User Reviews

A few days are chronicled in the life of Christian (Claes Bang), a curator of a modern art museum in Stockholm. He faces various challenges, the main one being the loss of his wallet and phone and the consequences of what he does to get them back.

The situation mentioned above is the best one in the movie despite an unnecessary over-the-top dramatic scene in a rain-soaked garbage dump. The film's deepest flaw is that it takes on too many sub-stories that end up just barely touching the surface despite some fascinating scenes in all of them. This takes the viewer in too many directions and leaves a jumbled feeling by the end.

The most renowned scene of the film is one in which a group of wealthy museum patrons are at a dinner and "treated" to a performance artist (Terry Notary) who acts like an ape-human and causes havoc on some of the guests. The scene is brilliantly executed. It is easy for the viewer to feel the fear of the patrons wondering what the beast-man will do next and who his next victim will be. But the major events that took place are never even referred to later on. It's like this scene was an extra short film on the side and had nothing to do with the general narrative.

In some ways, "The Square" resembles "La Dolce Vita": an attractive, self-involved man who is very high on the social scale in a cosmopolitan setting feels a soullessness in his surroundings. Writer/director Ruben Ostlund - who did such a great job with "Force Majeure" a few years ago - shows great potential here as well. His occasional jabs against pretense, especially where modern art is concerned, are more than welcome. But overall, "The Square" might have been great if it hadn't taken on too much. - dbamateurcritic

After reading some reviews by professional critics, I start to lose confidence in their ability to 'read' a film...

"The Square" is harder to 'read' than most films, but director & writer Ruben Östlund gives you many clues what his intentions are and even repeats it a few times in the film.

It's about the problems all modern societies face: Migration, poverty, social stratification, gender trouble, battle of the sexes, inequality, social injustice and a general loss of community and trust in each other.

As the central metaphor Östlund presents in his film an art work called 'The Square' - created by an artist and sociologist - which represents an ideal society, where trust, pro-social behavior and trust among people is the norm. But the film "The Square" itself presents a (Swedish) society, that is far, far away from this utopia, almost the opposite. Östlund illustrates these abstract topics through dreamlike episodes from everyday life: The main protagonist becomes a victim of confidence men at the beginning, which triggers morally questionable actions by him and his friends, which result in other people losing their confidence in society, too.

If you understood this, you have a chance at getting something out of this movie, but - be warned - it gets increasingly complicated and wild.

It's also about the loss of trust between men and women, the borders of tolerance and inclusion in society, the stupidity of modern art, the mad cacophony of the media & the animalistic nature of man, who still might be only an advanced ape looking to find a better society to live in.

Östlund uses episodes, metaphors and leitmotifs instead of a conventional plot, always dancing around his subjects in surprising ways, more like in a novel. The surrealistic touches, which often seem to come out of nowhere, because the film looks hyper-realistic most of the time, make the interpretation even more demanding, because everything we see could also be 'explained' as a nightmare by the hero. But even nightmares reflect our social reality in bizarre ways.

Last but not least, 'The Square' is also the shape of the projected film in the cinema. You could interpret this as Östlund's way of saying, that cinema is one of the central social spaces where trust and community can be created today.

I understand people, who don't like this movie or see it as flawed, but it works and is never boring. Maybe it's a little too simple in it's 'solution' for the difficult questions it asked at the beginning and maybe it doesn't end in a satisfying way and maybe it's too moralizing - but few films are this ambitious and demanding these days and that should be praised.

I haven't seen such a film since Luis Bunuel's "The Phantom of Liberty" (1974), which is similar in satirical tone, realist style, episodic structure and surrealist approach. Another influence might be Roy Andersson's dry, comic surrealism, but it's still its own thing.

It's too rich for one viewing. I need to see it again.

The Square: In the Square, the art-house is free to survive

The Square has some great moments and a very disjointed plot. Some of the scenes are spot-on critiques of the art world. However, the movie wanders aimlessly without a thread that drives the plot from beginning to end. The main thing the audience learns is that the director of the modern art gallery is a self centered, arrogant racist, which isn't much to hang a film on let alone get people excited about. I don't mind terrible protagonists, but give me one strong, main plot, instead of three or more weak ones.

Claes Bang plays the museum director, Christian, and some of his dialogue is hilarious. Anne, Elisabeth Moss, has a one night stand with the arrogant Christian and she wants more. But then that plot line dies and another about Mr. Bang's missing wallet takes over. None of the story lines are fully developed and it makes a film about modern art too artsy and annoying. Luckily the dialogue and bizarre situations in the film make The Square worth a look.

The filming and scenes are fine, but I didn't walk away amazed. The music was uninspired, but it is better than being cloying and obtrusive like so many soundtracks have been this decade, Dunkirk being one of the worst examples of this.

Rating: Matinée. There are plenty of interesting things to see and enjoy in The Square. Revelations about life are art are not among them.

Peace, Tex Shelters

According to Swedish director Ruben Östlund ("Force Majeure"), society today has turned its back on the social contract, the obligation that people not only express their concerns for other's well-being but act upon them in concrete and meaningful ways. Winner of the Palme d'Or at the 2017 Cannes Film Festival, Östlund's latest film, The Square, mercilessly skewers the moral hypocrisy of the contemporary art museum world in Stockholm, particularly taking aim at Christian (Claes Bang), the museum's chief curator whose pretensions are repeatedly called to task in creative and sometimes bizarre ways during the two hour and twenty minute film.

Christian's current project is to develop marketing for an exhibition that features a piece of artwork called "The Square," a 13 x 13 foot illuminated space that seeks to create the possibility for people to bridge the gap between the ideals they hold and the way they actually behave. It is adorned by a plaque that reads, "The Square is a sanctuary of trust and caring. Within it we all share equal rights and obligations." What this basically translates to is that anyone standing inside the square is afforded whatever help that they ask for from passersby, whether it involves money or just physical or emotional help.

Christian is "likeable enough," but if the definition of hypocrisy is "the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which ones own behavior does not conform, he is a walking example. The film begins with the curator being interviewed by personable journalist Anne (Elisabeth Moss, "Mad Men," TV series) about his upcoming art project. It all goes well until Christian is asked to explain the meaning of the convoluted phrase, "the topos of exhibition/non-exhibition." His inability to do so in a coherent manner unmasks his artier-than-thou façade and the interview begins to go off the rails.

Later on the street, Christian's insecurity is reinforced when, after intervening to help a woman screaming that a man is trying to kill her, he is played for a sucker by con artists who rob him of his wallet, cell phone, and cufflinks. Using GPS to track his cell phone to an apartment building in a seedy part of town, he is persuaded by his assistant, Michael (Christopher Læssø, "Follow the Money," TV series), to print threatening letters and drop them into each person's mailbox with the address of a place to return the stolen goods. While this tactic eventually leads to the return of his materials, not having foreseen any consequences that might affect someone else, he is forced to deal with a super irate young man (Elijandro Edouard) who is persistent in demanding an apology from Christian who stonewalls the boy until he no longer can.

All of this sounds dark, but Östlund's comic genius lifts the film to a truly innovative level with an abundance (perhaps an overabundance) of impressive set pieces. There is the homeless woman who brazenly asks Christian to buy her a Chicken Ciabatta sandwich without onions. The curator, who only wants to help, reacts testily by buying her the sandwich but tells her to pick out the onions herself. In another sequence, a member of the audience with Tourette's syndrome keeps interrupting a museum Q&A presentation by the artist Julian (Dominic West, "Money Monster"), calling out obscene remarks directed towards the female host.

There is more. A fellow worker insists on bringing a crying baby to every meeting; a tug of war erupts over what to do with a used condom after Christian and Anne have sex together in her room (much to the chagrin of Anne's Chimpanzee roommate); an ill-advised ad campaign promoting the new project showing a young girl being blown to bits inside the square goes viral which forces some changes in the museum's personnel; museum donors rush toward a complementary buffet before the chef even finishes describing what's being offered. The centerpiece of the film, however, involves Oleg (Terry Notary, "Kong: Skull Island"), a performance artist who does more than his share of frightening the attendees at a ball thrown for the museum's well-heeled donors.

Oleg acts the part of an aggressive ape, grunting and screeching while mercilessly hunting its prey. The donors sit transfixed, protecting themselves while ignoring Oleg who jumps on tables, pulls people's hair, and eventually assaults a woman until several men pounce on the aggressor, unleashing their most repressed form of violence. It is a scene that ranges from curious to funny to threatening to violent to just plain sad. While Östlund should be acknowledged for attempting to tackle an issue that has relevance for our times, the film's message that an inordinate attachment to individualism and, what the director calls "The Bystander Effect," threatens our ability to connect with others, is a comfortable illusion, a symbol of our malaise, not the cause.

What is more significant is the prevailing assumption of our culture that we are separate, disconnected human beings living in a random, indifferent, and deterministic universe. As Christian philosopher and priest Thomas Berry puts it, "The world about us has become an "it" rather than a "thou." In The Square, the repetitive inclusion of Bach/Gounod's beautiful Ave Maria suggests, however, that Östlund appreciates the fact that we may not be able to understand the needs and wants of others until we can awaken from the dream of a separate self to the truth of who we really are.

A wild man runs rampant through a crowd of elite dinner guests at their tables. According to instructions, those who do not look at or engage with the beast, will not be bothered in return. Yet this is only what they are led to believe, for the beast is about to violate their trust. The themes and story line of the Square expand on this theme. The film explores the breakdown of trust in society and the consequences of living in bubbles and attempting to insulate ourselves from harm.

Christian, the main character, is an art curator who is both a victim and perpetrator of irresponsibility, indifference and arrogance. He suffers a series of misfortunes and bizarre situations including a stolen wallet, blackmail, sexual indiscretion and a social media campaign that backfires in an explosive way. While appearing outwardly calm, Christian is an unstable man. He is unable or unwilling to connect with the life, good and bad, that surrounds him. The consequences of this inaction are far reaching, both for society and his psyche.

The Square is compelling and persuasive in part because it is not judgmental and preachy. The peculiar and ingenious scenes provide jolts to perspectives without forcing conclusions. Cares and worries drop away, or are seen in a different light, because the story is so intriguing. The film is balanced in its portrayal of characters. It provides much food for thought. The acting is superb. The director of the film is hopeful that we can begin to heal our trust in others. By way of illustrating this he gave his wallet to a woman in the front row of the theater at the Toronto International Film Festival. She returned it at the end of the film. Palme d'Or winner at Cannes.

To begin with the good : this is quite an interesting movie, which has intelligent things to say about life in our modern Western cities, with their ever more distant extremes of wealth and poverty. It also has interesting things to say about the various mishaps and misunderstandings which occur when an anemic and inbred elite of artists and patrons tries to tackle the big issues of our age. In the movie, as in real life, most of these attempts are so ill-judged, naive or patronising that they become part of the problem, not part of the solution.

"The Square" makes another valid point, to wit that good art tends to prove its own excellence, while mediocre art (or, as the case may be, mediocre "art") needs a lot of hoopla and razzle-dazzle. People will queue for hours in order to look at paintings by Rubens, for the simple reason that Rubens was an artist of great skill, imagination and depth ; but dragging the public to a mountain of broken window glass named "Fraction / Refraction / Non-Topical Domain" will call for some industrial-strength publicity.

Finally "The Square" also points out, with considerable insight, that much of contemporary art depends upon a disdain for the past. Masterful friezes, iconic paintings, beloved statues are thrown into the dustbin, so that the public can experience the supreme delight of sitting in a bare room and staring at a white wall.

In other words : "The Square" does possess insight, interest and topicality.

However, I can't say that I really like the movie. Ironically, it seems to partake in some of the defects it decries, such as distance, sterility and yes, presumption. One can be kind and say that this is a perfect marriage of content and form, but still, I like to watch movies made with emotion and conviction. And while we're at it, I also like movies that appeal not only to my brain, but also to my heart.

Some of the reviewers of this movie seem angry because this isn't their style of comedy. To each, their own. Personally, I enjoyed this a lot because it was so unpredictable. It's a dry black comedy, full of uncomfortable situations. Our protagonist is a man named Christian who has reached the top of the art world in Sweden, as head curator of a very prestigious art gallery in Stockholm. Despite his high position, he's a mess... acting recklessly, needlessly damaging his own career and personal life. Early in the film, he appears to be a victim of a scam. In response, he goes about tackling the scam in such an incompetent way that he ends up making a further mess. Beyond the shenanigans of Christian, this is also a satire of the upper crust of the art world. I'm not a member of that world, but I could appreciate some of the jokes. Some of the targets include (1) incomprehensible art-writing, (2) the aggrandisement of poorly-made art which pretends to be socially conscious, (3) the desire to be provocative for its own sake, and (4) the vacuity of performance art. In regards to performance art, there is an incredible sequence where a man (very accurately) behaves like a chimpanzee during a prestigious banquet. That sequence alone is worth the price of admission. Indeed, I believe this whole film is a piece of performance art. It's not just a satire and a comedy about a loser, but I think the filmmaker is deliberately messing with the audience. We want our protagonist to be a hero and he isn't. We want the mystery to be solved, but it isn't. We want the film to make sense, but it doesn't! Perhaps there's a lot of deeper meanings that I missed, but that's why I'll watch it again.

If you live in a advanced western European country you will be much more able to appreciate the satire of The Square. The subtle racism ingrained in the culture is very different than the racial tensions and issues in the US. A few decades ago the "dark people" of southern and eastern Europe were looked down upon in western Europe, then migrations brought in even "darker people." The disconnect between the lofty ideals of western European advanced social democracies and their privileged classes, and the realities of these "other" people moving in became more apparent.

The art scene becomes a ripe metaphor for this disconnect from reality that it portends to represent, or at least, reflect upon. It's all become about money, privilege, and, yes, ludicrous social media bytes. The Square is certainly not a perfect film, but it portrays well the uneasiness of how the privileged class tries to handle this unavoidable reality in a clumsy way, without really understanding or addressing any of the real underlying issues. In the most memorable scene, when confronted with the absurdist excess of the performance artist challenging them, they choose to ignore it as long as they can, and when they can't any more, they clobber him almost to death. Underlying it all is how we see each other as human beings beyond our classifications (if we can), and what we do to each other on a personal level; a good piece of cinema. It's also worth noting that Swedish projects look damn neat.

Major spoilers.

I don't believe this movie to be a commentary on Swedish society only, but on society as a whole - at least, recent real life events mirrors those in the movie so well that I'd imagine it's themes are relevant everywhere.

We follow Christian, an art curator who's the leader of a modern art museum that struggles at creating hype for it's new exhibition, The Square. He's arrogant and narcissistic, but not anymore so than any other person he meets. While everyone is in love with the idea of a loving society, none of them possess the empathy to demonstrate exactly that. Too caught up in their own dramas, they all do their best to avoid helping each other, thus creating situation after situation that snowballs out of control. Christian, especially, will be the victim of this.

And living in a Nordic society, I can't get over how realistic some of the situations were; how people will not help those clearly in need, unless the victim(s) literally make too much of a fuss for the receiver to bear. There are several examples of this in the movie; Christian is not really worried when his children are fighting violently - he will only truly react when one of them slams the door. Or how a woman is quietly begging for help whilst she is being sexually assaulted during a piece of performance art - and everybody keeps their head down 'till she starts screaming loudly.

Stuff like this all rang too true to me, and I see people do this every single day, albeit in more subtle ways. A weak example, but I think most people has overheard a conversation where someone is trying to say something, but because they aren't talking loudly enough - or aren't "important" - everyone pretends they didn't hear and keep cutting them off. It's a special, and sadly very prevalent, kind of narcissism; "You didn't cry loud enough and/or are weak, thus I'm not obligated by society to help you - and I won't, even though I know in the back of my head that you are in pain".

This is the core of this movie, the message; we are just not that selfless or likely to even help someone, unless the person is either a) bothering us somehow by being in pain, or b) asking us loudly and directly, so that saying no will reflect badly on us. Thus, most people in this movie are clearly in pain, yet they only get help when they break the social contract. It goes both ways, but that doesn't prevent inequality to happen. According to this movie, the person of authority - or the power of the many - has more impact on people than truth or justice, so you better be born into privilege if an accident were to happen. But the homeless people staring into space on the streets, the problems of some kinds of political correctness, and the many immigrants in this movie are only a small part of this. Everyone suffers because of the narcissism of others. And yes, everybody lose.

Watching it, I kept thinking "Maybe a little misanthropic, an exaggeration of humanity's dark sides". But then I thought of the recent sexual allegations against people in the entertainment industry. So many of them. And the most gruesome acts,(the pedophilia of Woody Allen, the rape of so many others) ignored, simply because it served the people surrounding them better at the moment. And now, everybody knows. Only now are they upset. How many times have similar things happened throughout history? How much of our conscience really comes from the inside?

The strong message and it's great execution aside, this is not a perfect movie. I found it way too slow and drawn out in parts, and the repetitive music was annoying me to the extreme nearing the end. I liked the cinematography, and I loved the many metaphors. It had a consistent tone and some occasional humor(if you like it deadpan, and dry as a desert). It would've been completely mediocre, though, if it didn't make me think the way it did. It made me view all too common situations in a new light, and even though it's been several hours since I left my seat, I'm still depressed about it. All those hours people can spend in an art museum pretending to be aware, when this! This is what truly needs to change about humanity. The boring Christian(pun intended) message of loving thy neighbour.

Saw this at the Sydney Film Festival last week: missed out on a full session at Event, George Street and just got into a second packed screening in Cremorne. The audience laughed (yes, laughed) constantly throughout and gave the film a solid round of applause at the end (a rare event in my experience). What looked on paper like a 140-minute high-conceit skewering of artistic pretension ended up as a delightful comedy of modern manners with little overt political agenda. The fact that most of the plot lines are left unresolved would normally confound an audience, but even this ends up feeling natural. There are a couple of spectacular camera moves (the "Vertigo"reference in particular) and the poster set-piece with the "ape" is, for my money, even more tense and thrilling than the avalanche sequence from the same director's "Force Majeure" (which some critics are calling superior, but I beg to differ). As with "The Lives of Others" I came out of this one knowing I was present at the birth of a classic.