Reading the Resistancein Wes Anderson’s Isle of Dogs and Yorgos Lanthimos’ The Lobster

Both Isle of Dogs (2018) and The Lobster (2015) manifest to the audience through their dystopian visions of what the world would be like if some problematic aspects of our real world were radically extremified. Isle of Dogs with its vibrant stop motion animation depicts the city of Megasaki—a fictional town in Japan existing twenty years in the future—overrun by the canine flu pandemic resulted in the rise of the anti-dog regime led by Kenji Kobayashi who holds a generational grudge against dogs, and in the deportation of all dogs to the Trash Island. The Lobster, on the other hand, is unspecified in its setting. However, it can be assumed from the costume, technology, and infrastructure that is shared by our contemporary world that the event might take place in the near future, if not an alternate universe of the present day. In this peculiar world of The Lobster, everyone is required to have a life partner. Failing to do so would result in being turned into an animal of one’s choice hence the title, The Lobster—the animal of the protagonist’s choice.

In this paper, I argue that, on the surface, both films share similarities in that they are dystopian works and follow the life of their protagonists, Atari Kobayashi (Isle of Dog), and David (The Lobster) who, at some point, decide to side with the opposition against the regime. However, the films depict the resistance of the protagonist very differently, which, in turn, affects the message of the story. I posit that Atari Kobayashi’s resistance depicted in Isle of Dogs conforms to a dystopian convention in that it serves to point out the evilness of the autocratic regime[1], while David’s resistance is not resistance at all—rather a mere act of survival, because the dystopian world of The Lobster world is an unconventional work of its genre—which does not focus on the systematically oppressive state control and the resistance, but on satire when viewed in comparison to the real world.

The event of Isle of Dogs takes place in a full-fledged dystopian world where the rise of the oppressive government is justified. It is stated clearly, in the introduction scene, the lineage of the Kobayashi and their grudge against canines. The film offers a narrative about the fight between two ideologies, radicalism, and conformism. Through Atari’s resistance, the narrative takes a side with the pro-dog movement and uses the protagonist’s struggle to indicate the flaws in this particular dystopia. His innocent decision to rescue his bodyguard-dog leads to him becoming a symbol for the resistance—as suggested in Tracy Walker admitting, in private, of idolizing the boy, and from that she regains strength to push the pro-dog movement forward. The Kobayashi’s regime is, thus, in the dramatic climax, exposed of committing murder, electoral fraud, corruption, and manipulation. Such a narrative of the collision between two radically different beliefs is pervasive in the dystopian tradition[2].

The Lobster, on the other hand, lacks justification in its world-building. This dystopia is told as it is and does not answer the question of how it came to be. The reason explaining why the citizens of the world have to live in pairs is also not given. The audience has not been provided with an explanation of how society at large functions. We are confined in a limited space of the hotel, the forest, and, only briefly, the shopping mall. That might be the reason why the world of The Lobster only makes sense if it is seen as a satirical version of our own world. It works logically only when viewed in comparison to our real-world concept of relationships and social expectations.

When the objective of the world is not clearly established, the protagonist’s goal cannot be definitely defined. He oscillates a lot from one side to another. David, the protagonist, does not seem to be actually against the oppressive regime. Unlike Atari, he tries his best to conform to the assigned social norm. He even pretends to share a similarity with a heartless woman with the hope that he will not be turned into an animal. After his plan backfires, he joins the resistance out of necessity because he cannot, anymore, stay at the hotel anymore. He does not seem particularly happy with the resistance either, because of the demanding rules—no less strict than those of the hotel. However, after he meets a short-sighted woman, he is ready to go back to the world he ran away from. He is ready to conform again. In the end, the audience is left with an indefinite ending with three possible outcomes: 1) He blinds himself to be with the woman; 2) He pretends to be blind and stays with the woman; 3) He runs away. (Morie) I find the second outcome the most probable. David is a survivor, he is ready to do anything to make him survive. He has come this far into the city; therefore, he would not run away and risk himself being caught as a loner. He also cannot go back to the resistance group because he has already murdered the leader of the loners. Furthermore, he is not immune to his emotional vulnerability. We have seen him crying at the sight of his brother being kicked to death. He would not dare to push that sharp blade into his squishy eyeballs. The man will eventually conform. As I have posited, David never challenges the evilness of his society. He is ready to obey as long as he is not the loser in the equation.

The Lobster, therefore, is not a dystopian work in its conventional sense in that two ideologies are at odds with one another and there is the one that clearly has the moral high ground. However, it poses to us two possible scenarios that are equally in their evilness and extremity. The audience might indeed watch the film and come to the conclusion that we need a little bit of both worlds—a world of compromise. Perhaps, one does not need to choose to be in the society at large or to go live in the woods as a loner. Yet, the film does not acknowledge such a probability. It requires its protagonist, as well as the audience to choose. By ending the film with such a cliffhanger, it purposefully forces us to take the film’s logic and contemplate accordingly what might be the real ending. We may stubbornly think that David would somehow find the world of compromise where he is free to live alone or marry who he wants but, internally, we know too well that it is not one of the available choices.

Hannah Arendt quotes Madison in her article, “Personal Responsibility under Dictatorship”, that “all governments rest on consent”. She further adds to make her point that “If I obey the laws of the land, I actually support its constitution, as becomes glaringly obvious in the case of revolutionists and rebels who disobey because they have withdrawn this tacit consent.” (46-47) Conventionally, dystopian works concern the people who have “withdrawn[ed] their consent”. As in Isle of Dogs, there is a fight between the anti-dog government and the pro-dog minority. Its overarching message is that the world with dogs—acting as a symbol of respect for the minority, diversity, and compromise—is better. However, The Lobster does not recognize any possibilities beyond the hotel and the loner’s forest. It does not suggest any possible solutions to its premise of the oppressive world. David has always been supporting the constitution of the world he lives in. Its fictional world is exclusively used for satirical purposes. Therefore, in sum, The Lobster depicts a dystopian with no resistance and offers no way out, while Isle of Dogs functions more conventionally as a dystopian film that uses a horrible, evil, and oppressive world to suggest the possibility of a better world.

Works Cited

Arendt, Hannah. “Personal Responsibility under Dictatorship”. Responsibility and Judgement. Schocken Books, New York. 2003. pp. 17-48.

Morie, Elle. “The Lobster (2015) Ending Explained: Did He Leave Her?” The Odd Apple, 5 Feb. 2022, https://theoddapple.com/the-lobster-2015-movie-plot-summary-ending-explained/.

[1] Even though Megasaki City is depicted to have an election, the election result seems to be rigged by the Kobayashi faction. Also, the fact that Mayor Kobayashi can assassinate his opponent without much repercussion from the people and seems to be able to get away with it if not for the reappearance of Atari suggests a somewhat absolute power he has on his hand.

[2] By comparing Isle of Dogs to conventional dystopian works, it should be noted that dystopian works are not required to feature an active rebellion as the film depicts, even though this aspect of the genre is often adopted (e.g. The Hinger Game Trilogy (2008-2010), Fahrenheit 451 (1953)) However, the conflict between two ideologies often takes the forefront as the central theme of the story. An individual character in a dystopian work may, passively, defies the oppressive law of the regime in its own discreet way (e.g. The Handmaid’s Tale (1985) and The Giver (1993)).