>>64502876 shit 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?
>>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.
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.
>>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?
>>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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
>>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
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.