There's no transformation machine. They were just killed and replaced. - The Lobster (2015) Discussion

[–] 7 years ago

[deleted]

[–] gentey 7 years ago

So you think there is a transformation machine but they implied there never was.

Recall when David was explaining why he picked lobster, it wouldn't make any sense if he didn't really change into that lobster.

What do you mean? I'm interpreting what you've written to mean the movie wouldn't make sense if he didn't turn into a lobster.

How can you know that? the only indication that he turned into the lobster was the beach in the closing shot. That could of equally just been an artistic representation of David's expectation of living on a beautiful rather than a gruesome death or even a symbolic indication that they all died because there are no people in that shot and it was an allegory for the futility of our own existence as humans.

it wouldn't make any sense if he didn't really change into that lobster

Honestly nothing in this movie made sense. My fist was clenched so tightly in frustration over these character's endless idiocy.

reply

[–] lgoodup 7 years ago

Beach in the closing shot? The closing shot was at the diner. Near the end of the credits I can hear waves on a beach, but there wasn't a shot of the beach. I just watched the ending and credits again, absoloutely no beach scene....at least not in this version. Does anyone know if there was more than one ending version released?

Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.

reply

[–] gentey 7 years ago

I watched it on Amazon. There was a shot of a beach. It's hardly worth buying it again though. I was told it means that he abandoned her and that's why she was sitting alone and went through with the lobster thing.

reply

[–] toesonherbells 7 years ago

There was a shot of a beach. It's hardly worth buying it again though. I was told it means that he abandoned her and that's why she was sitting alone and went through with the lobster thing.

I just watched it on Amazon. There was no shot of a beach.

reply

[–] gentey 7 years ago

I think it is around the credits or just before the credits role or after they end but I can't remember. But, a possible solution would be to just ask in this forum because someone would probably know.

reply

[–] toesonherbells 7 years ago

I think it is around the credits or just before the credits role or after they end but I can't remember. But, a possible solution would be to just ask in this forum because someone would probably know.

What? Are you actually writing this in response to the post where I told you I watched the movie and there is no shot of a beach?

reply

[–] 7 years ago

[deleted]

[–] TheManInOil 7 years ago

It's very possible. The movie invites speculation. Is it meant to be a 'real' world in which people are simply duped by the system, or is it meant to be a filmic construct in which we accept these impossible things as part of the premise?

I think the hotel invites a lot of possible comparisons by analogy, including life in concentration camps, where people were told they were being sent elsewhere or going for showers but in fact were killed.

But that's only one element, one possible interpretation. I think what makes the movie so interesting is that it provides material for a rich variety of legitimate interpretations.

reply

[–] gentey 7 years ago

were told they were being sent elsewhere or going for showers but in fact were killed. This is what I was thinking. In that situation, the citizens don't fear death. They adjust to the rules and turn themselves over willingly.

It also reminds me of some stories from citizens in the USSR who were clearly wherein they were brainwashed by government.

reply

[–] FrozenNachos 7 years ago

But that's only one element, one possible interpretation. I think what makes the movie so interesting is that it provides material for a rich variety of legitimate interpretations.

Exactly, thought provocing would be the phrase I'd use to describe this flick.
I might sound pretentious, but I think the people that hated this don't really do that much wierd thinking of their own.

reply

[–] yurenchu 7 years ago

It may very well be possible that the System in the movie lied to the people and that failed singles were merely killed off and replaced by animals. Maybe the reason why the singles had to notify their animal of choice far in advance, upon arrival at the hotel (and why they couldn't postpone or change their choice at just a minute before entering the transformation room), is that the staff would be able to procure a sample of the animal well before the "transformation".

______
Keiko Matsui & Carl Anderson - "A Drop of Water"
http://youtu.be/kPUENUUuqSk

reply

[–] 7 years ago

[deleted]

[–] gentey 7 years ago

Sorry I'm getting back to this so late.

I think from the perspective of the characters, they aren't really being threatened with death. So it's not on the scale of a genocide and they know they wont die. They still get to live, but they have to live in a specific way. Overall my opinion is that this was all a metaphor for a dictatorship wherein the citizens lost their ability to think for themselves and think clearly at all. So the point of that ruse is that it's essentially a means of terrorism used in order to commit genocide that has had an effective impact on these people so that they are in effect just lambs off to the slaughter.

Just for example, she wanted him to blind himself so they could have something in common and he considered actually doing it. Even after running away and re-entering society, they were both bought into this bs. So that proves there is some heavy long term universal brainwashing applied. If there really was a transformation machine that can give you a new body, new eyes would be no problem in this universe. These people were all completely defenseless and incompetent. They could of never survived as animals in the real world. They'd be killed instantly.

reply

[–] yurenchu 7 years ago

Even after running away and re-entering society, they were both bought into this bs.

Or maybe they realized that in order to have some sort of happy life without being permanently harrassed/chased by authorities etc., they had no other choice than to re-enter society and give in to the bs of it all. They knew they couldn't change society by themselves.

Of course this would still fit into the dictatorship metaphor: the few people who can see the truth, may not have the power to change it or to live outside the influence of this wrong system.

If there really was a transformation machine that can give you a new body, new eyes would be no problem in this universe.

Good point. I don't see how such a magical transformation machine wouldn't be able to transform a disabled human being into a healthy human being. Although it would probably be argued by the authorities in that universe that your "unique property" will automatically cross over to your animal version. (For example, the girl with "beautiful blond hair" also had beautiful blond manes when she was turned into a horse.)

______

reply

[–] MoviemanCin 7 years ago

Pining for the Fjords! LOL!

Schrodinger's cat walks into a bar and doesn't.

reply

[–] gentey 7 years ago

I agree this seems possible. The only problem is that he turned the cold woman into the worst animal. Was he potentially in such a rage with a brain washed state that he was able to delude himself. Maybe that's why they just said, "the worst animal" rather than specifying.

reply

[–] yurenchu 7 years ago

It was told to us by the narration, but I don't remember whose narration. If it was Rachel Weisz who narrated that part, then maybe Colin Farrell's character had merely lied to Weisz' character that he had turned Heartless Woman into "the worst animal", because he didn't want to admit to Weisz' character that he had actually killed a woman in the "Transformation Room".

______

reply

[–] sydnee_man 7 years ago

That's a good point. Saying what animal you wanted to be, well in advance, would give them the chance to get that animal. I thought one of the points of this movie was to show how stupid or unthinking people had become in the near future. And maybe even how absurd all these dating sites and programs can be. Or how they evolved into something extreme in the future.

reply

[–] camdentownie13 7 years ago

I like that thought. That's made me think a bit deeper on what I thought was just a 'well you don't fit in cause you're single' movie. The analogy with dating sites is good thinking sydnee cos they are just as random as this film's lying characters. Tks for this cos I was going down the route of it just being a warning on fascist thinking, but it's actually really contemporary and being set in Ireland gives it another edge. I'm torn on the ending, but then that's the point I guess.

reply

[–] gabypanama 7 years ago

So how you xplain the peacock and the camel, to name a few out of place animals?

reply