is not-no-yes-delicious-food-movie -
movie-
Whether you should choose to be single or get married in the next few decades
, after reading the three views, you will almost be shaken
to say, although I don't quite understand it, but I don't dare to think about it, because I shudder to think about it.
However, "The Lobster" is not a thriller and suspense movie. This is the interesting point. It seems to awaken the idea that you may not be able to sleep in your heart, and it makes the principle you have been pursuing for the first half of your life shaken -
what is special marriage? ! What is celibacy? !
The whole film expresses two forms of outlook on life in an extremely extreme way, dark pictures and joking soundtracks -
insisting on celibacy and what is the difference between being a beast without a partner (referred to as marriageism).
In the film, marriageism and celibacy dislike each other and kill each other. The whole film is full of violence, darkness and absurdity. "
(That's right, it's Ben Whishaw)
In fact, the movie can be summed up very simply:
the male protagonist comes to the hotel as a marriageist, and if he doesn't find his partner in the hotel within the specified time, he will will be transformed into a beast.
The male protagonist chose to become a lobster (but didn't say whether it was spicy or salty...)
People have no dreams of being different from salted fish! Ah no! A man is no different from a beast without a partner!
This is the hotel's outlook on life.
Of course, if you want to become a partner, there are conditions first, and both parties must have something in common - even if there is a mole on the palm, it can be a reason for communication.
If you are a single person, in the eyes of marriageism, you are a lonely soul floating in the wild, waiting to be slaughtered.
The male protagonist there is indeed a special case of slap in the face, first defected to marriageism - failure (couldn't find a partner), then defected to celibacy - failure (found a partner), and finally stagnated before the two principles, unable to advance or retreat.
Summary: This film expresses the opposition of two principles, and the way this opposition takes is full of blood and violence.
－－－－About the principle, is it insisting or breaking? ----
Some people always say that if you stick to the principle, you will lose something, so sticking to the principle comes with a price.
For example, singleism adheres to the principle of being single, and will lose the joy of marriage.
But does marriage have to be happy? Not so.
The reason why you insist on the principle of singleness is because those singleists don't care about marriage at all, that is to say:
the so-called things you lose because of the principles you insist on will not be what you need.
What you don't need, you won't want to have, never have it, how can you lose it?
(Yes, that's right, it's that Bond girl - Lea Seydoux)
Like a person who hates water and insists on not swimming, and takes it as his principle to never swim, he won't face the swimming pool and say "I lost the swimming pool" is something that you hate, you don't need to lose it, because you have never even thought of having it.
So the first sentence is wrong. Sticking to principles is to avoid encountering those you don't want to get.
Whether single or married, once you stick to it as a principle, don't break it easily. Otherwise, like the male protagonist, he will always be-fake-pretend-.
Pretend to have something in common with your partner in the maritalist camp. In the celibacy camp, pretend that you don't love each other.
A person who is not firm in principle will always stand on this side and look to the other side, and neither side will reach the shore.
Very boring.
————People who don’t stick to their principles are worthless————
I don’t know if there is anyone like me who, after watching the movie, feels contempt and contempt for the male protagonist.
He is a half-assed person at all. You are vacillating between Principle A and Principle B. You don't have your own principles. What a person without principles deserves is contempt.
The day he checked into the hotel, it meant that he was a marriageist. In order not to be turned into a lobster, he was eager to find a suitable partner. He did not hesitate to give up his own characteristics and forged commonalities to cater to each other, implying that marriage itself Contains a lot of deception.
But this kind of deception is sometimes what you want (the pair with nosebleeds), and some deceptions are unacceptable. Once discovered, you must die.
Later, the male protagonist fled to the camp of celibacy. In the film, celibacy and marriageism are also alienated. If you do something against the mainstream, you must pay an extreme price. .
The end of the man who needs to poke his eyes at the end of the master is the price.
In addition to enhancing the absurdity of the film, there is also the condition that love needs to be "blind".
As for whether the male protagonist poked his eyes, there is no explanation at the end.
Personally, I don't think it was stamped. Because he always wanders between marriageism and celibacy, neither a firm celibacy nor a sincere marriageism.
There is no principle of its own.
Although people without principles are worthless in the eyes of others, they wrap themselves in the coat of "neutrality". They will be selfish and cold-blooded, and it is even less likely that they will harm themselves in order to pursue a certain principle, because there is no principle at all.
Like a cowardly bad guy, don't sympathize with the male protagonist, isn't the cowardly bad guy not a bad guy?
"The Lobster" has an open ending, that is, there is no ending. Maybe because of this question, in human society so far, there is no answer.
(The pictures are all from the Internet)
－－－－－－－－－－－
This article is original. Without authorization, it is not allowed to reprint
more film reviews and nonsense articles . You
can pay attention to the WeChat public account: Drowning Elephant (ID: drowningelephant)
View more about The Lobster reviews
