Hotel of Unbroken Hearts The plot, based on the social mechanism of turning citizens into wolves, dogs and sea monsters, has something of a dystopia. The openness of reading this genre causes in my head many parallels with modernity. But dystopia is a dangerous genre: stepping on a slippery path of interpretation, you may not guess which of the two “evil empires” Orwell had in mind. What can we say about the sacred image of the hotel for cinema, which is put in the center of the "Lobster", - when borrowing meanings from "Difficulties of Translation", "Hotel New Hampshire" or "Consequences of Love" Sorrentino can collect so many parallels that a whole treatise will be enough. Therefore, without understanding the author’s intention here can not do. The director in the interview focuses on the topic of loneliness - according to him, the film as a whole is about how people tend to evaluate loneliness, and otherwise the picture is open to a variety of audience interpretations.
Single David arrives at the hotel and asks to be marked as bisexual, but there is no such item. To combat loneliness, the minimum of 58 of the world’s most famous genders is left, which is presented in the hotel by a reactionary post-bourgeois institution that turns society into a kind of “conservative” channel. Residents of the hotel, in order not to become wordless creatures, for a month and a half are forced to look for a mate, but in the film they are more busy thinking about themselves and explaining to competitors what those are terrible and unnecessary. It seems that the problem of loneliness is obvious.
The fact that there is no love and no one is needed, in general, is obvious, but even with this conclusion, the behavior of the characters could be more human. Settlers behave like a family from the "Fang", especially in the most seemingly important - long-awaited relationship with a found partner. This mechanicism in behavior cannot be overlooked, but in The Lobster it is spread from an abnormal family to all of humanity. The girl in "Fang" literally comes to life in emotions, having seen Hollywood products, which, I venture to assume, makes it possible to distinguish the living from the inanimate. In The Lobster, no external impulse makes anyone alive, and from time to time the cruelty displayed resembles a defensive instinct. Interestingly, most of the characters are not even named to the viewer - there is a "heartless" girl, and there is a girl "with a bleeding nose."
The world of the Lobster is not about humanity suffering from loneliness, but about posthumanity, which, it is not known, can suffer at all. Public opinion suggests to poor creatures that they have a flaw in being alone. But is it possible to feel lonely without knowing what love is? Realizing that you're lonely and suffering from it are very different things, ambiguously combined in the film. It is on this union, whether Lanthimos understands it or not, that the absurdity is built, and without the absurdity it would not have been the film itself and the style that this director is known for.
In exchange for revealing the problem of loneliness, the viewer receives its concealment in the form of a “romantic” line, allegedly punching a breach of social dictates. What is served under the sauce of love, can be considered for the love of posthumans. But David’s story can just as well be seen as the story of an oppositionist who always acts in defiance. Being in the system, he simply breaks the rules by choosing a partner he doesn’t like. And getting into the antisystem, he in spite of her starts an affair, which is also impossible to do. The open ending gives the right to this interpretation.
Movies like Lobster can criticize something, demonstrate the ulcers of modern society, but they are fundamentally incapable of telling about feelings - rubber hearts do not break, but only stretch on the description of love that the hotel manager offers.
4 out of 10
Original