Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
While watching “Lobster”, I couldn't understand why all the characters were obsessed with the fact that to create a “couple” you must necessarily have the same “chips” as their partner: poor eyesight, nosebleeds, beautiful hair, etc. No one ever told them that! The fact is that in their narrow-minded understanding, only a certain kind of similarity with a partner could cause the creation of a family. These visible features were substituted for the concepts of “kinship of souls”and” spiritual closeness”. When the main character is just beginning to fall in love with the heroine Rachel Weisz, he tries to find this very point of contact. It turns out to be nearsightedness. This common feature gives the characters a sense of security, confidence that they are doing everything right and are made for each other. We, unlike the heroes of the film, understand that the real reason for this is not myopia, but love. When the heroine completely loses her sight, their point of contact with Farrell's character disappears. Here the main character is faced with a choice: to put out his eyes and regain his happiness, or to do nothing and lose the opportunity to be with his beloved.
And now, standing in front of the mirror with a knife, the hero of Colin Farrell, perhaps, begins to understand the absurdity of the situation. Really, why should we both be blind if we have the main thing – love?
I hope this is exactly what the main character was thinking at the end of the movie.
There would be no open ending – there would be no such deep reasons for reflection.�
Personally, I have only one feeling – that I've been made a hell of a lot of fun by letting myself speculate. And I liked it)�
And most importantly, it seemed to me, the question remained open – whether the hero could understand that in order to love someone, it is not necessary to have something unifying.�
So every viewer can come up with their own original “director's” version of the ending. For me, it's very pleasant.
And in general, I got an aesthetic pleasure from the film – the film was shot stunningly beautifully.
He didn't put out his eyes for “love,” even though I thought he would. The author (director), in my opinion, wanted to show that love passes or does not exist at all. But to answer your question, the ending is funny and ironic.
In fact, there is no ending, but here is what option �would be ideal for me.�
The main character for the sake of saving the pair still gouges out his eyes, returns, but we see through the eyes of the heroine that her blindness passes, and through the murky veil we see the bloody smiling face of Pharrell.