Category: Uncategorized

So I had been reflecting on the movie Lovelace, and I’ve lately found it helpful to contextualize films using the Buddhism I practice as a framework for thinking about them. In the Buddhism I practice, Nichiren Buddhism, everyone’s life is respect-worthy because everyone is a Buddha, or someone with innate courage, wisdom, compassion and life force. So when thinking about all the mass shootings these past few weeks in the U.S. (and in past years, particularly 2019) I reflected and talked with people in my sangha community of practitioners, and we agreed that at the root of violence is a lack of respect for the dignity of a person’s life. So when I remembered this, I realized that Chuck disrespected Linda because he didn’t respect the inherent value of her life and moreover didn’t respect the value of his own life. If he respected her life, he wouldn’t feel the need to force her or manipulate her into doing something for the sake of boosting his profits. Reflecting on my own struggles with low self-esteem, I realized that in order to understand the violence in society I had to understand the violence in my own life, and this violence occurred in the form of negative self-talk and not seeing my own potential. By not loving myself, I couldn’t truly love other people, so it took a lot of human revolution, or inner transformation, to finally get to the place where I can appreciate my life and subsequently appreciate the lives of those around me. While self love is a struggle I know that I’m going through it in order to encourage those around me struggling with loving themselves. I can’t of course assume anything about Chuck Traynor’s life, but judging from the way he mistreated Linda he must have not been able to see the inherent worth in his own life.

In Buddhism, we believe in the Ten Worlds, which are ten states of life that each person can experience at any moment. The six lower worlds are hell, hunger, animality, anger, humanity and heaven. I reflected on the film and it made me think about the life state of animality. If these life states do not serve as impetus for improving our lives, they can be destructive, and in particular while watching Chuck abuse Linda in the film I thought about the life state of animality because when a person is in the life state of animality, they, as Nichiren Daishonin says “threaten the weak and fear the strong” (“Letter from Sado”, WND-1, 302). When people are in the world of animality, they see life as a struggle to survive and are willing to hurt other people in order to protect themselves. In reality, non human animals an exhibit qualities such as loyalty and selflessness, and play a key role in supporting human life, but human beings can exhibit baseness and cruelty that surpasses even that of animals. In the interview with Howard Dando, Linda says at the beginning that Chuck first came off as this charming man, the kind you’d want to bring to your parents, and at first they had a platonic relationship but then in retrospect Linda realized that he only came off that way because in order to experience arousal, pleasure, or fulfillment of some kind, he felt he needed to devalue other people, and Linda was one of the people he felt would give him this kind of fulfillment (as I write this, I’m not sure if it’s my period or the thoughts of a human being hurting another human being that’s making me queasy. Pretty sure it’s the latter).

There is also the world of Hell, where one feels like there’s no way out of suffering, that even life itself is a torment, and when we’re in the life state of Hell we believe that everything we encounter causes us to suffer. Whenever I have manifested the life state of Hell I rely on destructive impulses, and this has not just hurt others but hurt myself because I felt there was no way out of my despair. In Lovelace Chuck manifested the life states of hell and animality when he hurt Linda; he felt that if she left the pornography industry he would have nothing, and that he wouldn’t have anyone to control or make powerless. He wanted money and power, and believed Linda was going to make him rich and famous. He relied on abusing and coercing Linda into doing things for him to bolster his sense of self-worth, but in the long run it actually didn’t do anything to boost his self-esteem. So when she finally left the industry, and he can’t trace her or track her down, the film shows him crying and getting upset, and this shows him in the life state of Hell. He feels hopeless about life now that he is no longer in a position to take advantage of Linda. In Buddhism we also talk about fundamental darkness, which happens when we can’t see the inherent Buddha nature, or value, in our lives. Chuck felt that he had to hurt Linda because he could not see his own Buddha nature, and because he couldn’t see his own Buddha nature he couldn’t see hers.

At the beginning of the interview, Linda says that Linda Lovelace is actually not her real name, it’s a fictitious character that Chuck invented for her. This reminded me of I, Tina, Tina Turner’s autobiography, because she talks about the abuse she suffered at the hands of her manager and husband Ike, and he came up with the name Tina Turner for her even though her real name is Anna Mae Bullock. He trademarked it with his last name so that if she left him like his previous singers had, he could replace her with another “Tina Turner” (“Tina Turner, Ike and Tina Turner: Origins, 1957-1960, Wikipedia.org. ) In I, Tina, Tina describes in vivid detail the violence Ike perpetuated towards her: physical violence, psychological violence, emotional violence. When she tried many times to get her own music career going and divorce Ike, he threatened her repeatedly with violence and abusive language. Like me, Tina Turner is a Buddhist and she found that when she chanted nam-myoho-renge-kyo, even though she still got abused by Ike, she was able to tap into the innate courage and wisdom she already had within her life to address Ike’s abuse and not let it take away her sense of self. She also was able to see Ike for who he really was: someone who acted powerful and all-mighty, but really was just doing it to impress others. He didn’t value and respect Tina’s life and worth as a human being because he didn’t value and respect his own life and worth as a human being. He felt that he would lose his power and social standing if Tina asserted herself and left him, and so like Chuck Traynor in Lovelace, he was in the life states of hell and animality. Both the descriptions of Ike’s repeated abuse of Tina in I, Tina, and the depictions of Chuck’s repeated abuse of Linda in Lovelace, show how bad the life state of animality is when people let it control them. Like I said, in order to root out the destructiveness in my own life, I had to see the value of my life. I mainly accomplished it through my Buddhist practice, which helped me see my inherent worth and caused me to appreciate my life more over time. Similarly Linda found joy in her relationship to God, and He helped her heal from the trauma she experienced.

Of course, as I’m reading more and more I’m understanding that anti-pornography activism also can be dangerous, particularly to sex workers who work in porn and sex work industries that practice sexual consent. I wanted to know more about the violence done to women in the pornography industry, and I came across a report by Vice News about how some people who are anti-porn and anti-sex work espouse violent views against women and other minorities, and is trying to abolish Pornhub and the porn industry instead of addressing social justice and equal rights for sex workers. Sex workers deserve respect just like any other profession, and taking away their profession or criminalizing it would put their livelihoods in jeopardy. The problem isn’t sex, as Nicholas Kristof emphasized in his article “The Children of Pornhub”, it’s sexual abuse and a lack of respect and consent for people during sex that becomes an issue. Porn itself isn’t bad, it’s the sexual violence against people in pornography that is bad. Sex itself is not a bad thing, it’s a human function like eating, breathing and drinking water. However, when sex workers are not having their human needs for housing, fair wages, and other social goods met, that’s the issue that needs addressing. Anti-trafficking organizations in the U.S., as many human rights organizations have revealed, try to lump all porn industries and companies together and say that they’re all bad, that all they do is exploit and that these sex workers need to be rescued or saved, when in reality this anti-sex culture hurts people who make their living from sex work. As Vice points out, it’s a combination of antiquated legislation, politicians, businesses and a culture that treats all sex as if it’s a sin that hurts sex workers, not necessarily the industry as a whole. When sex workers have their humanity recognized then that would be a huge step towards a fairer society that respects each person’s inherent worth.

I had been wanting to see the film Lovelace for a rather long time, mainly because I love Amanda Seyfried. Also the trailer was really good, so I wanted to see it. The film was very deep and gave me a lot to think about, especially because I didn’t know who Linda Lovelace was until I saw the poster for Lovelace one time, and I had only heard of Inside Deep Throat, the documentary about the porn film Deep Throat, from looking the movies section of a newspaper. But the film is not so much about Deep Throat as it is about the trauma and sexual abuse she suffered at the hands of the man who coerced her into making the film. Chuck Traynor didn’t really love Linda; he just saw her as a way to get rich, a prop, so he sweet-talked her because he thought she was innocent and weak and couldn’t stand up for herself.

This film also taught me to be more empathetic when listening to women talk about abuse and domestic violence. When the allegations against Bill Cosby came out I asked, Wait why didn’t those women just leave him? And then my friend told me that Bill threatened to take their careers and livelihoods away from them if they said no (it wasn’t until I saw the movie Bombshell, a film based on the the sexual harassment allegations against Roger Ailes at Fox News, that I finally woke up). I then reflected when a friend raised a similar question (the “why don’t you just leave this extremely toxic abuse?” question) when the sexual assault allegations against Harvey Weinstein came out, and our other friend said it was because Weinstein, like Cosby, threatened these women that he would end their careers if they said no or even told others about the abuse he inflicted upon them. Same with the film Lovelace; at the beginning of the film it seems as if Linda and Chuck are having consensual sex, but later on in the film we see Chuck raping and beating Linda and then forcing her to marry him. After the film I wanted to learn more about this woman’s life so I watched some interviews she did, and in the interview Linda did with Howard Dando and she says that people asked her why she didn’t just leave Chuck when he kept abusing her, she said she tried at least three times, and each time she tried to escape him he beat her and manipulated her into staying with him. It reminds me of a song I listened to by Christina Aguilera called “Walk Away” where she talks about relationship abuse and how it is difficult to leave her abuser because the abuser makes her feel like she should be grateful to be with them, that they are the one. The abuser convinces her that it is love and not abuse, even with all the suffering the abused faces at the hands of the abuser. That’s why I need to keep educating myself by reading narratives of abuse victims, listening to their narratives, especially as someone who cannot personally relate to what Linda went through, I need to listen and be supportive.

Before her death in 2002, Linda became an anti-pornography activist later on in life, and published a memoir called Ordeal, where she discusses the abuse she suffered in the pornography industry. It reminded me a lot of this article by Nicholas Kristof I read in The New York Times back in December of 2020 called “The Children of Pornhub,” in which Kristof unveiled the issue of sexual assault in porn videos uploaded to Pornhub and other porn sites. 4/24/21 edit: even though I saw the film a month ago and started writing this review a month ago, and was going to go in depth about “The Children of Pornhub” article, I literally could not stop crying every time I thought about what those young women (and men) went through every time they had videos of them being raped uploaded to Pornhub and have everyone see it. It saddened me because many of these youth attempted suicide because of the shame and embarrassment they dealt with. Thankfully when I searched for the article, I came across a much more hopeful update that Kristof had written called “An Uplifting Update, on the Terrible World of Pornhub”, in which he talks about how governments and the Pornhub corporation itself are taking more actions towards addressing sexual assault of children in pornography videos, such as bipartisan legislation that allows for rape victims to sue porn companies profiting from videos of their assaults. Kristof also notes that Pornhub will now require people to verify their identities before they can upload videos and no longer will allow video downloads that would allow for the proliferation of illegal material. Of course, Kristof notes that it’s important to always keep questioning whether these companies will follow through, especially because people can probably use fake IDs to get around the rule on verifying one’s identity. But he says that there’s hope because young rape victims have spoken out on the companies’ exploitative practices. Kristof says, too, that we shouldn’t be just scrutinizing Pornhub’s practices but also less well-known porn sites for how they deal with matters of child exploitation.

As Kristof emphasizes, “the issue isn’t pornography but rape. It is not prudishness to feel revulsion at global companies that monetize sexual assaults on children; it’s compassion.” (Kristof) Indeed, while reading “The Children of Pornhub” article for the first time when it came out in The New York Times paper last year, I literally wanted to vomit because of the sheer amount of rape and violence done to children in these videos and the lack of strict measures on the part of porn companies to tackle the proliferation of this material. Sex done without consent isn’t truly sex anymore; it’s rape. As I’ve educated myself more on trauma and sexual abuse through reading and listening to rape victims’ experiences, I am more aware of how the issue of consent is a serious issue that always needs discussion, because if it’s not being discussed, then rape’s going to keep getting a pass in society.

On a more hopeful note, there was an update on one of the victims of this exploitation, and how, when before she wanted to end her life because of the humiliation that came with being exploited on Pornhub, she received so much love from people who wanted to help and was finally excited to go back to school and pursue her dream of being a veterinary technician. When I read the update I broke down in tears of relief and joy because I was just so happy for this young woman that she can now fully live her life instead of feeling like she had no reason to live anymore. I cried because before reading the update I had seen the interview with Linda and how she talks about how she was finally able to live her life with a caring husband and two beautiful kids after she got out of the pornography industry and Chuck’s abuse of her, and as someone who never dealt with what they went through but experienced serious depression where you feel that there’s no hope, I felt so hard for both Linda and the young lady in the article because they finally got to be human after living in a hellish world that didn’t recognize their humanity.

Honestly, I don’t know what else to say about this movie because I’m still emotionally processing it. But it’s a powerful film and it made me appreciate Amanda Seyfried’s incredible acting, as well as Linda Marciano because I didn’t know much about the issue of sexual abuse in pornography but I now know after seeing the film how serious a problem it is.

Lovelace. 2013. Rated R for strong sexual content, nudity, language, drug use and some domestic violence.

Written on March 4, 2019

Whew. It is late at night and the tears and snot are still dried on my face after watching A Ghost Story, a beautiful film written and directed by David Lowery. It stars Rooney Mara and Casey Affleck as a young couple, named C and M respectively, who experience a deep loss when C dies in a car accident. C comes back to life as a ghost and remains in the house where he and M used to live when he was alive. I don’t know what it is about A24 films, but I have yet to see a film released or produced by A24 that I didn’t like. Lady Bird, Moonlight, Obvious Child, The Lobster, Room. And now, A Ghost Story, a beautiful reflective tale about how we cope with grief and memory. I’m not surprised that this indie production company has received 25 Academy Award nominations for its films and won Academy Awards for six of its films.

First and foremost, what makes the film so incredible is its lack of noises. Since it’s no longer in theaters, I suggest you watch it wearing headphones because the noises are often muffled and for the most part, there is a significant lack of dialogue, even more so than The Lobster. The film relies on a lack of noise in order to properly help us reflect on the subject matter. It may seem silly at first that Casey Affleck is walking around wearing a large white sheet, almost child-like in nature. (remember the old clichés about kids wearing white sheets on Halloween?) However, I remember C’s body lying limp on the wheel of the car after he crashes and dies, and then had to remind myself that the ghost C was looking back on his life after his death. It reminded me of The Lovely Bones, a haunting novel by Alice Sebold about a girl who is raped and murdered and watches from her personal Heaven as her friends and family struggle to cope with her death.

One example in which silence is a powerful tool for eliciting emotion from the audience is a scene in the film in which M is eating a pie that a real estate agent gave her to send condolences for C’s death in the car crash. The scene lasts for a good 5-10 minutes, but it disturbs you gradually until you’re sitting there crying with her. You see her throw the note in the trash, and then eat the pie, then gradually she furiously digs her fork into it until, five minutes in, we see her eat the pie in silence from the side and slowly she breaks down into tears while C, the ghost, just stands and watches as an invisible spirit. This was the moment when I finally broke down during the film and couldn’t stop crying afterwards. This scene, although one of many deep scenes in the movie, really hits you if you stop everything and look closely. It is an incredibly painful moment to watch her grief just shatter her slowly from inside, but the entire silence of that scene allows the viewer to really see the psychological impact that grief can have on our physical and emotional well-being. The absence of dialogue was perfect because we get to focus on M’s facial expressions and how they alone convey the frustration and pain and other indescribable emotions that she feels after C’s death.

Another scene that was extremely important to the film was when C walks into a room of the house where a bunch of random strangers are having a house party, and one of the people there gives a monologue about faith and forgetting. This person talks about Beethoven’s Symphony No. 5 and says that yeah, sure, “we build our legacy piece by piece, and maybe the whole world remembers you, or maybe just a couple of people, but you do what you can to make sure you’re still around after you’re gone.” The overall monologue is very dark and cynical and basically says that someone can write a book, record a song or do anything to leave their children and their children’s children for years to come, but they, like everyone else, are going to pass away someday and will no longer be able to enjoy the legacy that person left, like with Beethoven. The guy says that Beethoven passed away and people still listen to his music, but in the long run, his legacy doesn’t have any meaning in and of itself and that leaving a legacy is essentially hopeless. Basically, the guy is saying, people forget about you after you die, even when you leave a long legacy (I’m pretty sure C was the one messing with the lightbulb above the dude’s head as a way of saying “Forget? You wanna bet?”).

While it is true that humans are mortal and we won’t get to enjoy the art, books, movies and music that someone leaves behind after we ourselves die, what matters is the fact that people, when they are alive we will never forget how they made us feel, and clearly C made M feel so much even if she might not remember everything that happened during their time together. When C looks back on his past self with M, he shows both the good times and the rocky times of their marriage, and as we see with the pie eating scene and further scenes with M coping with C’s death, he made a significant impact on her.

Overall, this film requires a lot of patience. They could have made C a cartoonish ghost that says cliched lines and goes “BOOOO! I’m a ghost!” But they didn’t. In fact, they turned the ghost caricature on its head by showing how C suffers so much psychologically, mentally and spiritually when he realizes that his wife has moved on after his death, that the house no longer will be the same, that different people move in, and the whole time this happens he just wants to be seen, heard, even do things over again in his life. However, the thing that is most painful about this film is that C is a ghost and thus no one can physically see him unless he makes things move without them actually seeing him. In a haunting but very sad scene, he sees a single mom move into the house with her two kids, and he watches them have a wonderful time together eating breakfast, playing toys and celebrating Christmas. This probably makes C sad because he didn’t have any kids with M before he died, and so he opens and closes doors, but ends up scaring the kids and the mom, and because he is frustrated with not being seen, smashes all the plates and cups in their cupboard. I cried because C is trying to deal with all of these changes and it’s just really hard for him because he just wanted a normal life with M and now it’s gone. C’s silence speaks volumes in and of itself, and that’s what makes the film so unique. He finds another ghost who lives in the house next door to his, and they communicate with each other through their prolonged eye contact, and this prolonged eye contact is translated into literal subtitles, a language that only they can understand, a language of grief.

Overall, this film, like The Lobster, is a film I will never forget. I don’t think I can see it twice because I cried throughout the movie and don’t think I can take crying anymore. It just reminded me to appreciate people while they are still alive and also celebrate someone’s life and appreciate them even after they pass away. I have been to quite a few memorial services for people, and while I am sad, I appreciate the times I spent with that person. The film shows that change is constant and while it’s hard to move on, you have to do it in order to keep living. It was a tough message to swallow throughout the film, but it needed to be said. Like I said earlier, it takes a lot of patience to admire and appreciate the film because it goes against traditional ghost stories and redefines the meaning of a “ghost story.” Death is a scary topic, and no amount of cartoon ghosts is going to fix that. But the film’s reflection of death is what makes it so haunting and yet so incredibly poignant. It is emotionally hard to process, but it is definitely worth a watch.

A Ghost Story (2017). 1 hr. 32 min. Rated R for brief language and a disturbing image.

March 3, 2019

So I was mulling over this film last night because I needed more time to think about the film, and it made me think of animal symbolism. In the show Brooklyn 99, there is one episode where Gina Linetti, the goofy sarcastic office manager of the 99, says that her chosen animal used to be the wolf, but after sleeping with her coworker Charles, she feels so ashamed that she goes around the office wearing a sweater with a picture of a naked mole rat on it (when she wore it, I thought about Rufus, the naked mole rat in the show Kim Possible) and adopts it as her chosen animal (3/27/21 edit: she calls it her spirit animal but I read an article talking about the misuse of “spirit animal” by non-Indigenous people and reading it reminded me to be careful about the way I use language, so I recognize I still have a lot to learn. The article can be found here)

The Lobster takes the question, “If you could be an animal what would you be?” and makes it literally a question that people must ask themselves if they cannot find someone to love within such a short time. Also I had to develop a strong stomach because I consider myself an animal rights advocate, and seeing Jacqueline Abrahams shoot the donkey at the beginning of the film was hard to watch, and I had to tell myself, It’s just a movie. Not all films are going to have the “No animals were harmed in the making of this film” disclaimer in the end credits. Indeed, while watching the end credits I found myself waiting for the four minutes they rolled to say that disclaimer as film companies have done for previous films I saw in which animals were depicted in scenes of torture or some other inhumane violence. However, I saw no such thing. I was wondering, Wait, so that donkey at the beginning was actually killed? And the heartless woman (yes, her character lacks so much backstory that she is in fact called the heartless woman as her character role) actually killed that dog (aka David’s brother, who couldn’t find a partner within 45 days)? And wait, those rabbits that David takes to Shortsighted Woman were actually dripping blood?

I think what’s interesting about this film is that even without making an explicit commentary on the treatment of non-human animals, it does in a way make such a commentary because turning into a non-human animal such as a dog or a lobster is seen as punishment that humans should avoid if they want to live their fullest lives. However, as we find out later in the film, David and Short-Sighted Woman (who by this point in the film has been blinded as punishment for wanting to fall in love with David) are no happier being humans than they would be as non-human animals. It also seems that they wouldn’t be happier being animals, either, because these animals end up getting either killed for merciless fun or for food. So basically humans and non-humans are caught between a rock and a hard place, and there’s no hope for salvation for either party (there are still living animals roaming around the Loner forest in the film, but they probably don’t get to live long either before turning into someone’s food.)

And then I saw the film feature “Making of The Lobster” and understood why the harm-to-animals disclaimer probably went unused in the credits. The actors revealed that they had to do a lot of uncomfortable stuff during the film’s production, and this was very hard for them to process. The actress who plays The Heartless Woman, Angeliki Papoulia, said herself that working with Yorgos was challenging because he had them go outside their comfort zone to shoot these scenes, but in retrospect it really helped her improve her acting skills because she was able to take on demanding acting work, and a lot of times, some of the best films require actors to go outside of what they traditionally do. Colin Farrell, who plays David, says he has starred in movies where people don’t really care about the film afterwards, but this film, The Lobster, really makes people think long after the credits roll. There’s no self-awareness or stream of consciousness going through David’s head, he just goes with what society tells him should be done because he’s literally in danger with his life if he disobeys society. But I think the silences in the film and the lack of dialogue is what makes the film so incredible. But after seeing the film Widows, I thought, “Well, Colin has starred in other thought-provoking films. It’s just that in The Lobster, he plays this extremely vulnerable character who isn’t in a position of power.” I last saw him play men in positions of power; in the 2017 drama Roman J. Israel, Esq. he plays a lawyer who hires a civil rights attorney to work for his firm. He talks a lot and assumes an air of manliness in his powerful-looking suit and legal jargon. In the 2018 heist film Widows, he plays a corrupt politician named Jack Mulligan who says he’s going to support young Black women’s businesses and help the low-income communities of Chicago, and yet his idealism doesn’t match up with the fact that he doesn’t genuinely care about the Black community and only really wants the campaign money for himself. While these films were thought-provoking, they didn’t stress me out as much as The Lobster did because Colin Farrell’s characters in Widows and Roman J. Israel, Esq. are rooted in real life. You’re going to have attorneys and you’re also going to have corrupt politicians. These people exist. However, a society in which this lonely man has to turn into an animal if he doesn’t find a partner is scary, and it’s something that we’ve never really heard of happening before. Also this film puts Colin at the front and center of the film, while Widows and Roman J. Israel, Esq. have him playing supporting roles, so you really get to see how much this dystopian world is messing with his mind, body and soul.

I am really glad I watched the behind-the-scenes special after the film. Not only did it relieve me a little bit of the film’s stressful nature, but it allowed me insight into why Yorgos had people play such disturbing roles. Yorgos kept a certain distance from the actors and used long lens and wide angles to give a sort of space for the actors to really embody these unemotional but still human characters. This distance allows the script and the structure of the film to preserve its sensitive nature. Even with the lack of backstory for the characters, as well as melodrama and emotion, the film is still incredibly poignant and conveys a sense of deep isolation and loneliness without outwardly referring to it. In the forest, for example, The Loners have a silent dance party in which they dance alone with their headphones on. This is actually a thing, and it allows the Loners time for themselves. However, when you think about how the Loners can’t actually fall in love with each other, the idea of a silent dance party has a certain level of discomfort to it, unlike real life, where people can go to these silent dance parties and still go out and love who they want. (4/1/21: also, I looked up what these parties actually looked like because I was curious and they are funny enough anything but silent)

The lack of lights also conveys the overall dark tone of the film; it’s not just the forest that is darkly lit but also in the hotel the lighting is dim and the colors of the upholstery and furniture (as well as the outside environment) are dull. Jacqueline Abrahams, who not only shot the donkey at the beginning but was also the film’s production designer, said that the hotel felt like a prison, but the point was to contrast the hotel with other places such as the forest and the city in which the Loner Leader takes the Loners to go shopping. The simplicity of these places shows how rigid the customs are in this futuristic society. The American actor John C. Reilly, who plays Robert in the movie, said that it was actually a beautiful opportunity for the actors because they got to film at the Parknasilla Hotel and Resort, as well as the Dromore Woods in Coillte Teoranta, all in Ireland (he called it a “summer film camp for actors.”) Indeed, even though the film is grim in tone, it is just so organic, and the actors and producers who worked with Yorgos on the film said he didn’t care if the actors weren’t perfect; he just wanted them to play the roles even after just a couple of takes. The actors didn’t have to wait until the lighting was perfect, there was no stop-and-start of the filming, just a couple of rehearsals, then shooting the film. Yorgos’ use of mostly non-professional actors for the film really allowed him to preserve the film in its originality rather than having seasoned actors who would tell Yorgos, “Oh, I couldn’t do that, that’s not the kind of acting I usually do.” This is pretty rare for films because, this is just my amateur assumption, it seems that most directors would do multiple rehearsals before actually shooting the film.

Although I must say, props to the actors for keeping such straight faces throughout the film; there is little smiling that goes on, and the world these characters find themselves in is rather absurd (it is categorized as an absurdist film, and absurdist films typically portray characters’ experiences in very hopeless situations where they can’t find any reason to live for its own sake, and are full of meaningless events to convey the hopelessness of the situation.) Then again, Yorgos wants viewers to think for themselves about the actions and characteristics of the film’s characters, so he doesn’t impose any prior judgment on the characters. The film is one of the few I’ve seen that doesn’t really have any “likeable” characters because even the ones we think are sweet and vulnerable become conditioned to be just as cold and distant as the people they are with. David, for instance, wishes nothing but pain and misery on a woman who injures herself very badly, and he just stares as The Heartless Woman chokes on an olive. Because we don’t really see him develop in any way throughout the film (aka he just stays miserable the whole time) we as the viewer are left to judge for ourselves what kind of person David is and what purpose he had saying things that normally would be considered quite cruel. David doesn’t really have a choice though in what he says because he is literally hanging on for his life.

Another thing I thought while watching this film was the hotel options for residents. I used to work at the front desk of a hotel and didn’t pay much mind to the options of room sizes for guests. However, after watching this film, I have reflected more on my brief time working at the hotel and never understood how much I took this info about hotel sizes and rooms for singles, couples and families for granted. As I discussed earlier, the hotel is very austere, especially for singles. The wardrobe is monotone, residents get punished for doing things forbidden in the rules, and they can only choose between two sexual orientations. Couples get to enjoy things that singles don’t get to do and they enjoy upgraded room sizes. Their wake-up times and everyday schedules are heavily structured, but in real life the wake-up is never forced and the hotel staff don’t care what time you check out or what time you go to breakfast. In the film the hotel manager doesn’t care what the residents’ names are and the waitstaff address them by their room numbers. Even the couples’ lives are subject to nosy investigation at the hands of the waitstaff and management; they are expected to stick together as a couple, and even when David and Short-Sighted Woman are in the city mall and Short-Sighted Woman wanders off, a security guard asks David if he has identification on him to prove he is married and not just wandering around (they profiled a woman earlier seen by herself.)

Overall, very excellent film with a brilliant social commentary about love, marriage, and the stigma around being single. It was one of those films where it was hard for me to articulate my thoughts about the film in a cohesive way because there are so many layers to it (similar to Sorry to Bother You, another very layered film), but I think that’s what makes the film so excellent. I’ll probably have more thoughts about the film come up and it will be hard for me to adequately convey them in words. The trailer for the film might help sum up all my feelings about it because I still cannot convey how this film really felt for me in words even after writing it.

The Lobster. 2015. 1 hr 59 m. Rated R for sexual content, including dialogue, and some violence.