Bugonia

Classic Lanthimos: discomfort mixed with aesthetic originality leads to an unsatisfying finish. That's been the story with Dogtooth, The Lobster, Poor Things, and now Bugonia. I haven't loved any of his movies, but I haven't disliked any. Bugonia isn't my least favorite of them; especially in the theater it was so intense; despite the weirdness people point out, it's actually intimate. There's some bold artistry, like Poor Things, but more pathos. Poor Things was too zombie; Bugonia was uncannily emotional.

I may be way off, but I suppose the title refers to the state of being like a bug, as in the bee analogy, similar to Antkind.

At first, Teddy appears caring and intelligent, and Michelle is insufferably corporate. Teddy could be a counter-culture hero, at first, like Dude Lebowski. Then he descends, past cruelty, to sheer insanity and even stupidity by the end, as we feel more and more sympathy for Michelle. Then it flips again, suddenly and definitively. But how much does it flip? Is Teddy a counter-culture hero, or the worst kind of villain? He was right all along -- genius, in fact -- but he tortured and murdered several sentient beings, terrestrial and extraterrestrial. Does his end (emancipating humanity) justify his means? Erik certainly doesn't think so, but I think sacrificing a few lives to emancipate species is an understandable if not justifiable pursuit. Teddy isn't a hero to me, but his villainy is much less clear in light of the ending. If you discovered this alien plot, which destroyed your mom and disenfranchised millions, what are the odds you'd act rationally?

There were a few moments that felt inconsistent with her humanity. She had opportunities to escape, and she squandered them. In hindsight, perhaps she was just trying to capture more information about this guy who's been trapping her species. I wonder if there were moments intended to convince the audience of her humanity that upon second watch would seem inconsistent with her alienness.

The ending struck me as dumb. Even if it was intentionally dumb, mirroring flat-earther two-dimensional thinking, it seemed like a wasted opportunity to do something really cool. Sometimes in a movie when the crazy thing you secretly want to happen happens, it's euphoric; this time it was just silly.

Lanthimos loves a good grimace. I can take some grimace, but I want it to pay off. There was a moment in Bugonia when I realized I wouldn't be happy with any ending, and that's been my experience with Lanthimos. It's upsetting and somewhat interesting and ultimately heartless. Maybe I need him to make a One Battle After Another, a hopeful heartfelt Lanthimos.

Bugonia reminds me of that other movie that feigns a heroine but that actually occurs in Plemons' head all along: I'm Thinking of Ending Things. I realize that technically Bugonia isn't all in his head, since Michelle survives Teddy's death and on the surface he was right all along. But the movie is really about the delusions of people like Teddy, and the fact that he was right all along with this absurd concoction is more of a satire than a vindication. So both movies really end up being a commentary on people like the Plemons character, and I can see why he was cast for both: his visage is frighteningly lonely. He was also a good choice for PSH's son in The Master, PSH being an icon of disturbed loneliness.

It's interesting that Lanthimos chooses to prove Teddy right in the end. Is it just for the cool twist, which flexes Lanthimos' aesthetic and storytelling boldness? Or is it because he thinks his message -- spotlighting people like Teddy -- is more potent if we pretend Teddy is right in the end? It gives Lanthimos a chance to showcase how stupid the delusion is, even when it's technically correct (not a delusion at all). When it occurred, I definitely assumed Lanthimos was just going for the tasty plot twist, but now I'm not so sure.

So how villainous or heroic was Teddy? I can't call him a hero, instinctively, due to his cruelty toward sentient beings and his general demeanor in the second half of the movie. At best he was trying to emancipate humanity, was scarred by his mother's plight, and was correct in his research, yet was understandably volatile in his execution, volatile enough to lose the badge of heroism. At worst he was avoidably delusional, the final scenes were a mock play of his fears, Michelle died on the electric chair, and he had tortured and killed several other people after the psychotic break involving his mother. So his villainy is either understandable volatility or willing delusion; both lead to the torture of sentient beings, but one may save humanity and the other is pure suffering for everyone.

I do think ends can justify means, and I do think intentions can justify actions. Examples: sacrificing one life to spare many; taking an innocuous action that anyone in good faith would take, which accidentally causes suffering. I don't think people should be legally or morally judged on the actions alone, but also on the motivations. And to a degree, that's true in the US: premeditated murder is punished harsher than involuntary manslaughter. But if I'm really being honest about a potentially controversial opinion that I haven't thought through, I don't think the US takes it far enough; I think driving a car at a BAC way over the limit should be punished the same whether or not you crash and kill someone, because at a certain level of intoxication, killing someone is simply a matter of chance, and you shouldn't be punished or spared due to chance. If it's negligent to drive at that BAC, because it could easily kill someone, you should be punished according to the negligence, not the consequences. I'm not sure what the punishment should be, between the current punishments of killing or not killing someone, I'm just saying the two shouldn't be punished so differently. But I'll admit I've been fortunate enough not to be close enough to situations like this to really explore the consequences. These are just my theories. But I'm pretty committed to judging people more by their intentions than actions. Note: negligence is part of the "intentions" calculation.