After the Palme d’Or obtained in 2017 with The Squarethe Swedish director Ruben Ostlund returns to settle scores with Western society with his hilarious Triangle of Sadnesswhose world premiere in Cannes was given a standing ovation for long minutes.
This time, he does it aboard a luxury ship, commanded by an alcoholic captain (Woody Harrelson). His favorite weapon, the strident satire loaded with virulent sarcasm, with massive proportions of a fiction of two and a half hours, very explosive. It is the paradoxical portrait of a society made up of individuals, with obvious social and political inequalities, in the midst of a terrible storm that transforms the ship into a Titanic full of vomit and so on, to the last consequences.
(Exclusive coverage) ‘Triangle of Sadness’ gets the first laughs in Cannes and is positioned as the most optioned for the Palme d’Or
“Creativity should not be tied to money, it should be independent to the limits, as this is the inherent luxury that human beings possess,” said a pleased and smiling Östland on Sunday, May 22, in this exclusive interview for THE UNIVERSE. Triangle of Sadnessco-produced by the Mexican company Piano, is so far one of the films most chosen for the prestigious Palme d’Or.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOUBXcTz66w
Why did you consider humor to be the best approach to portray the different social and political issues in your film?
I don’t think it’s always the best approach, but lately I’ve been interested. Michael Haneke said it best: “The only true way to describe the world today is farce.” In Don’t Look Up, has done a fantastic job of portraying what the world is like today, especially what the media and digital world is like. When I made the film, I decided that it would not be a work of auteur cinema. And I thought, “Come on, we’re human! Let’s talk about things like we would at a table.” I was inspired by the European cinema of the 70s, surprising and entertaining at the same time. I wanted to combine the best of it with the best of American style, to give audiences a reason to get out of the house and go to the movies.
Why are you inspired so much by the theme of social injustice? Do you have any personal connection with this? How do you get involved in the topic?
I grew up with a mother who became a socialist and a communist during the 1960s, with the left-wing movement in Europe. She always talked about sociology and Marxist theories. My brother, on the other hand, joined the conservative right, so I am used to strong discussions about these two Western-Eastern ideologies. I think there are good people throughout the class structure. If we remove politics, our civilized side and socialism, inequality will occur. I think we have to move away and stop seeing it as an individual problem, rather we have to embrace it as a society.
What was Woody Harrelson’s reaction to the character you had in mind for him?
He loved it. He wants to be in the next movie I’m developing. I remember calling him and saying, “I have a movie that starts in the world of fashion with a couple of models going on a luxury yacht. On board there are very rich people, a Marxist captain and a scene where everyone is vomiting during a storm during which the drunken captain reads the communist manifesto through the loudspeaker system.” He replied, “Of course I want to do that!”
About the reversal of roles that is constantly seen in your films, in what way does this allow you to convey your point of view?
I think it’s very important because of this identity politics present in the public debate. Representation is definitely important to create a new role model and we have to be able to separate and discuss the reasons behind things. Identity politics can have two thoughts at the same time.
As for the element of exaggeration in the film, how do you manage to balance it with humor and believability?
As for that balance, I think the portrait of the oligarchy was interesting. It seemed to me that the best approach was to mold the character of the Russian in a way that would be perceived by the public as friendly and warm, which I also tried with the weapon manufacturer couple (hand grenades). I think modeling and portraying the rich as bad and the poor as good is nonsense.
Returning to the topic of role reversal within your films, do you agree that the cinematographic experience with respect to Triangle of Sadness this ironically also linked to that idea: with poor people laughing at the rich for two and a half hours?
Yes, exactly. I wouldn’t want my film to cause a revolution—I’m not even sure I believe in the concept of revolution. What I want is to create a certain kind of consciousness and make us question ourselves. I want rich people to question the film too, for it to create a space for debate.
As for the public, do you think that in order to reach a larger audience you should make the messages of your films more explicit? Perhaps show your ideas in a more direct way?
Maybe it’s true. To reach the public, films must be explosive. For me it is very important to maintain the audience with which I have already had a connection. In Triangle of Sadness I just did what I thought was fun, without really having the audience’s ideas in mind. Anyway, sometimes I don’t care about people’s reaction.
During a specific scene in the film, the area of the face, specifically the protagonist’s frown, is referred to as the “triangle of sadness”. What led you to choose this as the title of the film?
I decided that I liked it from the beginning, of course there were many discussions that led to that being the final decision. To me, it made sense in several ways: the love triangle that is created on the island, the shape itself being a symbol of hierarchy, and the structure of the film consisting of three main acts. (YO)
Source: Eluniverso
Paul is a talented author and journalist with a passion for entertainment and general news. He currently works as a writer at the 247 News Agency, where he has established herself as a respected voice in the industry.
