What a delightfully strange movie. Felt very Anderson-y, but in a more mature and uncomfortable way.
Anyone else have thoughts on The Lobster?
>>64502571
I really dont see how it was Anderson-y, but I really liked it. Some good actors had little to do was my only dislike.Im convinced he did poke his eyes out at the end, regardless of what others say
>>64502571
I haven't seen it yet but I downloaded it last night because I really liked how strange Dogtooth was.
Are any of the directors other movies worth watching too?
>>64502658
The mis-en-scene strongly echoes Anderson's own choices. For instance, the natural lighting and spanning shots of the forest are reminiscent of Moonrise Kingdom.
Anderson also employs stage-like positioning, where his characters are arranged centerpieces of an elaborate set, which was paralleled with the dialogues and backgrounds of the hotel.
And obviously both directors have very quirky/offbeat tones.I don't think he blinded himself; he's a selfish, cowardly man.
>>64502753
This is his most accessible and mainstream, but you'll find similar tones throughout his opera.
Did he just leave her at the end?
>>64502876shit ending if he didnt. Whats the point of having a love story if the people dont end up together. The world was already fucked up enough that choosing the film to have that ending would be crap writing
>>64502876
I was confused if you meant Wes or PTA, either way I don't agree. A part from a few instances this lacked the symmetry composition and "quirky" mis-en-scéne which is pretty much Wes' trademark.
The movie was fine though, it seemed to run out of steam towards the ending. Without any clear direction it kind of started to drag on. Solid 2/4.
>>64502921
>Whats the point of having a love story if the people dont end up together
IMO, the movie is a scathing satire of how we try to peg the concept of "love" into holes, even though it's entirely abstract and mostly uncontrollable, like all passion. Toward that end, the absurd similarities that were the bases of relationships (i.e. random nosebleeds; short-sightedness; limp legs) paralleled the mechanisms of dating websites, which pair potential couples based on an algorithm that has interests, no matter how minute, as an integral part of its formula.
Also, we know our protagonist is a coward. He does nothing about being cucked by his wife, and he also can't go through with a life of solitude without sentience. Contrast his lowly character to his foil: the Lobster. Where our protagonist is cowardly, the Lobster is noble ("blue-booded, like aristocrats," says the protagonist); where our protagonist is caved in by the boundaries of dystopia, the Lobster is a creature of the ocean, which represents boundless opportunity.
Toward that end, him being a coward, as well as being selfish (faking a coupling in order to avoid becoming an animal; telling the Limping Man's new girlfriend that their relationship is built on lies although he did the same thing --- what a hypocrite) leads us to assume he would not go on in life without the company of vision, a precious tool.
I can say a lot more, but I'm still digesting the movie. Anything stick out to you in particular?
>>64502903
I think so.
>>64503090
youre probably right, and I hate that about the film. just my opinion though
>>64503087
>symmetry composition
Can you elaborate?
>"quirky" mis-en-scene
I guess it depends on how you define "quirky." In my book, singles turning into beasts is as quirky of a storyline as a rogue boy scout growing up too fast, or of a family of jaded proteges.
I agree—the escape from the hotel is the beginning of the downturn for me. There were intriguing ideas even after that, but the movie is frustratingly undeveloped.
>>64503105
I get that. Do you like movies with happier endings?
>>64503105
>paralleled the mechanisms of dating websites, which pair potential couples based on an algorithm that has interests, no matter how minute, as an integral part of its formula.
I agree with this, my thoughts as well after seeing the movie. But I just don't feel he does anything worthwhile with this "critique", sure he shows the resistance to this, an opposite extremist group the loners. It's just not very profound is it? Making a short movie which functions as an allegory on the soulnessless and lack of personality in online dating could work, not a 2 hour movie.
>>64503191
I think the movie would've worked better if our protagonist had the resolve to go through with becoming a lobster and living a blissful life. If it had ended with the Hotel operating as usual, then a short movie would've been fine.
When you near two hours or go beyond, I agree, you have to start answering questions about the world you're developing. This movie had a lot of half-baked ideas and an impressive mythos, but it didn't do a lot to reach satisfying conclusions.
>>64503147
>I get that. Do you like movies with happier endings?
no preference, just thought this movie deserved one
>>64503147
Sorry for the shitty quality, just a quick google search. Anyway Wes Andersons style is pretty much defined by this sort of symmetry. I didn't see this here.
>>64503223
For me, I didn't really care wether he made it or not. The direction style having the actors "act" soulless and awkward also made them unrelatable and not very likable. I know it was a critique on modern dating, where looks and common traits comes first and personality second, but I'm not sure if this actually worked in favor of the film in the end. MAYBE CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT?
>>64502571
Was looking good till the 3rd act. Then it all went to shit.
>>64503234
So the symmetry lies in the fact the actors directly face the camera? Because other than bottom left (which is still debatable), the scenes in full aren't mirror halves.
Would you say something like pic related can be considered symmetrical? It's literally a mirror image, although, again, the entire scene itself isn't halved and mirrored.
Sorry about the bad quality. Deleted my shitty rip before I made the thread, so I have to suffice with a stream.
Regardless, I don't think the Lanthimos is a clone of Anderson—I just think their styles overlap.
>>64503370
>I don't think the Lanthimos
>the
that*
>>64503370
I kind of feel like all Wes Anderson do is symmetry, watch this: https://vimeo.com/89302848
While I like that shot, I wouldn't call it symmetric, composition wise. While it is possible to create symmetry with mirrors, this isn't really the case here.
Looking at that shot it almost seems tilted.
>>64503370
Bottom left = 4 people on the right, 4 people on the left, and center of the shot runs directly through Bill Murrays face. Symmetry dude.
>>64502571
I thought it had great potential for depth, I'm not even sure if the whole "living in the wild" section was really worth it
the turning into animal thing was fine, as was the expulsion into the woods, but three stages?
I didn't think it really worked as well as it could have
>>64503498
From my understanding, a centering shot is different from a symmetrical shot. The former only requires a focal object smack-dab in the center of a shot (in Anderson's case, it's often an actor, though there are exceptions, i.e. the tent in Moonrise). Pic related is a centering shot in The Lobster (his face is right on the "Play" button, which is coded to be centered).
>>64503532
There's symmetry in a general sense, but their composition is different. A true symmetrical shot would be like pic related: http://betterphotography.in/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Emerald-Spreadwing-damselfly-bp.jpg
I really liked the idea of people considering an act of falling in love as simply sharing common traits. Their awkwardness and almost child-like manner of speech imo was set to represent emotional distance between people. Whenever I have a chance to speak to American person for example I always get that strange feeling, it's like they are polite and smiling to you but you can see that this is just a surface, you can't really feel any emotional human connection beyond then being super nice to you yet cold at the same time
>>64503676
I know it's not entirely symmetric, which frankly isn't very doable on film, with multiple actors in frame. Anyway, regardless of what you call it, this is a big part of West Andersons style, you could say Wes was inspired by Kubrick who also dig this kind of symmetry. Another big part of Andersons style is it's very colourfull. I just don't see this in the case of Lanthimos, who has a much more dream like feel to his film in my opinion.
>>64503760
>Whenever I have a chance to speak to American person for example I always get that strange feeling, it's like they are polite and smiling to you but you can see that this is just a surface, you can't really feel any emotional human connection beyond then being super nice to you yet cold at the same time
Where are you from? I get the exact same feeling when speaking to americans. It's like being patronized in some weird way.
>>64503795
Oh, I definitely agree that Anderson is big on centering/symmetry, which I pointed to when talking about characters serving as the centerpiece of a setting.
Regardless, my comparison was more focused on tonal similarities, though even then I think Lanthimos focuses on more mature, uncomfortable subject matter. A darker form of quirkiness, I suppose.
>>64503848
>>64503760
In American culture, friendliness is a form of social etiquette; it obviously extends beyond standard politeness. I can understand why others see it as disingenuous, but it's usually genuine enthusiasm.
>>64503927
Wouldn't he tonal wise be closer to sorts like Todd Solondz while Wes Anderson is closer to Terry Gilliam. Speaking "quirky tone and subject matter". I know this is kind of irrelevant, I just don't see the Wes Anderson comparison, and I'm just trying to get into your line of thought.
Here is an example of Wes Anderson like composition in this film.
>>64504158
I haven't seen anything by Solondz, but you could be right.
The tonal comparison wasn't mean to be more than a broad stroke of discussion. I haven't come across many directors who have a quirky tone throughout their movies, so I naturally grouped them together.
>>64504277
I was looking at the scene earlier, but I tried to find something more similar to Anderson's tendency to use an actor as the focal point of his composition, hence the centered profile shot of the protagonist.
Thinking about it, the camera is static for almost every shot in this film right?
thats not Anderson like at all
>>64504322
You won't find anything more Andersony simply because this isn't Anderson's film. There are just some scenes that feel like it.
>>64504322
You should go watch Happiness, a very dark comedy by Solondz. It's great. And a good starter into his "quirky" dark twist on the subject matters he deals with in his films.
>>64504322
>>64504407
I've provided my thoughts and examples. We can agree to disagree.
>>64504359
The camerawork is fundamentally different, but again, I meant to make more of a tonal comparison. "Quirky" directors aren't exactly common.
>>64504485
Maybe, but it probably won't be any time too soon. Way too big of a backlog, and it's not getting any shorter...
Quirky reddit bait garbage with awful comedy Brits.
Same as the double, just some kooky sub 160 pound beta male jerking off behind the camera and inserting "weird" and "strange" shit into his film for no reason.
Utter tripe.
>>64504535
What are your favorite movies of 2015, anon?
>>64504555
I don't even like films that much
>>64504555
TFA
Jurassic World
Mad Max
Spectre
>>64504587
That's unfortunate.
The whole message is that you cannot choose love or lovers. Furthermore, in the last scene there is clearly a point being made: Egoism beats love. We cannot give everything to our other halves. Clearly, love is clearly questioned for its triumphing nature, and when love gets strained enough, it breaks.
Are we sure we are able to love?
>>64503848
Kazakhstan bruh
>inb4 Borat
Can we talk about the use of the music in this movie? I thought it was great
Seriously some of the greatest dialogue I've ever heard in a movie. So awfully awkward and funny.
>I was masturbating behind those trees over there.
>We only listen to electronic music so we dance alone.
>>64506236
It is probably one of the funniest comedies I've seen in a long time
Is this just as good as The Lobster and Dogtooth?
>>64502571
the biggest problem was the change of pace as soon as he got into the wild
there were no more jokes, and it became all about him and the woman
in the first half i had to pause the movie to laugh, there was none of that in the second half
>>64508097
What about
>>64506236
>>64508160
>There was blood and biscuits everywhere
was the peak of the movie
>>64507178
Its so funny but the context of everything makes it so sad.
Like if the world was composed of normies raised by autists.
>>64508097
this
maybe if we had more contact with the hotel after he left it, I thought the whole "turn into an animal" thing was abandoned
>>64508469
that wasn't the point tho, read >>64505966
>>64503234
top kek
the pictures aren't even fucking aligned
>>64503234
>Mister Andersen, how do we compose this scene?
>Put the important thing in the middle, i dont care.
a true paragon of art
>>64502571
It was kind of interesting but the ending is total fedoracore. 7/10
>>64502753
On which site? kat.cr doesn't have it
