“The Lobster”

The initial shot tells us to watch for determined meanness. Who would shoot a grazing donkey amidst its family  in a place as peacefully idyllic as Connemara?  Whether we are really in County Galway does not really matter, but the upscale Cashel House-like environs sets up a bizarre idea where people who can not successfully find a mate get a last chance to do so before they lose their humanity and are turned into the animal of their choosing. The premise being that one may have a better chance at the mating game as another species.

A voice over narrative introduces us to  David   (Colin Farrell ) and his personal history. He was married eleven years then  divorced. His brother has been here before him, but he did not find his soul mate and chose to become a dog.   David  brings his bro, now a canine with him. Neither fair well.

The writer/director Yorgos Lanthimos has been praised for “The Lobster”. Critics speak of the forty-three-year-old  as a  creative fabulist, but the lengendary Greek Aesop he is not. His  film’s open-ending is too ambiguous to give any declamation. Is romantic love a lie ?  Is it delusional to think that everyone must have a life partner ?

The worst proclamation comes as partnering ” matchy matchy” traits. Whatever happened to the old saw that opposites attract?  In ” The Lobster” there is no randomness of encounter. People with limps  and lisps are foisted together. The biscuit lady, the heartless woman, the ugly man, the bleeding-nose woman~ all have their flaws. While this can be humorous in a juvenile way, these pairings are never the basis for life-long commitment. When marriage is modeled, the hotel manager’s husband is willing  to shoot his wife rather than protecting her by giving his own.

One of the funniest parts of “The Lobster” was the hotel entertainment masking the instructional message. With subtitles like ” Man Eats Alone” versus ” Man Eats With Woman” , and “Woman Walks Alone” and ” Woman Walks With Man”, we get cliched warnings that look more absurd than commonsensical .  Our narrator, who turns out to be the short-sighted woman ( Rachel Weisz), uses the “she then told him” to hysterical effect. We have shimmering back strokes mixed with urban legends ,and rules  against masterbation and punishments like placing the offending hand into a hot toaster slat. On the last day, day 45, you are allowed to choose whatever you wish to do, but you are instructed to choose something an animal can not do.

Offbeat  and  creative, but rather lazy , writer  Lanthimos demands that the viewer do too much work. Yes, society places lots of pressure for people to pair up. And it is funny that this dystopian future tries to control the uncontrollable : one has a mere 45 days to hook-up permanently! But the ending is baffling. Does David use a steak knife to dislodge his eyeballs ? Does the now  sightless Rachel Weisz, previously the “short-sighted woman”, wait through endless refillings of her water glass? Does David come crawling back to the booth ? Does romantic love demand this self- multilation?  What does Lanthimos think ? He doesn’t bother to tell us.

The most understated acting or breathing I have ever seen in  Farrell. Lea Seydoux, as the loner rebel leader, and Rachel Weisz, as David ‘s rabbit eating girl friend seem to understand  their part in this half comedy half diatribe. I enjoyed catching glimpses of camels and gorillas walking through the forest, but winced at the dog and rabbit violence. The script was terribly fragmented and metaphors like digging your own grave made sense only if the premise is it is better to die than resort to  the bogus matching of traits. Cover yourself with soil ,dance in the woods alone, or kill whomever will be able to live better alone? I don’t like being given an assignment to figure out what the director ‘s intention is, and I have enough to think about without thinking of having a hot-boiled egg placed in my arm pit.