words of encouragement, he was down. Thus, so was I. This one stars Colin Farrell, Rachel Weisz, Ben Whishaw, Angeliki Papoulia (Dogtooth!), and Olivia Colman (whaaaat Hot Fuzz whaaat), among others.

David (Colin Farrell) lives in a society where companionship is a must. After realising he doesn't love his wife, he checks himself into a "love" hotel. In this hotel, you must find love in 45 days, or you are turned into an animal of your choice. Will David find love or turn into his chosen animal, the lobster?

Slight spoilers here. Honestly, the plot sums up only part of the film. It extends to so much more in the two hours it runs. It's like Martyrs in a way, where the film starts as one thing and turns into something else. I mean, I guess the film isn't as different as From Dusk Till Dawn let's say, but anyway, you get it.

The Lobster is a fine piece of cinema. I was a bit worried it would leave me feeling... odd and not sure, as was the case with Dogtooth, but in the end, with the film revolving around a global idea encompassing the world now, as well as the explanations from a particularly observant viewer, I got this one. But let's look into what I got from the movie. Here are maybe bigger spoilers for the movie in terms of plot analysis, so you have been warned. Basically, the film revolves around a more egocentric view of love. The limping man (Ben Whishaw) explains that his distinct characteristic is his limp. His dead wife had what? A limp. The man with the lisp (John C. Reilly) has his defining characteristic - a lisp. There's a woman with a frequent nosebleed (Jessica Barden), and a completely heartless/sadistic woman (Angeliki Papoulia). We never know them beyond this one characteristic. And this is what they search for in their partner. They are self-absorbed individuals who can only love those who are closest to them. The limping man, knowing he will be transformed in a short amount of time, fakes nosebleeds by bashing his head against walls, and ends up being paired up the nosebleed woman. A love based on a lie in order to not be alone - doesn't seem so unlikely, does it? Or at least, it doesn't from my experience. David also attempts to fake being heartless as he claims he has always been attracted to short-haired women and women with accents. However, the lie is quickly noticed after a particularly gruesome scene (akin to Dogtooth's cat scene), though he manages to escape the authorities. This is the way the society is made up, and if your defining characteristic sets you apart from the rest, you are transformed.

However, we have the opposite side of the equation with the loners. The loners, led by Léa Seydoux's character, have completely rejected this culture. They aren't allowed to have partners and must dig a grave and not risk getting the others in trouble. They cannot listen to music other than techno and must do it alone. They conduct missions where they attempt to ruin partners' lives. David joins them after escaping from the hotel. Of course, we see that there is a flaw in their being as well since completely rejecting love isn't a solution. It will only lead to their demise as the only way they can continue is to bring in others. However, David finds love in the group when he meets a woman who is short-sighted (Rachel Weisz) just as he is. They are found out eventually by the leader, and while the leader attempts to break them apart, we see that the two of them break the mold. They make sacrifices for the other, meaning they reject the programmed society they live in, something the leader could not have expected. They are the only ones who have truly found what love is. Of course, the ending is cringe worthy just as Dogtooth was, but it's a happy ending.

So why do I find The Lobster particularly meaningful? Love and marriage are not as they used to be. It is true that we get along best with those who are most similar to us, but we also have to be ready to make sacrifices and accept the differences we possess amongst each other. Nowadays, we are in a more "throw-away" culture where, if we have a problem with a partner, divorce is an option. Divorce is not bad if a partner is particular abusive, or if you are truly unhappy and have made an effort, but so often an effort is not made. It is hard for me to speak since I have never been married, but marriage isn't always easy and it's a learning experience. It seems wrong to me that we have a joining in love, have children in the middle, and then decide it isn't worth it. The Lobster shows this effortlessness with egotistical love. However, The Lobster shows us that the alternative, completely rejecting marriage is not a healthy option either. The movie presents an exaggerated portrayal of the current state of affairs, and it's something I have often discussed with my boyfriend. And thus, The Lobster has hung around with me. Even now, I still feel some heart strings tugging. Might I also say the acting was awkwardly adorable and just wonderful?

The Lobster is definitely unconventional, but totally worth a watch. Maybe not the most Christmas-y, but still worth a watch before the new year rears its ugly head, hehe. Merry Christmas guys!

Review XXVII - Seven Psychopaths

Review XXVII
Seven Psychopaths (2012)

Martin McDonagh's In Bruges is definitely a film I would recommend. It has a perfect blend of dark humour and clean-cut humour, plus it has Ralph Fiennes and Brendan Gleeson in it! If you only know those two because of the Harry Potter franchise, shame on you - they've been in way better movies. Anyway, a friend of mine really wanted to see the new film Seven Psychopaths, so I went to see it with him. When I realised it was a Martin McDonagh film, which was only after I watched the film, the film made a lot more sense to me. I watched it on opening night which was almost a month ago, so bare with me on this review. I just want to review a film, and it was between this and Silent Hill. I suppose you can understand why I chose this one.

Marty (Colin Farrell) is an aspiring script writer who wishes to write a movie about seven psychopaths. However, while he does have a few strong stories in the bag, he's lacking in the amount of psychopaths in his story. Billy (Sam Rockwell), his good, but crooked, friend, decides to help him out, along with Hans (Christopher Walken), a mysterious man who loves his cravat. However, a real-life psychopath, Charlie (Woody Harrelson) falls upon the three when his precious dog is kidnapped by Billy, and hilarity ensues.

If I had to describe the movie in one word, it would be... lacking. Yet, in the end, it doesn't really lack anything. The film revolves around Marty and his story, yet it doesn't exactly because there are so many subplots about the psychopaths. It's strange because we might be given five minutes about the story of a psychopath, and then, that's the end. I realise it's only about the writing process, but it's strange because we're given that time to connect with a psychopath, and poof, they disappear from the plot. While some come back later, most appear and disappear just as quickly. The film has so many characters, yet doesn't go in depth of all of them... Which I guess is sometimes the point, but other times, it isn't. This review is getting to be as confusing as the film. Okay, let's break this down...

The main plot is a good and funny one. Marty recounts funny stories for the psychopaths in his story, or he is told funny stories about them. I won't give any away (I really would like to, though) because it's these stories that make the movie so funny. However, while there are seven psychopaths in the film, some are only stories that Marty comes up with, but some are real life people. For example, Woody Harrelson's character is a real-life psychopath. While it is assumed that Marty later includes him in his screenplay, we're still introduced to him as a real psychopath. And, as I said, we just assume that Marty later includes him. It's never said, "Hey, Charlie will be one of the psychopaths." He's labelled a psychopath by the film, so we just assume he's part of the story. It's strange when a second earlier, we're told about a fake psychopath, who is also labelled. It seemed a bit... random, but I guess I can't really complain because we do meet each psychopath. It just felt weird to me.

I would also go ahead and say that each psychopath has a mini-subplot of their own. This leads to so many subplots that it almost gets confusing. The fact is, there is a tangent for each one, which leads to five minutes of explaining a man's story. While some psychopaths return, some are named and disappear forever. It makes you wonder whether or not Marty actually had seven psychopaths in his screenplay, or if there were actually less. This is another element that bothered me. While you don't have to follow up with each psychopath in great detail, it leaves the viewer feeling a little lost when we're given a psychopath and then they're gone forever.

... Which leads me to characters. Marty, Billy, Hans, and Charlie are the main characters. Charlie is maybe more of a secondary character, but he becomes more important. However, there are so many tertiary characters that come in as psychopaths. The problem is, they're tertiary characters, but they're given the spotlight for a while for a short while to explain their story in some of the cases. This makes it really confusing, and, as I said, I felt ripped off when I'd learn about a psychopath and then they disappeared for the rest of the movie. Some are forgivable, but if you watch the film, you'll understand what I mean. It seemed like there were too many characters that couldn't be explained. I think they could have incorporated them in better, especially when they would be given screen time of a minute or two.

I've been complaining, but I can go ahead and say the acting was phenomenal. Have you seen the actors in this film? Two of them have been nominated for an Oscar (one of them, Christopher Walken, even won it) and the others have been nominated for other awards or are just good actors in general. I can't really speak of Colin Farrell that much since I've only seen him in In Bruges, but I thought he was great in that movie. In this film, he does just as good a job. He has such a good shocked reaction and face. Sam Rockwell also does a great job in his role. Woody Harrelson and Christopher Walken, well, it's a given that they'd both deliver at least enjoyable roles. The acting from the rest of the group is good too, maybe even more so, so we definitely get a well rounded group of actors and actresses who know what they're doing. This means you can definitely enjoy the film, even if the plot is confusing and random at times.

I complained about the film, and I mean, it really was pretty spastic at times, but I still enjoyed it. I'll give it seven point seven on ten. It has really funny parts, but it can be slow and weird at some points. However, the acting and good humour make it worthy of at least checking out, though I'd say wait until it comes out on DVD (it's still playing in one theatre near my house, so I'm going to assume it's still out!).