HELP😭😭😭 IDK IF YOU MEANT THIS TO BE FUNNY but this comment made my day it’s literally so relatable I’ve never heard such a perfect explanation for something!! 😭
I've put some thoughts into your comment and this video, and decide that you are closer to the truth than Little White Lies. Thanks for releasing the burden for me of trying to figure out Yorgos Lanthimos's films. I don't need to ever watch or think about his films ever again. I have my own life to feel.
Out of all the modern horror films that focus on dysfunctional or disturbing family and the hierarchy in them Yargos Lanthimos films are simply on another level
I’m sure I felt everything I was supposed to feel watching his films. The difficult part, for his audience, is forming it all into thoughts, and that’s the brilliance. Because if the viewer must translate their feelings into thoughts, they are the closest in art to emulating real life. YL puts the correct order back. He is possibly the ultimate “give them two-plus-two instead of four” filmmaker.
Great essay. You made rethink how I view lanthimos films. I liked the sentiment at the end of the essay about how his films may appear so alien to our world, but these movies in-fact ask us to question the one we are in.
Why? Each film shows why, there is no universal reason other than he likes to create 'worlds' that resemble our own world so that we can see the absurdity of our own societal rules and mannerisms.
"Lanthimos uses absurdity and characters being over the society norms to reflect our belonging to these norms" hmm, a bit overinterpretation like all Żizek's Perverts Guides to cinema, and you actually didn't answer clearly to this question, apart from this is your view not the clear answer from the mouth of Lanthimos
@@13strong the definition of pretentious -characterized by assumption of dignity or importance, especially when exaggerated or undeserved: or A pretense is an action or way of behaving that is intended to make people believe something that is not true. Take for instance the Lobster: it’s premise and performance of the actors in its world are quite literally full of pretense. All of his films do really. I will say I do think he is very talented and I’m glad he makes different films from what is mainstream these days. I just don’t think they are as brilliant works of art as some people might paint them as.
Sorry, but no. Lanthimos is a horrible writer of characters and dialogue. His dialogue is robot-like and so completely unlike how any natural human talks it is abrasive. Worse, though, is that he can't seem to write any characters that are likeable. Not a single character in the Lobster or Killing of a Sacred Deer have any redeeming characteristics. He is a Hollywood darling because he writes progressive, nihilistic, postmodern tripe that passes for "art" with the "cultured" curators of the Capitol.
I would ask you why you need the characters to have redeeming characteristics or act normally. Or why you insist that characters must be likeable. Also why do you imply that exploring nihilism (though I disagree that he does), progressivism, or post modernism is inherently not art. If you prefer characters and stories that fit a more conventional framework there is certainly plenty for you to enjoy. I think it's a mistake to condemn something as unskilled because your subjective experience of it is not pleasurable or satisfying.
@@HartHoppe 1. It’s difficult for many people to enjoy films where there are no characters with any redeeming characteristics. Even films with horribly despicable characters still have either some redeeming characteristics or supporting characters with witch to empathize with (see: Taxi Driver, Henry: portrait of a serial killer). Every one of the characters in Sacred Deer are awful, I have no empathy or sympathy for any of them (nihilism is a major theme of that film). I’m perfectly fine with a character or characters that have no redeeming qualities, but why would I watch a bleak film about terrible things happening to terrible people that I have no empathic connection to? If all his characters talk like aliens and act like aliens and have no moral virtues they espouse or follow, how is that enjoyable? 2. I never said exploring nihilism, progressivism, or post modernism isn’t art, I insinuated that Hollywood elitists use the presence of those elements to determine whether it is art, regardless of the quality of the writing. Plenty of extremely talented filmmakers have explored these themes in unique artistic ways, whereas Lanthimos uses horrible 3rd grade dialogue and wide shots and he’s an “artiste.” 3. I don’t want a “conventional framework,” I want the story to make sense. Sacred Deer had me practically screaming at the screen as Colin Farrell bumbles around pretending to care about his family while he neither offered himself as sacrifice nor apologized. When your main character completely ignores the two most obvious, easiest to obtain routes for what he says he wants and these are not only not addressed by him, not by the film at all, it’s neither funny nor tragic. He’s either a soulless asshole, or a complete idiot, but both of these are contradicted by the film where he’s a brilliant doctor and he cries over his family’s predicament in separate scenes. That’s not my subjective experience, that’s an objectively massive flaw within the film. To the above point: I don’t need characters to make sense in the real world, they need to make sense within the world built by the film. 4. My argument isn’t that “I don’t like his work, so it’s bad,” my argument is “His work is objectively bad.” His dialogue is pedestrian, characters just blurt out exposition or their feelings like a child wrote it. You can say you like it, but it is so unskilled it frustrates me. There has to be a better way for him to write dialogue to produce the effect he wants, but with people fawning all over him why would he ever feel the need to improve?
A genuine question, before my response. Do you also hate modern art? There are many reasons to create something. To entertain someone like you is but one of many. It seems that you value your own experience of something quite highly, as all of your criticisms - though framed through 'facts' and 'objectivity' - are actually quite opinionated. I don't want you to misunderstand me, not liking his movies is perfectly fine! You don't have to like art like this; it's not *for* you. That must be a strange and worthwhile experience, to encounter something that isn't! > His dialogue is robot-like and so completely unlike how any natural human talks it is abrasive. Your life experience is limited, then. I know more than a few people who speak like this, and find it quite pleasant to have such direct conversations! In addition, it can be much easier to get swept away by a story when you don't have to keep track of the thousands of possible ways a sentence could be interpreted by other characters, and the thousand other reasons why a character did not choose to phrase their thoughts differently. The removal of the wall between what one thinks and what one says means every interaction is exceedingly, uncomfortably raw, which is a very useful tool when telling stories about human connection and the absurdity and benefits of social contracts. > Not a single character in the Lobster or Killing of a Sacred Deer have any redeeming characteristics. I think @HartHoppe responded to this quite well. Why you need the characters to have redeeming characteristics or to act normally? Can characters not simply be extensions of the narrative? Tools from which the artist's thoughts are expressed? Just as settings can be literal locations, they can also be representations of a character's mental state, or aesthetic backdrops hinting at a deeper meaning to spoken dialogue. Why can this not apply to characters as well? Try and think of them as chess pieces moved about to paint meaningful scenes, rather than 'characters', and see if that mental switch helps you find something worthwhile in these films. > It’s difficult [for me] to enjoy films where there are no characters with any redeeming characteristics... I have no empathy or sympathy for any of them. I believe you can learn! :) > Lanthimos uses horrible 3rd grade dialogue and wide shots Opinion! Let's rephrase. Lanthimos uses simple, blunt language and wide shots. He does this to create a constant sense of alienation from a character's surroundings as well as other characters. The straightforward dialogue also enforces the feeling of unwilling vulnerability, of lack of experience and control. It's actually quite hard to nail a consistent sense of tension using short sentences and choppy dialogue! As Picasso once said, "When I was their age I could draw like Raphael , but it took me a lifetime to learn to draw like [a child]." It's easier to write "good dialogue" that fades into the background, than dialogue so absurd that it refuses to be ignored. > I don’t want a “conventional framework,” I want the story to make sense. Your most honest and blunt sentence yet, and I appreciate it! You don't want it! You don't like it! This is the core of your argument that you are unnecessarily trying to support with 'objectivity'. It's enough to just dislike it! You *personally* struggle to get something meaningful from these movies, and that's okay! You don't have to like or find meaning in every piece of art. Isn't that in and of itself a fun experience? :) > When your main character completely ignores the two most obvious, easiest to obtain routes for what he says he wants and these are not only not addressed by him, not by the film at all, it’s neither funny nor tragic. He’s either a soulless asshole, or a complete idiot, but both of these are contradicted by the film where he’s a brilliant doctor and he cries over his family’s predicament in separate scenes. I could wax poetic about this pair of sentences for paragraphs, but I'll do my best to keep it short. You've gathered a set of important points together here, but are struggling to make sense of them - this is the most exciting part of trying to interpret art! Him killing his family is neither funny nor tragic. He's neither a soulless asshole nor a complete idiot. What, then, is left? What possible explanation could there be? You've gotten stuck at this point, and failing to find an answer you find satisfying, have decided Yorgos Lanthimos must not have had an answer either. I'll give you my answer, if you'd like one, though I do think mulling over something that clashes so harshly with one's understanding of how storytelling works is part of the fun! > it is so unskilled it frustrates me I want to take a moment to end on a note I hope you appreciate. This feeling you feel right here is not a bad feeling. Disliking art is not bad. In fact, it's one of the most creativity-inducing feelings one can feel! If you think you could have made better art, that's FANTASTIC!! Hold onto that feeling and make your own art!! Make something that hits all of the points you wished his stories had hit, and relish in the wonderful feeling of creation!! Genuinely, thank you for commenting this, and I completely disagree with your evaluation of these movies. I hope you have a wonderful day!
If someone were to ask me 'What does it feel like to be autistic' I'd just tell them to watch any of Yorgos Lanthimos' films.
this is exactly it! truthfully i think i'd find the world easier if people talked like they do in his films: there's little room for miscommunication
HELP😭😭😭 IDK IF YOU MEANT THIS TO BE FUNNY but this comment made my day it’s literally so relatable I’ve never heard such a perfect explanation for something!! 😭
I've put some thoughts into your comment and this video, and decide that you are closer to the truth than Little White Lies. Thanks for releasing the burden for me of trying to figure out Yorgos Lanthimos's films. I don't need to ever watch or think about his films ever again. I have my own life to feel.
That’s mean.
@@RajaMCoolit's not mean to autistic people though, who are the joke's target audience.
Out of all the modern horror films that focus on dysfunctional or disturbing family and the hierarchy in them Yargos Lanthimos films are simply on another level
Simply!!!! I couldn’t agree more
I’m sure I felt everything I was supposed to feel watching his films. The difficult part, for his audience, is forming it all into thoughts, and that’s the brilliance. Because if the viewer must translate their feelings into thoughts, they are the closest in art to emulating real life. YL puts the correct order back.
He is possibly the ultimate “give them two-plus-two instead of four” filmmaker.
Great essay. You made rethink how I view lanthimos films. I liked the sentiment at the end of the essay about how his films may appear so alien to our world, but these movies in-fact ask us to question the one we are in.
Why? Each film shows why, there is no universal reason other than he likes to create 'worlds' that resemble our own world so that we can see the absurdity of our own societal rules and mannerisms.
Such a genius - Every movie is a masterpiece
Excellent piece.
Dogtooth wrecked me.
I loved The Favourite.
I've still not seen the two with Colin Farrell.
The Killing of a sacred deer is SO good. You do not sympathize with anyone and it feels almost clinical
The Lobster is great too 🦞
Its film, it entertains your mind like a painting but dynamic. Why?
The lobster one is so masonic
Weird is so overused that it has become meaningless. He makes great films.
"Lanthimos uses absurdity and characters being over the society norms to reflect our belonging to these norms" hmm, a bit overinterpretation like all Żizek's Perverts Guides to cinema, and you actually didn't answer clearly to this question, apart from this is your view not the clear answer from the mouth of Lanthimos
Great piece. Unfortunately I do still think his films are the epitome of post modern pretentiousness though.
Explain
In what way are they pretentious? What pretense are they adopting?
@@13strong the definition of pretentious -characterized by assumption of dignity or importance, especially when exaggerated or undeserved: or A pretense is an action or way of behaving that is intended to make people believe something that is not true.
Take for instance the Lobster: it’s premise and performance of the actors in its world are quite literally full of pretense. All of his films do really. I will say I do think he is very talented and I’m glad he makes different films from what is mainstream these days. I just don’t think they are as brilliant works of art as some people might paint them as.
@@Noirmirror all art is therefore pretentious
And some more so than others :)
Sorry, but no. Lanthimos is a horrible writer of characters and dialogue. His dialogue is robot-like and so completely unlike how any natural human talks it is abrasive. Worse, though, is that he can't seem to write any characters that are likeable. Not a single character in the Lobster or Killing of a Sacred Deer have any redeeming characteristics. He is a Hollywood darling because he writes progressive, nihilistic, postmodern tripe that passes for "art" with the "cultured" curators of the Capitol.
I would ask you why you need the characters to have redeeming characteristics or act normally. Or why you insist that characters must be likeable. Also why do you imply that exploring nihilism (though I disagree that he does), progressivism, or post modernism is inherently not art. If you prefer characters and stories that fit a more conventional framework there is certainly plenty for you to enjoy. I think it's a mistake to condemn something as unskilled because your subjective experience of it is not pleasurable or satisfying.
@@HartHoppe 1. It’s difficult for many people to enjoy films where there are no characters with any redeeming characteristics. Even films with horribly despicable characters still have either some redeeming characteristics or supporting characters with witch to empathize with (see: Taxi Driver, Henry: portrait of a serial killer). Every one of the characters in Sacred Deer are awful, I have no empathy or sympathy for any of them (nihilism is a major theme of that film). I’m perfectly fine with a character or characters that have no redeeming qualities, but why would I watch a bleak film about terrible things happening to terrible people that I have no empathic connection to? If all his characters talk like aliens and act like aliens and have no moral virtues they espouse or follow, how is that enjoyable?
2. I never said exploring nihilism, progressivism, or post modernism isn’t art, I insinuated that Hollywood elitists use the presence of those elements to determine whether it is art, regardless of the quality of the writing. Plenty of extremely talented filmmakers have explored these themes in unique artistic ways, whereas Lanthimos uses horrible 3rd grade dialogue and wide shots and he’s an “artiste.”
3. I don’t want a “conventional framework,” I want the story to make sense. Sacred Deer had me practically screaming at the screen as Colin Farrell bumbles around pretending to care about his family while he neither offered himself as sacrifice nor apologized. When your main character completely ignores the two most obvious, easiest to obtain routes for what he says he wants and these are not only not addressed by him, not by the film at all, it’s neither funny nor tragic. He’s either a soulless asshole, or a complete idiot, but both of these are contradicted by the film where he’s a brilliant doctor and he cries over his family’s predicament in separate scenes. That’s not my subjective experience, that’s an objectively massive flaw within the film.
To the above point: I don’t need characters to make sense in the real world, they need to make sense within the world built by the film.
4. My argument isn’t that “I don’t like his work, so it’s bad,” my argument is “His work is objectively bad.” His dialogue is pedestrian, characters just blurt out exposition or their feelings like a child wrote it. You can say you like it, but it is so unskilled it frustrates me. There has to be a better way for him to write dialogue to produce the effect he wants, but with people fawning all over him why would he ever feel the need to improve?
A genuine question, before my response. Do you also hate modern art? There are many reasons to create something. To entertain someone like you is but one of many. It seems that you value your own experience of something quite highly, as all of your criticisms - though framed through 'facts' and 'objectivity' - are actually quite opinionated.
I don't want you to misunderstand me, not liking his movies is perfectly fine! You don't have to like art like this; it's not *for* you. That must be a strange and worthwhile experience, to encounter something that isn't!
> His dialogue is robot-like and so completely unlike how any natural human talks it is abrasive.
Your life experience is limited, then. I know more than a few people who speak like this, and find it quite pleasant to have such direct conversations! In addition, it can be much easier to get swept away by a story when you don't have to keep track of the thousands of possible ways a sentence could be interpreted by other characters, and the thousand other reasons why a character did not choose to phrase their thoughts differently. The removal of the wall between what one thinks and what one says means every interaction is exceedingly, uncomfortably raw, which is a very useful tool when telling stories about human connection and the absurdity and benefits of social contracts.
> Not a single character in the Lobster or Killing of a Sacred Deer have any redeeming characteristics.
I think @HartHoppe responded to this quite well. Why you need the characters to have redeeming characteristics or to act normally? Can characters not simply be extensions of the narrative? Tools from which the artist's thoughts are expressed? Just as settings can be literal locations, they can also be representations of a character's mental state, or aesthetic backdrops hinting at a deeper meaning to spoken dialogue. Why can this not apply to characters as well? Try and think of them as chess pieces moved about to paint meaningful scenes, rather than 'characters', and see if that mental switch helps you find something worthwhile in these films.
> It’s difficult [for me] to enjoy films where there are no characters with any redeeming characteristics... I have no empathy or sympathy for any of them.
I believe you can learn! :)
> Lanthimos uses horrible 3rd grade dialogue and wide shots
Opinion! Let's rephrase. Lanthimos uses simple, blunt language and wide shots. He does this to create a constant sense of alienation from a character's surroundings as well as other characters. The straightforward dialogue also enforces the feeling of unwilling vulnerability, of lack of experience and control. It's actually quite hard to nail a consistent sense of tension using short sentences and choppy dialogue! As Picasso once said, "When I was their age I could draw like Raphael , but it took me a lifetime to learn to draw like [a child]." It's easier to write "good dialogue" that fades into the background, than dialogue so absurd that it refuses to be ignored.
> I don’t want a “conventional framework,” I want the story to make sense.
Your most honest and blunt sentence yet, and I appreciate it! You don't want it! You don't like it! This is the core of your argument that you are unnecessarily trying to support with 'objectivity'. It's enough to just dislike it! You *personally* struggle to get something meaningful from these movies, and that's okay! You don't have to like or find meaning in every piece of art. Isn't that in and of itself a fun experience? :)
> When your main character completely ignores the two most obvious, easiest to obtain routes for what he says he wants and these are not only not addressed by him, not by the film at all, it’s neither funny nor tragic. He’s either a soulless asshole, or a complete idiot, but both of these are contradicted by the film where he’s a brilliant doctor and he cries over his family’s predicament in separate scenes.
I could wax poetic about this pair of sentences for paragraphs, but I'll do my best to keep it short. You've gathered a set of important points together here, but are struggling to make sense of them - this is the most exciting part of trying to interpret art! Him killing his family is neither funny nor tragic. He's neither a soulless asshole nor a complete idiot. What, then, is left? What possible explanation could there be? You've gotten stuck at this point, and failing to find an answer you find satisfying, have decided Yorgos Lanthimos must not have had an answer either. I'll give you my answer, if you'd like one, though I do think mulling over something that clashes so harshly with one's understanding of how storytelling works is part of the fun!
> it is so unskilled it frustrates me
I want to take a moment to end on a note I hope you appreciate. This feeling you feel right here is not a bad feeling. Disliking art is not bad. In fact, it's one of the most creativity-inducing feelings one can feel! If you think you could have made better art, that's FANTASTIC!! Hold onto that feeling and make your own art!! Make something that hits all of the points you wished his stories had hit, and relish in the wonderful feeling of creation!!
Genuinely, thank you for commenting this, and I completely disagree with your evaluation of these movies. I hope you have a wonderful day!