the dad being disturbed by the girlfriends smile in that picture
-
grrrdevin — 15 years ago(July 07, 2010 05:50 PM)
Jesus Christ, dude. Total misogynist. Did your mother molest you or something? What you just did right there is, you shifted the blame from Richard, the abusive murderer, to Natalie, the victimized wife who apparently caused the whole ordeal because she "should have known better."
Are all rape victims just asking for it, Collin? Do you want to be the one to rape and show those women what they're good for? Oh, Collin. They're all just dumb skanks, aren't they? Just dumb skanks that you want to strangle and sodomize.
Dear God, I've never seen such long-winded and self-righteous pontification in my life. Collin was empathizing with Dr. Fowler, the way I see it. Women can be just as selfish, manipulative and abusive as men, and are far from intrinsically innocent.
"I've been living on toxic waste for years, and I'm
fine.
Just ask my other heads!" -
grrrdevin — 12 years ago(November 23, 2013 03:58 PM)
Ahh yes, typical feminist, raising hyperbole-laced non sequitur arguments to make a point. Which is a shame because I actually agree with you that it's absurd to blame Natalie for what happened (although not to interpret that it's what Matt was thinking).
"I've been living on toxic waste for years, and I'm
fine.
Just ask my other heads!" -
grrrdevin — 15 years ago(July 07, 2010 05:39 PM)
It's like when I saw a photo of Hitler when he was a baby, I was really disturbed by it. It was freaky seeing the incarnation of evil as an innocent little baby.
Ever seen that Russian movie
Come and See
, about WWII? There's a scene at the end dealing with Hitler's baby picture in the manner you described.
"I've been living on toxic waste for years, and I'm
fine.
Just ask my other heads!" -
PotassiumMan — 12 years ago(September 07, 2013 11:07 PM)
I didn't quite understand the importance of the picture either. Perhaps once he saw the picture, Fowler wondered where her loyalties would lie if push came to shove. It's reasonable to wonder because the dead man was after all, the father of her own children.
-
MalibuBohemian — 12 years ago(January 19, 2014 07:45 AM)
Just saw this film, despite its release over a decade ago; probably one of the best films I have ever seen - just remarkable in terms of capturing interpersonal relationships, reactions to grief, love, anger, betrayal. Loved it.
I also wondered about that line and then realized a few hours later that it tied right back to the "lesson" we're given at the beginning of the film when Frank, Matt, and Jason are pulling in the lobster traps. Frank points out to little Jason that the lobster which lost an arm/claw had crawled into "the bedroom" and, whenever there are 2 or male lobsters in a bedroom "something like that is going to happen." At this stage, Frank pulls in an "older female". In the words of Matt Fowler: "now, the older females, like this old gal, they're the most dangerous, especially when they're growing berries." Jason responds, "Berries?" And Matt says, "Yeah, eggs. You see, she could take out two males - no problemBut this fine lady, she has it easy; cuz the state says we have to let her go." And with that he throws her back in the water.
To me, Matt's reference to Natalie's smile is not only a realization that she is not so innocent as she appears and is indeed the root cause of his son's death, but also an allusion to what transpires in the film. Just as the lobsters crawl into the bedroom, Matt's son literally crawled into Natalie's bedroom, where another lobster (Richard) still effectively was. And, just as Matt tells young Jason when 2 or more male lobsters are in a bedroom - one of these lobsters/men is going to get hurt. In this case, it is Frank (and later Richard). But the real clincher is the fact that the "older female" is "the most dangerous." This, quite clearly, is an allusion to Natalie - the older woman whom Frank so desires - that is (albeit unintentionally) the most dangerous. She is the one, fertile and capable of "growing berries", who can lure the men into the bedroom. It is in that bedroom that the subsequent fighting, disputes, and loss of limbs (for lobsters) and life (for Frank and later Richard) occur. Thus, in essence, Natalie, like the female lobster, has "taken out two males" (both Frank and Richard).
That's my assumption; it has nothing to do with her being once happy with Richard or Richard's other, human side. This isn't about Richard. It's all about how Natalie, coyly, perhaps unintentionally, is the real root of the issue and the reason that the various tragedies in the film have unfolded. As a side note - it's also very clear early in the movie when Frank says something like, "We're in trouble with Duncan when he's older" and Natalie's hesitant smile that suggests "There isn't a future here; don't you get that?", that Natalie knows full well what she's doing - which is having a fling with a younger guy, without much regard for his feelings or, ultimately, safety. -
katiekeene — 10 years ago(May 24, 2015 11:25 PM)
MalibuBohemian
explanation (below) of smiling Natalie lays bare the metaphor of the title
In the Bedroom
" tied right back to the "lesson" we're given at the beginning of the film when Frank, Matt, and Jason are pulling in the lobster traps. Frank points out to little Jason that the lobster which lost an arm/claw had crawled into "the bedroom" and, whenever there are 2 or male lobsters in a bedroom "something like that is going to happen." At this stage, Frank pulls in an "older female". In the words of Matt Fowler: "now, the older females, like this old gal, they're the most dangerous, especially when they're growing berries." Jason responds, "Berries?" And Matt says, "Yeah, eggs. You see, she could take out two males - no problemBut this fine lady, she has it easy; cuz the state says we have to let her go." And with that he throws her back in the water.
To me, Matt's reference to Natalie's smile is not only a realization that she is not so innocent as she appears and is indeed the root cause of his son's death, but also an allusion to what transpires in the film. Just as the lobsters crawl into the bedroom, Matt's son literally crawled into Natalie's bedroom, where another lobster (Richard) still effectively was. And, just as Matt tells young Jason when 2 or more male lobsters are in a bedroom - one of these lobsters/men is going to get hurt. In this case, it is Frank (and later Richard). But the real clincher is the fact that the "older female" is "the most dangerous." This, quite clearly, is an allusion to Natalie - the older woman whom Frank so desires - that is (albeit unintentionally) the most dangerous. She is the one, fertile and capable of "growing berries", who can lure the men into the bedroom. It is in that bedroom that the subsequent fighting, disputes, and loss of limbs (for lobsters) and life (for Frank and later Richard) occur. Thus, in essence, Natalie, like the female lobster, has "taken out two males" (both Frank and Richard).
That's my assumption; it has nothing to do with her being once happy with Richard or Richard's other, human side. This isn't about Richard. It's all about how Natalie, coyly, perhaps unintentionally, is the real root of the issue and the reason that the various tragedies in the film have unfolded. As a side note - it's also very clear early in the movie when Frank says something like, "We're in trouble with Duncan when he's older" and Natalie's hesitant smile that suggests "There isn't a future here; don't you get that?", that Natalie knows full well what she's doing - which is having a fling with a younger guy, without much regard for his feelings or, ultimately, safety. -
Melissaslist — 10 years ago(May 18, 2015 10:14 AM)
I realize this post is extremely old, but just re-watched this last night on netflix.
That is definitely a haunting scene. You know he's there to kill this guy, but when he sees the photo of her smiling a big smile he has doubts over whether or not he has the whole story right. Maybe they DID have a loving marriage and his son came between that, or if not that perhaps he sabotaged any chance he'd have of getting her back and being a family with his kids. Maybe he wasn't such a monster and that's the reason she left him in the first place. It seems the dad was convinced that vigilante justice was in the right because this guy was just total scum, but seeing that photo showed him a side he did not know of which makes you wonder what ELSE did he not know? -
jmichael3387 — 10 years ago(January 22, 2016 06:22 AM)
1st interpretation: The photo humanized Richard.
2nd interpretation: The photo showed that maybe Natalie was a femme fatale.
But don't forget the 3rd interpretation: Perhaps Matt really did have a crush on Natalie. So he let his testosterone take over and did the 'macho' thing.maybe partially to impress Natalie or to protect her. -
PotassiumMan — 9 years ago(August 26, 2016 08:22 PM)
Here are my thoughts. The question about the picture that unsettled him was whether or not it was a
recent
picture. As in, would Natalie bring herself to smile in a picture with her ex-husband after he killed someone? That's my guess on what was bothering Dr. Fowler in the film's ending. -
Manton29 — 9 years ago(October 09, 2016 04:07 PM)
I'm going with the humanising camp, rather than the evil woman camp, although I totally see that point, especially with the film's title and the lobster story - in fact, this lobster theory is probably what was intended by the script but films sometime work out very differently in the final edit to what was initially intended - sometimes the real meaning is worked out in the process.
A few have said something along the lines of one thing I was about to add:
The smile/happy couple picture could have suggested to Matt for the first time that his son may have CAUSED problems between a once happily married couple whose marriage was still quite saveable before his intrusion - as an older married man, Matt would have been well aware that marriages often hit a rough spot at some point and the right intrusion at that time could end them.
Also, we can reflect that the big deal Ruth made about Richard's smile (in fact he didn't smile, as far as we can tell, unless it happened off screen. Most likely Ruth either imagined it or made it up to motivate Matt) would have been fresh in his mind so the power and meaning of smiles might have been on his mind. There's no way that the screenwriter didn't intend to link the two smiles in some way. To me, the most obvious link would be that both smiles are sinister - Natalie's in keeping with the lobster metaphor - but in the acting and the set design (loving father puts children's pictures on wall) and the editing, I think we get something closer to the humanising camp's view of things.
Great film. A lot of room for interpretations, many of which - even conflicting ones - have solid legitimate grounding.
Very Carveresque, and definitely one to watch again.
Manton
If to stand pat means to resist evil then, yes, neighbour, we wish to stand pat.