I picked up this movie because I've seen other movies Yorgos Yanthimos produced or directed and found them pretty entertaining.

He likes to work with certain actors, he's used Colin Ferrel before and Angeliki Papoulia for example.

So I pick up this movie wondering what kind of weird thing did Yorgos make, and does it have an interesting message if any?

Like one of the things he does is include a scene where Colin Farrel's character is in this fantasical nightmarish scenario where he is trapped in a program at a hotel where he must find a mate or turn into the animal of his choosing (a lobster) at the end of his stay. There are all this bizarre rules, one of them including no masturbation. There is a maid, and one of the things she does is visit the male members of the hotel and she'll rub herself on their crotch like a stripper, but medically and dispassionately, and note how long it takes for them to become aroused and achieve an erection and then stop. Colin Farrel says before it happened "Please don't, it's awful." Then you see the lapdance, and it's genuinely hot, even bloated Colin Farrel getting a lapdance from Ariane Labed is hot. And when she stops and says something like "Great. You achieved an erection more quickly than yesterday" Colin Ferrel responds "That's awful"--that's a humorous moment. And you wonder...was the purpose of the film to make a comment about this ridiculous practice in society of like, when yo go to a stripclub and legally at least, this is what you're supposed to get. And how it's supposed to be a service, but many people wouldn't even want that for free, let alone pay for it because it's torture. Or is this part included because it's serving the plot? Could you say this scene is part of the movie building up to the overall message...which is some statement on society's ridiculous practices and beliefs around relationships? Or does the plot serve THIS scene, or other moments. The plot is the excuse to make the scene, and the scene is a statement about how dumb society is that this is supposed to be fun, and what a raw deal men get that there are desperate enough people to pay for this service.

I could pick other scenes...

Like there's another moment of humor where this is other character, The Limping Man, played by Ben Wishaw, who is trying to court a woman at the hotel who experiences random nosebleeds (Jessica Barden). They are in the pool together, and while making small talk, he makes a comment how "really men should swim without any swimming trunks because it improves their performance." And it's funny because that's some desperate thing a man would say as an excuse to swim naked in front of a woman, and because the olympics used to be held naked. The part this scene plays in the overall plot, is that The Limping man escapes the fate of being turned into an animal through his efforts. But is the plot the excuse to include moments like these? Which I imagine were fun things to include for the director. Fun...or like a hidden message as well. It's another bitter statement btw.

Another scene- The hotel is putting on an educational skit including the maid and a very elderly porter. "Woman, walking alone." The maid acts out walking alone, and a young, sort-of-handsome-sort-of-weird-looking waiter mimes a humping motion like raping her. Then, they announce "Woman, walking with her partner" and she and her inappropriately age-matched partner are passing by the creepy rapist and she remains un-molested. It's clearly a statement that women are better protected, if unsatisfied. Or is women's being overly protected, men and women both remaining unsatisfied, part of some larger message? I'm trying to think of what that might be. Like if it's a symbol for something, if there is a message beyond men and women and relationships and it's really about a different message about society.

By the time you get to the end of the movie, the movie ends on a very heavy scene. Colin Ferrel is about to blind himself so he can be together with his lover who was forcefully blinded by the leader of the rebel group. I personally felt in the movie, during the moment when she was blinded, I felt moved like I felt horrified by the thought of someone being tricked into being blinded and people doing it to her without any shred of remorse. Like it was genuinely shocking and horrifying, I wasn't able to go oh, this is part of the plot, this is meant to be ridiculous, funny even, none of these people are realistic in any way, not to mention they're in a fantastical world. And I think it's supposed to do that. So at the end too, I did end up feeling sad. Colin's character asking his blind lover to smile once more, to see her non seeing disabled sad smile, so he can remember it, before he deliberately disables himself too.

Was the intention for the audience to go at the end "What is this bullshit?"

What does this story, this thought exercise, prove if anything?

You look at the plot, and you think, this is ridiculous, these relationships are devoid of any pleasure. There is such little evident happiness is society. And any little bit seems to be squalshed.

When Colin blind's himself, you don't feel like wow how heart warming, he's blinding himself for the woman he loves. It's unnecessary, and pointless.

You are put in this thought exercise of a scenario that is unfathomably sad. Imagine, being blind. Imagine being the partner of someone who was the victim of that. How sad you would be for her.

Because I am familiar with other works of the producer, and I have seen some of the movies genuinely demonstrate an actual, interesting message behind the ridiculous plot, I am searching for that in The Lobster. Maybe it was an attempt that was not achieved as well as in other works of his.