triangle of sadness is a gilded, yet satirical retelling of William Golding’s 1954 novel lord of the flies. Social hierarchies disappear and are rearranged when a group of people is stranded on an island.
But what is a triangle of sadness? In the movie, it’s the space between the eyebrows (often filled with Botox), which is an indicator of emotion.
The film follows the glamorous lives of two influential models: Carl, played by Harris Dickinson, and Yaya, played by South African Charlbi Dean (who died in August). Through their relationship, director Ruben Ostlund questions gender roles and economic positioning and how social status is valued more than equality.
Ostlund takes audiences on a luxury yacht cruise in which passengers represent different spheres of power in modern society: a capitalist Russian oligarch with global influence is juxtaposed with an American socialist captain. An English couple represent colonial empires profiting from war, while Carl and Yaya are Instagram models reaping the rewards of their social capital.
Its juxtaposition of cerebral social commentary with a glossy perfume ad-like aesthetic exposes how equality isn’t valued as much as wealth, toughness, and prestige.
While on the yacht, the guests and crew maintain strict hierarchies and roles, but once the yacht sinks and the survivors reach the island, the wealthy guests no longer have influence and the yacht’s stewardess can no longer control the guests. the employees. The social order, which until now had mirrored that of society, is turned upside down: an inverted triangle. The poor majority are now at the top because they have the skills to hunt and defend themselves.
triangle of sadness reminds us that wealth and power are mere social constructs. Just because you are in the same space as the rich and powerful does not mean you are rich and powerful. It also speaks to the power of glamour. You may look rich with your designer gear but you can’t pay the bills.
The film shows how almost every problem facing our society is intertwined and can be traced back to those in power. Those with money and power often turn to philanthropy to clear their consciences because of their destructive path to extreme wealth.
it’s almost ironic triangle of sadness it won a Palme d’Or at the 2022 Cannes Film Festival because festival-goers are the glamorous rich 1% who criticize the film.
The idea that power corrupts and that those in power will always treat the less privileged as commodities is nothing new and triangle of sadness it doesn’t add anything to this narrative, but the movie is surprisingly good, multi-layered, without being confusing. — kimberley schoeman
Let me start by saying that I am not a fan of satirical films, however I was pleasantly surprised by Triangle of Sadness, which took home the Palme d’Or at this year’s Cannes Film Festival.
Despite the humorous nature of the film, it offers interesting perspectives on topics like beauty standards, class, gender, and race.
For example, as the first of the three acts begins, we are introduced to two dating models. Carl (Harris Dickinson) and Yaya (Charlbi Dean) enjoy dinner at a restaurant. After a while, with the bill on the table, Carl realizes that Granny has no intention of paying it, despite promising to do so the night before.
An argument ensues, prompting a discussion about gender roles and standards in relationships. I found this part of the movie interesting: I enjoy the conversations about double standards when dating. Yet it’s the simplicity with which director Ruben Ostlund brings up this kind of debate that makes this film compelling.
It takes place mainly on a yacht where the two models have been invited, with a group of wealthy people, to post about the luxurious trip.
The yacht sinks, leaving the guests and staff on an island.
What piqued my interest was the way the director shows the luxurious life enjoyed by the wealthy passengers on deck, while the staff members work to satisfy their frivolous needs.
The stark contrast between the rich and the not so rich is clearly seen.
Another element that intrigued me was seeing how Ostlund plays off these two different groups of people: many of the wealthy passengers earned their income through generational wealth, while the crew at the lower levels of the yacht have to work for a living. . .
Ostlund uses exaggeration to drive home the point. For example, there is an old couple who claim to have made their fortune from grenades and a man who claims that he made it from fertilizers.
The director plays with the idea that the rich do not have to make any significant contribution to society, while those who serve them work tirelessly for a pittance.
However, what for me was the main message of the film was illustrated in a long and disgusting scene in which the passengers were vomiting sick. It plays into the notion that regardless of social standards and wealth, everyone is equal.
Although the film was solidly entertaining overall, it felt overwhelming at times with its many themes.
Ostlund manages to deliver a witty film that explores serious social issues. — Bongeka Gumede
