The whole concept of the hotel portion (which represents general society) is that being single is bad and everybody MUST pair off even if they don't love each other.
George Clooney was "single" for 40 years or whatever, and not only he was very popular, but it made him very desirable (by women) too. And many other famous guys may be single , but it's super acceptable. I mean, ok, of course they date women every now and then, and there is gossip about it, but many "playboys" don't have a steady relationship for many years. Not now, not even in the '60s or whenever.
But ok, you'll say that they are different occasions, because they're rich and famous and they can do whatever they want. But really, everyone is single at some periods of their life. They can have a relationship for 8 years, and then they break up, and they are single for a year or so. Someone must be very stupid and narrowminded to "judge" them for that.
Just think, 99% of all movies books and TV shows center around two people trying to get together or trying to stay together because coupling is always the end goal.
Well, yeah, duuuh, can you imagine if 99% of the movies were about people who were alone and didn't have sex?? Of course coupling is everybody's need and desire. And being single every now and then is an absolutely natural thing. Yes, of course if you're a never married single 40 year old woman like...Bridget Jones, some women of your circle are gonna gossip about it, but is this what "The Lobster" is talking about? Half the people I know over 35 are married or have a relationship, and the other half are single. What's the big deal? Who's gonna point a finger at them and say "youuuu are 37 and you're single?? What is wrong with youuuu??". Come on, this is 2016, not 1936... :p
There is no Valentines Day for single people.
Hell, if you ask me, there shouldn't be Valentine's Day at all! And I'm sorry, but there is no need to explain why. It's just...stupid. You love someone? Then prove it every day, and that's enough.
We are constantly encouraged to be with someone whether we want to or not, even if we don't meet someone we are that interested in we are still forced to pick a partner because of social norms. If you are single something is wrong with you.
Ok, I admit that in SMALL societies, a single woman, say, 30 years old, feels some pressure from the surrounding environment. Her relatives, her neighbours, the grocery shop lady, etc. But I repeat, in SMALL societies, and I mean small towns where everyone knows everyone. But in a city of 5 million people, who's gonna care about if you're single or not? Besides your mother or grandma?
And also, of course a woman over 30 has another reason to be worried about, and that's her biological clock. Because if they want to have a child, it has to be done someday before 40. But this has nothing to do with society, but with nature. And in general, the whole pressure is also relative with the insecurity of a character. There are some women even 25 years old, and they are so f--king insecure, "oooh, I'm 25 and single, my life is over!". But this is not because of society, it's because of weak character.
And there are also a lot of women who don't want to get married and/or have a child, and they are 40 and go to parties and screw around with guys. Like Samantha from Sex and the City. Who told her "ooooh, you're 40 and not married yet??". This was NYC of the 21st century, not a small village in the south of the 1930s.
I know what you mean, and your thoughts have a basis, because yes, in general, there is and always was the concept of "you HAVE to mate". But again, in the bottomline, it doesn't have to do with society, but with nature. So let's say that we all live in a 100% open-minded society, in which no one would judge anyone, whether they're single or not. Wouldn't you STILL feel the need and the INSIDE personal pressure to find someone to mate? Yes? So? What is "The Lobster" talking about? About the most obvious and natural thing in the world?
And you know what? So ok, "The Lobster" is a satirical allegory of this subject. But I prefer to watch a film about REAL loneliness, and REAL single-ness, and REAL desire to find someone and all that. And there are so many films out there about these subjects. A gimmick film like "The Lobster" doesn't say anything to me. I didn't feel anything about ANY of the characters, I didn't care about any of them, because they were not even characters for me, they were like cold soulless androids, just like ALL the characters of all the films of this director. He hasn't made a single film about a human being you can relate to, and say "yes, that person could exist in this world".
The movie ends with David having to choose between blinding himself to be with Nearsighted Woman because he truly loves her, or not, proving Loner Leader right that true love is just a social construct and that we're all selfish.
Like I said, this director always chooses pain and violence to express his allegoric ideas. It's just a cheap shocking gimmick. "Dogtooth" was full of it. I'm not saying films shouldn't have violence, of course violence is a huge part of this world, but me personally, I can see when someone uses it because the story really has to use it, and when he uses it just to make some fuss in film festivals (same goes with explicit sex scenes of other films). I don't see any honesty in this guy's films, sorry. And his next film is gonna be exactly the same.
reply
share