This is a prime example of a movie that has clear ambitions yet misses the mark spectacularly. The best word that can describe Triangle of Sadness is "snooty." From director Ruben Ostlund, it's a movie that thinks it has something new and important to say, when everything in it has already been said. It is also technically a dark comedy, but it's as funny as having nothing to do on an island. The only thing remotely funny in this movie was the scene with the hand grenade. That makes sense in context. It has a weird way of alternating between being ridiculously over the top and annoyingly ambiguous. The famed sinking scene where people vomit is the worst example of the former. Nobody needs to see a naked old man having diarrhea and vomiting on screen at the same time. It hits you over the head with its messages, and leaves the actual movie in the margins. The worst part is the ending, which doubles down on this. It's completely open-ended, without any hint of resolution.
It's quite clear what's being attempted here, but the response is always, "so what?" Probably the best example is the whole ordeal involving gender roles, which is featured at the beginning and the end. The movie starts with influencers Carl and Yaya arguing at a fancy restaurant over paying the bill. Then, at the end of the movie when they're stranded on an island, Carl starts having sex with Abigail, the toilet manager on the yacht, for extra food and privileges. It's pretty obvious that what we have here is an inversion of stereotypical gender roles and power structures. So what? What is Ostlund trying to say about this? It's not at all clear what the point is supposed to be. Another great example is the contrast between Thomas (an American socialist), and Dimitry (a Russian capitalist). Sure, it's conceptually interesting, but nothing is done with it. They argue as the yacht sinks, that's it.
The characters are horrible, they exist as mere caricatures, giving no reason to care about them or give room for any semblance of character development. No one is changed by the events taking place, they remain the same wooden stereotypes they started as. It's difficult to hate them, if that's the intention. It's like getting mad at the people on billboard ads. Now, one of the points is that these people have vapid and empty lives, but that doesn't mean they themselves need to be vapid and empty. Sure, the acting is good and it's great to see a cast of mostly unknown actors, but that doesn't change the fact that there is no substance to these characters. It's like a 2 and a half hour political cartoon.
There is always a certain hypocrisy in the movie industry making movies criticizing the rich and powerful. The very same lifestyles that movies like this criticize are the same ones that actors, directors, and executives live in while grandstanding about how much they care about poor people and social justice and what have you. They don't care, they never have, and as long as they continue making money, they never will. Also, who is going to see a movie like Triangle of Sadness? Aside from film nerds like me, it's the very same people that the movie is lambasting. It's a movie that tries to champion the working people made for high brow snobs, most of which are rich themselves. That's like starting a communist revolution in Bel-Air. This is a pretentious film made by pretentious people for other pretentious people.
It's quite clear what's being attempted here, but the response is always, "so what?" Probably the best example is the whole ordeal involving gender roles, which is featured at the beginning and the end. The movie starts with influencers Carl and Yaya arguing at a fancy restaurant over paying the bill. Then, at the end of the movie when they're stranded on an island, Carl starts having sex with Abigail, the toilet manager on the yacht, for extra food and privileges. It's pretty obvious that what we have here is an inversion of stereotypical gender roles and power structures. So what? What is Ostlund trying to say about this? It's not at all clear what the point is supposed to be. Another great example is the contrast between Thomas (an American socialist), and Dimitry (a Russian capitalist). Sure, it's conceptually interesting, but nothing is done with it. They argue as the yacht sinks, that's it.
The characters are horrible, they exist as mere caricatures, giving no reason to care about them or give room for any semblance of character development. No one is changed by the events taking place, they remain the same wooden stereotypes they started as. It's difficult to hate them, if that's the intention. It's like getting mad at the people on billboard ads. Now, one of the points is that these people have vapid and empty lives, but that doesn't mean they themselves need to be vapid and empty. Sure, the acting is good and it's great to see a cast of mostly unknown actors, but that doesn't change the fact that there is no substance to these characters. It's like a 2 and a half hour political cartoon.
There is always a certain hypocrisy in the movie industry making movies criticizing the rich and powerful. The very same lifestyles that movies like this criticize are the same ones that actors, directors, and executives live in while grandstanding about how much they care about poor people and social justice and what have you. They don't care, they never have, and as long as they continue making money, they never will. Also, who is going to see a movie like Triangle of Sadness? Aside from film nerds like me, it's the very same people that the movie is lambasting. It's a movie that tries to champion the working people made for high brow snobs, most of which are rich themselves. That's like starting a communist revolution in Bel-Air. This is a pretentious film made by pretentious people for other pretentious people.