Post by avnermoriarti on Dec 2, 2017 17:42:40 GMT
I've seen it twice now and still don't know what to make of it, don't know if what Ostlund did is a stroke of genius or just lazy writing.
I'm not very familiar with the director, I've only seen Force Majeure and to this day remains one of those enormous surprising experiences I've had on cinema, I was having a ball watching that movie, it reminded me a lot of Bergman for the way he dissected marriage and analyze very carefuly the protagonist's mind and gives different points of view and then it has this mirror effect when invite us to see a bit of ourselves in it, and at one point became a study of our society and not only about that particular marriage, it has a bigger scope, by the end it was about expectations and what we are able/willing to give in a relationship, and never judging the characters which was the key part for everything to work.
Now, in a way The Square has a similar idea behind, even the same structure, uneven chapters that start to questing the protagonist about his own place in his enviroment, now the dilemma for me comes in the content of ech scene because Ostlund really has no filter into what he's questioning, it doesn't have the meticulous structure of Force Majeure, that particular bite and humor it's not always present or I see it as a step forward to his work, and if his past film had a wide field of themes to include, this film is madness, the ambition behind is on another level and wants to play different tones at the same time in one single scene, and something that really stroke with me and I think it's the strenght of the film and plays a factor in almost every scene: the film speak about the splitting and ambivalence of us, how we hide within ourselves and within society one of our most sinister sides: racism, the desire ( mainly to be liked but many more too ) and our animality.
And now this is where I don't know if how all of this is put on screen was the most brillant idea or just the easy one, because every scene, every situation felt incredibly obvious to me, because that's exactly how it would happen, and as I said Ostlund wants to give so many layers and angles to every one of them that at one point I didn't see the purpose of it, it gave me the impression that Ostlund had in his mind a lot of ideas and anecdotes to play with but he just throws them into the screen all at once, they look good and it's entertaing, uncomfortable, etc, but there's a point when it feels like it's hitting the same note all the time, although it starts getting better after the now famous dinner scene ( which comes late in the movie ) because starts to defy reality and immerse us into the character's life but a big difference with the previous film is that there's no progression or don't see that it is moving on, the scenes are not being tight together, and maybe I'm reading more into this but it very well could be an allegory to contemporary art itself, that we are a staging or just a piece that is being examinated and invite us to question our positions in front of it. However, this is the probably the weakest aspect of the film because art is that middle space between the sources that feed the creator and the public receiver, the point is that art itself is independent and just has an effect to who contemplates it but the movie takes the poles of this "conversation" between artists and receptors than the art itself, if there's a meaning or not, that's up to debate, but the movie hobble in that department. But there's one where it works wonders and has to deal with the installation of "The Square" itself, we never see it at use, judge or simply the reaction of the public, that was a strong aspect.
Has anyone seen it yet ? it's definitely the movie that has left me thinking more this year but still ca't make up my mind about it.
I'm not very familiar with the director, I've only seen Force Majeure and to this day remains one of those enormous surprising experiences I've had on cinema, I was having a ball watching that movie, it reminded me a lot of Bergman for the way he dissected marriage and analyze very carefuly the protagonist's mind and gives different points of view and then it has this mirror effect when invite us to see a bit of ourselves in it, and at one point became a study of our society and not only about that particular marriage, it has a bigger scope, by the end it was about expectations and what we are able/willing to give in a relationship, and never judging the characters which was the key part for everything to work.
Now, in a way The Square has a similar idea behind, even the same structure, uneven chapters that start to questing the protagonist about his own place in his enviroment, now the dilemma for me comes in the content of ech scene because Ostlund really has no filter into what he's questioning, it doesn't have the meticulous structure of Force Majeure, that particular bite and humor it's not always present or I see it as a step forward to his work, and if his past film had a wide field of themes to include, this film is madness, the ambition behind is on another level and wants to play different tones at the same time in one single scene, and something that really stroke with me and I think it's the strenght of the film and plays a factor in almost every scene: the film speak about the splitting and ambivalence of us, how we hide within ourselves and within society one of our most sinister sides: racism, the desire ( mainly to be liked but many more too ) and our animality.
And now this is where I don't know if how all of this is put on screen was the most brillant idea or just the easy one, because every scene, every situation felt incredibly obvious to me, because that's exactly how it would happen, and as I said Ostlund wants to give so many layers and angles to every one of them that at one point I didn't see the purpose of it, it gave me the impression that Ostlund had in his mind a lot of ideas and anecdotes to play with but he just throws them into the screen all at once, they look good and it's entertaing, uncomfortable, etc, but there's a point when it feels like it's hitting the same note all the time, although it starts getting better after the now famous dinner scene ( which comes late in the movie ) because starts to defy reality and immerse us into the character's life but a big difference with the previous film is that there's no progression or don't see that it is moving on, the scenes are not being tight together, and maybe I'm reading more into this but it very well could be an allegory to contemporary art itself, that we are a staging or just a piece that is being examinated and invite us to question our positions in front of it. However, this is the probably the weakest aspect of the film because art is that middle space between the sources that feed the creator and the public receiver, the point is that art itself is independent and just has an effect to who contemplates it but the movie takes the poles of this "conversation" between artists and receptors than the art itself, if there's a meaning or not, that's up to debate, but the movie hobble in that department. But there's one where it works wonders and has to deal with the installation of "The Square" itself, we never see it at use, judge or simply the reaction of the public, that was a strong aspect.
Has anyone seen it yet ? it's definitely the movie that has left me thinking more this year but still ca't make up my mind about it.
