Off topic: Hardly to say what i have read...humor? Satire? No, I didn't see anything. Maybe the timing of the movie wasn't right, I watched it downright pessimistic on a dreary winter morning.
Humor or irony requires an accidental disorder between two visions operating in parallel: under the surface of the running track of daily logic, occasionally one or two ruptured unconventional factors cause conflict, and finally the normal surface is completely dislocated to cause comic or irony . But this kind of hilarity causes at best a slight physical discomfort - it can't be too heavy, or the collapsing reality will completely overwhelm you and you won't be able to laugh.
And "The Lobster", either makes you feel the tragic ending in a smooth utopia, or makes it a metaphor, it can be completely in line with the psychological metaphor of daily life, so that you can think unhindered in the operation of daily logic , so what's so funny? It reminds me of Wang Xiaobo's satirical novels. However, the beauty implied in Xiaobo's novels, even the masochistic beauty, is completely absent. We're just floating around empty rules for no reason, yes, as some say, mechanical.
In addition to the rigid communication of an external governor (usually a woman), these mechanical rules also come from inexplicable laws that we identify with ourselves. For example, love means that we have the same defects: lameness, myopia, obesity , apathy, an irresistible disease with occasional nosebleeds. This is apparently confirmed by the results of some of our "objective" psychological studies. No one doubts this, no one can doubt it. Even the world operates according to such an inexplicable law. So, if you love, you have to have the same meaning. If not, or lost, or feigned, or sincere. The price of camouflage is to fall into fear, lest one day be exposed and embark on a certain unwilling path, sincerity requires one's own choice of the path. In short, whether it is insisting on superficial love or insisting on true love from the heart, a huge sacrifice must be made. After all, the law of love is that if she loses her sight, so should you.
This is not about you alone. Yes, the law of love runs through the entire world, whether in a city where people live safely, in a temporary hotel, or in a single community living in the wilderness. But above the rules, it seems that there is a lack of truly warm communication, understanding and companionship. Those who say that the male protagonist is an ideal person forgets the male protagonist's lie to the "friend": "You are my only friend." But when the "friend" hesitated, he grabbed his gun and turned to him shot and stripped him of his clothes. After his disguised marriage failed, he went to another "friend"'s house to tell the truth. If this is also considered an ideal person, is our ideal too low? Of course, some people will say that in the end, he took the heroine to escape, ready to stab his eyes - this is a great move for great love, but the black scene that was not explained at the end of the film seems to be trying to cause our debate. .
Yes, it's not about you alone, it's about the group. Politics is a higher law of love than the love of two people. So when the steady law of love is out of balance, the one without identity is driven out of the city, the identities of the human inhabitants are censored and forced to stay in makeshift inns, there are only two options here: either use hunted parties to fight against differences Prove your identity with the law of always pursuing the same "love" and the group, or find an individual who shares "love" with you to prove your identity and return to the group. If not, then you have been proven not to be human. Don't be naive to think that this just fulfills a simple metaphor of being driven out by the group. No, it means you are naked: deprived of the ability to think, restricted from freedom of movement, and the right to live and die is no longer your own! Do you want to be a lobster? Want to have blue noble blood after turning into an animal? Forget it, that's not insisting on dignity at all, it's just vanity and ignorance.
There are no people who resist. It means above all that we have no doubts about the laws of love, and thus can do nothing about the occurrence of love, but to ensure the control of the community and maintain the existence and stability of the community through the connection of genuine love. The single community here never destroys and creates as Gibran said, they only destroy, not create! Love is forbidden, and therefore procreation is forbidden. The individual is subject only to the will of the individual. And the will of the individual is filled with unstable intimidation, intrigue, punishment and murder. And the sum of these unrelated individuals, the actions taken by the people in the city and the people in the temporary hotel are purely revengeful. This revenge is, in fact, irrelevant, other than simply revealing some so-called truth. In fact it seems to be just a personal game of the ruler rebelling against his wonderful family in the city. Therefore, the camp of resistance actually does not exist. All that exists is an oppressed, tumor-like external system.
The male protagonist learns indifference, deception and hunting in the temporary hotel (this indifference begins with the death of the mad woman, regardless of whether the male protagonist is responsible for it or not). If the initial hunt was forced, out of righteous indignation, and in the single community, it has developed into a cunning booby-trapping, further lost friends, and only love on an absurd law of sameness, and This law is beyond its own will. Then at the end of the film, it doesn't seem to matter whether he's blinded or not, because at that point, he has lost everything that was free in his life.
So, we begin to ask: 1. Is the law of identical love correct? 2. Is the identity review mechanism reasonable? 3. What is real resistance/opposition and how it works?
View more about The Lobster reviews
