The Square (Ruben Östlund, 2017)

Discussions of specific films and franchises.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
Brian C
I hate to be That Pedantic Guy but...
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:58 am
Location: Chicago, IL

The Square (Ruben Östlund, 2017)

#1 Post by Brian C » Mon Nov 20, 2017 12:29 am

The Square, Ruben Östlund, 2017

For the first two thirds of this film, it was one of the best movies I've seen in a long time. And then, at some point, it just wasn't anymore.

I've seen Haneke and Von Trier bandied around as influences on the film, and the former seems more obvious than the latter, but one thing I'll say for those guys is that they know how to follow through on their premises and themes. I'm not sure this movie does that. It spends a lot of time setting up provocations that never really pay off, and the film's resolution is rather astoundingly weak. Characters enter to take provocative stances and then just kinda exit the movie without any consequence to what follows. There are some interestingly surreal moments - whole setpieces, actually - that simply evaporate and end up as little more than non-sequiturs.

And like I said, all this really seems like it's going somewhere, so it's disappointing when it doesn't. Instead of Haneke and Von Trier, the director that it called to mind for me after it was over was actually Richard Kelly, who similarly has a flair for buildup but can't help but back himself into corners. Östlund isn't as crazy with his scenario here as Kelly is with his films, of course, and as stylists they're not very similar, but that feeling of liftoff before a hard letdown was pretty much the same.

User avatar
PfR73
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 6:07 pm

Re: The Films of 2017

#2 Post by PfR73 » Mon Nov 20, 2017 4:24 pm

I concur a lot with that. The Square was a film where I pretty much enjoyed every individual scene but felt like it didn't add up to anything as a whole.

I walked away thinking that it should have been a TV series and not a film, actually giving arcs to the characters & plot points.

User avatar
aox
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 12:02 pm
Location: nYc

Re: The Films of 2017

#3 Post by aox » Fri Dec 29, 2017 11:09 am

I managed to catch The Square last night and I am not sure what to think. Every scene or sequence was fine, but as a sum of its parts it felt a little disjointed. It had some wonderful dry humor and had a lot of fun with the world it portrays. It gets many things right regarding the stuffy art community (at least in NYC). Claes Bang gives a phenominal performance that was so similar to Marcello Mastroianni in 8 1/2. The Elizabeth Moss scene where she confronts him about their previous sex felt like an updated version of 8 1/2. Something goes very awry to start the third act (very uncomfortable scene) and the film never really recovers in my opinion. In fact, my main criticism is that the film didn't know when to end. I found the final 5-10 minutes grueling and unnecessary.
SpoilerShow
I thought it should have ended at his press conference where he announces his resignation and then is badgered for it. It felt like a full circle at that point.

User avatar
Magic Hate Ball
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 6:15 pm
Location: Seattle, WA

Re: The Square (Ruben Östlund, 2017)

#4 Post by Magic Hate Ball » Sun Dec 31, 2017 12:18 pm

The first two thirds are one of the best things I've ever seen. There was a lot of screaming laughter at my theater, which was a great experience, and the dinner party sequence by itself could be put out there as its own blistering short film. But yeah, the last third is kind of a big nothing, particularly after the extremely satisfying double punchline of Force Majeure. When it got to the last scene I thought, "Oh, this is the ending", which is not what you want your audience to be thinking. It's like if the last third of A Clockwork Orange was about Alex taking part in the prison musical. It needed to build up either to some kind of magnificent catastrophe and/or develop an emotional catharsis, but what we're left with is some kind of wishy-washy "life doesn't have resolution" message, which feels like such a weak cop-out.

User avatar
hearthesilence
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
Location: NYC

Re: The Square (Ruben Östlund, 2017)

#5 Post by hearthesilence » Sun Dec 31, 2017 1:14 pm

Brian C wrote:For the first two thirds of this film, it was one of the best movies I've seen in a long time. And then, at some point, it just wasn't anymore.
Magic Hate Ball wrote:The first two thirds are one of the best things I've ever seen.
I forgot which contributor said this (it was one of the males) but in one of the Film Comment podcasts covering Cannes, he basically said the same thing - for the first two thirds, you thought "we have our Palme d'Or winner" (which did happen) but then things took a bad turn.

User avatar
Magic Hate Ball
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 6:15 pm
Location: Seattle, WA

Re: The Square (Ruben Östlund, 2017)

#6 Post by Magic Hate Ball » Sun Dec 31, 2017 3:47 pm

It's amazing that it can hold so much promise for two wildly spirited hours, and then destroy it entirely within the space of twenty minutes.

User avatar
swo17
Bloodthirsty Butcher
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
Location: SLC, UT

Re: The Square (Ruben Östlund, 2017)

#7 Post by swo17 » Tue Jan 02, 2018 2:59 pm

This is apparently only getting a DVD release in the U.S. Pretty sad for a Palme winner.

User avatar
FrauBlucher
Joined: Mon Jul 15, 2013 8:28 pm
Location: Greenwich Village

Re: The Square (Ruben Östlund, 2017)

#8 Post by FrauBlucher » Tue Jan 02, 2018 4:11 pm

Ruben Östlund has a phantom page. Maybe this...

User avatar
Brian C
I hate to be That Pedantic Guy but...
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:58 am
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: The Square (Ruben Östlund, 2017)

#9 Post by Brian C » Tue Jan 02, 2018 5:06 pm

It’s Magnolia, right? For a long time they’ve seemed like one of the most inept indie distributors out there. It’s like they combine the downsides of both limited indie resources with a big-studio attitude towards their product. As a result, they basically ignore anything that doesn’t have an obvious marketing hook and a lot of their stuff just seems to disappear, from the physical world anyway. I’m semi-surprised I got to see it theatrically, even here in Chicago.

User avatar
swo17
Bloodthirsty Butcher
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
Location: SLC, UT

Re: The Square (Ruben Östlund, 2017)

#10 Post by swo17 » Tue Jan 02, 2018 5:12 pm

It is.

User avatar
swo17
Bloodthirsty Butcher
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
Location: SLC, UT

Re: The Square (Ruben Östlund, 2017)

#11 Post by swo17 » Sun Feb 11, 2018 11:21 pm

So the first two-thirds of this are better than most films I've seen recently. And the last third is...
SpoilerShow
also better than most of them? The trick here is how to sell the rather basic, non-flashy message of "be kind, but especially to those you don't want to be kind to." This is the basic plot of the film of course, but I think it's also Östlund's goal with the film itself. What we see of the exhibit "The Square" in the film is almost ludicrously cryptic. We hear the same vague platitude about it over and over again but never really get a sense for how it's meant to convey its meaning. With the film, Östlund ends on a note so subtle that several here have expressed disappointment with it. And perhaps that is some sign of failure in his approach. But I don't think he is being ambiguous or meandering or unsure of how to tie all the threads of his film together. Quite simply, he wanted to sell a tender moment of a father showing his children that compassion for an "other" is important (the fact that the boy's family wasn't there to receive the gesture is beside the point--the art director specifically mentioned earlier in the film that he thought we needed to do things like this more, and here at the end he finally seized the opportunity). But how do you sell a movie about this? With a feature-length buildup of arresting setpieces starring interesting American actors intended to "bring in the masses" in the best way that a Swedish arthouse director can, I guess. (In a way, this does kind of remind me of Richard Kelly, who try as he might to make a picture of mass appeal will never make anything other than a Richard Kelly film.)

Otherwise, I thought the easy line here was going to be that an art director promoting an exhibit about philanthropy would spend the duration of the film mistreating his fellow man. Which of course happens to some extent. But I found it very refreshing and interesting that he was instead allowed to be a recognizably flawed human being with a conscience, generally trying to be a better person some of the time while not particularly caring at other times. This quality gave the ending that much more heft, which it wouldn't have had if this was the one time in the film that he had made a gesture of compassion.

Another angle I appreciated was how the film asks all these questions that are currently very much in the public discourse in the realm of art--What is the responsibility of the artist? Of the audience? What is the place of censorship? Of self-censorship? The film keeps repeating that "The Square is a sanctuary of trust and caring; within it we all share equal rights and obligations." But what is The Square? Quadrilaterals are a recurring visual motif in the film, with the two most memorable uses being the cheerleader's performance on the stage toward the end and the film frame itself. In some sense, film should be a sanctuary, yes? Within it, artist and audience should share equal rights and obligations. We the audience should be able to trust the artist not to betray us, and vice versa. But with certain sensitive topics, this results in an endless debate about how far is too far, and at what point the medium ceases to be a sanctuary. The art director can't win when he gets caught up in a scandal--he feels pressured to resign by those offended by certain content, but then must deal at a press conference with those on the other end, who are offended by him not standing his ground and fighting for unfettered artistic license. In the end, he basically rejects this whole world of arguments and counter-arguments (not to mention, of people experiencing life through four-sided screens) to focus more of his time on family and the marginalized. Not that I've read anything to this effect, but in a sense this part of the film almost feels like Östlund's announcement of his own retirement. Let's just hope that's not the case.

Oh, and the scene at the end where the camera tracks the father and his kids ascending the stairwell is just sublime. Bring on the Criterion edition!

User avatar
DarkImbecile
Ask me about my visible cat breasts
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 6:24 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Re: The Square (Ruben Östlund, 2017)

#12 Post by DarkImbecile » Mon Feb 12, 2018 1:30 am

Well put, Swo. I’ve been meaning to put down some of my thoughts on this for a while, but haven’t quite been able to even as I continue to turn this film over in my head more than almost any other I saw last year.

I think the key point that you hit on above is
SpoilerShow
the transition from carefully cultivated and exquisitely executed set pieces to the less immediately satisfying but more meaningful events in the world outside the hermetic bubble of the art museum. Mileage clearly varies, but while the great comic and dramatic moments in the first 80% of the film work exceptionally well and gain prominence in the memory as noteworthy provocations and riffs on the film’s ideas, it’s the final scenes that give those themes the weight that made The Square stick with me and grow in estimation the last few months.

Zot!
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 12:09 am

Re: The Square (Ruben Östlund, 2017)

#13 Post by Zot! » Fri May 04, 2018 3:48 am

Finally got around to this. Hmmm...frustrated to a degree with it after coming off the high of Force Majeure, but thinking back on it, I'm still snickering...it's endearing. My frustration stems from the rather well tread premise, and vacant messaging. Another art world luminary struggling with the human condition? Class, wealth, and race? We've seen it all before. The afformentioned 8 1/2, La Dolce Vita...and the recent 8 1/2 "remake", Youth (and I'm sure many others) got there first. But what it reminds me most of is dark humor of The Player and the films of Óstunds Swedish colleague, Roy Andersson. I don't think it achieves those films successes, but neither is it aggressive in it's presentation. Even the showstopping dinner party scene was frustratingly familiar to people who have seen Leos Carax's Merde. I hate to turn everything into a competition, but it's unavoidable with how little it does to avoid comparison.

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: The Square (Ruben Östlund, 2017)

#14 Post by therewillbeblus » Thu Mar 11, 2021 11:17 am

Revisiting this film, I agree with swo and DI’s assertions that the last act is fitting to the themes, but I’m also not as impressed by the first two thirds that everyone seems to be (I like the film fine, but simply don’t understand the effusive praise towards its narrative as either supreme entertainment or satirical wit).

The key to this film for me is in tracking the progression of Christian’s behavior outside of his familiar social context vs. inside of it, with the post-sex coveted-condom scene serving as the focal point reflecting this development occurring before and after.
SpoilerShow
This scene acutely shakes Christian and us to the notion of self-centered fear, finally emerging when he faces a sense of powerlessness for the first time outside of his comfortable bubble (if one wanted to use Lacan's Real to diagnose the scene they certainly could). Christian ventures away from his social sphere, significantly an environment coated in superficial walls (art, business, press), several times in the film: The first few are exhilarating but hollow- beginning with the exciting scene early on when he gets a rush out of assisting a stranger and being robbed, and the subsequent scene where he gets another rush from invading foreign terrain to send a message. These reactions play as if Christian is checking a life goal he didn't know he had off of a bucket list in a vacation based on adrenaline, with no anxiety or energized motive about actually receiving his stuff back. The mission is an inebriated extension of his superficial world, the energy is in selfish experience, as if he's playing a video game or perhaps concocting his own virtual-reality art piece.

Then comes the scene where Christian goes to Moss’ apartment for sex- it’s incredibly important that this is not his home turf, and his unease after sex is completely rooted in survivalist fear. It’s not that he specifically distrusts her, but for the first time in the film we see him remaining in a foreign uncomfortable space post-climax (vs. his even temperament following the climaxes of being robbed and then escaping the dangerous neighborhood), and this difference asserts that Christian distrusts the world outside of his safe space, that he's just as susceptible to psychological decompensation when the supports for complacency are removed. The condom-tug-of-war scene is drawn out to an excruciating length underscoring this point, Christian in fight/flight feral mode; and then we can humorously juxtapose this with the next confrontation with Moss at the art gallery where he’s able to field stress with affirming retorts towards Moss' own dysregulation. Christian’s disposition is crucial to examine here vs there, because he’s clearly still anxious in the latter scene, but able to maintain his composure and react with calm strategy in confidence, under the foundation of environment-based homeostasis.

So this brings us to the end, when the socioeconomic divide trespasses borders via the child invading Christian's home, aggressively prompting sobriety to his own myopia. Christian proceeds to intentionally venture away from his comfort zone publicly and professionally in abstract terms, and then quietly and personally in physical form. The ending is not a vacation, or bucket-list item, but rather it stems from a spiritual place of inner morality finally tapped without succumbing to fear-based reactivity. I interpreted this film to be about the layers of difference between having positive intent in philosophy and actually engaging with that intent in action, and the onion layers of self-reflection we need to peel back to realize that we often think we’re doing the latter when we’re actually doing the former in half-measures. In the final car ride there’s no Justice playing on the sound system, but the opposite- a moment of silent reflection as Christian begins to contemplate his new attitude. I don't see the film as one about an existential crisis like many reviewers indicate, but more interestingly, a depiction of the events that lead up to the emergence of change. Against expectations, the climax is actually experiencing that internalized crescendo of existential re-evaluation, humbly framed as a soft release here, while the build up was a choppy emulation of the ‘crisis’ part, comprised of confusion, delusion, and discomfort, but not a linear catastrophe. Christian can breathe because the real process has begun, and so the zenith of the work is not the height of the crisis, but in recontextualizing what aspect of said crisis is important to pay attention to, Östlund subverts expectations and gives us the truth: The biggest setpiece here is that final act of showing up with empathy and the successive contemplation that will lead to further growth.

PippaKelly
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2021 7:25 am

Re: The Square (Ruben Östlund, 2017)

#15 Post by PippaKelly » Mon Mar 15, 2021 10:43 am

I looove Bunuel, I like Lynch (but love his daughter Jennifer), I sit in independent and micro budget movies, and I still think this review is great. Because the theme is amazing doesn't mean the film is too. For me, preoccupied with study of art and its meaning, branding, economics, cannon, ethics in our global post postmodern times (metamodern?) I don't think the story was told well enough, even if I gave it a credit for visuals.
I think again, it would be better off as a short film maybe.

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: The Square (Ruben Östlund, 2017)

#16 Post by therewillbeblus » Wed Nov 30, 2022 3:10 am

After two viewings of Triangle of Sadness revealed intricate depths that Östlund is weaving into the subtext of his very loud text, I've been able to better appreciate how he's doing something similar with The Square. I still believe what I wrote above, and that swo has a great reading on the film, but there's something more in line with Triangle of Sadness's impotent yearning to 'explain' or hold onto something tangible frothing beneath this exercise. The key sequence for me is when Christian takes his daughters into the exhibit and shows them The Square. This film is an art form that is here showing an art form, featuring a character telling a story (an art form) about the trust an older generation had compared to the current one. When his daughters don't understand, he tells them that all they need to do is to read the written explanation (an art form), and that's the end of that! The next scene shows a beggar shooed away by Christian, crawl into a breezeway and move into prayer mode, the camera transfixed upon him, held for just a second long enough to make us consider what value this under-explained focus might have.

Christian will seek the man's help shortly after, without offering much explanation. The man will softly accept, confused and nonverbal, and this small interaction will be cut short to move onto more meaty, showy flair. The juxtaposition of these scenes is fascinating. First we find ourselves in an exhibit built around commodifying and facilitating experience in both artificial and organic ways: the desire to 'know' and to 'share' these frustrations, wishes, fears, insecurities, sense of safety and togetherness is all authentic, and yet it's just as authentic, and pathetic and misguided, to point to a story or a one-liner phrase or any Art Form to attempt to artificially forge that bond and grant that feeling with definitive confidence, as a God that we can never be, for ourselves or another. Here's a filmmaker trying to do something similar on a grander scale- capturing an entire existential struggle and all the developmental stages and psychological processes and social layers involved. But then, defeated, he moves to a scene where he restrains himself, says and does little, and just observes, humbly inserting a device of connection that offers no catharsis or false promises, but just 'is', and is just as meaningful, if not more than any other moment in the film for that recognition of humility.

Compare this to Christian's two earlier interactions with a beggar (both involving the same woman, different from the man here): In the first, she demands money in a cafe and ungraciously accepts a sandwich, swearing at him after he deliberately mocks her aggressive request for no onions. She's unappreciative of his gesture, and he's holding power over her to feel better about himself and condescend to someone condescending to him. Nothing about this interaction fits in The Square's ethos. The second one comes after he gets his wallet back- it feels like free money, and he has a lot of it, so he rushes over to give that woman his money and she graciously accepts it. He's doing this because he can- he's celebrating himself by giving something tangible to a person that they want and need. I don't necessarily think he knows he'll get a favorable response, because even if he didn't, what does he care? He's winning, and his superiority in scaring some impoverished hoodlum into returning his belongings only reinforces his ego and makes him feel he earns that condescension. It pays off. She's only too happy to get a payout from a person that reinforces her awareness of inequality -the same awareness that has branded that chip on her shoulder reflecting disdain earlier in the cafe, and explains that lack of gratitude in a more empathetic lens. Nothing about this interaction fits in The Square's ethos either.

The end is great, because there's a consciousness on Christian's part to what he's doing and it's cathartic for us as an audience to watch him grow.. but this midway scene between Christian and the male beggar is the most honest in the whole movie: two people sharing an experience, not on the same page with what's going on, or of equal class, or incurring equitable conditions, but not striving against friction to get there. Christian is earnestly seeking help from the nearest person, that person is agreeing spontaneously without any external incentive but because he's called upon and something within him says it's right; subtly showing two people just doing the best they can. It's the least flashy scene in the movie, with neither character nor filmmaker nor film grammar making the smallest attempt to explain or sober themselves to this connection or sense of good will. Makes sense, and how appropriate. Everything about this interaction fits in The Square's ethos.

I realize there's a mob of people who already hate the ending of this movie for some reason, but imagine if it ended with something like this... now that would be subversively provocative! I'll happily take it in the middle though- this is a movie after all, and the liberating narrative arc built around Christian is inspiring - Certainly more inspiring within the scope of an art form like a movie, that relies upon payoffs like these to sell their ideas. Östlund is quite aware of that- which begs the question: is The Square/The Square a compromised way to evoke these truths? Isn't everything? The middle bit primes us for the sobriety to anti-catharsis in the end, which becomes its own kind of catharsis in the audience equitably sitting right besides Christian, sharing in his impotence. Now that's being in The Square.

Post Reply