"Money doesn't change you; it reveals who you are" is a quote which has been going around the internet for years, concocted by the self-improvement community--you know, they type of nosey people who make a living out of telling other people what to do. But amongst this shallow ambiguity, this line is true, even if it incriminates man more than money.
I can easily imagine the rich and morally corrupt characters in Ruben Östlund's "Triangle of Sadness" standing by that quote. They are people who made a living out of being able to decriminalize themselves with shameless efficiency. And not because they are saints either--one elderly couple made their fortune selling weapons, a disgusting fact that is even more so today. To continue, the Russian oligarch Dimitry (Zlatko Buric) is literally selling fecal matter while the influencer Yaya (the late Charlbi Dean) takes pictures of her food without eating it--she is lactose intolerant.
This is what Ruben Östlund does in the first half of the movie: introducing the characters, letting them mingle a bit, as the viewer basks in their self-pity and despair. And it all takes place on a luxury cruise whose nameless captain is a drunk and reluctant Woody Harrelson. He spends most of the time in the movie locked in his cabin, drunk out of his mind in a scene which is both funny but also infuriating. The captain is disgusted by his overly privileged guests and couldn't be bothered to present himself despite the constant insistence from his uptight crew. His abhorrent state is also a form of protest. When he eventually presents himself for the captain's dinner, greeting all his guests, it doesn't take long before he degenerates into a left v. Right argument with Dimitry--again, funny mixed with a lot of thought.
The turning point of the movie happens in the aforementioned captain's dinner which takes place during an unusually bad thunderstorm which constantly shakes the yacht--and Östlund shakes the camera as well, making us feel as nauseating as the guests whose experience takes a turn for the worst. Without giving too much away, this scene takes us into the final act of the movie, in which the characters are left stranded on a deserted island. The survivors are a mix of both the guests and the crew, and this is where Östlund manifests his ideas. Here, a crew member working in the engine room is suspected as a pirate simply because he wasn't seen on the ship. This makes a great point about the invisibility of the working class, who are the foundation of the entire civilization yet are being given the short end of the stick constantly.
It is here, also, that capitalism and socialism are being flipped upside down, as Abigail (Dolly De Leon) the cleaning lady takes control due to her survival skills. She is able to fish with her bare hands and becomes the singular figure on the island on which everyone depends. So, now, she treats her rich subjects with the same trickle down abuse they do. This is a satisfactory release, but is socialism that loses as the movie shoots itself in the foot. Abigail, in her makeshift kingdom, employs the same capitalist tactics people in her working class condemn. It begs the question whether people are naturally hierarchic, whether socialism has a chance, whether up and down mean anything at all, whether this movie means anything at all.
I can easily imagine the rich and morally corrupt characters in Ruben Östlund's "Triangle of Sadness" standing by that quote. They are people who made a living out of being able to decriminalize themselves with shameless efficiency. And not because they are saints either--one elderly couple made their fortune selling weapons, a disgusting fact that is even more so today. To continue, the Russian oligarch Dimitry (Zlatko Buric) is literally selling fecal matter while the influencer Yaya (the late Charlbi Dean) takes pictures of her food without eating it--she is lactose intolerant.
This is what Ruben Östlund does in the first half of the movie: introducing the characters, letting them mingle a bit, as the viewer basks in their self-pity and despair. And it all takes place on a luxury cruise whose nameless captain is a drunk and reluctant Woody Harrelson. He spends most of the time in the movie locked in his cabin, drunk out of his mind in a scene which is both funny but also infuriating. The captain is disgusted by his overly privileged guests and couldn't be bothered to present himself despite the constant insistence from his uptight crew. His abhorrent state is also a form of protest. When he eventually presents himself for the captain's dinner, greeting all his guests, it doesn't take long before he degenerates into a left v. Right argument with Dimitry--again, funny mixed with a lot of thought.
The turning point of the movie happens in the aforementioned captain's dinner which takes place during an unusually bad thunderstorm which constantly shakes the yacht--and Östlund shakes the camera as well, making us feel as nauseating as the guests whose experience takes a turn for the worst. Without giving too much away, this scene takes us into the final act of the movie, in which the characters are left stranded on a deserted island. The survivors are a mix of both the guests and the crew, and this is where Östlund manifests his ideas. Here, a crew member working in the engine room is suspected as a pirate simply because he wasn't seen on the ship. This makes a great point about the invisibility of the working class, who are the foundation of the entire civilization yet are being given the short end of the stick constantly.
It is here, also, that capitalism and socialism are being flipped upside down, as Abigail (Dolly De Leon) the cleaning lady takes control due to her survival skills. She is able to fish with her bare hands and becomes the singular figure on the island on which everyone depends. So, now, she treats her rich subjects with the same trickle down abuse they do. This is a satisfactory release, but is socialism that loses as the movie shoots itself in the foot. Abigail, in her makeshift kingdom, employs the same capitalist tactics people in her working class condemn. It begs the question whether people are naturally hierarchic, whether socialism has a chance, whether up and down mean anything at all, whether this movie means anything at all.