I think, I wouldn't agree cause they can grow their eyes back with smaller eyes or be replaced with antennas but with that I see the blind lobster is adapting to deep-sea life maybe that's why we hear the sea in credits. In fact, in bright light a lobster is practically blind. Lobsters cannot really see specific images but they can detect motion in dim light.
Interesting analysis. I used the visual cues in the scene to come up with my interpretation. For instance, even in the screenshot you have at the end (and throughout the movie), you can see the theme of duality/symmetry. The symmetrical booth, trees, lamps, salt&pepper shakers, the couple walking by. However, there’s still a contrast that exists- her side is full (truck in the back, glass almost to the brim), while his side is empty. It reinforces the uncomfortable feeling and question of ‘will he come back?’. And in the last couple seconds of the film, the scene ends with two similar sized trucks in opposing directions almost merging into one lane, meeting face to face. To me, symbolizing the coming together of the two of them.
I interpreted the open window in the bathroom to mean that he escaped via the window. I think the 2 trucks coming together at the end was interesting, but seems like a large leap to make. I searched the scene for 10 minutes straight analyzing every object and to me, the open window in the bathroom is key.
I think he didn't do it cause she's narrating his story as she knows it. The lobster 🦞 ends with the sound of waves 🌊. I don't think he wanted to love one person. He wanted the options. His description of the animal he wanted to be, his preferences, the different women he tries to match with, how he lies, etc. He was trying to live forever as freely as possible.
Excellent explanation! Many of the rules in The Lobster actually apply to our society (some even literally). These are not hard rules, but extreme social pressure. The movie is full of phrases and situations that address very deep questions: the dispair of the biscuit woman, the man who claims he loves his wife as much as 14 on a scale to 15 and immediately proves otherwise, the voice over that tells us that faking feelings is much harder than faking indifference..... very deep and clever.
@TrueFilm bruh, didn't you realize what just happened, Mr. Diabeto here, wants to prove he is too smart, so he will go against anything that makes the slightest of sense and would want to prove himself a genius....but of course, he isn't, so he won't reply to anyone who challenges him.
I was expecting to see him to walk away through the window. It's a frustrating last shot but I choose to believe he left nonetheless and chose to be a recluse by the sea.
Why didnt they each cut off their pinky toe? Being short sighted is such a non specific thing to share in common that i don't see why he felt going blind was the only similarity they could create for themselves....
Because then the relationship would feel very forced. The rules of this society have brainwashed both of them to the point that their mindsets are very much shaped by those rules. When Rachel Weisz’s character admits that she’s actually blind you can see Colin Ferrell’s character feeling a little annoyed and agitated. I think that’s because from that moment he realized that he doesn’t have anything in common with her anymore. Much like at the beginning of the movie when he got divorced, the first thing he asked his ex-wife is about their shared commonality compared to her new partner.
@@frankcarlosanaliza but…he let her starve for days when she told him they couldn’t kiss anymore. She’s blind, it’s not like she can hunt and feed herself anymore, she depended on him. Her saying “I haven’t eaten in days, I also haven’t played any games with you in days” implies that he was distant for at least a couple days. He definitely cared about her, but like the hotel manager who scaled his love for his wife at 14, I think he ultimately cared more for himself
Points for having the balls to claim the 'best explanation' (it's clickbait, but likely successfully so), but you're only getting some of the most obvious points. For instance, the choice really isn't just 'blind yourself or be turned into an animal'. From David's perspective, the possibility of being turned into an animal is distant - he has lots of options before that becomes the only alternative. Given his history I think he will not blind himself, but will continue to try to find 'love' in some form. You're also neglecting the very important aspect that sharing a quality with your mate isn't just a stipulation imposed by the state. It's what these people have become conditioned to think of as essential to a relationship. They don't just lose society's blessing when she's blinded - they legitimately start to drift apart. This is because they have embraced and internalized society's standards. The movie isn't just about its final moment. Not remotely. It asks us to challenge the notions of what constitutes 'normal' when it comes to relationships, and to question whether those standards are necessary by nature or are absorbed over a lifetime of exposure to social pressures. But yes, the ending asks us to think about whether we'd blind ourselves in his position.
I watched this movie when it came out and wasn’t too crazy for it. I rewatched it last night and I really liked it. I kept thinking of so many parts of it. I really like how both the hotel and the loners have such strict and horrific rules.
He didn't stab his eyes out. Surviving comes before all for Farrell's character. He absolutely loved Weisz but when she slowed him down she became expendable.
Чел, какую же чушь ты сейчас сказал. Когда герои шли в город, именно главный герой был обузой, у него штаны были узкими, он шел медленно. Само кино под корень разрушает твою глупую теорию. Просто смешно
You just proved he didn't love her. A person you love doesn't become "expendable" when they have health issues or disability. A loving partner would take care of her.
I just watched the movie. It was so bizarre that I couldn’t look away, I then became interested til the end! Speaking of the end?! Ugh! So after pondering on things literally overnight. It dawned on me… The name of the movie is “The Lobster” at the end, she’s sitting there waiting, it cuts to black screen. She’s left in darkness/blind. Then you hear water. I don’t think he did it. He would’ve bled to death and been in unbearable pain. The objective was to find a mate you’re compatible with, which they both were short sighted. They learned to communicate with sign language to survive the woods. Once she became blind they no longer had the same compatibility. He kept his word and helped her to escape, and maybe that’s as far as he could take her. Remembering the title of the movie, “The Lobster” I think he became “The Lobster.” When we say “the” in this context, it’s to believe, “The Lobster” existed somewhere in the movie. At end is my theory…
Thank you! I loved your explanation! I also think that the move asks the question if we are selfish to the extent to not be able the connect to another human being emotionally but instead we have to have something obvious in common. Also the story asks if we always pretend. He pretended when he was in the couples’ society that he fell in love and he pretended in the singles’ society that he hasn’t fallen in love. The story ends when he stopped pretending. And then comes the question that you mentioned - are you able to sacrifice a part of you to be with the person you love?
This film really got me thinking about modern relationships and how there’s still so much of these imagined rules that people believe are required for two people to truly “love” each other. I think the film has a cynical viewpoint about love and tries to juxtapose it with the concept of transformation into an animal. There is irony in that no two people can ever connect in a way that qualifies as “true love” because the the qualifiers of love are arbitrary. I think that today many people place a lot of weight into arbitrary qualifiers that ultimately should make no difference in terms of whether you will connect with that person or not and this film sort of makes satire of that.
I've always thought and still think about the possibility of spending the rest of my life with a person that I have nothing in common with, it scares me lol. but also I can understand the idea that people can love each other without having things in common
its the fine attention to detail in the end. There's a reason why the director made the scene long with just her in the end. She looks at the waiter before he pours the glass and even looks up at his face and then trails off to when he leaves. Then looks out at the window and looks at the bathroom hall where David left, waiting for him to comeback, which he doesn't and either: A) knew she was lying or was suspect of her and ran away or B) thought she was blind but couldn't commit like the man with the revolver and wife and ran away. (I used to think it was David blinding himself but couldn't find his way back, but I was not watching the scenes closely and paid attention to the director's attention to detail.
The director plays with metaphors based on our social constructs. People summarize and project onto others their opinions regardless. This film does the same combining metaphor and actuality seamlessly. It’s quite funny at times and brutally honest on the other; it’s harsh. Several people wrote the screen play so the narrative is layered. It tends to over simplify and make light of harsh realities, making them easier to scrutinize and digest when you remember where the line is drawn and conversely complicates simple interactions. I had to watch it a couple of times. Loved his perspective and sense of humor.
I think a lot of what's going on outside in the background during the last shot is planned and important to the intended ending. Notice what's happening at the very instant the shot cuts to a black screen.
I think it is fairly obvious that by the end of the movie she had regained some sight. The way she looks at the server, then outside and constantly correcting herself to look back to the front to maintain the facade.
I just got around to seeing The Lobster, and I’d say it was “ridiculously brilliant.” In a ridiculous world, you’d expect the people in that world are likewise ridiculous. I like how the film didn’t shy away from the implications of the world: ie, the people are awkward, which a lesser film would be scared to portray out of fear of alienating the audience. I didn’t get the impression that the rules of the society are that people NEED to be paired based on superficial traits but that people living in this society would have a warped view of love and intimacy and therefore wouldn’t know how else to make a match; if the conditions require forced coupling, the people would be desperate and ill equipped to handle this. Anyway, that doesn’t detract from the basic analysis provided.
It’s a character study of David. He’s pretty consistent with his choices and toxic concerning the other women. Does he mean to? I don’t know. The director forces you pay attention to the environment just outside the window. It’s a truck stop. Rachel is blind. He promised her rabbits while in the forest. He made her one. He left her here. You do the math.
I like to belive he blinded himself only in one eye and breached the system. That's what I would have done. The show has ways for the characters to breach the system everywhere but they just don't do it because they are obsesed with the characteristics that define them the most at first glance, kinda like judging a book by it's cover. The nosebleed girl and the guy with a limp leg for example they both like to swim but they just don't give it much thought. The woman that likes bisquits and the guy that has a lisp are bot always horny for sex and i think there is no better match than that. The singers from the dance night, the fat guy and the blonde lady, they bot love to sing and have wonderful voices but the movie shows you that they are not actaully in love with each other when the guy tries to shoot her to save himself I conclusion Communism does not work.
I think instead hotel turning him into lobster as he wanted to become, he himself turned into real-life traits of lobster to experience how society turned him into. And finally turned himself as "The Lobster".
The concept was kind of dumb. They both have brunette hair, they both have light brown eyes, they have so many arbitrary common factors that they could have chosen. Other than many flaws like this, the film gets it's point across well and I enjoyed it.
I like to think he realised he didn’t need to blind himself and realise he could love her despite their differences, however if I’m being real with myself, he most likely gave into the pressures of what society wants from him and attempted to blind himself to fit in with her so they can be together as a perfect fit, but considering she sat there for ages then the screen went black, he most likely ended up accidentally killing himself in there. So I guess you could say he died trying to fit into society’s expectations.
at first I was very weirded out by the movie and thought it was odd, but the ending really changed it for me. I was hoping the end would have some resolution, only to leave me thinking more about what had happened. This video shed light thankfully on the philosophical ending and I finally was able to appreciate it more than what I had felt originally for it. I like movies like this because its really a curveball and not something id normally watch, but great nonetheless.
Also... if you wheigh the two things like... the lobster cannot see very well and him not being able to see very well after blinding himself... its still.better to live as a human blind than as a lobster.
I cracked at the moment.. Hotel staff said If the couples will have arguments or problems in their relationship.. They will be provided with children to help This is such a satire 😂
I think he attempted to blind himself but died in the process, tying to the beginning of the story with the couple turned into donkeys. The system they exist in does not accept genuine love, only this superficial construct. The woman in the beginning kills one of the donkeys not realizing their relative is now happy having found a partner.
I just watched this for the second or third time and I sat until ALL the end credits rolled..... I heard the sounds of the ocean. That tells me the movie is true to its title and Dave is now a lobster 🦞. He could not gouge his own eyes out and they ended up back at the hotel and was turned into the lobster. I think Rachel's character has found someone and is happily coupled up since she is telling us the story of the lobster as she knows it.
The first 5:00 of this video you can and should skip. It's someone taking very long to say next to nothing, and badly. If there is anything worth hearing or discussing after that, I wouldn't know.
I had the funniest epiphany the other day that indifferent-to-writing students in English class who focused on getting to word/page count for assignments not only did alright gradewise, but were best prepared for 99% of so-called creative jobs these days. Then I wondered if that was on purpose. Here we have probably 10 minutes of a sedated talk radio voice reading us a clickbait article. Hope it keeps the lights on.
It's not like the man can easily get back to his seat after blinding himself 😂 I'm pretty sure he has her checking her elbows and fingernails cause he is going to need a minute. Just in case anyone interrogates her
David after 12 years of domesticity and failing miserably suffers PTSD and revolts. Driven by desire acquired after his wife’s absence. Provoked with a raging appetite he’s on the hunt even more so than the heartless woman because she relishes and incorporates the stipulations imposed by society it’s the basis of her regimen. Not Dave, he’s fluid as water. He’s pragmatic lead purely by desire by any means. The only peculiarity with this film is contextual in that all interactions are out of context, lacking emotional “normalcy” but extremely accurate in there literal interpretation. The last scene with Dave facing the mirror, steak knife pointing at his eye is a revelatory statement. It informs and affirms his role as hunter.
among other things, it is a literal display that love is blind (fails to find true love in a dystopian society where people must have a partner, otherwise they would be turned into an animal. But he manages to fall in love between singles with diametrically opposed rules, where it is forbidden to have romantic relationships, sex, flirting)
Why would the short sighted woman want David to blind himself? They escaped together. Having David being able to see and guide them is essential. Having both of them blind is asking for both to be in misery.
Ultimately, when the push comes to shove, one of the couples or both default to their own survival and well being, that was theme throughout the movie, so no he didn't come back and he turned to a lobster.
I also think, whomever dropped the notebook, was careless causing them to get caught. Perhaps explains why she said “why blind her, why not blind him?” Leads me to believe she felt she shouldn’t be punished. Leaving wasn’t her idea but his. As well as the plans/mapping things was his idea. He dropped the notebook. As he said towards the end about the pants, it was dark and he was rushing. I believe he felt like he OWED her for saving his life earlier in the movie, he wanted to still help her in the end. They escaped but would no long be “free” because of her blindness. She also narrated in the movie she dreamt of or thought about them being at home having sex etc. which says to me ifff they were together in the end, she wouldn’t have said she dreamt of or desired this at their. I’d like to believe he returned but I don’t think he did. If he did, he still had his site. I believe she was the best compatible love for him til she lost her site. If he left her he became a lobster, if he stayed he stayed, he stayed with his sight, to help teach her things.
feel like he could have just lied and said he was blind like his wife, but in reality he never damaged himself. OR they could find another similarity besides blindness. could use the argument blindness does not define all characteristics or interests.
I get the philosophial ending, but i think this ending would fit better: He was going to try to poke his eyes in the bathroom, but he couldn't, he came back to her and said: "I couldn't do it, but we can still be compatible, because I'll be your eyes" then the scene scene changes, and they appeared with their backs on a cliff in front of the sea, with him telling her what he was seeing, then the screen goes all black, but he continued to explain other landscapes, as if we were now in her perspective and just listening to him explain what he saw." In society we don't have do be compatible to be in love.
Is probably coincidence and I'm reaching BUT I can't help to notice the orange (or sha'll i say, lobster (🦞) like orange) plastering across the background in the last scene. Specially the big truck's.
I've just watched this video and I think you truly understand film writing. If you ever wrote something it would surely be a delight to read it! Now I wish I had your capacity to apply it to film school -_-
It's a weird film, and extremely slow-paced. Like many dystopian films, it fails to check first to see if such a society could even exist. It could not, it's more like these people had joined or were taken into cults somewhere with psycho leaders ready with the kool aid. Yes, society treats single people like crap, I was just telling that to a friend earlier. But made into an animal? How exactly do you do that? 45 days is no time at all, and those hotels would be overflowing from the very beginning. What age does the rule kick in at? What about if you're in the hospital or in a coma? We all have something in common with everyone else...what about age, or allergies, or the same interests and/or hobbies? Everyone in that hotel has in common the fact that they don't want to be there, and I'd have kicked her to death like she did the poor dog, which no one knows if it was really his brother or not, but what an evil person. BTW, what was the animal no one wanted to be? A skunk? A worm? A slug? A toothpick fish? The ending was not complicated as people would have you think, it is exactly what you see and don't see with two options: he couldn't blind himself and left her there, or he killed himself accidentally while actually trying to blind himself which is the far less likely scenario. Either way it was too slow, too illogical and improbable, and pretty weird too (the butt/puzzy rubs were out there).
You're thinking about it too rigidly. Whether it's plausible in our world or not isn't relevant. It's a premise that's so absurd it shouldn't mirror reality it yet still manages to mirror reality to make the audience think about certain dilemmas and ethical issues we all face whether we know it or not.
I agree about the butt with the penis rubbing it didn't have narrative development. but as I was reading your comment at first I thought why is he/she talking about different scenarios like coma and such? why not stick with the story as it is portrayed?? but then I continued reading and started smiling cuz I instantly thought about how u thought about the whole thing from different perspectives and more details whereas I accepted the construction of the story as it is shown in the movie. it shows how different we are as human beings
@@conorjohnmcnulty127I get where you're coming from cuz I thought why is this person complicating things. but then again someone can explore other options and details in the story too .
@@widedPanda9797 All true! 😉Excellent job of understanding how Communication is dependent on our perceptions, since not even twins can 'see' things the exact same way. You might appreciate a book I recommend and use myself still called, "Please Understand Me: Character and Temperament Types." It's based on the works of Jung, and as it says, it's all about understanding how we're all different types that what we might feel is good/bad/etc, someone else might see in a totally different way, simple because of how they're Archetype is hard-wired to operate. I'm an ENFJ with a strong T preference.
Please I work for a PC & when I started watching this, I thought this is my next Wes Anderson but I always go back to what my boss told me on my 1st WC...People watching you're project, DON'T REMEMBER PLOTS IN A SERIES, THEY REMEMBER THE CHARACTERS. They remember the deep character arcs & revolations. THIS ENDING SUCKED!
I think he does come back, he believes in the system as he tried to be heartless with his previous partner and then he becomes jealous when he thinks the guy gifting rabbits is short sighted too, that is why he goes to the yacht and tells his friend´s partner that he is lying about the nose bleeding, so its clear he thinks they have to have a thing in common to be together the only question left is if he has the courage or is crazy enough to stab his eyes so i think he either does it or he comes back and he tells her well find a way to do it lol.
it isn't love. Tyat is ego, status. All pride and a fear of death. An entire civilization that lives by pride and ego. All alone, all isolated from each other through superficial collectivist preferences.
This movie totally fails. If you remove all humanity from a story, it won’t be very good. I don’t understand anybody’s motivations. There’s a line where a couple’s shared trait is said to be that they both majored in social sciences, so why wouldn’t everybody just make up a trait like this? There’s just cruelty and nonsense all over in this movie and no real satisfaction or lesson
I think a new explanation of this movie needs to be made due to the state of affairs today. This movie displays the dystopian enforcement of what we would call soft fascism....... what we are experiencing today in the name of health. In the time period of the movie, the mass psychosis was spelled out in rules for contributing to the greater good. Today, it is in the name of health safety for the greater good and the roll out of stricter and stricter rules to the point of incarceration in your own home. You can become free in the movie and in our time now by making the decision to enter the chamber or take the shot ..... both options set up to fool you into thinking you will live....... the fallacy recognized by the resistors! The trick of these fascists is to get the people to kill themselves like they line up today..
Too much thinking! 😅After reading all these 'interpretations'...😮 don't wish to see this film, 😢 me, me, me, I, I, I? There's more going on in the world, leg it! And go and help someone real, who has to face a physical handicap each day! 👍 That's more worthwhile surely?
IMO, the movie is garbage. You cannot talk of "choice" & conformity in the same sentence. You're presented with a totalitarian regime, conformist/collectivist population (partners must have similarities, and must abide by the govt's dictates), who are fed an illusion of democracy/capitalism (freedom to live in the civilised world, shop for capitalist goods/services). If you challenge the status quo, you have to be a hippie for others to shoot at? And the choice you have to make is whether or not to blind yourself so you can be blind with a legally acceptable partner with the off chance that if she's no more, you'll have to start over again? What exactly is one choosing for? It's all an illusion. I'd rather have the story show the protagonist & the hotel lady elope, and live a challenging yet novel life.
I liked the absurdist humor, but found many of the scenes to be disturbing in a way that didn’t progress the narrative. It’s like they were just stuck in there randomly for shock value. I found the film interesting overall, but probably wouldn’t watch it again.
Oddly enough, a lobster can regenerate most of its body parts, but not the eyes.
For real? :D What a nice detail! Thank you for sharing, Will.
fr?
I think, I wouldn't agree cause they can grow their eyes back with smaller eyes or be replaced with antennas but with that I see the blind lobster is adapting to deep-sea life maybe that's why we hear the sea in credits. In fact, in bright light a lobster is practically blind. Lobsters cannot really see specific images but they can detect motion in dim light.
@@VarunOreguntaquit talking about lobsters. Ur not a marine biologist
Really bruh?
My theory is that he did infact blind himself but he couldnt see so he never found his way back to the table with her. 😂
I had the same theory. 😄
that’s what i thought too 😭
Aaahahahahaha omg😂😂😂
I was expecting him to hear him crashing into something xD
LMAO EXACTLY WHAT I THOUGHT
I think he fell into a comically large boiling pot of water after getting lost in the kitchen on the way back to the table
the pacing and comedic delivery throughout the movie was so awesome
Interesting analysis. I used the visual cues in the scene to come up with my interpretation. For instance, even in the screenshot you have at the end (and throughout the movie), you can see the theme of duality/symmetry. The symmetrical booth, trees, lamps, salt&pepper shakers, the couple walking by. However, there’s still a contrast that exists- her side is full (truck in the back, glass almost to the brim), while his side is empty. It reinforces the uncomfortable feeling and question of ‘will he come back?’. And in the last couple seconds of the film, the scene ends with two similar sized trucks in opposing directions almost merging into one lane, meeting face to face. To me, symbolizing the coming together of the two of them.
same
I interpreted the open window in the bathroom to mean that he escaped via the window. I think the 2 trucks coming together at the end was interesting, but seems like a large leap to make. I searched the scene for 10 minutes straight analyzing every object and to me, the open window in the bathroom is key.
I think he didn't do it cause she's narrating his story as she knows it. The lobster 🦞 ends with the sound of waves 🌊. I don't think he wanted to love one person. He wanted the options. His description of the animal he wanted to be, his preferences, the different women he tries to match with, how he lies, etc. He was trying to live forever as freely as possible.
she stopped narrating the moment she lost her journal (before she got blind).
Excellent explanation! Many of the rules in The Lobster actually apply to our society (some even literally). These are not hard rules, but extreme social pressure. The movie is full of phrases and situations that address very deep questions: the dispair of the biscuit woman, the man who claims he loves his wife as much as 14 on a scale to 15 and immediately proves otherwise, the voice over that tells us that faking feelings is much harder than faking indifference..... very deep and clever.
i think so too, very excellent
Yeah if by "deep and clever" you actually mean "dumb and convoluted"
@@hjuikkll O.K. please give me an example of what you consider clever. You must be a genius so let's have it.
@TrueFilm bruh, didn't you realize what just happened, Mr. Diabeto here, wants to prove he is too smart, so he will go against anything that makes the slightest of sense and would want to prove himself a genius....but of course, he isn't, so he won't reply to anyone who challenges him.
@@monodriver001 Of course I know that. I just wanted to see the reaction. I would have left it alone when he starts trolling. Did it, done it.
"To eye or not to eye?" My man you missed the perfect opportunity to say "To see or not to see."
I was expecting to see him to walk away through the window. It's a frustrating last shot but I choose to believe he left nonetheless and chose to be a recluse by the sea.
I think David accidentally thrusted the knife too far into his eye and killed himself.
That was also my theorie.
Why didnt they each cut off their pinky toe? Being short sighted is such a non specific thing to share in common that i don't see why he felt going blind was the only similarity they could create for themselves....
Or even better, develop a lisp 😂
Good point
The shared trait has to be exact. That's the point. Inevitably, it means nothing.
Because then the relationship would feel very forced. The rules of this society have brainwashed both of them to the point that their mindsets are very much shaped by those rules. When Rachel Weisz’s character admits that she’s actually blind you can see Colin Ferrell’s character feeling a little annoyed and agitated. I think that’s because from that moment he realized that he doesn’t have anything in common with her anymore. Much like at the beginning of the movie when he got divorced, the first thing he asked his ex-wife is about their shared commonality compared to her new partner.
^
I think he will not come back, because during the movie it was shown that he betrayed all the people around him. So why not Rachel!
Maybe because he actually cared for her...
@@frankcarlosanaliza but…he let her starve for days when she told him they couldn’t kiss anymore. She’s blind, it’s not like she can hunt and feed herself anymore, she depended on him. Her saying “I haven’t eaten in days, I also haven’t played any games with you in days” implies that he was distant for at least a couple days. He definitely cared about her, but like the hotel manager who scaled his love for his wife at 14, I think he ultimately cared more for himself
He left her. I’m convinced.
How long til he realizes he can just FAKE being blind????
How would he fake stab wounds to the eyes?
She can't see either way can she @@nerdbites2212
I was thinking the same, I thought he'd pretend to be blind since she can't see, she'd never know.
The Lobster is weird and creepy,but thought provoking.
Very much so
Points for having the balls to claim the 'best explanation' (it's clickbait, but likely successfully so), but you're only getting some of the most obvious points. For instance, the choice really isn't just 'blind yourself or be turned into an animal'. From David's perspective, the possibility of being turned into an animal is distant - he has lots of options before that becomes the only alternative. Given his history I think he will not blind himself, but will continue to try to find 'love' in some form.
You're also neglecting the very important aspect that sharing a quality with your mate isn't just a stipulation imposed by the state. It's what these people have become conditioned to think of as essential to a relationship. They don't just lose society's blessing when she's blinded - they legitimately start to drift apart. This is because they have embraced and internalized society's standards. The movie isn't just about its final moment. Not remotely. It asks us to challenge the notions of what constitutes 'normal' when it comes to relationships, and to question whether those standards are necessary by nature or are absorbed over a lifetime of exposure to social pressures.
But yes, the ending asks us to think about whether we'd blind ourselves in his position.
When I saw best explanation I took it as him saying this is his best attempt at an explanation
this is the best explanation
I watched this movie when it came out and wasn’t too crazy for it. I rewatched it last night and I really liked it. I kept thinking of so many parts of it. I really like how both the hotel and the loners have such strict and horrific rules.
He didn't stab his eyes out. Surviving comes before all for Farrell's character. He absolutely loved Weisz but when she slowed him down she became expendable.
Yeah but leaving her most likely means for him that he will eventualy becomes a lobster...
@@janholik1161 only if they catch him
Чел, какую же чушь ты сейчас сказал. Когда герои шли в город, именно главный герой был обузой, у него штаны были узкими, он шел медленно. Само кино под корень разрушает твою глупую теорию. Просто смешно
I agree with the russian above me
You just proved he didn't love her. A person you love doesn't become "expendable" when they have health issues or disability. A loving partner would take care of her.
The movie is called the lobster, so he turns into a lobster at the end
Maybe her going blind was metaphorical as well - she was blindly in love with him. Whereas he was yet to take the plunge
honestly one of my favorite movie endings ever, you explained this perfectly
I just watched the movie. It was so bizarre that I couldn’t look away, I then became interested til the end! Speaking of the end?! Ugh!
So after pondering on things literally overnight. It dawned on me… The name of the movie is “The Lobster” at the end, she’s sitting there waiting, it cuts to black screen. She’s left in darkness/blind. Then you hear water.
I don’t think he did it.
He would’ve bled to death and been in unbearable pain.
The objective was to find a mate you’re compatible with, which they both were short sighted. They learned to communicate with sign language to survive the woods. Once she became blind they no longer had the same compatibility.
He kept his word and helped her to escape, and maybe that’s as far as he could take her.
Remembering the title of the movie, “The Lobster”
I think he became “The Lobster.”
When we say “the” in this context, it’s to believe,
“The Lobster” existed somewhere in the movie.
At end is my theory…
So grateful for this. I just finished watching it and I was so angry I needed an explanation. Thanks
Thank you! I loved your explanation!
I also think that the move asks the question if we are selfish to the extent to not be able the connect to another human being emotionally but instead we have to have something obvious in common.
Also the story asks if we always pretend. He pretended when he was in the couples’ society that he fell in love and he pretended in the singles’ society that he hasn’t fallen in love. The story ends when he stopped pretending.
And then comes the question that you mentioned - are you able to sacrifice a part of you to be with the person you love?
why aren't we asking if it's impossible to unblind the woman? they literally make people into animals in this movie
Schrodinger's lobster
yorgos lanthimos is a mythology FIEND
This film really got me thinking about modern relationships and how there’s still so much of these imagined rules that people believe are required for two people to truly “love” each other. I think the film has a cynical viewpoint about love and tries to juxtapose it with the concept of transformation into an animal. There is irony in that no two people can ever connect in a way that qualifies as “true love” because the the qualifiers of love are arbitrary. I think that today many people place a lot of weight into arbitrary qualifiers that ultimately should make no difference in terms of whether you will connect with that person or not and this film sort of makes satire of that.
I absolutely second this!
I've always thought and still think about the possibility of spending the rest of my life with a person that I have nothing in common with, it scares me lol. but also I can understand the idea that people can love each other without having things in common
@@widedPanda9797 Well put
@@ehza thanks
its the fine attention to detail in the end. There's a reason why the director made the scene long with just her in the end. She looks at the waiter before he pours the glass and even looks up at his face and then trails off to when he leaves. Then looks out at the window and looks at the bathroom hall where David left, waiting for him to comeback, which he doesn't and either: A) knew she was lying or was suspect of her and ran away or B) thought she was blind but couldn't commit like the man with the revolver and wife and ran away. (I used to think it was David blinding himself but couldn't find his way back, but I was not watching the scenes closely and paid attention to the director's attention to detail.
Thanks for your comment
I thought she was lying about being blind.
Your logic is off, and your observations on the last scene are not correct, either.
@@TheCommunicationCoach explain
Why did she have the surgery in the first place? I thought it was to correct her sight.
The director plays with metaphors based on our social constructs. People summarize and project onto others their opinions regardless. This film does the same combining metaphor and actuality seamlessly. It’s quite funny at times and brutally honest on the other; it’s harsh. Several people wrote the screen play so the narrative is layered. It tends to over simplify and make light of harsh realities, making them easier to scrutinize and digest when you remember where the line is drawn and conversely complicates simple interactions.
I had to watch it a couple of times. Loved his perspective and sense of humor.
My theory is that David read Oyasumi Punpun once and he thought 'Punpun is literally me frfr'
I think a lot of what's going on outside in the background during the last shot is planned and important to the intended ending. Notice what's happening at the very instant the shot cuts to a black screen.
I think it is fairly obvious that by the end of the movie she had regained some sight. The way she looks at the server, then outside and constantly correcting herself to look back to the front to maintain the facade.
She heard the server and the noise outside. I think she was trying to come across as though she could see.
I just got around to seeing The Lobster, and I’d say it was “ridiculously brilliant.” In a ridiculous world, you’d expect the people in that world are likewise ridiculous. I like how the film didn’t shy away from the implications of the world: ie, the people are awkward, which a lesser film would be scared to portray out of fear of alienating the audience. I didn’t get the impression that the rules of the society are that people NEED to be paired based on superficial traits but that people living in this society would have a warped view of love and intimacy and therefore wouldn’t know how else to make a match; if the conditions require forced coupling, the people would be desperate and ill equipped to handle this. Anyway, that doesn’t detract from the basic analysis provided.
It’s a character study of David. He’s pretty consistent with his choices and toxic concerning the other women. Does he mean to? I don’t know. The director forces you pay attention to the environment just outside the window. It’s a truck stop. Rachel is blind. He promised her rabbits while in the forest. He made her one. He left her here. You do the math.
Lets just say, hypothetically speaking, i failed math class. Care to explain?
@@thevoicestoldmetoagain4627David could possibly lied to her and he is going to leave there, alone
Can you explain again without speaing like the riddler i dont like riddles
Dude ran. That's all he did the entire film.
We are all lobsters, waiting at the bottom of the pot for the water to warm up.
I like to belive he blinded himself only in one eye and breached the system. That's what I would have done. The show has ways for the characters to breach the system everywhere but they just don't do it because they are obsesed with the characteristics that define them the most at first glance, kinda like judging a book by it's cover. The nosebleed girl and the guy with a limp leg for example they both like to swim but they just don't give it much thought. The woman that likes bisquits and the guy that has a lisp are bot always horny for sex and i think there is no better match than that. The singers from the dance night, the fat guy and the blonde lady, they bot love to sing and have wonderful voices but the movie shows you that they are not actaully in love with each other when the guy tries to shoot her to save himself
I conclusion Communism does not work.
Everyone has something in common with all others somehow, if only breathing and pooping...
Wow you've got a point there.
"in conclusion communism does not work" nigga what 😭
That's not what Communism is. Communism is an economic system. We don't even really know what the economic system in the world of The Lobster is.
I think the decision David made becomes clear when we hear the ocean as the ending credits roll.
I think instead hotel turning him into lobster as he wanted to become, he himself turned into real-life traits of lobster to experience how society turned him into. And finally turned himself as "The Lobster".
The concept was kind of dumb. They both have brunette hair, they both have light brown eyes, they have so many arbitrary common factors that they could have chosen. Other than many flaws like this, the film gets it's point across well and I enjoyed it.
I like to think he realised he didn’t need to blind himself and realise he could love her despite their differences, however if I’m being real with myself, he most likely gave into the pressures of what society wants from him and attempted to blind himself to fit in with her so they can be together as a perfect fit, but considering she sat there for ages then the screen went black, he most likely ended up accidentally killing himself in there. So I guess you could say he died trying to fit into society’s expectations.
at first I was very weirded out by the movie and thought it was odd, but the ending really changed it for me. I was hoping the end would have some resolution, only to leave me thinking more about what had happened. This video shed light thankfully on the philosophical ending and I finally was able to appreciate it more than what I had felt originally for it. I like movies like this because its really a curveball and not something id normally watch, but great nonetheless.
Damn bro how do you only have 15 subs? Make it 16.
Also... if you wheigh the two things like... the lobster cannot see very well and him not being able to see very well after blinding himself... its still.better to live as a human blind than as a lobster.
I cracked at the moment.. Hotel staff said
If the couples will have arguments or problems in their relationship.. They will be provided with children to help
This is such a satire 😂
I think he attempted to blind himself but died in the process, tying to the beginning of the story with the couple turned into donkeys. The system they exist in does not accept genuine love, only this superficial construct. The woman in the beginning kills one of the donkeys not realizing their relative is now happy having found a partner.
I just watched this for the second or third time and I sat until ALL the end credits rolled..... I heard the sounds of the ocean. That tells me the movie is true to its title and Dave is now a lobster 🦞. He could not gouge his own eyes out and they ended up back at the hotel and was turned into the lobster. I think Rachel's character has found someone and is happily coupled up since she is telling us the story of the lobster as she knows it.
The first 5:00 of this video you can and should skip. It's someone taking very long to say next to nothing, and badly. If there is anything worth hearing or discussing after that, I wouldn't know.
I had the funniest epiphany the other day that indifferent-to-writing students in English class who focused on getting to word/page count for assignments not only did alright gradewise, but were best prepared for 99% of so-called creative jobs these days. Then I wondered if that was on purpose. Here we have probably 10 minutes of a sedated talk radio voice reading us a clickbait article. Hope it keeps the lights on.
🤡
It's not like the man can easily get back to his seat after blinding himself 😂 I'm pretty sure he has her checking her elbows and fingernails cause he is going to need a minute. Just in case anyone interrogates her
I came here to know about lobster ending which I did watch before right. I get spoilers to Blade runner that I have yet to watch thx boss.
Great explanation, but you spoiled 1984 and Brazil in the process!
I'd rather be a lobster than be blind.
does the 2 orange lamps mean they are lobsters anyways?
David after 12 years of domesticity and failing miserably suffers PTSD and revolts. Driven by desire acquired after his wife’s absence. Provoked with a raging appetite he’s on the hunt even more so than the heartless woman because she relishes and incorporates the stipulations imposed by society it’s the basis of her regimen. Not Dave, he’s fluid as water. He’s pragmatic lead purely by desire by any means. The only peculiarity with this film is contextual in that all interactions are out of context, lacking emotional “normalcy” but extremely accurate in there literal interpretation.
The last scene with Dave facing the mirror, steak knife pointing at his eye is a revelatory statement. It informs and affirms his role as hunter.
excellent analysis
among other things, it is a literal display that love is blind (fails to find true love in a dystopian society where people must have a partner, otherwise they would be turned into an animal. But he manages to fall in love between singles with diametrically opposed rules, where it is forbidden to have romantic relationships, sex, flirting)
He was like fuck it... Im not gonna blind myself..
Why would the short sighted woman want David to blind himself? They escaped together. Having David being able to see and guide them is essential. Having both of them blind is asking for both to be in misery.
Ultimately, when the push comes to shove, one of the couples or both default to their own survival and well being, that was theme throughout the movie, so no he didn't come back and he turned to a lobster.
In drawn butter, or creamed in a bisque? We'll never know....
I also think, whomever dropped the notebook, was careless causing them to get caught.
Perhaps explains why she said “why blind her, why not blind him?”
Leads me to believe she felt she shouldn’t be punished. Leaving wasn’t her idea but his. As well as the plans/mapping things was his idea.
He dropped the notebook. As he said towards the end about the pants, it was dark and he was rushing.
I believe he felt like he OWED her for saving his life earlier in the movie, he wanted to still help her in the end. They escaped but would no long be “free” because of her blindness.
She also narrated in the movie she dreamt of or thought about them being at home having sex etc. which says to me ifff they were together in the end, she wouldn’t have said she dreamt of or desired this at their.
I’d like to believe he returned but I don’t think he did. If he did, he still had his site.
I believe she was the best compatible love for him til she lost her site. If he left her he became a lobster, if he stayed he stayed, he stayed with his sight, to help teach her things.
Ancient Greek mythology
They both have black hair, right? And brown eyes?
I think yorgos couldn't show the love concept deeply enough and that's why I would choose not to do it
nice movie.very emotional where emotion seem not exist in the movie.
He pretended to blind himself, like the limping man
He used her for the walk to the town and then left her at the restaurant cuz shes not needed anymore..
it end how it ends because Lanthimos is a hack, and you people know it, its pretty difficult to close a story like that with a contundent ending.
feel like he could have just lied and said he was blind like his wife, but in reality he never damaged himself. OR they could find another similarity besides blindness. could use the argument blindness does not define all characteristics or interests.
amazing explanation! Thankss
I get the philosophial ending, but i think this ending would fit better:
He was going to try to poke his eyes in the bathroom, but he couldn't, he came back to her and said: "I couldn't do it, but we can still be compatible, because I'll be your eyes" then the scene scene changes, and they appeared with their backs on a cliff in front of the sea, with him telling her what he was seeing, then the screen goes all black, but he continued to explain other landscapes, as if we were now in her perspective and just listening to him explain what he saw."
In society we don't have do be compatible to be in love.
i like this ending the best.
Bro, you should be a film writer. You definitely have vision.
Mas e se aparecer um pensamento intrusivo?
Changed into a assisted living eye seeing dog. The dog has trouble seeing into oncoming traffic both are in a horrible accident. The end.
Thanks a lot for this vid
Is probably coincidence and I'm reaching BUT I can't help to notice the orange (or sha'll i say, lobster (🦞) like orange) plastering across the background in the last scene. Specially the big truck's.
beautiful video
Poor kids in this universe.
I believe in love, he'll blind himself
Why would anyone love New York City?
I've just watched this video and I think you truly understand film writing. If you ever wrote something it would surely be a delight to read it!
Now I wish I had your capacity to apply it to film school -_-
It's a weird film, and extremely slow-paced. Like many dystopian films, it fails to check first to see if such a society could even exist. It could not, it's more like these people had joined or were taken into cults somewhere with psycho leaders ready with the kool aid. Yes, society treats single people like crap, I was just telling that to a friend earlier. But made into an animal? How exactly do you do that? 45 days is no time at all, and those hotels would be overflowing from the very beginning. What age does the rule kick in at? What about if you're in the hospital or in a coma? We all have something in common with everyone else...what about age, or allergies, or the same interests and/or hobbies? Everyone in that hotel has in common the fact that they don't want to be there, and I'd have kicked her to death like she did the poor dog, which no one knows if it was really his brother or not, but what an evil person. BTW, what was the animal no one wanted to be? A skunk? A worm? A slug? A toothpick fish?
The ending was not complicated as people would have you think, it is exactly what you see and don't see with two options: he couldn't blind himself and left her there, or he killed himself accidentally while actually trying to blind himself which is the far less likely scenario. Either way it was too slow, too illogical and improbable, and pretty weird too (the butt/puzzy rubs were out there).
You're thinking about it too rigidly. Whether it's plausible in our world or not isn't relevant. It's a premise that's so absurd it shouldn't mirror reality it yet still manages to mirror reality to make the audience think about certain dilemmas and ethical issues we all face whether we know it or not.
@@conorjohnmcnulty127 No, it was just silly
I agree about the butt with the penis rubbing it didn't have narrative development. but as I was reading your comment at first I thought why is he/she talking about different scenarios like coma and such? why not stick with the story as it is portrayed??
but then I continued reading and started smiling cuz I instantly thought about how u thought about the whole thing from different perspectives and more details whereas I accepted the construction of the story as it is shown in the movie. it shows how different we are as human beings
@@conorjohnmcnulty127I get where you're coming from cuz I thought why is this person complicating things. but then again someone can explore other options and details in the story too .
@@widedPanda9797 All true! 😉Excellent job of understanding how Communication is dependent on our perceptions, since not even twins can 'see' things the exact same way. You might appreciate a book I recommend and use myself still called, "Please Understand Me: Character and Temperament Types." It's based on the works of Jung, and as it says, it's all about understanding how we're all different types that what we might feel is good/bad/etc, someone else might see in a totally different way, simple because of how they're Archetype is hard-wired to operate. I'm an ENFJ with a strong T preference.
Are you a beast or are you a human?
Is "love, blind"?
Please I work for a PC & when I started watching this, I thought this is my next Wes Anderson but I always go back to what my boss told me on my 1st WC...People watching you're project, DON'T REMEMBER PLOTS IN A SERIES, THEY REMEMBER THE CHARACTERS. They remember the deep character arcs & revolations.
THIS ENDING SUCKED!
The comment section is the best explanation
This movie did not need to be made! They're all terrible people! I think he left her at the diner and did not blind himself!
I think he does come back, he believes in the system as he tried to be heartless with his previous partner and then he becomes jealous when he thinks the guy gifting rabbits is short sighted too, that is why he goes to the yacht and tells his friend´s partner that he is lying about the nose bleeding, so its clear he thinks they have to have a thing in common to be together the only question left is if he has the courage or is crazy enough to stab his eyes so i think he either does it or he comes back and he tells her well find a way to do it lol.
I think you greatly missed the point of the film, but thats entirely ok! It's your interpretation!
it isn't love. Tyat is ego, status. All pride and a fear of death. An entire civilization that lives by pride and ego. All alone, all isolated from each other through superficial collectivist preferences.
PS... It's a FILM!!! you move around. It's performed 'on film material' drop the movie word, you're not baby talking anymore are you?...
He didn't blind himself and therefore became a lobster. There is a finality to this.
This movie totally fails. If you remove all humanity from a story, it won’t be very good. I don’t understand anybody’s motivations. There’s a line where a couple’s shared trait is said to be that they both majored in social sciences, so why wouldn’t everybody just make up a trait like this? There’s just cruelty and nonsense all over in this movie and no real satisfaction or lesson
Wow... if this is the ending I'm really glad I didn't waste my time watching this movie...
You definitely love marvel movies
I think a new explanation of this movie needs to be made due to the state of affairs today. This movie displays the dystopian enforcement of what we would call soft fascism....... what we are experiencing today in the name of health. In the time period of the movie, the mass psychosis was spelled out in rules for contributing to the greater good. Today, it is in the name of health safety for the greater good and the roll out of stricter and stricter rules to the point of incarceration in your own home. You can become free in the movie and in our time now by making the decision to enter the chamber or take the shot ..... both options set up to fool you into thinking you will live....... the fallacy recognized by the resistors! The trick of these fascists is to get the people to kill themselves like they line up today..
I would eye
Too much thinking! 😅After reading all these 'interpretations'...😮 don't wish to see this film, 😢 me, me, me, I, I, I? There's more going on in the world, leg it! And go and help someone real, who has to face a physical handicap each day! 👍 That's more worthwhile surely?
IMO, the movie is garbage. You cannot talk of "choice" & conformity in the same sentence. You're presented with a totalitarian regime, conformist/collectivist population (partners must have similarities, and must abide by the govt's dictates), who are fed an illusion of democracy/capitalism (freedom to live in the civilised world, shop for capitalist goods/services).
If you challenge the status quo, you have to be a hippie for others to shoot at?
And the choice you have to make is whether or not to blind yourself so you can be blind with a legally acceptable partner with the off chance that if she's no more, you'll have to start over again? What exactly is one choosing for? It's all an illusion.
I'd rather have the story show the protagonist & the hotel lady elope, and live a challenging yet novel life.
What an awful movie
2 hours of film that needed to be explained after. Annoying film. Waste of time.
I hated this ending
I loved it. It perfectly explains relationships in modern society. Had it had a happy ending it wouldn't have been truthful.
i loved it
@@somerandomname3124Yeah
Quite an impressive movie, of the kind you don't forget, but i found it annoyingly absurd and thoroughly disturbing. I wouldn't watch it again.
I liked the absurdist humor, but found many of the scenes to be disturbing in a way that didn’t progress the narrative. It’s like they were just stuck in there randomly for shock value. I found the film interesting overall, but probably wouldn’t watch it again.
@@xyzzy4567 So more or less we agree.
@@xyzzy4567well some scenes need to be presented in order to make the viewer realize the difference between the real world and a dystopian one.
@@xyzzy4567if you look closer you’ll find those scenes do in fact progress the narrative.