Delaney Collins
Dr. Tuttle
Eng235
05/02/19
Loners and Jezebels
Without love, sex, and intimacy the proliferation and development of humanity would come to an abrupt halt. Yet, these central themes of functional human relationships are both sensationalized and stigmatized by western society. Sociodemographic stratification furcates this dichotomous rhetoric, normalizing and excusing differentiating societal expectations of intimacy on the basis of an individual’s identity. Resultantly, socially resistant movements frequently manifest within the confines of the corrupt structure, hoping to eradicate problematic societal ideals through upholding their own. Yet, these subcultures are equally vulnerable to the same effects of structural inequity. Through depicting derivative cultures and their subcultures, works within the dystopian genre illuminate relevant systemic injustices within both aspects of society. Two dystopian works that disentangle society’s onerous expectations of intimate relationships are Margaret Atwood’s novel, The Handmaids Tale, and Yorgos Lanthimos’ movie, The Lobster. Through Atwood’s and Lanthimos’ veritable reflections of society in their fictional dystopias, audiences are able to consider how society’s ideals surrounding love, sex, and intimacy burgeon oppression. Simultaneously, these dystopias depict the culpability of similarly dispiriting rebellious subcultures which propagate—despite opposing— oppressive ideals.
Despite being produced three decades apart, The Lobster, released in 2015, and The Handmaids Tale, originally published in 1985, imagine dystopias that mechanize indoctrinated control of love, sex, and intimacy to depict the societal and personal effects of losing this freedom. The first published, Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaids Tale, features a dystopia, called Gilead, in which a puritan theocracy has recently absorbed the United States Government and citizens are forced to adhere to biblically-inspired roles within the patriarchal society (Atwood 17-33, 86-98). The protagonist, known as Offred, is a Handmaid, and is forced to bear the children of powerful couples (Atwood 88-90). However, just outside of Gilead there is a place of rebellion called “Jezebel’s”, which Offred discovers when she is taken there as the mistress of the Commander for a night of supervised freedom (Atwood 229-250). At “Jezebel’s”, women function as sex workers for powerful men within Gilead who seek sexual freedom (Atwood 229-250).
Yorgos Lanthimos’, The Lobster, depicts a dystopia where the government forces individuals after a certain age to maintain an intimate partnership (Lanthimos). The protagonist, David, no longer has a partner— so he is transported to the hotel where, amongst other singles, he has forty-five days to find a new partner (Lanthimos). The hotel’s rules dictate that residents are not allowed to engage in intimate activities alone, and to match with a partner both individuals must have like “defining characteristics” (i.e. frequent nosebleeds, a limp, a great smile etc.) (Lanthimos). The formation of an intimate partnership is strictly enforced, and those who don’t adhere are reintegrated into society after being transformed into an animal of their choice for “a second chance at love” (Lanthimos). Ultimately, however, David refuses both fates and instead joins “the loners” (Lanthimos). “The loners” are a group of individuals who have rebelled against the forced partnership, forming their own society within the woods; they idealize solitude and condemn intimacy amongst others (Lanthimos).
Yorgos Lanthimos’ The Lobster,and Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale, both feature dystopias in which the protagonists deviate from the imposed culture to pursue freedom within rebellious subcultures. In both dystopias, these rebellions represent freedom to love, be intimate, and have sex; however, the protagonists’ experiences of the subcultures differ from one another, convoluted by the unequal oppression of their identities. In The Handmaid’s Tale, Offred is transgresses her role in society to enter Jezebel’s, as she changes out of her traditional red dress to wear what the commander has purchased for her (230-232). The clothing, Offred assumes “… must be an old theater costume, or something from a vanished nightclub act…” (Atwood 230). Wearing the outfit is also a transgression from Offred’s personal identity, as before becoming a Handmaid she had “…never worn anything remotely like this, so glittering and theatrical…” (Atwood 230). The rebellion the outfit represents attracts Offred, and she observes that to wear “… it would be… so sinful, so free.” (Atwood 230-231). To further her journey to “Jezebel’s, Offred must transgress into another role in society, and dons the blue cape of a Wife— as they are allowed to walk outside (Atwood 232). And, to pass through the gate out of Gilead, she must hide herself in the car, as even “’Wives aren’t allowed.’” through (Atwood 232).
This complex relationship with the outfit the Commander has chosen, confronts the performative nature of transgression that oppressed individuals are forced to adopt to deviate from their prescribed role and pursue freedom. Once in “Jezebel’s”, Offred is only allowed to be there under the supervision of the Commander, who tells her that “’If anyone asks…’” she should report that she’s “’an evening rental,’” (Atwood 233). Later on in the night, Offred is expected to be intimate with the Commander and describes that in this transaction for freedom, she “… can’t afford pride or aversion…” (Atwood 259). After the implied sexual assault, Offred is returned back to the Commander’s home and has to reassume the role of the Handmaid (Atwood 254-259). Offred’s lack of autonomous mobility— despite transgressing her identity— exposes the dearth of access oppressed individuals have to subcultures and their implied freedom. Often, like Offred, the oppressed can only deviate from the larger culture through the role and expectations defined by individuals with the power to deviate freely. And furthermore, this freedom, like Offred’s, is conditional, and temporary. “Jezebel’s”, itself, illuminates the translation of unequal power from the reigning culture to the rebellious subculture. For instance, in Gilead, the only people able to deviate from the control of the dystopia without transgressing their own identity, are those with power in the society itself, like the Commander (Atwood 229-250). Thus, the freedom sought via the rebellious subculture is defined by the already powerful individuals, that created it. Offred’s experience of getting to “Jezebel’s”— which included transgression of her role, her identity, and then conformation to a different role— showed that for the oppressed, even within rebellious subcultures, “Freedom, like everything else, is relative.” (Atwood 233).
Comparatively, in The Lobster, David’s access to “the loners” in the woods, is far more independent (Lanthimos). While escaping the Hotel, David is helped by the maid who provides him nightly stimulation; in return, the maid asks to be tranquilized so she is not held accountable for David’s escape (Lanthimos). David proceeds to run into the woods autonomously, and effectively reaches “the loners” (Lanthimos). David’s escape is representative of how the inherent power of certain identities (like men) endure fewer impediments to their access to freedom than those whose identities are oppressed (like women). Once in the woods, the Loner Leader informs him that, “…any romantic or sexual relations between loners are not permitted and any such acts are punished.” (Lanthimos). However, when David is with “the loners”, he deviates from the regulations of the subculture and falls in love with a woman who has the same defining characteristic as him: shortsightedness (Lanthimos). The Loner Leader intervenes in the relationship, blinding the Shortsighted Woman so that she and David no longer share the same defining characteristic (Lanthimos).
When the Shortsighted Woman questions the Loner Leader about why she’s been blinded and David hasn’t, The Loner Leader responds, “I have no idea what you’re talking about. The drugs are messing with your head. If I were you, I’d try and be a little braver about the whole thing.” (Lanthimos). The Loner Leader’s choice of victim and response diminishes the Shortsighted Woman’s character, and her experience— emblematizing the real societal issue of women being victimized by rape culture. While both David and the Shortsighted Woman were defying the subculture’s rules, the Shortsighted Woman was punished, and simultaneously told that her feelings regarding the inequality were indicative of negative character traits (Lanthimos). This scenario implies the experience of women who have been victims of sexual violence, where the ideals of rape-culture impose that their behaviors resulted in their abuse. “The loners” in the The Lobster, elucidate the transfer of implicit bias from the major culture to the rebellious subculture (Lanthimos). For instance, while “the loners” are attempting to free individuals from the tyranny of required partnership, they exact their own confining rules of solitude that similarly suppress freedom within an intimate relationship (Lanthimos). Additionally, despite joining the rebellious subculture, the cultural ideology that finding a partner relies on, like defining characteristics, maintains as a belief of “the loners”; this cross-pollination of ingrained beliefs indicates the unavoidable overlap of beliefs from their own culture, and the one they are rebelling against (Lanthimos).
Prior to discussing the specific function of these subcultures, it should be observed that the depictions of David’s and Offred’s access to the subcultures also depicts the gender disparity of access to sexual and intimate freedom present in current society; though this understanding is reliant both dystopias upholding the oppressive understanding of gender as binary. In The Handmaid’s Tale, Offred was forced to utilize the Commander and transgress her identity to deviate from the accepted culture (Atwood 229-250). Whilst in, The Lobster, David deviated with minimal help from the maid, and the Shortsighted Woman suffered the consequences when both of them deviated from the subculture (Lanthimos) . Ultimately, Offred— representing women’s access to freedom— stayed oppressed throughout rebelling and never achieved freedom. Whilst David— representing men’s access to freedom— obtained freedom through the continual oppression of the women who helped him. The difference between Offred and David’s access, represents how the societal ideals surrounding love, sex, and intimacy— such as those of rape-culture, and patriarchies— oppress one accepted gender identity over the other, deterring their access to freedom more.
Conclusively, the dystopic subcultures of Yorgos Lanthimos’ film, The Lobster, and Margaret Atwood’s book, The Handmaid’s Tale, confront the perpetration of oppression within society’s subcultures, demonstrating that a subculture’s deviating hierarchy and ideals are inherited and complicated by the reigning individuals and ideals of society. These subculturesformed microcosms of the dystopic societies they deviated from: as both the larger culture and the subculture attempted to achieve utopic society. The oppressive quality of these dystopias and their rebellions exposes the inaccurate assumption of accepted societal ideals and those that radically oppose them— who believe that one set of ideals over the other will procure a utopic society. Instead, the constancy of oppression in both cultures and subcultures exposes that inequity will present itself in any hierarchical society, which promotes a specific ideal while simultaneously condemning the alternative. Yet, both dystopias own narratives silence the experiences of the LGBTQA+ individuals and individuals of color. Ultimately reflecting that even the dystopia’s illumination of societal oppression is not a nuclear creation, and upholds similarly harmful ideologies.
Works Cited
Atwood, Margaret. The Handmaid’s Tale. Anchor Books, New York, 1986.
“The Lobster.” , directed by Yorgos Lanthimos. , produced by Ceci Dempsey, et al. , performance by Colin Farrell, et al. , A24, 2015.
