The Lobster

"It’s no coincidence that the targets are always shaped like a single person and not a couple.
  Kill the loner. Shoot him through the heart."

Yorgos Lanthimos' film, "The Lobster" artistically grapples with our current dating environment, one that is largely dependent on internet sites and phone applications like match.com, Tinder, Bumble, eHarmony, and OkCupid. Armed with technology, single people have infinite choices and possibilities. "The Lobster" presents an allegory to explore the consequences and realities created by our new tools of romance. Singles are sent to a hotel in which they must find a mate within 45 days or they are turned into an animal of their choosing. This setting provides a springboard for several key questions:  How do people initially meet? How do they get to know each other? What attributes do they seek? What constitutes a good match? Why do they stay together? How does society place pressure on companionship? The film sets up a stark dichotomy between relationships and being single and how each group creates a system of rules to propagate itself against the other. Those in relationships and those who remain single look at each other with both envy and disdain. Set in the near future and vaguely reminiscent of our times, "The Lobster" not only makes audiences ponder the whole purpose and artificial construct of relationships, but it also warns how efficient matchmaking algorithms can obsess over the practicality and desperation of companionship rather than the unique and random circumstances that create true love between two distinct people. 

The society created by the film is one in which relationships are not only encouraged, but mandated. To enforce this edict, newly single people are sent to a hotel that operates under a very strict set of draconian rules that govern and encourage courtship while punishing single life. Single people cannot play team sports like basketball, for example, but are allowed to play solitary ones like racquetball and golf. Guests are not allowed to masturbate, a rule enforced by tying one of the guest's hands behind their back and having their belt locked. Having only one free hand also makes for a good metaphor concerning the difficulties of being alone. When discovered, masturbation is punished with physical pain---in one scene, a man was punished by having his hand forced inside a hot toaster. The sexual frustration of male guests are compounded by hotel maids who give lap dances to them without allowing climax, again demonstrating the necessity of having a sexual partner. Weirdly, the hotel staff performs parable skits in which relationships are glorified by showing how companionship can prevent a man from choking and a woman from being raped. When people do pair together, they are given special privileges at the resort such as living on a yacht for a time before returning to society.

The most noticeable attributes of the world created by the film is its absolute practicality, directness, superficiality, and total lack of nuance. This is a social world painted in black and white with no toleration of gray areas. A great example is one of the first exchanges that the main character, David, has with the hotel. In his introductory meeting, the interviewer asks him whether he wants to be considered homosexual or heterosexual. Recalling a brief homosexual event in his past, David asks if he can register as bisexual. The staffer answers, "No sir, this option is no longer available since last summer due to several operational problems. I'm afraid you have yo decide right now if you want to be registered as homosexual or heterosexual." Bisexuality opens the floodgates of relationship possibilities and temptations, things that this society seeks to control. In another example, the hotel provides clothes for the guests but regretfully explains that they don't allow half sizes for shoes; only full sizes. The cadence and content of verbal interaction is also very direct. Although the guests can manipulate others when necessary through deception, their interactions lack social grace and even empathy. Hurt feelings are not a priority.

To make new matches, the hotel encourages people to identify one defining characteristic of themselves and then to find that same trait in another person. Consequently, besides David, all of the other characters in the film are named by their defining characteristic: limping man, shortsighted girl, biscuit girl, coldhearted woman, lisping man, nosebleed woman, and woman with a nice smile. Each person has only one defining trait for which they can be matched. Attraction and pairing based on a single trait brings to mind our current world of dating, particularly internet dating. On dating sites, users are paired according to preformed lists of preferences. They are deemed to be compatible based on their shared affinity for general interests in books, films, exercising, sports, coffee, traveling, pets, etc. For Tinder, the attributes are even simpler: do you find each other physically attractive? There are even dating sites based on even narrower attributes: income level, religious beliefs, and whether or not you are a farmer. Sites like eHarmony claim to find deeper connections by asking questions about values and habits, but it still uses an algorithm to sort matches. Additionally, again emphasizing the cookie cutter method of matching, the guests at the hotel in the film attend a dance in which the males and females all dress the same according to their gender, feeding the illusion that people are distinct despite the fact that they are presented in the exact same way. Likewise, internet dating provides users with independent and creative people presented in the same format: picture, profile, list of preferences, interests, and spirituality. Admittedly, superficiality may be necessary in the beginning to spark interest, but multiple dates and time spent together are crucial to assess long term compatibility. The difference in the film is that people pair for life (or as long as possible) based on an initial commonality. The world in "The Lobster" forces audiences to ponder the seduction and easy nature of internet dating. Users have an almost infinite stream of matches based on superficial traits, a fact that makes commitment less appealing. The film presents a hyper reality in which all relationships, even long term ones, are formed by the frivolous commonalities used by internet dating sites. Could we be heading toward a world in which a swipe right is a binding marriage proposal?

Tellingly, some of the defining qualities actually have deeper meanings, which unfortunately still take a back seat to the superficial quality itself. At one of the hotel events, limping man tells a story of his defining characteristic:

"Hello everyone. My mother was left on her own when my father fell in love with a woman who was better at math than she was. She had a post graduate degree I think, where as my mother was only a graduate. I was nineteen at the time. My mother entered the hotel, but didn't make it and was turned into a wolf. I really missed her. I found out she had been moved to a zoo. I often went there to see her. I'd give her raw meat. I knew that wolves liked raw meat, but I couldn't figure out which of the wolves was my mother so I used to give a little bit to each of them. One day I decided to enter the enclosure. I really missed her and I wanted a hug. I climbed the fence and jumped in. All the wolves charged at once and attacked me; all but two who stood motionless. My guess is that one of those two must have been my mother. The zoo guards got to me quite quickly and took me to the hospital. Thankfully I didn't lose my leg. I just have this limp, which is also my defining characteristic. My wife died six days ago. She was very beautiful and I loved her very much. She had a limp too."

   

For those in the hotel, this harrowing story behind the limp is not nearly as important as the limp itself. In reality, limping man has depth that is totally overlooked by others and even himself. Why isn't his defining characteristic the loss of his mother or wife, or his great love for both of them? Also, it's worth noting that limping man still loves his mother despite the fact that she became a wolf, a fact that demonstrates the important relationship characteristic of loyalty. In this world, familial relationships are based on loyalty and deeper love while romantic ones remain on the surface. Likewise, David's attachment to his brother, who is now a dog, is very close, even though they are different species. Finally, near the end of the film, when shortsighted woman is blinded to end her connection with David, that trait alone is enough for him to question his love for her. Despite the fact that they fell in love outside the typical framework of the hotel and have many personal connections, her blindness is practically a deal breaker. David desperately tries to find another overt trait or interest to bind them but to no avail. Despite his love, David is still influenced by social norms to seek one trait, so much so, that he considers blinding himself at the end of the film to create a new common trait. It seems that love can only be real if the couple can point to something socially obvious that binds them. 

One of the issues with matching people based on superficial traits is that they can easily fake common traits to get into a relationship. Limping man desires to pair with nosebleed woman and, thus, fakes nosebleeds by hitting his head on a table and even cutting the inside of his nose. He is successful and forms a relationship based on a lie. When David discovers limping man's ruse, the latter asks, "What’s worse, to die of cold and hunger in the woods, to become an animal that will be killed and eaten by some bigger animal, or to have a nosebleed from time to time?" Even further, the biscuit woman desperately offers men physical gratification. She asks David at one point, "Can I come to your room sometime for a chat? I could give you a blowjob. Or you could just fuck me. I always swallow after fellatio and I've got absolutely no problem with anal sex if that's your thing. My ex-husband always used to say I had the most beautiful thighs he'd ever seen, but let's not talk about him." In a way, her direct offer is also a way of finding out if they have something in common. Do they both share an affinity for certain sexual acts? Still, it seems that biscuit woman, who ends up killing herself later, is desperately trying to ensnare a man with anything she can offer. Essentially, this tactic is a form of desperate lying---she'll pretend to like anal sex as long as it gets her a man. Finally, David decides that he is going to pursue coldhearted woman because he likes her short hair and believes he can easily manipulate her by acting coldly. In a series of darkly humorous events, David feigns sociopathic behavior to impress her. When biscuit woman jumps from a window and slowly dies, David disingenuously says to the coldhearted woman: "I hope she dies right away. On second thought, I hope she suffers quite a bit before she dies. I just hope her pathetic screams can’t be heard from my room because I’m thinking about having a lie down and I need peace and quiet. I was playing golf and I’m quite tired and the last thing I need is a women dying slowly and loudly." The woman then tests David's alleged heartlessness by pretending to choke on an olive. David watches her choke and does nothing, prompting the woman to say "I think we are a match." Finally, when David and his evil mate meet limping man, his wife, and their new daughter, he refuses a kiss from the child saying, "The last thing I want right now is a kiss from a silly little girl." He then knees the girl in the stomach and says, "Don’t cry, Elizabeth. You should thank me, now you’ll have a limp and be more like your father." Eventually, David's lie is unmasked when coldhearted woman kills David's brother in the form of a dog, prompting David to show emotion. As the narrator reflects, "One day, as he was playing golf, David thought that it is more difficult to pretend that you do have feelings when you don't than to pretend you don't have feelings when you do."

The hotel seems to know that lying about traits is a problem and, thus, creates punishments to regulate couples. If a person lies about their trait, they are reprimanded and turned into an animal that "no one wants to be," the details of which are left to one's imagination. After limping man and nosebleed woman match, the manager explains another method by which teetering relationships can be helped: "Congratulations! If you encounter any problems, any tensions, any arguing, that you cannot resolve yourselves, you will be assigned children. That usually helps, a lot." Thus, there is recognition that the hotel's mechanism of matching people has flaws that are both human and intrinsic to the system. People can lie when first meeting. Even more devastating, couples will eventually face deep differences, perhaps irreconcilable, once the superficial connections wear off. 

When guests arrive at the hotel, they are told that they must find a mate in 45 days or they will be turned into an animal of their choosing. The mechanism by which this happens is unclear and is only subject to rumor in the film. While the initial thought is that this transition is a punishment or a downgrade of existence, it is more complicated. Near the beginning of the film, the hotel manger explains to David:

"Now the fact that you will turn into an animal if you fail to fall in love with someone during your stay here is not something that should upset you or get you down. Just think, as an animal you'll have a second chance to find a companion. But, even then, you must be careful; you need to choose a companion that is a similar type of animal to you. A wolf and a penguin could never live together, nor could a camel and a hippopotamus. That would be absurd."

Does that not sound like better philosophy for matching people than what is propagated by the  hotel? It seems better to match as an animal than as a desperate human being. A wolf and penguin cannot live together because they are fundamentally different at their core despite any small common traits they share like eating fish or living in groups. This advice would have been useful for David who tried to pair himself with coldhearted woman, a sociopath with a different nature. In a way, turning into an animal may help singles realize their true nature so they can mate accordingly. To illustrate: the website for the film featured some of the animals one could choose to become. David chooses a lobster citing that,"lobsters live for over one hundred years, are blue-blooded like aristocrats, and stay fertile all their lives. I also like the sea very much." To that, the manager replies, "I must congratulate you. Usually the first thing people think of is a dog and that’s why the world is full of dogs. Very few choose to become unusual animals, which is why they are endangered. A lobster is an excellent choice." That short explanation says infinitely more about David than his nearsightedness, which paired him with his ex-wife. Is becoming an animal then a journey of positive self-discovery? How much will we change or hide our nature just to match with someone? Perhaps becoming an "animal" is growing past the idea that true love is based on the superficialities coveted by much of the dating world. For internet dating, perhaps this means reading a person's profile or talking on the phone as opposed to staring at pictures or interests. Still, it's worth noting that the punishment for lying about a match is being transformed into "the animal no one wants to be," a vague statement that allows the beholder to ponder over the worst existence. Like David, our choice of animal, whether it be the best or worst, can reveal much about our personality. 

One aspect of the film that is left largely unexplained is the relationship between those who have been turned into animals and those who remain human. We know that David's brother was turned into a dog, an animal who is described as "loyal and codependent," which would explain why both travel together. In another scene, the hotel maid lies to a colleague about hunting truffles so she can enter the woods and give supplies to the loners. While she is waiting, she seems to have a connection to a nearby peacock. Is this a lost love? There are many other questions surrounding the maid including why she helped David hide the body of coldhearted woman after he shot her with a tranquilizer dart and why she helps the loners obtain supplies. She alludes to the fact that she is married to a dentist and is tremendously unhappy, a possible reason that she has empathy for the loners. Finally, in the first scene of the film, a woman drives her car into a field with two donkeys and shoots one of them dead. The donkeys were a couple, as evidenced by the other running with concern over to the victim. What can we assume about the relationship between this woman and the donkey? Are one of the donkeys an old love that found a new partner and the woman became jealous? Was the donkey coldhearted woman who killed David's brother? We don't know, which may be the point. Unlike the obvious superficial traits that bind many others, we are not able to see the deeper connections between people and animals. 

The single woman who killed the donkey with a mate speaks to the other main theme of the film, which is the underlying mixture of envy and hatred between the loner community and those who desire relationships. After David escapes from the hotel, he comes upon a community of loners in the forest who do not wish to live in a relationship-obsessed society. Not only does normal society police those who are not paired (as seen when David is questioned while waiting alone at a mall), the hotel, itself, increases the desire for relationships by forcing guests to hunt and kill loners found in the woods. Just as the governing social structure has a set of rules governing relationships, the loners do as well. The lead loner explains to David: "By the way, any romantic or sexual relations between loners are not permitted and any such acts are punished. Is that clear?" The loners are to avoid romance and lust and are prohibited from engaging in activities that would create such feelings. In a humorous example, the loners can only dance alone to electronic music, which encourages enjoyable movements without emotions. Breaking these rules is punished by a list of brutal measures. As a loner explains: "Some punishments are worse than other punishments. Having your thumb cut is worse than having your head shaved. And having a hot boiled egg under your armpit is worse than having your leg kicked. The punishment I am afraid of isn't the Red Kiss but another one, that is called the Red Intercourse." There are benefits and pitfalls to the systems encouraging relationship and single life, but both are maintained by rules and held together by animosity toward the other. 

Although the loner world still has rules, the overall individualism allows for more nuance and subtlety, a stark difference to the directness and unequivocal world of typical society. For one, rules cannot be enforced as efficiently when less people are around. David and shortsighted woman gradually become friends and form a relationship without the mandate that they must pair up. Eventually, their connection grows past any superficial interests or traits and becomes true love. They create their own world outside any other. As shortsighted woman explains, she and David develop a language to secretly express themselves:    

"We developed a code so that we can communicate with each other even in front of the others without them knowing what we are saying. When we turn our heads to the left it means "I love you more than anything in the world" and when we turn our heads to the right it means "watch out, we're in danger". We had to be very careful in the beginning not to mix up "I love you more than anything in the world" with "watch out, we're in danger". When we raise our left arm it means "I want to dance in your arms", when we make a fist and put it behind our backs it means "let's fuck". The code grew and grew as time went by and within a few weeks we could talk about almost anything without even opening our mouths."

Their relationship goes beyond mere language and includes kind gestures. Two examples: shortsighted woman incapacitates the lisping man who discovered David in the forest which prevents him from getting shot and David hunting for rabbits (her favorite food) for shortsighted woman. They begin to imagine their lives together as evidenced by David's words: "Even if it was just the two of us, on our own, we’d go on trips, we’d go to Portofino in Italy or to a Greek island for the summer and so our relationship would be as intense as it was at the start. I love her so much I could die for her. That’s how much I love her," and also by shortsighted woman's words: "And we’ll do lots of different things together, serious things not silly ones, like go for walks in the park or play the guitar together.” In another context, like in the hotel, these words would mean nothing---just rhetoric supporting the superficial match. Because they found each other with no official mandate declaring that they must be together, those words take a true, heartfelt meaning. It is within the loner world and its freedom from expectation that two people truly fall in love. 

Why do the loners choose to be single in the forest? For David, his choice was contingent on his running away from the consequences of lying to the coldhearted woman and then changing her into an animal. For others, it seems like they either desire an independent life or were unable to find a mate before their 45 days were up and did not desire to become an animal. Given that rules are needed to prevent romantic entanglements, we can assume that only some, if any, desire to be completely alone. The intrigue surrounding the loner leader best exemplifies that the chronically single are envious and hateful of those who find relationships. The leader enforces the harsh rules against the group, has members dig graves for themselves as a reminder that they are going to their graves alone, provides paramilitary training to defend the group, obtains back-channel supplies from the hotel maid, and periodically sneaks into regular society to visit her parents and procure other supplies.

Not only does the leader hate relationships, she actively sabotages them. In fact, the loners even go on missions on the behest of the leader to expose the phony relationships encouraged by the hotel. David breaks onto a yacht and uncovers the fact that the limping man is faking his nosebleeds to the horror of his new wife and child. In a much more dramatic manner, the loner leader questions a couple if they really love each other and lets them choose who will use a gun to kill the other. When the husband says that he is stronger and could live more easily without a wife, he fires a gun only to find that it wasn't loaded. Relationship destroyed. In another example, on a trip to the city, David and shortsighted girl begin showing affection to each other when visiting the leader's parents. Take note that it is romantic, Spanish flamenco music played by actual people that stirs up the frenzy as opposed to electronic music. When it becomes clear that David and shortsighted woman are not simply acting, but genuinely in love, the leader gives a look of intense disdain and breaks up the affection. Later, the leader finds a notebook detailing their romance and ends their connection by blinding shortsighted woman at a doctor's office. It is crucial that the leader does not simply correct shortsighted woman's ocular irregularity through the proposed laser surgery, which would have ruined her common attribute with David; she instead totally blinds her, suggesting that the action was a cruel punishment rather than a practicality. But why was shortsighted woman the one who was punished and not David? The leader does not necessarily care about the independence of others as much as she does herself. She wants to maintain the loner world to help her cope with her own isolation. Of all the loners, she is the only one to visit her parents, as if she has something to prove. She presents herself as working for the "best company" and having a plethora of married friends. Ironically, like the people in the hotel, she desperately tries to prove that she lives a normal life outlined by society. While her reason for being single is not revealed, the trips to her parents' house are intended to demonstrate  that the leader is normal and successful.

The end of the film provides an uncomfortable choice for David and for the audience. Wanting to find a common trait with shortsighted girl again, David gets a steak knife and goes into a bathroom to blind himself. Although both are clearly in love, they are still confined by social norms demanding the presence of an overt common trait for them to be together. The film ends on shortsighted woman waiting uncomfortably for David to reemerge before ending abruptly. While there is no definite answer to what happened, we can deduce three possibilities. Ingeniously, each viewer can choose an ending based on their own personality and view of the world. For the romantic, David cuts out his eyes and blinds himself to be remain with his new love. For the coldly rational, David simply leaves the bathroom and runs away, leaving shortsighted girl in the dust. For the pragmatic, David comes back and lies about blinding himself so that his partner thinks they now have a common trait. He would still have the knowledge, however, that they do not actually have blindness in common. Could David cope with that? A possible clue could be the fact that the narrator is shortsighted woman. Why is she telling this story? And why did she stop at the most crucial and romantic part if this were a love story? Perhaps the title of the film, "The Lobster" can provide a clue. If David is. in fact, the lobster in the title, could it be that he runs away and is eventually turned into his animal? Again, the answer depends on the perspective and traits of the viewer.

"The Lobster" challenges us to see the artificial construction and social pressure inherent in relationships. It also shows us the ongoing battle between the single and dating world for converts. In a way, longing and compromise are the only absolutes. Single people enjoy their independence but ironically are pressured by society to be in relationships. Those in relationships have their companionship and social capital, but they secretly desire independence. The key lesson is that people need to grow beyond superficial attraction and artificial relationship expectations to find out who they are and what they want. By becoming "animals" cognizant of our fundamental nature, we can overcome the need for deception, see our own true selves, and search for the same in others. Those relationships will outlast the shallow ones propped up by social pressure, materialism, children, and unimportant hobbies. Internet sites and apps may tantalize us with the generalized superficial qualities of users, but it takes the longer courtship process to discover who people really are. In the end, we cannot make falling in love more efficient because that defeats the entire purpose.