Monthly Archives: November 2022

  • Triangle of Sadness

    Ruben Östlund (2022)

    Since the Cannes Palme d’Or was first awarded in 1955, only eight directors have won it twice and only three for films they made consecutively – Bille August (Pelle the Conqueror (1987), The Best Intentions (1992)), Michael Haneke (The White Ribbon (2009), Amour (2012)) and Ruben Östlund, whose Triangle of Sadness landed the festival’s top prize this May, five years after The Square.  Östlund’s Cannes triumphs not only put him in very select company but are probably unique because he didn’t deserve to win on either occasion.

    Like The Square and Force Majeure (2014), its predecessor in the Östlund filmography, the first part of Triangle of Sadness is the best. That might seem obvious with a writer-director who has little to say but such abundant, brazen self-belief that he goes on saying it, noisily and tiresomely.  In the case of this latest film, however, the difference is more salient because the narrative is explicitly divided into three sections – ‘Carl and Yaya’, ‘The Yacht’ and ‘The Island’ – and means more, because the first of these sections is much better than anything else in Östlund’s work that I’ve seen.

    The specific meaning of the film’s title, which also chimes with its tripartite structure, emerges in a prologue that introduces Carl (Harris Dickinson).  In his mid-twenties, he works as a model; we first see him, among other young men, being photographed, then interviewed, for a possible modelling job.  One of the interviewers mentions Carl’s ‘triangle of sadness’, a term used in cosmetic surgery for a wrinkle between the eyes:  it’s quickly fixable with Botox but the very mention of the wrinkle serves as a reminder that a fashion model’s days are numbered.  In production notes used as the BFI handout for screenings of his film, Östlund also points out that ‘a male model generally earns only a third of what a female model does’ and that ‘When I started to do research for the film, numerous male models told me that they often have to manoeuvre past powerful men in the industry who want to sleep with them, sometimes with the promise of a more successful career’.  That may party explain why the camp photographer snapping Carl et al at the start of the film is overplayed but this is a strong sequence, even so.  As he shoots, the photographer keeps asking the models to switch between ‘grumpy’ and ‘smiley’ faces, imagining they’re in an advert for H&M (= grin/cheap and cheerful) or Balenciaga (= unsmiling/seriously expensive).  They oblige, at amusingly high speed.

    The unusual bias of the male/female pay gap in fashion modelling drives the short ‘Carl and Yaya’ section that follows.  Carl’s partner Yaya (Charlbi Dean), also a model, earns more than he does.  Dining in a high-end restaurant, they get into a row about who pays the bill:  less articulate than Yaya and more stewed up, Carl repeatedly insists the disagreement ‘isn’t about money’.  The exchange is very well written and performed.  The argument’s dynamics are gripping.  Carl and Yaya both aspire to being Instagram influencers and it follows that she’s the more successful in this department, too.  At the start of the film’s second section, the couple are passengers on a luxury cruise – all expenses paid, seemingly by one of Yaya’s brand partnerships.  This supplies an effective bridge between the two sections, keeping Carl on the back foot, making sense of his prickly, possessive reaction to a bit of harmless flirting between Yaya and a flagrantly macho crew member (Timoleon Gketsos).  But other personnel on the superyacht – staff and passengers – are the harbinger of what Östlund has in store.

    Staff manager Paula (Vicki Berlin) gees up her team, ordering them to accede to the wealthy passengers’ every demand, however silly or unreasonable.  The yacht’s captain, Thomas Smith, (Woody Harrelson), an alcoholic Marxist, spends much of his time in his cabin with a bottle for company.  Russian oligarch Dimitry (Zlatko Burić) made his fortune in fertiliser (‘I sell shit’).  Elderly British gent Winston (Oliver Ford Davies) made his in arms manufacture.  Both are accompanied by their wives, respectively Vera (Sunnyi Melles) and Clementine (Amanda Walker), who shares a name with the spouse of history’s most famous Winston.  A few people on board aren’t such blunt satirical instruments:  the deputy captain Darius (Arvin Kananian); Abigail (Dolly De Leon), a cleaner (she shares her name with the traditional English term for a lady’s maid); lonely, dweebish tech millionaire Jarmo (Henrik Dorsin); Therese (Iris Berben), who can speak only a single phrase as the result of a stroke, and her husband, Uli (Ralph Schicha).  (Therese’s one phrase – in German – is ‘In den Wolken, Uli’; she can also manage ‘ja’ and ‘nein’, whereas Paula’s first rule to her fellow workers is never to say no.)  These are also relatively minor figures – at this stage anyway.  They’re eclipsed by the characters who proclaim Östlund’s lampooning intentions loud and clear, as he clears the decks for the film’s big set piece.

    Thomas briefly sobers up for the captain’s dinner, during which the yacht runs into a storm.  Östlund’s bludgeoning approach in earlier films brought the phrase ad nauseam to mind but in Triangle of Sadness it has literal meaning:  in a key passage that’s already notorious, the passengers are spectacularly seasick.  This is meant to be more disgusting because the moneyed throwers-up are ejecting their conspicuous consumption – gourmet dishes and the champagne they swill – though it’s hard to think the projectile vomiting would have been easier on the eye if, like proudly plebeian Captain Thomas, everyone had stuck to burger and chips.  With fellow travellers spewing or excreting all around them and one going into cardiac arrest, Thomas and Dimitry – the American communist and the Russian capitalist – carry on drinking together.  Over the yacht’s intercom, they compete, with the help of Google searches on their phones, in spouting epigrams promoting their political creed (‘From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs’, ‘The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money’ (M Thatcher), etc).  Storm damage causes the craft’s sewage system to break down and the lights to go out.  At least the latter means you no longer see the consequences of the former.  As the storm subsides and morning comes, a boatful of pirates approaches the disabled vessel.  They lob a hand grenade on board.  It lands just beside Winston and Clementine, out on deck getting a breath of fresh air.  ‘Look, darling,’ she says, ‘Do you think it’s one of ours?’  Boom.

    And, in Östlund’s mind, boom-boom:  he clearly sees himself as a black-comedic genius – though the gruesome bombast of the shipboard scenes confirms him, rather, as a master wielder of the sledgehammer-to-crack-a-nut.  His worst defect, though, which each of his last three films has demonstrated to an increasing degree, is failing to follow things through – whether because he can’t or won’t isn’t clear, though I suspect the latter.  In ‘Carl and Yaya’, Östlund’s satire of celebrity culture and the title pair’s anxious appetite for being part of it, is sharp but sympathetic.  In ‘The Yacht’, Carl and Yaya get in the way of the much cruder takedown of the ‘obscenely’ rich.  It’s implied that Carl is in two senses at sea but we don’t get much idea of Yaya’s feelings and both of them retreat to the margins of what is, also in two senses, Östlund’s puke-fest.  Carl and Yaya are back in evidence when they emerge from the yacht-wreck, two of only eight survivors.  Courtesy of a (suitably well-appointed) lifeboat, they fetch up on a desert island, along with Dimitry, Abigail, Paula, Therese, Jarmo and Nelson (Jean-Christophe Folly), a ship’s mechanic.  ‘The Island’ is where the film spends its last hour (the whole thing runs 147 minutes).  It’s also where Östlund’s showoff misanthropy and disregard of anything inconvenient to his immediate narrative needs are more shameless than ever.

    Lowly Abigail is the sole member of the group with practical survival skills:  she can build a fire, catch fish, and so on.  As she starts to take charge, Triangle of Sadness looks to be heading for The Admirable Crichton territory but not for long.  Abigail claims private bed space in the lifeboat; she reprimands Carl and Nelson for helping themselves to its emergency supply of pretzels (Harris Dickinson and Jean-Christophe Folly play the pair’s inept denial of wrongdoing very nicely).  Back on the superyacht, Abigail, on her cabin-cleaning round, once interrupted Carl and Yaya in bed, and was told where to get off.  Now Abigail has Carl share her lifeboat bed each night, in exchange for special privileges and food, which makes Yaya jealous.  Although this is a nifty illustration of the upturned balance of power, Östlund devotes too much screen time to it – long after making clear that, if the meek inherit the earth, they’ll be as self-serving as their predecessors were.  Dimitry, under the new regime, instantly changes his political tune (the epigrams he quotes lurch to the left) but is only superficially a reformed character.  When his wife’s dead body washes up on the shore, Dimitry weeps as he holds Vera in his arms.  He then carefully directs his attention to removing the jewellery she’s still wearing.

    None of the survivors shows much anxiety about how long they can continue to survive or interest in the possibility of rescue but why would they?  That’s not going to matter until Ruben Östlund is good and ready for it.  One day (!), Yaya decides to explore the island on a cliff walk and sets off, accompanied by Abigail.  After crossing the cliff and descending the other side, they discover an elevator and realise they’ve been living next door to a luxury resort all the time.  Having delivered this supposedly savage ironic twist, Östlund barely knows what to do with it.  Yaya is ecstatic at the prospect of normal self-promoting service being resumed, Abigail dismayed that she’ll be returned to servitude.  As Yaya, with her back to her, yatters on about making Abigail her assistant, Abigail picks up a rock and approaches from behind.  We don’t see whether she manages to do the same to Yaya as Jarmo, in a gory boost to his manly self-esteem, succeeded in doing to a donkey on the island a few screen minutes earlier.  Instead, Östlund, for his closing shots, cuts to Carl, running through The Jungle.

    As in The Square, Östlund gets better performances than he deserves, especially from the two young leads.  Harris Dickinson is engaging and witty, from his light-switch changes of expression in the opening fashion shoot through to the pretzels incident and beyond.  He does a fine job of showing Carl as basically both decent and weak.  Vexed when Yaya and the crew member make eyes at each other, Carl reports the man to Paula.  Next thing, he’s seen leaving the vessel and Carl looks rather appalled that he’s made this happen.  It’s a real pity that Östlund doesn’t make use of Harris Dickinson’s charm and skill to make Carl the central consciousness of the whole story.  Charlbi Dean impresses, too, and it’s a greater, tragic pity that this film turned out to her last:  in late August this year Dean died, it seems from a lung infection, at the age of thirty-two.  Triangle of Sadness benefits from, in addition to an able cast, classy music by Mikkel Maltha and Leslie Ming.

    This is Östlund’s first English-language film although it seems he’s not too happy about that.  In the production notes mentioned above, he explains that he’s ‘ambivalent about making films in English since I’m critical about the dominance of Anglo-Saxon culture.  It’s absurd what kind of influence it has over Sweden and Scandinavia’.  Let’s hope it’s a consolation to him that Triangle of Sadness has so far raked in $14.5 million at the international box office – a figure still below the production budget ($15.6m) but surely far in excess of what a film made in the director’s native Swedish might have taken.  Ruben Östlund’s professed ambivalence on this has the ring of someone keen to make clear he wrestles with his conscience, less ready to acknowledge that he tends to win such bouts, as well as Palmes d’Or.

    1 November 2022

  • Decision to Leave

    Heojil gyeolsim

    Park Chan-wook (2022)

    You need to concentrate for every one of Decision to Leave’s 138 minutes:  the effort feels more than worthwhile though the film is often puzzling.  Park Chan-wook’s romantic mystery story, set in present-day South Korea, is among the most impressive screen dramas I’ve seen over the last year or two.  It’s also one of the hardest to write about in a way that does justice to its singularity.  This will be quite a short note.

    Hae-Jun (Park Hae-il), a detective in Busan, is a very good runner (he outsprints a younger colleague in an early chase sequence) and a very bad sleeper.  His wife, Jung-An (Lee Jun-hyung), is employed at a nuclear power plant and resident in Ipo.  They see each other only at weekends, during which Jung-An likes to quote percentages, gleaned from a work colleague, of marriage survival rates for couples like her and Hae-Jun.  When the dead body of a retired immigration worker is discovered at the foot of a mountain that he’d climbed several times before, Hae-Jun interviews the man’s much younger widow, Seo-Rae (Tang Wei).  A Chinese immigrant who works in a Busan care home for the elderly, Seo-Rae is far from grief-stricken.  For this and other reasons, Hae-Jun suspects she may be responsible for her husband’s death.  He embarks on nightly stakeouts – no hardship for an insomniac – outside her apartment building.  He also develops an obsession with Seo-Rae and imagines himself inside the place.

    Hae-Jun’s investigations lead him to conclude that the mountaineer committed suicide but he later discovers evidence in the unlikeliest of places – at the care home, on the mobile phone of an old woman with advanced dementia – that incriminates Seo-Rae.  Hae-Jun is, as he tells her, ‘shattered’ by this discovery and the consequences of his infatuation with her.  The action then moves forward thirteen months (Park and his co-writer, Jeong Seo-kyeong, are precise!) and from Busan to Ipo, where Hae-Jun has moved to live with his wife.  They’re shopping in the fish market when he bumps into Seo-Rae, newly remarried, to Ho-Shin (Park Yong-woo), a wealthy businessman.  The next day, Ho-Shin is found dead in his swimming pool and another criminal investigation begins.  It’s not long before a man (Seo Hyun-woo), another Chinese immigrant, confesses to this killing.  As before, it’s not as simple as that.

    I won’t go much further in terms of plot synopsis – and not only because the narrative is exceptionally involved:  revealing too many details really is liable, in this case, to spoil enjoyment of the film.  Decision to Leave won Park Chan-wook the Best Director prize at this year’s Cannes festival and has been critically very well received, with a current 94% fresh rating (from 186 reviews) on Rotten Tomatoes.  The few dissenters complain that the storyline is confusing and unnecessarily complicated but disorienting the viewer and labyrinthine plotting are surely crucial to the enterprise.  When I read that kind of remark in a review of a film whose convolutions I’ve found vexing, it tends to annoy me all the more – but the vexation has often been induced by what feels like self-satisfied cleverness on the part of the director – and that’s not what comes through in Decision to Leave.  Loose use of the label ‘noir‘ is another, well, bête noire of mine and plenty of critics have applied it in this case.  I don’t have a problem with that either.  Park’s film struck me as an unusually probing treatment of noir tropes.

    For example, a male sleuth and a femme fatale are obviously a familiar noir pairing but Park’s intertwining of Hae-Jun’s attempts to solve the crimes in which Seo-Rae may be involved and the mystery of who she is, has extraordinary synergy.  Her nationality and uncertain command of Korean, which she’s apparently trying to teach herself, are just one element of why it’s hard for Hae-Jun to get close to her.  Despite the powerful mutual attraction between them, their relationship is almost comically chaste.  They go on a date to a Buddhist temple and spend time in each other’s homes; Jung-An suspects her husband is having an affair with Seo-Rae and eventually leaves him for Lee June (Teo Yoo), that office colleague with all the stats.  Yet Hae-Jun’s only bedroom scene is with his wife.  His closest physical encounter with Seo-Rae occurs late on in the film.  An embrace and a passionate kiss are the climax to a showdown between them on the edge of the same mountain where their story in effect began.

    The mountain sequences, thanks to a combination of the sheer drops and amazing overhead shots by Park’s cinematographer, Kim Yi-jong, aren’t the film’s only dizzying feature.  Kim Sang-Beom’s editing is essential to the disorienting approach.  Although this isn’t reflected in the externals of costume and hair colour, the female protagonist’s identity is somehow no more stable than that of the Kim Novak figure(s) in Vertigo (1958).  Although the male protagonist isn’t acrophobic in the manner of James Stewart’s Scottie, Hae-Jun seems to lack a head for emotional heights – this decent man is psychologically fragile.  The Hollywood echoes are too subtle, though, and Park’s film-making too individual, to turn Decision to Leave into a Hitchcock hommage.  Those Vertigo connections are part of a richer texture (rather as the soundtrack includes both European classical and more contemporary Korean music, including Jo Yeong-wook’s original score).

    The lead performances are superbly complementary.  Park Hae-il’s Hae-Jun is, as Park Chan-wook has said in interview he wanted him to be, ‘gentle, quiet, clean, polite and kind’ – characteristics that make the detective’s increasing exhaustion and despair more poignant.  Tang Wei’s Seo-Rae has unarguable allure but deceptively soft features; she also proves to be a temptress who’s vulnerable.  The film’s closing scenes, which take place on a seashore rather than a mountaintop, still take you by surprise.  You know from a long way out you won’t guess the ending.  You don’t expect, from such an ingenious film, the tragic heft that Park Chan-wook finally achieves.  Decision to Leave is brilliantly confounding to the last.

    27 October 2022

Posts navigation