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.