The Lobster

Are you better off as a lobster or dancing alone to techno? Those are, in director Yorgos Lanthimos' satirical take on relationships, your choices. In the film, lonely people are sent to a hotel where they have 45 days to fall in love or else be turned into an animal. It is a marvellously wacky premise and one that few filmmakers would even conceive of. Lanthimos is bright and ambitious and perhaps a bit twisted, but it's all to our benefit.

Lanthimos clearly thinks that societal pressure to be in a relationship is to be ignored. He also thinks, (although it seems like a bit of a straw man, to be fair) that those pushing too strongly for celibacy are misguided.

For Lanthimos, excessive pressure to be in relationships puts one under pressure, in which situation you will probably make a mistake or change yourself for someone else.

The scenes in the hotel, in which the absurdity of the premise is most evident, are the funniest. Hotel residents must attend dances where muzak versions of '80s standards rule the day. Residents listen to motivational segments about the difference sex can make in a relationship. These are the lightest funny parts of the film. There are other darkly funny parts of the movie and they occur later when some of the residents break out and try to establish relationships in a very individualistic environment in which the leader makes blind one member who tries to embark on a relationship with another. Given the cynicism of the movie, it actually ends on a more hopeful note, leaving open the possibility of happiness for two escaped residents of the hotel.

The movie is well-acted and directed. Colin Farrell is fantastic playing a schlumpy, depressed nobody. Lea Seydoux is fantastic as an individualist who takes it upon herself to lead other escapees of the hotel, perhaps taking the individualism a little too far. Rachel Weisz is good as another escapee from the hotel who falls in love. Across the board there are great performances and I have to believe that this film brings to life Lanthimos' vision. It is such a unique film it's hard to see how different choices might have improved it. It isn't a film that exists on the spectrum of "good/bad". It's more a film that you either like or don't like. It's a unique, and for me, very enjoyable film.

Movie review: "Her"

"Her" deals with possible future situations in which computers are so developed that people have satisfying, fully-committed relationships with them. I think that the premise of the film is intriguing, and I found that the first half of the movie, in which the relationship is less serious, was believable. I had a hard time believing in the depth of the relationship as it developed over the second half. The world as depicted in the movie seems almost current and I didn't believe that such a complex relationship with a computer was possible right now or in the next 25 years. Yes, the computer (Scarlett Johansson) is very smart and obviously scientists in the future, according to this movie, are able to program computers so well, that people engage in relationships with computers. I just found the depiction of this relationship to be implausible and I couldn't believe in the realization of such a film, at least not at this time. Perhaps I don't want to imagine the sort of loneliness that could propel Theodore (Joaquin Phoenix) into a relationship with his computer. I suppose these sorts of relationships will be plausible, perhaps within 50 years. Obviously people have Siri on their iPhones and some robots are able to fulfill specific needs in peoples' lives. People value their electronic devices and I don't exclude myself from that group. I just don't like the idea of them as intimate partners. It's a development that doesn't sit well with me. The notion of the autonomy of a computer which understands you enough to submit your writing as a book proposal is disturbing to me. I found the idea of not having any sort of image of the partner disturbing also. The idea of going on picnics with another couple and having your computer girlfriend's voice piped in via the ear feed which practically implants her in your head, is also disturbing to me. Fortunately, I think we're quite a way from this occurring. I think that we will continue to allow computers into our lives more, but giving computers a lot of emotional depth to connect to the arbitrariness and complexities of humans seems a long way away. The premise is fascinating and the idea is intriguing. However, as someone who thinks that in spite of the promise and capacities of computers, there is no replacement for relationship with another human, I am profoundly depressed by this film. I never see the genie being put back in the bottle. Our electronic devices are more intrusive and more indistinguishable from the people who have the technology. The immersion continues apace with this film and it's certainly not a trend I like. Perhaps this movie is prescient, but I hope not.

Movie Review: The Act of Killing

A truly amazing movie. In this film, director Joshua Oppenheimer goes to Indonesia and interviews some of the hatchet men during the 1965 slaughter of opponents of General Suharto. The hitmen are not hiding and are not embarrassed. Indeed, they are important and powerful elders, people who one does not cross. They associate among the elite of society and they are well-respected. Oppenheimer invites them to recreate their slaughter, however they see fit. This they do, to uncomfortable effect.

They try to re-create their killings in a manner in which they are the heroes, treating criminals with the cool dispatch of a Robert Mitchum or a Humphrey Bogart in a film noir. They create dark, smoky interrogation rooms in which they are the reluctant but willing authorities. They have so distanced themselves from their acts that one wonders at their mental acuity. The most prominent example of this is Adi Zukary. He is perhaps the most disturbing character in that his life seems utterly normal now. He has a wife and a kid and we see them living a most dull suburban life. They go to the mall, his wife does some shopping. He drives a car and they are concerned about which cell phone to get. He is brutally honest about what he did, but he still cannot face the fact that the victims did not deserve their fate. He rationalizes their evil and fails to see the cynicism and lawlessness of which he was a crucial part. That he was and is able to live a somewhat normal life makes him a truly upsetting psychopath.

The other killer most prominently featured is Anwar Congo. He seems to have been tortured by the memories of his actions more than Zukary. Whatever steel trap of a mind Zukary has that allows him to detach from what he has done, Congo does not have. Congo has tried everything to stop the memories of the killings. Drugs, partying, and living the high-life give him temporary relief but not surprisingly do not pardon him. He is haunted by dreams and yet at the same time, like Zukary, cannot accept that what he did was unwarranted. Rationalization allows him to imagine that his victims were deserving of their fate. He doesn't recognize them as humans or people with families and that allows him to get up each day believing himself a decent person.

The fact that the US was so integral to Suharto's rebellion and the slaughter of a million people over that year should give people pause before they imagine their society morally superior. Not a word was said by numerous US administrations throughout Suharto's tenure as President. He resigned in 1998, passed away in 2008, and it was only earlier this year that his estate was ordered to repay $315 million, a pitiful fraction of the $15-35 billion that he is believed to have embezzled during his rule. The fact that he was able to rule for 30 years and retire in peace is a travesty, but it meshes with the fates of Zukary and Congo. The fact that they lived and continue to freely speaks to the failure of Western countries to promote human rights or the rule of law for governments which they find politically expedient. It also provides context for Zukary and Congo. They are evil, certainly, but what sort of evil tolerates governments where Zukary and Congo are important figures?