It is a bizarre coincidence that, in the same year (2022), there was a movie that disguises itself as being sympathetic to abusive power and another movie that disguises itself as making fun of the rich and privileged, while the real sentiment of the filmmakers was the opposite. Perhaps artistic expression always contains an element of pretention or coverup?
Ruben Ostlund's movie is explicitly divided into three parts. It must be noted that the young couple of models, played by Charlbi Dean Kriek and Harris Dickinson, were in all three parts, even if they do not appear to be the center of the story in the second and third parts. The second part, which many critics either embrace or condemn, is the foundation of this appearance that the movie is making fun of the rich, upper-class people in the world. I completely agree with the criticism of this absurd farce, in which a bunch of forgettable caricatures of rich people puked and pooped on a luxury yacht. It is rather curious, however, how bad the middle part of the movie is. It's not funny (worth at most a few awkward chuckles) and totally meaningless. None of the characters carries a trace of truth that reminds the audience of the rich and powerful people in the real world. However, before we completely dismiss it, let's take a look at the first and last parts.
The first part of the movie gives us scenes from a rather unflattering and truly hilarious (here the awkwardness works) relationship between the two models. They argue. They fight. Is it about money? They deny it. Then they seem to admit it. Then they deny it some more. As they dance around the issue of money, we get the vague sense that the conflict has more to do about gender roles than economics. Kriek's character declares that her goal is to find a rich man to marry and Dickinson's character is just a temporary fling during her search. So it is indeed about money, specifically, the traditional gender roles in which men give women money.
The third part is a desert island--"Survivor" type of setup. To sum it up simply, a previous servant on the yacht, a Filipino cleaning lady played by Dolly De Leon, leaps into the position of power because of her superior survivor skills, while the sources of status on the yacht (wealth, rank, brawn) have lost their meaning on the island. She gradually starts to boss everyone around and exerts her dominance by taking the pretty boy into her bedroom. So his gender role is now the same as that suggested (but not realized) for Kriek in the first part --- selling one's body for material gains (in this case, food).
The ending is particularly revealing of Ostlund's own intent.
<SPOILERS BELOW!>
Without going into specifics, let me just say that the message is transparently that power corrupts equally people who did not have it, be it a woman, or a dark-skinned woman, or a dark-skinned older woman without beauty, or a dark-skinned older un-beautiful woman who works downstairs as a servant. As a topic for debate in abstract theory, there is nothing wrong with bringing it up. On the other hand, for Ruben Ostlund to lecture us about the danger of women in power, is a little like a king telling the starving peasants on the verge of revolution to sit down and shut up because, well, you will be corrupted by power once you have mine, so you'd better let me keep it.
Sure, he has the right to feel this way, and I have the right to feel slightly queasy.
In the final scene, we see Dickinson's character running in the jungle. According to Ostlund's own explanation, it suggests that he is on his way to rescue his girlfriend (the young and pretty one, not the recent old woman boss/lover, because he no longer needs her). So here we are back to agonizing over the gender role. What use is a man? Women can fish and cook and start fires and feed themselves. The answer, it seems, is that he can save his girlfriend. There may be some violence involved, but Ostlund does not want to go beyond a mere hint.
So, in the end, Triangle of Sadness is really about gender roles and power, and how both concerns relate to each other. This is not a surprise. He presented the same question, what use is a man?, in his previous movie "Force Majeure". If a man is not able/willing to save his wife and children from death (at the risk of losing his own life), is he worthless? What is his place/role/identity in this world?
As an American woman living in 2023, it is very difficult for me to sympathize with Ruben Ostlund, a Swedish man, on this discussion about whether women with equal power will behave as badly as men do, or whether women in fact already have more power than men, and what that does to men's place in the world. I must say that I have detected, in some fictional representations here and there, a discontent among Scandinavian men, who have lived in a more progressive, more gender-equal environment for much longer than I have. I do not know whether Swedish or Finnish women have surpassed their fellow countrymen in power and begun to oppress them --- although economic data suggest no. But you know the saying, when you are used to privilege, equality feels like oppression. Their feeling of being oppressed is palpable, and I acknowledge that.
What is truly amusing to me, however, is how Triangle of Sadness hides a somewhat reactionary heart underneath an anti-rich veneer by throwing shit around, while Tar pretends to ridicule the "Metoo" movement while tucking its anti-imperialist message in dream scenes. I enjoyed the discovery, but I'm not sure how I feel about so much dodging around.
