One thing that really bugged me was the assumption that the two people who were going to hook up had to be compatible. I thought the premise was they had to be single and "in love." So it was confusing to me when that guy pretended to have nose bleeds in order to woo his partner. And, likewise, David feeling he had to blind himself for his girlfriend. Why couldn't two people just get together?
shareI agree that was quite confusing. I thought at the end they would learn that the human race doesn't have to be compatible or have something in common to fall in love. But they left it unanswered and very interpretive
shareI think everyone acted that way out of fear of being alone. But why they thought tat made for better chances was not established, I thought.
shareIn real life people often look for a partners who are reflections of themselves (in areas such as race, class, level of attractiveness, etc) and they will change who they are for their partners because of the societal pressure to find love and the fear of being alone. This film emphasizes this by giving each character a defining trait such as shortsightedness or a limp and in their society it is absolutely necessary to find someone with whom you share a defining characteristic. It's really just an exaggerated version of our society in that way. This point was similarly established when the lady talks about how certain animals could never be partners because they are too different. You are supposed to understand that love is something more than shared characteristics and it is absurd that society as a whole cannot come to this realization.
shareAhh, you're right. I was thinking that but you just totally explained it perfectly!
share>attractiveness, etc) and they will change who they are for their partners because of the societal pressure to find love and the fear of being alone.
Yup.
Let me whine a bit.
I'm in a middle of a separation and probably an upcoming divorce. My husband says we aren't compatible. I say he doesn't love me - in the true love way of forever, like I intended it when I married - and he is unwilling to work on things and cooperate. I'm not worth it to him, to make the effort to make us BOTH happy.
We were once "twins" we though. As we grow and change, I still want to be a team. No matter how different we are. But I am not loved.
Gonna go cry now.
But, yeah, compatibility based on rigid comfort zones is not the stuff of grand romance. Just cozy familiarity. How bourgeois and dull, really. I thought I was in a grand romance of total acceptance. Too bad he wasn't, though.
>You are supposed to understand that love is something more than shared characteristics and it is absurd that society as a whole cannot come to this realization.
Amen.
Try blinding him by gouging his eyes out?
shareIn real life people often look for a partners who are reflections of themselves (in areas such as race, class, level of attractiveness, etc) and they will change who they are for their partners because of the societal pressure to find love and the fear of being alone. This film emphasizes this by giving each character a defining trait such as shortsightedness or a limp and in their society it is absolutely necessary to find someone with whom you share a defining characteristic. It's really just an exaggerated version of our society in that way. This point was similarly established when the lady talks about how certain animals could never be partners because they are too different. You are supposed to understand that love is something more than shared characteristics and it is absurd that society as a whole cannot come to this realization.
That's part of the main theme of the film, along with "people must be in pairs." People don't need to be in a relationship or have similarities if they are in one, of course.
It is somewhat antiquated though, the term "opposites attract" has been around for a long time now.
Yes they do, or they have to dance to electronic music!
This poster has been deleted by the message
I got the impression this dystopian society brainwashes its population to believe the absurd premise that if two people don't share an important common feature, there is no chance for them as a couple. People in this nightmarish world accept the dogma forced down their throats that unless they share one important feature, they are doomed as a couple. I guess limping man was willing to fake nosebleeds in order to partner with poor nosebleed girl and take his chances. I would think David would do the same. He actually really loved Rachel Weiscz. It seems like a better bet than blinding one's self. Poor fools.
They were definitely brainwashed, but who was this "dystopian society"? What do you think they looked like?
In "the hotel", we occasionally see male servants and bellboys, but who does all the talking? Who gives the orders and who stands silent?
When David joins the "loners" - who runs that group? Are they also control-freaks? What do they look like?
I think the film is not showing the viewer another take on a theoretical older-conception "patriarchal" dictatorship (which has kind of been done to death), but thinking outside the box about an alternate present or alternate future ruled by a nanny-state type dictatorship. What would a "matriarchal" dictatorship be like? How would it work?
I think in that kind of thought-experiment, one thing that most men (at least in most cultures) don't try to "control" in their friends, family members, etc., is romantic relationships. Think of all the times you ever heard someone say something like "Bob and Lucy: I don't see it. But I think her and Greg might make a nice couple...". Now how many times was it a guy speaking?
In the few scenes outside the hotel or the "loners" woods, we don't see any other such "dystopian" restrictions on people's movements and actions - as long are you're "paired". When we see David, "Short Sighted Woman", and a few others at the shopping mall, I didn't see restrictions on items for sale like you'd see in many modern dictatorships. What crazy restrictions there are seem to center around romantic relationships.
Restrictions on personal freedom can eventually make people quite neurotic - that's certainly a major point of the film; but I think one twist of this particular film is who the "brainwashers" are and in what specific ways they try to control people.
I thought that was an interesting twist. The pairings are obviously done for convenience, or rather for survival, and the 'loners' had to choose from among the other people in the hotel. They could just as easily have been paired up at random. Yet the officials insisted on keeping up a pretence that everybody was getting together out of compatibility and 'true love,' based on the most superficial things. It was a bizarre social fiction which everyone just accepted and played along with.
shareI think in this world, people have basically forgotten what things like love and emotions are, not just between pairs, but even the limping man's daughter wanted her father to be killed. They try to artificially recreate steps and symptoms of it, but they can't do it. It leads to a loveless society where people come together through necessity and compromise and no one is taught what real love is, and the ones like David who want it are discouraged from seeking it.
sharebecause the film is a dark satire, the creators exaggerate those things to make a point. in reality we do similar (albeit usually less intense) things all the time - for example: pretending to (or even convincing yourself you) like a movie because your date liked it, or eat a food you don't like because they suggested the restaurant. putting up with their parents(!) you might dress up to impress a potential mate by meeting what you believe their expectation of you to be, regardless of whether it's "the genuine you." the list goes on and on.
since those sorts of behaviors are quite common, the filmmakers exaggerate them to the point that people are doing self-inflicting physical and emotional harm in order to present a version of themselves that will be perceived by their mate (and the rest of the society) as a "match."
the point is to make the viewer examine the extent to which they themselves behave this way in the name of "love."