The Lobster - the artsiest art film you will see this year

I do enjoy seeing a Holywood A-lister take on a slightly left-field project, and that is exactly what Colin Farrell took on when he accepted the role of David in this utterly bizarre dark drama / dark comedy / dystopian science fiction film.  It's a film that pretty much defies attempts to easily categorise it.  In fact it pretty much derails any attempt to actually enjoy it too, such is it's insistence on adhering to a flat tone that's initially intriguing but ultimately distancing to anyone but the most patient of audiences.

The premise is simple but utterly weird.  In some sort of dystopian near future, everyone in 'the city' has to find a partner.  That partner has to be 'compatible'.  If they cannot find a partner then they must go to a hotel where the other singles all gather.  If they still cannot find a partner within 40 days at the hotel, then they are turned into the animal of their choice.  Colin Farrell is one such singleton - having seen his wife die recently.  The animal he wishes to be if he dies - a lobster.

As if this wasn't weird enough, the world of the near future is populated with people who speak without inflexion, in a monotone and with an autistic appreciation of how their words will be heard by others.  Because of this The Lobster is a very hard film to watch, with any charisma or verve that the actors might bring to their roles hidden behind the insistence that everyone is monotone and - well - just plain dull.  Colin Farrell has the lead role, but the film also stars Rachel Weisz, Olivia Coleman, John C Reilly, Leia Seydoux, Ben Wishaw - all fine A-list actors who seem stunted by the film's tone.  Not to say that this doesn't mean there's no good acting or that the cast don't have to work their craft, just that it's extremely taxing to watch them do it.

It isn't hard to argue that The Lobster is a criticism of modern dating, the insistence on finding the 'perfect' match by ticking off a list of attributes you want your chosen partner to have.  David is allowed to be with one woman because the owners of the hotel perceive them to both be rather heartless.  David's friend is allowed to be with a woman because they are both short-sighted, though David insists this shouldn't be allowed as he thinks his friend is lying about needing glasses.  We then contrast the people in 'the city' and hotel against the rebels who live in the woods.  The second half of the film sees the action shift towards this hermit-like band, their rejection of the norms of coupling up has gone to such an extreme that they permit almost no friendliness at all lest it be perceived as flirting that might lead to a relationship.  Society has been distilled into two binary camps that have moved to such extreme positions that they cannot see the other side's point of view.  Just like much of the politics of our world today.

The film ends on a scene that is almost unwatchable (because it has the potential to be so nasty) and then we are left to make up our own minds about what might happen next.  I was left feeling that this is a film I am happy to have seen, as I know I will be able to bring it up in conversation some day and sound really clever about films.  But I would be lying if I said I enjoyed the experience.  Overall it is just making a series of fairly simple points about the disconnection that modern society is creating for itself from what romance, love and relationships actually are.  Did it needs to be quite this impenetrable?  I don't think so.  But like I said, I'm always happy to see big famous stars making weird artsy films.

Only watch if you're feeling really artsy.

T2 - no not that "T2", Trainspotting 2

Is there nothing left that can't be set aside from a film studio's obsession with making money?  It seems not.  The latest (well - 2 months ago now nearly) classic cult film to get the remake / revision / re-imagining / sequel treatment is Trainspotting.  Sigh.  Anyway, the studio know people like me are going to go and see it, if only just to check if it's terrible.  That's why they make films like this.  One of these days I'll stop dancing to their tune.

The new Trainspotting - T2 - is set 20 years after the original.  Mark Renton (Ewan McGregor) has been living in Amsterdam since the events of the original and for reasons has to return to Edinburgh.  Cue a story about getting old, being old, and trying to work out what it is that went wrong.

The thing to remember about Trainspotting is that its place in the annals of British film came from two different angles.  Firstly, it documented a time and a place in British culture.  If you were in your late teens / early 20s in the mid 1990s and you wanted nothing to do with 'Cool Britania' and 'Blair's Babes', then you existed on the fringes of popular culture.  These were the fringes that Trainspotting did so well to record for posterity.  Secondly it brought Danny Boyle into the mainstream.  His eclectic and energetic style of direction is still copied by film-makers to this day.

I am not interested in nostalgiac wanders down memory lane.  I do not want to see parodies of scenes from an original film.  I don't want to watch Frances Begbie (Robert Carlyle) reprise his famous taunting of a crowded bar.  I don't want to hear Mark Renton update his "Choose life..." monologue for the 21st century.  I don't want to see callbacks to scenes that tick fanboy-boxes.  Enough of that goes on in the endless remakes and soft reboots spewing out of Holywood (Star Wars, Star Trek, Superman, Ghostbusters, Spiderman - they're all at it).  The only reason to make another Trainspotting film is if there is a story worth telling.

Thankfully - and you will understand that this was a very big sigh of relief for me - Trainspotting 2 does have a story to tell.  Rather than offer just a montage of throwbacks to the original, or crave for the nostalgia of the mid-1990s, T2 is about ageing and choices - you know, those things we do every day of our lives.  It's about waking up and discovering that you're suddenly 40 years old when your mind still thinks it's 18.  It's about wondering where time and opportunities have gone.

The film doesn't completely eschew the desire to provide fanservice and nob vigorously towards the classic scenes of yesteryear.  Am updated "Choose Life..." monologue is a particular low-point.  As is Robert Carlisle delivering a reprise of Begbie's most famous of lines.  In Trainspotting Renton's monologue broke the 4th wall - he was talking to us.  It shouldn't exist in the universe of the film.  Begbie's blood-soaked fight in the bar was portrayed as par-for-the-course event back in the day.  Why would this particular fight be memorable enough for him to remember it 20 years later?  We remember it because we watched Trainspotting.  There is no reason Begbie would attach any specific significance to that particular time he started one of many brawls.  These scenes shouldn't be in there, however they fact that they are short and noticeable by their contrast to the rest of the film is a positive.  These minor moments of fan-services I can abide - but I still cringed a little inside.

Given that they decided to make this film, I will admit that it was much better than I could have hoped or expected.  Minor criticisms aside, it tells a new story, largely avoids fan service and is rather touching.  British film fans of the 1990s can rest easy, and with luck Danny Boyle can now go off and create something new.