An incident reported from the this year’s Cannes Film Festival caught my attention and led to this article. At the screening of one of the films in competition, Triangle of Sadness, half of the audience walked out during the film and the rest gave it an 8 minute ovation. And then, to the shock or dismay of many of the film world, the film is awarded the festival’s coveted top prize, the Palme d’Or. How can such a wide chasm exist?
To be clear, I am not here to review the film itself, but rather to open a discussion on how we should analyze and treat films that make us uncomfortable. Most of the reviews of Triangle of Sadness – Ruben Östlund 2022 – describe it as “a heavy handed satire against the super-rich”. I disagree. To me , this dark comedy, is a bunch of failing swipes at “the entitled”, regardless of wealth, together with an attempted guilt trip on the audience for the plight of the “common folk”. Acknowledging the debate, the BBC heads its 5 star review with the challenging question – “The Most Disgusting Film of 2022?” and answers in the negative. The review points out that the film “has enough rage and riotous abandon to compensate for its lack of subtlety.”
I have long lectured in my classes that I do not care whether or not you liked the film, tell me about your visceral, emotional and mental reaction to the art of the filmmaking. So, I can easily understand how the critics/viewers can experience an appreciation of the art (acting, cinematography, editing) on the screen even if it is not a movie they like. Which leads me to my question: Should a film that is technically positive but falters in the manner of it’s storytelling be donned with any of moviedom’s best picture awards (or even nominations)? Saying it another way-Should the art of the filmmaking prevail over the entertainment value or vice-versa?
Let us consider some of critic’s comments:
Ruben Östlund’s “Triangle of Sadness” has become one of the more divisive Palme d’Or winners in years. On one side, there are those who think its underlined themes and obvious targets are a bit unrefined and obvious. On the other, there are people who would argue those targets deserve a skewering and the writer/director of “Force Majeure” and “The Square” uses his wit to do so with hysterical precision.....
It's hard to shake the feeling that Östlund thinks he’s saying more here than he actually is—I think that pretentious intent is at the root of most on the hate side of this film’s divide—but that didn’t make the film significantly less entertaining as a social satire for me.
Full review Brian Tallerico -RogerEbert.com
“This, in the end, is a very bad movie, executed with enough visual polish and surface cleverness to fool the Cannes jurors, something Ostlund has done twice. Shame on them! But maybe we shouldn’t be surprised. The elaborately constructed, meandering plots of “Triangle of Sadness” and “The Square” purport to expose the hypocrisies and contradictions of contemporary life, but they are edifices of complacency, clever advertisements for the status quo.”
Full review A.O. Scott - N.Y. Times
“You can fully agree that most “haves” are dreadful, and that the “have nots” deserve much more out of life, and still be exhausted and bored by Triangle of Sadness and its quirky acidity.”
Full review Stephanie Zacharek - Time Magazine To add a little fuel to the fire I posit the following: If this film had not been in English would the reaction have been the same? Does the foreign language give a film an added legitamacy?
In an interview with LA Times critic Mark Olsen the director gives some insight into how his thoughts and intentions gave rise to the controversy. Unpacking the wild twists, excessive vomit in ‘Triangle of Sadness’: ‘Maybe it was too much’
NOW IT IS TIME FOR YOUR THOUGHTS. PLEASE LEAVE YOUR COMMENTS BELOW
Sorry, comments are closed for this post.