Scholarlink

This chapter discusses The Lobster and The Killing of a Sacred Deer. Continuing from Chapter 2 , the central theme of this chapter is the ways in which Lanthimos succeeds in transforming Brechtian aestheticsBrechtian aesthetics to conjure an uncannyUncanny visual language, creating uncanny and deeply unsettling feelings and cinematic universes in these films. The camera movement aimed at disorientating the viewer as it creates a Brechtian distantiation effectThe distantiation effect, is in itself uncanny. The characters’ robotic performances, their banal and lifeless conversations offer representations of humans that cross the boundary between human and inhuman, the animate and inanimate that is deeply uncannyUncanny. The uncanny is used in these films as a critique of scientific rationalism on the one hand and liberal capitalism on the other. The mixture of the ‘weird’ and realismRealism, or the unnatural presented as the natural, is what makes Lanthimos’s films indeed not only weird, but uncannyUncanny as well. But the uncanny is not only the aesthetics that connects these films. It is also what differentiates the non-realistic cinema of Lanthimos from the modernist cinemaModernist cinema of Theo AngelopoulosTheo Angelopoulos as I argue.

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

From The ‘National’ to The ‘International’: An Uncanny Visual Language in The Lobster (2015) and The Killing of a Sacred Deer (2017)

  • 章节

  • 发表日期：

    2026年

查看全文
  • Eleftheria Rania Kosmidou

摘要

This chapter discusses The Lobster and The Killing of a Sacred Deer. Continuing from Chapter 2 , the central theme of this chapter is the ways in which Lanthimos succeeds in transforming Brechtian aestheticsBrechtian aesthetics to conjure an uncannyUncanny visual language, creating uncanny and deeply unsettling feelings and cinematic universes in these films. The camera movement aimed at disorientating the viewer as it creates a Brechtian distantiation effectThe distantiation effect, is in itself uncanny. The characters’ robotic performances, their banal and lifeless conversations offer representations of humans that cross the boundary between human and inhuman, the animate and inanimate that is deeply uncannyUncanny. The uncanny is used in these films as a critique of scientific rationalism on the one hand and liberal capitalism on the other. The mixture of the ‘weird’ and realismRealism, or the unnatural presented as the natural, is what makes Lanthimos’s films indeed not only weird, but uncannyUncanny as well. But the uncanny is not only the aesthetics that connects these films. It is also what differentiates the non-realistic cinema of Lanthimos from the modernist cinemaModernist cinema of Theo AngelopoulosTheo Angelopoulos as I argue.