I think one of the reasons the ending of The Lobster leaves people so bemused and unsure is because it’s a philosophical ending rather than a resolution. Movies and books have trained us to expect resolution. Ask anyone what the parts of a story are and they’ll say, “Beginning, middle, end.” And typically that end takes the form of a conclusion. The hero is victorious or defeated. The authoritarian institution triumphs or gets brought down. Someone finds love or they don’t.
The resolution ending is standard when telling a story for the sake of telling the story. But it’s less standard when the story is a tool for an examination of humanity.
That sounds pretentious, but that’s the realm of art, right? To explore and examine what it means to be alive. To try to make sense of the world, even if that’s through a defamiliarization of the world.
In the case of The Lobster, the world is very defamiliarized. It’s a full-blown dystopia. But the details of the society are thin. Over the course of the movie, we realize that couples are forced to have something in common; that it’s the government that turns people into animals; that there’s a normal-but-stilted society where people live in the city, have homes, go to the mall, and live semi-basic lives if not kind of emotionally reduced lives. You can exist in this society as long as you follow their very stringent rules.
The Lobster isn’t telling us a story about this weird and whacky world. It’s using this weird and whacky world as way to ask us a question. “If you were in the situation David is in, what would you do? Do you blind yourself? Do you not and become an animal? Why?”
The end of The Lobster
At the end, we see David (Colin Farrell) and the woman he loves (Rachel Weisz) at a diner. They’ve escaped the Loners, which means now they have to blend into normal society.
But the problem is that, in this society, everyone has to have a defining characteristic, and every couple has to share that characteristic. Fair enough. This had been fine when David and Rachel (she’s otherwise nameless) were both shortsighted. But now that Rachel has been blinded…David’s only real choice is to blind himself.
If this weren’t a weirdly specific movie where everyone is a little bizarre, David would have other options. But writer/director Yorgos Lanthimos doesn’t want us to consider other options. He wants to bring us to this moment of truth where Rachel waits at the diner table while David goes to the bathroom to blind himself with a steak knife by stabbing his eyes.
The last shot is of Rachel, at the table. Waiting.
Why end The Lobster like this?
Clearly this is not a resolution. The story’s main consideration had been whether David could find love. He has, but the duration of that relationship depends on him inflicting these wounds on himself. Should he go through with them…then he’ll be able to spend the rest of his life with Rachel. Should he not go through with it…he’ll not only break the heart of the woman he loves, he’ll probably become a fugitive wanted by the state for being a “loner.” This increases the odds that he and Rachel will each be turned into animals. The fact that we don’t know what happens to David means the story does not wrap up.
If this was a story designed to have a resolution, this would be a bad one.
But if this was a story designed around a philosophical question, then this is a perfectly fine ending.
The meaning of The Lobster‘s ending
In storytelling, there’s a basic need to bring the narrative to a moment of climactic choice. Stories that want to resolve will show this choice and then show the reaction of the world to that choice. So in Star Wars, Luke has to decide whether or not to help the Rebel forces blow up the Death Star. He chooses to. Then we watch that play out. He succeeds. The Death Star explodes. Everyone is happy. That’s some resolution.
But if Star Wars was an exercise in philosophy then it would end with Luke having to decide whether or not to join a Rebel army and take the lives of the enemy. We’d be left without an answer. We’d never know if the Empire wins or loses. If Luke becomes a hero, or loses his life trying, or scurries away out of fear. We’d just have endless debates.
Why do philosophical endings deny us the satisfaction of a character making a decision?
Because it begs the question, “What do you think happens? “
Which is a different way of asking, “What would you do in this situation?”
To eye or not to eye, that is the question
If you were in a society where you could only marry someone who had the same defining feature as you…would you blind yourself to be with the person you love?
That’s really the mental exercise that The Lobster is. All of the hotel stuff. All of the Loner resistance stuff. All of the dystopian society. The entire purpose of it is to build the final moment of choice and leave the audience asking themselves: What did he do?
And then: What would I do?
From there, the question gains nuance.
If you’re in David’s world…
If you’re in David’s world, what are your choices? Blind yourself to be with this person? Or don’t do that and get turned into an animal?
Either way is kind of bleak. If you blind yourself, you’re no longer living the same life as before, or capable of the same things as before. Your life fundamentally changes. But if you’re turned into an animal, you’re also not living the same life as before, or capable of the same things as before. So is it better to be blind and living with the person you love, or is it better to be an animal with all five senses?
If we were in our world…
So in real life we don’t have to have a defining characteristic. No one is going to turn us into an animal if we’re single. The stakes are much much much lower. If anyone was trying to make you blind yourself out of love…well, they’re probably a psychopath and you should run away.
But we can extrapolate. When you commit to a relationship, there’s always a cost. In most cases, this is a matter of losing a bit of your individuality. Instead of being a single entity, you’re now part of a couple. You can’t just move into whatever apartment you want. You have to consider how the move will affect the relationship. If the apartment you want is 30 minutes away from where your significant other lives, that could be a problem. If you want to live in the middle of downtown and they don’t, that could be a problem. You have to compromise.
But this can be bigger than compromise. If you love NYC but your significant other gets a job in San Francisco, do you move? What if you go on a few dates with someone, are falling for them, then they tell you they have a child? Does that change things for you? Do you flinch? Or are you fine with it?
None of these things are as serious as having to blind yourself, but they are examples of the cost of a relationship and accepting the conditions of being in that relationship.
The Lobster and 1984
“That’s all well and good, Chris. But is there a resolution? Can’t a movie do both resolution and philosophy?”
Oh, yeah, certainly. I think something like Blade Runner is a good example of mixing resolution and philosophy. We get the initial conclusion to the showdown with the replicants, but there’s the philosophical with Deckard making a choice to run away with Rachael. The question there isn’t would we choose to run or not…it’s would we be able to love an android as though it were a human. Deckard can because he now believes there’s no difference between humans and replicants. Or at least doesn’t care.
If we’re looking at the resolution of The Lobster then I would argue that the conclusion is in the title itself. A lobster is the animal David chose to become if he were turned in to one. If David chose to blind himself, then the title is a very limited one, as it only applies to the theoretical of what David would become. But if David ops to not blind himself, it’s probably safe to assume he gets captured and is returned to the hotel to become an animal. In which case, he would become the lobster.
I also can’t help but compare The Lobster to 1984 and Brazil. All three are dystopian society films that follow very similar narrative arcs. The character starts within a cruel dystopian system. They start to doubt the system. They break out of the system and meet up with a resistance force. The woman they love is part of the resistance force. But the resistance force ends up falling apart. In 1984 and Brazil, the main characters are caught, tortured, and ultimately rehabilitated into the system. They’re alive but have lost the essence of their individuality.
For much of its narrative, The Lobster follows the exact trajectory of 1984 and Brazil. That means it is either using their basic structure to eventually diverge, which is something V for Vedetta does, or it’s using the exact same structure because The Lobster is a retelling of 1984.
If The Lobster wanted to borrow in order to set-up the divergence, then we never see it actually diverge. And there’s no real implication of diverging. Which I think would support the reading that David fails to blind himself and ends up subjugated by the system. Just like the endings of 1984 and Brazil. In this world, that means becoming a lobster.
Rachel is waiting
I do think it’s worth noting that there’s a bit of a hold on Rachel while she waits for David to return. The shot maintains for enough time to create the doubt he may not return. To the point where we may be looking out the huge window behind Rachel, expecting to see David running down the street, abandoning her to her fate. The hold here functions as a dramatic moment to make us wonder what’s taking so long. We start to expect David to come back any second…any second… But the more time that passes the more we’ll worry he won’t show up. It’s a nice use of tension building that really drives home the philosophical question.
Really enjoyed the review and comments….intelligence isn’t dead. Just want to add, Colin Farrell’s performance was so flat; he really came across as a sociopath. The only passion in the whole movie was our couple getting very aroused on the loveseat during the guitar concert…..they had real chemistry and it was hot until evil Ginger loner leader stopped them. Very thought-provoking movie; part gore & part black comedy? I don’t know, an odd beast.
And, why does the woman shoot the donkey in the very beginning??
Thank you because you took the words from my mouth. I would not have allowed the man I love to gouge his eyes out! Also, we are human and are capable of thinking “outside the box” so gouging one’s eyes to be similar to one another is impulsive and primitive – very reminiscent notions to ones you have in the beginning of a relationship. Love makes you do crazy things.
This story portrays what they call “love” in such a methodical manner, but it’s a rather interesting, and perhaps accurate, point of view in my opinion. How important is common ground?
You start with liking someone because you have something in common and you spend more time doing the things you love with that person. You fall in “love.”
Society puts pressure on you to do what is “normal” (VERY obvious in the movie). Between this, these experiences, and the time spent together shape you and can sometimes turn you into someone you don’t recognize – sometimes for better, sometimes for worse.
But if that common ground is taken away, would your relationship survive? Was it the fear that put you together in the first place? Was it 2 people selfishly fulfilling their own wants, desires, and needs? Or was it love? Is that what love really is – companionship?
Ultimately, it takes 2 people making the same decisions together to survive so I guess common ground isn’t a bad start…
I love everyone’s interpretations above. Very insightful! I enjoy reading the reasonings from the hopeless romantics as I’m one at heart. To me, the part where he makes them synchronize while listening to music sets the foundation for relying on senses other than sight. And the sign language shows that they can overcome obstacles together and still communicate. I believe he was off-put by her hesitance to show affection but she was, in fact, blinded – love hurts! I just think it’s a bit too early in the relationship to be making rash decisions like permanent blindness! Ha!
Loved the movie and the way that the ending make me Google other people’s thoughts immediately after watching! That’s a good movie!
I don’t think he did it.
Mainly, the seemingly odd-out scene where the Loners invade the hotel in order to effectively split/stir up the couples – the manager pulling the trigger, an empty round, on his wife – leads me to think that David couldn’t have through with it. The Loners seem to want to prove that this love that the couples rave about isn’t actually real or based in anything true, it’s superficial, maybe that is why they NEED something in common for grounds of being together.
As commenter Jay said, Rachel parallels the hotel manager in pulling the trigger by saying “why couldn’t you blind him instead?”. She wouldn’t stab her eyes for David, do we really think David would for her? I doubt it.
All of these people want love that transcends fear (David saying in the loner’s parent’s house he would die for his wife, the hotel manager saying he loves his wife 14/15, the enactments of the couples saving/protecting eachother, I’m sure there are other examples). It is physically and metaphorically what separates them from being animals. If they don’t find this valuable love, they deserve to be animals.
Yet, they only seek love because of that fear, so in the end it’s a selfish act to fall in ‘love’ with someone, and so it is never what they want it to be. It remains a fantasy because it doesn’t come from the right place.
I guess if David goes through with it, he is breaking this cycle, he makes it real love. It is like a lot of things in life, the truth of it comes down to the actions aligning with words.
In their dystopian world, such importance is placed on partnership in order to be good/valuable, and very little on morality and personal responsibility. It’s all superficial. I think this movie is calling them all animals already (and most likely us too). This is even highlighted in the very undignified way they are treated in the hotel and even the city, which they don’t rebel against.
The only love in this movie is how David felt about his dog brother, imo.
There are a lot of other things I wonder about too – like possible themes of what is needed for the individual to be in the correct mental place to really love others; maybe some freedom of choice, richer identity, personal responsibility, dignity – things that give space for morality and love. These are the real things that separate us from animals, and these are the things absent from this society, I don’t think that’s coincidence.
Another strange thing: while he was in the bathroom, I really wanted him to bail, it was too gruesome, yet while we waited with Rachel at the table, I wanted him to go through with it. I think that was done on purpose too, showing the two self-motivated perspectives. Would she really have let him do that if she loved him? I couldn’t bear the thought.
I feel like this movie could be analyzed a million ways, I loved it! Maybe tomorrow I won’t see it so cynically.
I don’t understand why being blind was the only common thing. David asked her “do you know German” when trying to find things in common, when they literally made up a language/signals that only they know? If German counts that should’ve counted too. I thought that was going to be in the film but oh well.
I just read this out loud to my partner after watching the film. You’re an amazing writer. It rolled off my tongue and was a brilliant. ?
I think Rachel was not blind at the end. She looked directly at the waiter when she said thank you.
Rachel… this is, whatsoever, one of the best points of view I read about this movie. Thank you very much! Great eye! This could lead to a whole different interpretation, and nobody seems to paid it the proper attention.
For example… What the hell with the unknown woman shutting a donkey in the beginning?? What does it even contribute to all of it?? The secret it’s in the details.
Can’t she just get eye surgery…again. I’m sorry, but as interesting as this idea of it being a philosophical ending, it’s just not satisfying. I guess that’s why they don’t pay philosopher’s a decent wage: too many what-ifs, and no real solutions.
From my perspective, even if David were to blind himself in order to stay with her, he would still become a lobster – mating for life, living outside of typical society, and also being blind. Lobsters have limited motion-based sight in darkness, but in a full light scenario they cannot make much of anything. Being turned into an animal literally is a terrible fate, but what is worse is allowing a system to gradually promote your own animalistic traits and to do the opposite to your humanistic ones. This can also be supported by the mating-ritual-esque body language David and Rachel use before she is blinded, as well as the presence of invasice species in the background.
Does anyone think they’d return to the table IMMEDIATELY after stabbing their eyes out I mean come on you would be literally rolling on the bathroom floor screaming for awhile Or be transported to hospital since well YOU STABBED out ur EYES I mean seriously of course he didnt just stroll back to the table 5 min later like hey waiter I’ll have a steak and baked potato …. so for all of you who said it took him to long to come back to the table think about that for a minute would u stab ur eyes and be able to get from the bathroom to the table without any problems or umm BLOOD gushing everywhere … remember this society tracks and hunts loners… if he where to go to the table bloody faced hed give them up as not being a true couple and would jeopardize them even more by returning quickly … Just Saying that i may be wrong in my opinion but i think that is kind of obvious that he would or could not return to the table quickly for their safety … not saying he 100% did it because he may not have but dont write of the fact that he DID stab his eyes because of time . . . Common sense people
He could have died trying
It’s one of the most important analysis that I have read about the lobster.
If you look at the shadows from the sun and her glass being refilled you can tell it has been almost an hour…He didn’t do it zero chance…I know to many people like him in the real world…none would go through with it, though they would all kill others.
I found this article very interesting and it did answer some of my questions, however I’ve been scouring the internet forever trying to find out more than just the meanings and messages of the film. What I want to know is, why is society like this and what led it to be this way? Why do you need a partner and why do you have to have a defining characteristic that you share with the partner? Logically, none of this makes any sense, it’s very confusing and the film doesn’t help the audience understand any of these things. At first I thought the point of the hotel and it’s motives was because there was a population problem and society needed to reproduce as much as possible, whether as humans or animals. But then as the film goes on, the people are encouraged to “hunt” other people and rewarded if they do so, and people are “assigned” children. So obviously it can’t be a matter of a population crisis. So I guess my question is, how did society get to be that way in the film? To me the movie doesn’t seem dystopian, it just seems like a parallel universe. All of the dystopian narratives I’ve ever watched or read have had some explanation as to how and why the society got to that point. They explain what drove the humans or the government to adopt this behavior over time. Anyhow, I assume nobody knows what drove the society in “The Lobster” to where it was… which really just makes my question, why wouldn’t the writers give any implications as to why society became this way? Wouldn’t they want the audience to know what drove society to this point? Doesn’t that create a greater understanding and appreciation of the film? I honestly want to know this more than I want to know if David ever made himself blind or if he came back.
I also think that the writers were not very kind to explain their created world and have been looking for proper explanations like you have because I want to understand it better, but kind of gave it up now.
And in terms of sharing a defining characteristic between a couple, I guess it is to prove their love to others including the government. Otherwise, there’s not easy way to figure out if a specific couple is truly in love, because love is an abstract value.
Yeah, it’s very vague. Which can sometimes work. But also…not.
I guess it helps if you view the movie more as a fairy tale than a logical world lol. Then “Why does the government even care?” becomes far less of a concern.
In the final scene in the restaurant she asks him – do you want to see my belly? He replies he does need to see it, he knows what it looks like. This exchange makes it seem more likely he will go through with putting out his eyes. Because he is confident images will remain in his mind’s eye with him needing to actually see them. In effect he believes he doesn’t need eyes to see.
I think the fact that it’s called The Lobster is because he becomes the human version of a lobster and cold-bloodedly abandons her to her fate because he just can’t go through with blinding himself. (For God’s sake, just say you both want children or are homebodies or something!) In the beginning of the movie she is telling the story to a man who asks her if David wears contacts or glasses. I’m guessing he is a police officer, which would also indicate he ran for it. Also we hear the sound of the ocean.
Oh, and Short-Sighted Woman – why in the world would you keep a journal?!
I think the beginning was him asking his wife if the guy she had an affair with had glasses. Maybe he and his wife shared the attribute of having glasses. David couldn’t go through with the lie of having no emotions so I think he couldn’t go through with stabbing his eyes out. The title being the lobster is too hard to argue with – he turned into a lobster. I think that is also implied by the last shot being so long. I don’t remember hearing her narration after the journal was discovered.
A story without an ending is in fact not a story. It’s just a sequence of events.
Its also a cheap gimmick for when a writer can’t figure out how to end something.
Also, it’s a crappy movie with shitty acting, virtually no humor and lasts about 40 minutes too long. I’ve watched a lot of dystopia films, this one sucked. Just an excuse for paychecks.