Can we discuss this film rationally?

Can we discuss this film rationally?

I don't think I got it

What are your questions?

What don't you understand?

Pretty obvious satire of modern romances

It's like an alien observed and tried to understand human relationships and then semi-accurately recreated them on film

Like all dystopian stories, it has an interesting premise, but goes to shit once the generic "rebels" inevitably come up.

This wasn't the worst offender however. It still held up somewhat, but the hotel part is so interesting and well done that the part in the forest/city seems mediocre.

I think the ultimate message of the movie is that love hurts us, distorts us and disfigures us. However saying "no" to love means running away from everything, be alienated. From human nature, society, even non-love based relationships.
The movie ends without answering the question whether Love is worth it. It just shows the two alternatives of misshaping yourself for love and rotting away in loneliness.

The unresolved, abrupt ending also seems in line with this dichotomy.

pleb filter

Did he blind himself so he could be with that girl?

It's purposely left unclear, so that you imagine both scenarios, decide which one is "the happy ending" according to you, which one is acceptable, and then you imagine whether or not it is realistic in the narrative of the movie for it to happen.
It is a way to put in both endings at once and reap both their emotional effects: he blinded himself to be with her, but also, he just ran away and left her in the diner alone.

I like to think he didn't leave her alone

you can see the top of his head going across the window. he was like fuck that i'm out

Or he didn't do it but tells her he did it

>What happened in the end?
He didn't blinded himself.
Just like his friend at the hotel who intentionally banged his head to get blood from nose. The similar problems resulted in a successful couple.
Farrel's character faked it before with that heartless bitch and he would fake it again saying "Honey, I got blind for you"
And she will notice one day. After that he will start all over again at the hotel.

To me it was more like about the irrational and pressing expectations society has about relationships. Also, the most important part about the forest was that the loners were as pressing as the hotel staff. Lanthimos said it's like when you want to oppose a system but then end up in another system yourself.

if literally every single character acts like an unemotional alien robot, why should I even give a fuck about what happens to anyone?
I really liked the premise and was pretty hyped for this movie, but the director fucked it up so bad it's not even funny

It's called deconstruction you plen

What animal would you be Sup Forums?

Me? I'd be crab legs

I'd be a falcon desu

What if you are asexual and/or dont give a fuck about fucking?

ur gay

Then you find someone else who is biologically broken or go join the loners and hope you don't get hunted.

I wouldn't mind if i was, but i just have no desire to fuck anyone.

i would be a roach since i am turkish

kek
Hey, me too!

which girl was best Lobsterfu?

Who was the lady at the beginning?

The qt maid
>she will never torture you by grinding against your dick every day

HNGGGG SHE HAD A YUGE ASS

This that was the one thing i didn't get.

i don't get the poster?

It was just a funny intro. The woman probably had a grudge against some guy who got turned into a donkey.

It looked like she was wearing a hotel dress too.

What's not to get dude. It was good. If you've ever felt any of those feels then that's good enough to get it laddio. I felt pretty much all of em.

Watch Attenberg

I really enjoyed this movie. Why love has to be so complicated. Why do we force ourselves in relationships?

Good points in these posts.
Pleb and retarded.

First half: Relationships suck.
Second half: Single people suck.

Oh lawd.

What it sucks are the radical extremes. Needing a partner and forcing yourself in a relationship is gonna be a failure. Closing yourself and try to be alone so you dont get hurt is a stupid thing too.

When i think about relationships inalways try to think in the ones i know who are still running. And those are not real good relationships so i wonder... Is it actually possible? To have a lifelong relationship with someone? Is love enough to hold you together?

Still waiting for a torrent of The Capsule

Moral of the story is that you should kick silly girls who want to kiss you so that they can be like their dad

>Is it actually possible? To have a lifelong relationship with someone?
My grandparents were married almost 75 years so i'd like to think so.
>Moral of the story is that you should kick silly girls who want to kiss you so that they can be like their dad
2nd best part ofthe film.

My grandparents have been married for over 60yrs and it was an arranged marriage. Arranged marriages have very high rates of success in general. Love is a terrible thing to base a lifelong relationship upon. If you are with someone for the rest of your life you will fall in and out of love with them a dozen times over so if love is your foundation the first time you fall out of it, probably after a couple years, the relationship will break down. This is why divorce is so common.

The movie doesn't seem to imply there is a moderate way, it only shows the extremes.

I don't think this movie accepts that there is a moderate, sane middle ground.

But maybe it's just doing so to focus on the negatives, while in reality the director knows there is a sane moderate way, he just didn't explore it at all in this movie.
I think though, that the whole view that comes out of it DOES have a pessimistic angle, and does imply that there really is no way to avoid self-inflicted pain.

>Arranged marriages have very high rates of success in general.
That's because they come from a culture where divorce is more or less taboo
Source: my parents

Yes, that's the point I was making. Culture/societal/family pressure to stay together is a much stronger foundation for a lasting relationship than a volatile emotion like love.

I am happy being alone with no relationships or sex. It is possible

And the next question would be... Are they happy togethee? Do they regret not getting divorced? Did they kept it up just for external reasons oppossed to what they wanted? Whats the point of being in a relationship when youre going to cheat and do that kind of things.

As far as I know the only time that one of the cheated was when my grandfather was in Europe during the war. Again I'd like to think that they were happy and stayed together out of love but I'll never know.

The formula for the movie is laid out plainly for the audience in the early 'check in' scenes.

>You can only be heterosexual or homosexual
>You can only be a 44 or 45

The second massive queue to the audience is the demonstration of why it's important to have a partner. This is later replicated when the loner leader gives the unloaded gun to the husband to demonstrate our true individualist nature.

This film is about the binary of human nature as single units, or coupled units, with the obvious moral (Colin Ferrell wears 44.5, he's bisexual) that we are a mix of both, or a sort of a spectrum at least, existing in between.

Obviously the ending remains in the binary sphere, leaving possibly him, but more importantly us, wondering why he has to choose between two ridiculous options.

Given all the 'non-binary' movements in our culture today with transsexuals etc. I don't think it's difficult to see why this film was made. Although I can see from the posts in this thread a lot of people are mistaking it for a simple poke at love.

You should try volunteering at an old folk's home and talk to the residents about their relationships. You'll learn a lot about the good and bad and the overall value of having been with someone for most of your life. More than we can tell you anyway.

Divorces may seem to occur often, but one can be misled in looking at marriages and coupling them with the same year the divorces occur.

Maybe I am crazy but if I were blind I rather have my partner keep his eyes.

I wonder if this isnt about the dating aspect of love, the characters seem so childlish, marrying someone because his nose loses blood too, come on now.

>Obviously the ending remains in the binary sphere,
Is it really? I mean there is nothing precluding him from going back to her if he doesn't blind himself.

>rather have my partner... etc.

You're not understanding the movie. Did you notice how the people talked like robots? Did you notice they literally turn people into animals? Obviously it's not set in reality, and equally clear is the fact that 'having something in common' is a Necessary (capital n) CONDITION of love in that world. Being a match is one aspect of the binary, it's what determines you as a coupled unit. It's a (plot) device.

Why is the creator making things obviously unreal and ridiculous? Because he wants us to see them that way to extract a point. He wants Colin Ferrel to, in his universe, HAVE to stab out his eyes to be a coupled unit and for it not to be a question or possibility that it could be any other way.

Maybe think of the 'matched' attributes as a symbol for attraction or whatever if it helps you.

...

Yes it is still in the binary sphere, but that question that you just raised is exactly what it's supposed to elicit in you. See my post , but to sum up, time and time again it's shown as being necessary, and unquestionably so. Technically he could be on the verge of Gnosis-esque discovery (like Ricky Gervais in the invention of lying), but it doesn't fit with the world the film exists in at all.

I also want to stress that the film really doesn't give any indication that he has a realization, only that he is hesitant to stab his eyes with a steak knife (who the fuck wouldn't?). There are zero clues that he would have had some kind of transcendence.

David wearing a 44.5 isn't indicative of him being bisexual but of him actually existing in that transcendental middle ground. This is why his marriage failed, why he fails at the Hotel, why he fails as a loner; he is not one or the other, but he actually exists in that middle-ground you think isn't supposed to exist in this universe; this is why he's the main character, the one the audience is meant to relate to.

>There are zero clues that he would have had some kind of transcendence.
Aside from him already having attempted exactly that earlier in the film.

>he is the transcendental middle-ground

That's not the same transcendental middle-ground I'm talking about. It's not just him that exists in what you're talking about, every single character does (which is the point, as I stated in my post, I don't understand why you're reiterating it). I'm talking about one of the 'rules' of the film, which is that you have to have something in common to be matched. It stays a rule consistently and never falters throughout.

The film isn't about Colin Ferrel succeeding in overcoming, it's about delivering a message to the audience. That's how dystopians work, they blow up issues to ridiculous (and obvious) proportions so that we can draw parallels to more nuanced aspects of our lives. The ambiguity of the ending is "does he sacrifice for a match/love, or does he chose solitary"; again there is no clue that he is going to break a rule of the film (which is what I should have probably called it in my original post) to make a point, primarily because HE DOESN'T HAVE TO for the message to be delivered.

Saying "why doesn't he just go out there and match without being blind?" is like saying "why don't they just stop talking like robots?".

Or he did one eye and told her it hurt and he had to go to the hospital right away