MovieChat Forums > The Lobster (2015) Discussion > sexual orientation choice (spoilers)

sexual orientation choice (spoilers)

posted 9 years ago by funnyguyla
17 replies | jump to latest

During David’s screening interview for the hotel he’s asked if he wants to register as heterosexual or homosexual. He hesitates, and asks if he can choose bisexual. The lady says that’s not allowed anymore and it’s either gay or straight. After a long pause he reluctantly chooses heterosexual. And…this never comes up again for the rest of the movie. Why was it even included? David doesn’t appear to be attracted to any of the men. And nothing we ever see from that point on suggests that this hotel either accepts or acknowledges same-sex relationships. All of the seminars and presentations are about male-female relationships. Are we to believe there is a separate gay and lesbian wing to the hotel that we never see? I’m guessing something was left on the cutting room floor.

[–] jfriesne 9 years ago

I think the main point of the scene was to demonstrate how the hotel (i.e. the society) was intent on forcing everyone into one or two convenient fixed categories, whether they actually fit into them or not. Similarly, in the next scene they ask him for his shoe size, but when he says 45 1/2, they demand that he choose either 45 or 46, because they don't provide half-sizes.

[–] jawn030 9 years ago

Nailed it.

[–] mig_81 8 years ago

Excellent analysis!

[–] infinity8 8 years ago

Yes. Also, it was necessary for the movie to set the perimeters of the world it created. If you don't make clear that David has to find a woman, then you start wondering whether he'll get together with John C. Reilly, whether or not the men who approach him are actually flirting, etc.

[–] madbrain76 9 years ago

Who knows what would happen if he had said he was gay - maybe he would be sent to another hotel, or turned into an animal right away because society disapproves, in which case it would make a much shorter movie.

And yes, very few people fit exactly in one box, even though society sure has its boxes. Loved the part about the shoe sizes. Let me tell you, 39 1/2 wide in men's is not an easy shoe size to shop for. Wide shoes are not available in boys. My husband has the same shoe size but not shoe width, at least slightly easier for him. For shoes, at least, lol.

[–] cak91687 9 years ago

I think it has more to do with the sense that bisexuality is often considered by society to be non-existent, that one has to choose one or the other. Bisexual erasure is a real thing.

Another choice that you have to make besides shoe size and animal preference.

[–] breilaella 9 years ago

This is the best answer/comment that I've seen on any discussion. Thank you!!

[–] yesanything 9 years ago

I think it has more to do with the sense that bisexuality is often considered by society to be non-existent, that one has to choose one or the other. Bisexual erasure is a real thing.

I am often surprised that B is included with LGT, guess its inclusion just has a more natural sound and blow

>the coins in the jar are for charity,
<the coins in the tray are for sharing

[–] MidwestRoundy 9 years ago

During the hotel dance, there are two women slow dancing together. Not sure if they were plutonic friends or exploring a romance, however.

[–] funnyguyla 9 years ago

I saw the two women dancing but didn't think it was a gay thing. It's always been acceptable for women and girls to dance together while waiting to be asked to dance by boys/men.

[–] MoviemanCin 9 years ago

I think I saw two guys having dinner in the couples section. Weren't they gay?

Schrodinger's cat walks into a bar and doesn't.

[–] funnyguyla 9 years ago

I didn't see the two guys but maybe it was a detail I missed. Unless you're talking about the limping man and the lisping man.

[–] MoviemanCin 9 years ago

No, not those two guys. I though I saw two guys having dinner in the couples section.

Schrodinger's cat walks into a bar and doesn't.

[–] jekoch21 9 years ago

Two guys we're definitely eating together. Another reason David may have thought about saying homosexual at the beginning was due to the fact his wife just left him for another man. He has to be down on women and he had been with a man in college.

[–] sweet_zoe 9 years ago

I just appreciated that there was such a long pause. Like defining in his silence that bisexuality DOES exist, or even spectrums of anything is a real thing, and forecasting a choice is a serious decision.

[–] dobiehub 8 years ago

You are over-thinking it....

It would double his odds of finding a mate if he had both males and females to hook-up with.

It's not allowed because it could be used as a 'cheat'.

[–] ben-1047 8 years ago

I think Lea Seydoux' character swung both ways and she was the reason they no longer have that orientation on their option. So she broke free and became a loner.

There was a scene in the city where Lea was eyeing up both Rachel and Colin's characters. And is one of the reasons she was pissed off at both of them for kissing on the couch.