Chapter 2114: 2114
If audio player doesn't work, press Stop then Play button again
Undoubtedly, "Lobster" is a very special work, and it can even be summarized simply and roughly: This is a concept-first "dystopian" attempt, which continues the consistent style of Oggs Lansmos; but Lan Li is concerned with the story. The memory of the plot is a little fuzzy-whether it is the previous life or this life.
The reason is simple. The setting of the whole story is still not complete-it is not a problem with the plot or the script, but the lack of the screenwriter in the core stage of conceiving the whole idea, which leads to the innate lack of subsequent completion of the work, as if a link is missing in the gene chain. , The appearance of the final born baby looks complete, both from the physical and psychological levels, but a part is objectively missing from the genetic level.
It can be understood that the screenwriter originally decided to portray a cold-blooded killer as the leading actor, but he did not have a good idea. Whether he was born cold-blooded or "emotionally unresonable" caused by acquired influence, no matter what, this makes him a perfect killer. In some scripts, such as "Old Nowhere" or "Shameless/Shameless/Asshole/Asshole", this has no effect, and the audience will not cause any confusion; but in some scripts, such as "Blade Runner" or "Blade Runner" This killer is not too cold", but it will cause the audience to be unable to empathize, and subsequent reflections will not be extended, which will affect the effect.
The current "lobster" belongs to the latter.
The whole script of "Lobster" can be divided into two parts.
The first part is a single hotel. All singles must find a partner within forty-five days, and the loser will be converted into an animal.
The second part is the forest outside the hotel. Those singles who rebelled against the hotel fled to the forest, and then organized a rebellion/resistance/army by themselves. The leader was a total singleist, and the creed was "No love allowed." , If it violates the rules, it will also be converted into an animal.
Whether it’s the first part or the second part, this reflects Oggs’s thinking about the roles of marriage, love, soul mates, etc. in the social structure. In the final analysis, he is still contemplating the relationship between people and connecting them with symbols. Society, the true metaphor is the rejection of minorities and heterogeneous by human society. This is undoubtedly a very wonderful and very deep social fable, enough to make people start to reflect on themselves.
So, where is the problem? It is the setting of the actor David.
According to Oggs’s story line, David failed to match in the singles hotel, so he fled to the forest, but accidentally fell in love with another woman here-but the forest is a place where love is forbidden, which in turn makes He faced a dilemma, and eventually he and the woman chose to escape the forest and return to the city.
Because of the deviation of the setting, the contradiction between the first part and the second part cannot be unified in David, and the ridicule and practical significance of the ending cannot be reflected.
First, why was David sent to a single hotel? If you can't fall in love with anyone in a single hotel, you can also say that the choice is too narrow, but before arriving at the hotel? He knew that he had not found a target, he would be sent to the hotel, but he was still single. What was the reason? Choose single? Resist love? Social fear?
The vacancy of this setting makes the second part of falling in love and the ending return to the city lack a chemical reaction.
Second, did the rebels in the forest just refuse love? Or resisting the magnificent worldview of the entire society behind the single hotel? If it is the former, why did they try to attack the hotel and staff, but ignore the lovers in the whole city? If it is the latter, why did they convert those “couples” who violated the rules into animals? Are their behaviors fundamentally different from the social worldview?
The vacancy in this setting leaves the plot development of the second part lacking the root, and naturally, the shuddering ending weakens the power.
Furthermore, the "movie worldview" of the first part and the second part cannot be unified, and the writers and directors' creative intentions for the entire movie have become relatively thin. For some movies, this is not any problem, but for works such as "Lobster" that have a clear social reality and refraction intention, it unfortunately becomes a shackle for the further improvement of the work, and affects the viewing experience and effect.
In fact, if you can complete these settings, make David’s motivation complete, and make the Rebel’s intentions and strategies real, then the overall core of the film has a chance to be even further, not just discussing society. At the same time, we went further to discuss love——
Is there a completely unconditional love between two adults? Can the relationship between love and family, love and society, love and culture become an integral part of the framework of the social system, regardless of whether it supports or opposes love?
Oggs and his queen screenwriter Efthymis-Fillippou (Efthymis-Fillippou) failed to give a clear and clear positioning of the image of David when they were creating the script. The part, the second part and the ending appear to be a certain degree of separation, which limits the possibility of the audience to resonate, and naturally the current result appears——
From the perspective of script creation and character creation, this is a complete story, and the creative intentions of Ougs and Efsimisi can also be reflected; but from the perspective of viewing experience and reflection effects, this is an incomplete story. Obviously, the main creators have more ideas hidden in the story, but unfortunately they could not be shown to the audience, or in other words, they were fragmented and displayed to the audience, lacking some sense of fluency.
Lan Li now seriously recalls the work "Lobster". His memory is relatively vague. He can't remember the specific image and setting of David, so the connection becomes vague, let alone sublimation. What shocked, I always feel as if I have forgotten something important.
Nevertheless, Lan Li must also admit that "Lobster" is a very, very interesting script. Leaving aside "singleism", this is indeed a kind of thinking about the future of family, marriage, and love.
But here is the problem. Lan Li himself is immersed in thinking. It is a set of sets that really allows him to put forward suggestions for script modification based on the core of his thoughts, but he cannot give a clear and effective implementation plan, let alone give a new look. The filming plan-the job of director and screenwriter is definitely not so easy, he doesn't even know where to start.
Interlaced like a mountain, this sentence may not be 100% accurate, but it is true in many cases. This is what Lan Li has always insisted on. Even as a producer, he rarely interferes with the director's work; even as a producer. An actor has countless ideas about the script, and he will not point fingers at the screenwriter.
For "Lobster", the best way is to tell Oggs what you think, and then see what changes he and the screenwriter can make.
That's all there is to it. Renly himself should not interfere indiscriminately to avoid creating unnecessary chaos.
But there is one thing that Lan Li can accomplish by himself-acting.
Lan Li curled up on the sofa and began to build up the image of David in his mind, but to be honest, the performance of the previous Colin Farrell was blurred.
It's not that Colin's performance is not good, but the role restricts the presentation effect. Vaguely, Lan Li remembered that Colin had a thick moustache—or a moustache? He plays a middle-aged man who looks round and blunt, but inadvertently reveals a little cleverness. Such an image really gives the black temperament of the whole movie more clever humor.
Throughout the "Lobster" movie, all the actors maintained a cool performance style, and presented their roles in a calm and even slightly stiff way as much as possible. This is also the typical style in Oggs movies. The almost walking-dead facial paralysis performance in "Dog Tooth" makes people produce a chilling lingering sound——
The so-called facial paralysis is actually the lack of facial expression changes. A direct comparison is the "rubber man" Jin-Kerry; but the lack of rich facial expressions does not mean that there is no emotion and emotion. Eyes, movements, postures, etc. can be released from the inside interest.
Lan Li has tried similar performances in "Transcendence" and "Drunk Country Folk Songs", but they have shown distinctive performances.
What interests Lan Li even more is the original idea of David's role.
Whether it's Jason Clark or Colin Farrell, they are all traditional men: handsome, tall, strong, and masculine at the same time; while Colin's David is slightly restrained, dull, and shy. With a little naive temperament, it should be no problem for Jason to play the role.
The most intuitive rendering effect is: David should be a very popular traditional partner image~www.novelhall.com~ The image of a silent and dull man is still very popular in the central region of the United States; especially in the world background set by Ougs Here, he should be more popular.
So, why didn't David have a partner in the original city? How exactly did Oggs set it up?
David was unable to find someone because of the character of an otaku? Or did David receive a lot of "invitations" and were all rejected? Or is it that David still sincerely believes in the magic of "love", waiting for his own love to arrive, and is unwilling to accept the arrangement? Otherwise, just give up the effort?
This is a focal issue. If Oggs sets that David cannot find a partner, then he may not be willing to use Lan Li to play a role-not because Lan Li is so charming, this is an aesthetic problem for everyone; It is because the audience base of Lan Li's fans is too strong, and it is difficult to convince the audience that in a social environment where everyone needs to find a partner or it would be illegal, Lan Li's role is actually still single.
But if Oggs’s setting is that David refuses to find a partner and still "naively" believes in love, then the story will be smoother before and after, and at the same time, it will be very interesting to be played by Lan Lilai; and again to change the setting. If so, there are bound to be more surprises.
Please report us if you find any errors so we can fix it asap!
Undoubtedly, "Lobster" is a very special work, and it can even be summarized simply and roughly: This is a concept-first "dystopian" attempt, which continues the consistent style of Oggs Lansmos; but Lan Li is concerned with the story. The memory of the plot is a little fuzzy-whether it is the previous life or this life.
The reason is simple. The setting of the whole story is still not complete-it is not a problem with the plot or the script, but the lack of the screenwriter in the core stage of conceiving the whole idea, which leads to the innate lack of subsequent completion of the work, as if a link is missing in the gene chain. , The appearance of the final born baby looks complete, both from the physical and psychological levels, but a part is objectively missing from the genetic level.
It can be understood that the screenwriter originally decided to portray a cold-blooded killer as the leading actor, but he did not have a good idea. Whether he was born cold-blooded or "emotionally unresonable" caused by acquired influence, no matter what, this makes him a perfect killer. In some scripts, such as "Old Nowhere" or "Shameless/Shameless/Asshole/Asshole", this has no effect, and the audience will not cause any confusion; but in some scripts, such as "Blade Runner" or "Blade Runner" This killer is not too cold", but it will cause the audience to be unable to empathize, and subsequent reflections will not be extended, which will affect the effect.
The current "lobster" belongs to the latter.
The whole script of "Lobster" can be divided into two parts.
The first part is a single hotel. All singles must find a partner within forty-five days, and the loser will be converted into an animal.
The second part is the forest outside the hotel. Those singles who rebelled against the hotel fled to the forest, and then organized a rebellion/resistance/army by themselves. The leader was a total singleist, and the creed was "No love allowed." , If it violates the rules, it will also be converted into an animal.
Whether it’s the first part or the second part, this reflects Oggs’s thinking about the roles of marriage, love, soul mates, etc. in the social structure. In the final analysis, he is still contemplating the relationship between people and connecting them with symbols. Society, the true metaphor is the rejection of minorities and heterogeneous by human society. This is undoubtedly a very wonderful and very deep social fable, enough to make people start to reflect on themselves.
So, where is the problem? It is the setting of the actor David.
According to Oggs’s story line, David failed to match in the singles hotel, so he fled to the forest, but accidentally fell in love with another woman here-but the forest is a place where love is forbidden, which in turn makes He faced a dilemma, and eventually he and the woman chose to escape the forest and return to the city.
Because of the deviation of the setting, the contradiction between the first part and the second part cannot be unified in David, and the ridicule and practical significance of the ending cannot be reflected.
First, why was David sent to a single hotel? If you can't fall in love with anyone in a single hotel, you can also say that the choice is too narrow, but before arriving at the hotel? He knew that he had not found a target, he would be sent to the hotel, but he was still single. What was the reason? Choose single? Resist love? Social fear?
The vacancy of this setting makes the second part of falling in love and the ending return to the city lack a chemical reaction.
Second, did the rebels in the forest just refuse love? Or resisting the magnificent worldview of the entire society behind the single hotel? If it is the former, why did they try to attack the hotel and staff, but ignore the lovers in the whole city? If it is the latter, why did they convert those “couples” who violated the rules into animals? Are their behaviors fundamentally different from the social worldview?
The vacancy in this setting leaves the plot development of the second part lacking the root, and naturally, the shuddering ending weakens the power.
Furthermore, the "movie worldview" of the first part and the second part cannot be unified, and the writers and directors' creative intentions for the entire movie have become relatively thin. For some movies, this is not any problem, but for works such as "Lobster" that have a clear social reality and refraction intention, it unfortunately becomes a shackle for the further improvement of the work, and affects the viewing experience and effect.
In fact, if you can complete these settings, make David’s motivation complete, and make the Rebel’s intentions and strategies real, then the overall core of the film has a chance to be even further, not just discussing society. At the same time, we went further to discuss love——
Is there a completely unconditional love between two adults? Can the relationship between love and family, love and society, love and culture become an integral part of the framework of the social system, regardless of whether it supports or opposes love?
Oggs and his queen screenwriter Efthymis-Fillippou (Efthymis-Fillippou) failed to give a clear and clear positioning of the image of David when they were creating the script. The part, the second part and the ending appear to be a certain degree of separation, which limits the possibility of the audience to resonate, and naturally the current result appears——
From the perspective of script creation and character creation, this is a complete story, and the creative intentions of Ougs and Efsimisi can also be reflected; but from the perspective of viewing experience and reflection effects, this is an incomplete story. Obviously, the main creators have more ideas hidden in the story, but unfortunately they could not be shown to the audience, or in other words, they were fragmented and displayed to the audience, lacking some sense of fluency.
Lan Li now seriously recalls the work "Lobster". His memory is relatively vague. He can't remember the specific image and setting of David, so the connection becomes vague, let alone sublimation. What shocked, I always feel as if I have forgotten something important.
Nevertheless, Lan Li must also admit that "Lobster" is a very, very interesting script. Leaving aside "singleism", this is indeed a kind of thinking about the future of family, marriage, and love.
But here is the problem. Lan Li himself is immersed in thinking. It is a set of sets that really allows him to put forward suggestions for script modification based on the core of his thoughts, but he cannot give a clear and effective implementation plan, let alone give a new look. The filming plan-the job of director and screenwriter is definitely not so easy, he doesn't even know where to start.
Interlaced like a mountain, this sentence may not be 100% accurate, but it is true in many cases. This is what Lan Li has always insisted on. Even as a producer, he rarely interferes with the director's work; even as a producer. An actor has countless ideas about the script, and he will not point fingers at the screenwriter.
For "Lobster", the best way is to tell Oggs what you think, and then see what changes he and the screenwriter can make.
That's all there is to it. Renly himself should not interfere indiscriminately to avoid creating unnecessary chaos.
But there is one thing that Lan Li can accomplish by himself-acting.
Lan Li curled up on the sofa and began to build up the image of David in his mind, but to be honest, the performance of the previous Colin Farrell was blurred.
It's not that Colin's performance is not good, but the role restricts the presentation effect. Vaguely, Lan Li remembered that Colin had a thick moustache—or a moustache? He plays a middle-aged man who looks round and blunt, but inadvertently reveals a little cleverness. Such an image really gives the black temperament of the whole movie more clever humor.
Throughout the "Lobster" movie, all the actors maintained a cool performance style, and presented their roles in a calm and even slightly stiff way as much as possible. This is also the typical style in Oggs movies. The almost walking-dead facial paralysis performance in "Dog Tooth" makes people produce a chilling lingering sound——
The so-called facial paralysis is actually the lack of facial expression changes. A direct comparison is the "rubber man" Jin-Kerry; but the lack of rich facial expressions does not mean that there is no emotion and emotion. Eyes, movements, postures, etc. can be released from the inside interest.
Lan Li has tried similar performances in "Transcendence" and "Drunk Country Folk Songs", but they have shown distinctive performances.
What interests Lan Li even more is the original idea of David's role.
Whether it's Jason Clark or Colin Farrell, they are all traditional men: handsome, tall, strong, and masculine at the same time; while Colin's David is slightly restrained, dull, and shy. With a little naive temperament, it should be no problem for Jason to play the role.
The most intuitive rendering effect is: David should be a very popular traditional partner image~www.novelhall.com~ The image of a silent and dull man is still very popular in the central region of the United States; especially in the world background set by Ougs Here, he should be more popular.
So, why didn't David have a partner in the original city? How exactly did Oggs set it up?
David was unable to find someone because of the character of an otaku? Or did David receive a lot of "invitations" and were all rejected? Or is it that David still sincerely believes in the magic of "love", waiting for his own love to arrive, and is unwilling to accept the arrangement? Otherwise, just give up the effort?
This is a focal issue. If Oggs sets that David cannot find a partner, then he may not be willing to use Lan Li to play a role-not because Lan Li is so charming, this is an aesthetic problem for everyone; It is because the audience base of Lan Li's fans is too strong, and it is difficult to convince the audience that in a social environment where everyone needs to find a partner or it would be illegal, Lan Li's role is actually still single.
But if Oggs’s setting is that David refuses to find a partner and still "naively" believes in love, then the story will be smoother before and after, and at the same time, it will be very interesting to be played by Lan Lilai; and again to change the setting. If so, there are bound to be more surprises.
Undoubtedly, "Lobster" is a very special work, and it can even be summarized simply and roughly: This is a concept-first "dystopian" attempt, which continues the consistent style of Oggs Lansmos; but Lan Li is concerned with the story. The memory of the plot is a little fuzzy-whether it is the previous life or this life.The reason is simple. The setting of the whole story is still not complete-it is not a problem with the plot or the script, but the lack of the screenwriter in the core stage of conceiving the whole idea, which leads to the innate lack of subsequent completion of the work, as if a link is missing in the gene chain. , The appearance of the final born baby looks complete, both from the physical and psychological levels, but a part is objectively missing from the genetic level.It can be understood that the screenwriter originally decided to portray a cold-blooded killer as the leading actor, but he did not have a good idea. Whether he was born cold-blooded or "emotionally unresonable" caused by acquired influence, no matter what, this makes him a perfect killer. In some scripts, such as "Old Nowhere" or "Shameless/Shameless/Asshole/Asshole", this has no effect, and the audience will not cause any confusion; but in some scripts, such as "Blade Runner" or "Blade Runner" This killer is not too cold", but it will cause the audience to be unable to empathize, and subsequent reflections will not be extended, which will affect the effect.The current "lobster" belongs to the latter.The whole script of "Lobster" can be divided into two parts.The first part is a single hotel. All singles must find a partner within forty-five days, and the loser will be converted into an animal.The second part is the forest outside the hotel. Those singles who rebelled against the hotel fled to the forest, and then organized a rebellion/resistance/army by themselves. The leader was a total singleist, and the creed was "No love allowed." , If it violates the rules, it will also be converted into an animal.Whether it's the first part or the second part, this reflects Oggs's thinking about the roles of marriage, love, soul mates, etc. in the social structure. In the final analysis, he is still contemplating the relationship between people and connecting them with symbols. Society, the true metaphor is the rejection of minorities and heterogeneous by human society. This is undoubtedly a very wonderful and very deep social fable, enough to make people start to reflect on themselves.So, where is the problem? It is the setting of the actor David.According to Oggs's story line, David failed to match in the singles hotel, so he fled to the forest, but accidentally fell in love with another woman here-but the forest is a place where love is forbidden, which in turn makes He faced a dilemma, and eventually he and the woman chose to escape the forest and return to the city.Because of the deviation of the setting, the contradiction between the first part and the second part cannot be unified in David, and the ridicule and practical significance of the ending cannot be reflected.First, why was David sent to a single hotel? If you can't fall in love with anyone in a single hotel, you can also say that the choice is too narrow, but before arriving at the hotel? He knew that he had not found a target, he would be sent to the hotel, but he was still single. What was the reason? Choose single? Resist love? Social fear?The vacancy of this setting makes the second part of falling in love and the ending return to the city lack a chemical reaction.Second, did the rebels in the forest just refuse love? Or resisting the magnificent worldview of the entire society behind the single hotel? If it is the former, why did they try to attack the hotel and staff, but ignore the lovers in the whole city? If it is the latter, why did they convert those couples who violated the rules into animals? Are their behaviors fundamentally different from the social worldview?The vacancy in this setting leaves the plot development of the second part lacking the root, and naturally, the shuddering ending weakens the power.Furthermore, the "movie worldview" of the first part and the second part cannot be unified, and the writers and directors' creative intentions for the entire movie have become relatively thin. For some movies, this is not any problem, but for works such as "Lobster" that have a clear social reality and refraction intention, it unfortunately becomes a shackle for the further improvement of the work, and affects the viewing experience and effect.In fact, if you can complete these settings, make David's motivation complete, and make the Rebel's intentions and strategies real, then the overall core of the film has a chance to be even further, not just discussing society. At the same time, we went further to discuss loveIs there a completely unconditional love between two adults? Can the relationship between love and family, love and society, love and culture become an integral part of the framework of the social system, regardless of whether it supports or opposes love?Oggs and his queen screenwriter Efthymis-Fillippou Efthymis-Fillippou failed to give a clear and clear positioning of the image of David when they were creating the script. The part, the second part and the ending appear to be a certain degree of separation, which limits the possibility of the audience to resonate, and naturally the current result appearsFrom the perspective of script creation and character creation, this is a complete story, and the creative intentions of Ougs and Efsimisi can also be reflected; but from the perspective of viewing experience and reflection effects, this is an incomplete story. Obviously, the main creators have more ideas hidden in the story, but unfortunately they could not be shown to the audience, or in other words, they were fragmented and displayed to the audience, lacking some sense of fluency.Lan Li now seriously recalls the work "Lobster". His memory is relatively vague. He can't remember the specific image and setting of David, so the connection becomes vague, let alone sublimation. What shocked, I always feel as if I have forgotten something important.Nevertheless, Lan Li must also admit that "Lobster" is a very, very interesting script. Leaving aside "singleism", this is indeed a kind of thinking about the future of family, marriage, and love.But here is the problem. Lan Li himself is immersed in thinking. It is a set of sets that really allows him to put forward suggestions for script modification based on the core of his thoughts, but he cannot give a clear and effective implementation plan, let alone give a new look. The filming plan-the job of director and screenwriter is definitely not so easy, he doesn't even know where to start.Interlaced like a mountain, this sentence may not be 100% accurate, but it is true in many cases. This is what Lan Li has always insisted on. Even as a producer, he rarely interferes with the director's work; even as a producer. An actor has countless ideas about the script, and he will not point fingers at the screenwriter.For "Lobster", the best way is to tell Oggs what you think, and then see what changes he and the screenwriter can make.That's all there is to it. Renly himself should not interfere indiscriminately to avoid creating unnecessary chaos.But there is one thing that Lan Li can accomplish by himself-acting.Lan Li curled up on the sofa and began to build up the image of David in his mind, but to be honest, the performance of the previous Colin Farrell was blurred.It's not that Colin's performance is not good, but the role restricts the presentation effect. Vaguely, Lan Li remembered that Colin had a thick moustacheor a moustache? He plays a middle-aged man who looks round and blunt, but inadvertently reveals a little cleverness. Such an image really gives the black temperament of the whole movie more clever humor.Throughout the "Lobster" movie, all the actors maintained a cool performance style, and presented their roles in a calm and even slightly stiff way as much as possible. This is also the typical style in Oggs movies. The almost walking-dead facial paralysis performance in "Dog Tooth" makes people produce a chilling lingering soundThe so-called facial paralysis is actually the lack of facial expression changes. A direct comparison is the "rubber man" Jin-Kerry; but the lack of rich facial expressions does not mean that there is no emotion and emotion. Eyes, movements, postures, etc. can be released from the inside interest.Lan Li has tried similar performances in "Transcendence" and "Drunk Country Folk Songs", but they have shown distinctive performances.What interests Lan Li even more is the original idea of David's role.Whether it's Jason Clark or Colin Farrell, they are all traditional men: handsome, tall, strong, and masculine at the same time; while Colin's David is slightly restrained, dull, and shy. With a little naive temperament, it should be no problem for Jason to play the role.The most intuitive rendering effect is: David should be a very popular traditional partner image~www.novelhall.com~ The image of a silent and dull man is still very popular in the central region of the United States; especially in the world background set by Ougs Here, he should be more popular.So, why didn't David have a partner in the original city? How exactly did Oggs set it up?David was unable to find someone because of the character of an otaku? Or did David receive a lot of "invitations" and were all rejected? Or is it that David still sincerely believes in the magic of "love", waiting for his own love to arrive, and is unwilling to accept the arrangement? Otherwise, just give up the effort?This is a focal issue. If Oggs sets that David cannot find a partner, then he may not be willing to use Lan Li to play a role-not because Lan Li is so charming, this is an aesthetic problem for everyone; It is because the audience base of Lan Li's fans is too strong, and it is difficult to convince the audience that in a social environment where everyone needs to find a partner or it would be illegal, Lan Li's role is actually still single.But if Oggs's setting is that David refuses to find a partner and still "naively" believes in love, then the story will be smoother before and after, and at the same time, it will be very interesting to be played by Lan Lilai; and again to change the setting. If so, there are bound to be more surprises.
