The film “Triangle of Sadness,” directed by Ruben Östlund, is a dramatic comedy that intertwines several typical genre devices and storylines within its essence. The plot the film tells its viewers is a kind of novella that teaches and critiques the world of wealth, fashion, and commercialism, which in contemporary society have become a benchmark for good intellectual and social standing — paradoxically alongside the poverty that actually reigns within that same upper stratum. The film is a fine example of working with genre archetypes in combination with trending social themes, phenomena, and problems.
At the center of the story are the characters Carl and Yaya, who can be described as classic representatives of the young cohort of the flashy, ostentatious, and affluent class. They truly serve as models to emulate, even though their entire being is really an effort to construct such a model. Quite paradoxically, they themselves are models, influencers, who make tremendous and even masochistic attempts to maintain a dazzling facade. It is precisely the professional and social image of this young couple that serves as the leading element in establishing the satirical character of the film. They drive a line of events that let us mock the industrial dogmas of people who represent opulence and a model of success in capitalist society, while at the same time, in their most personal relationships and on the simplest everyday level, their entire existence turns out to be a boundless absurdity. The characters Carl and Yaya aim to parody and mock real existing figures with similar qualities, placing themselves in absurd real-life situations, which provides the groundwork for satire to run throughout the plot.
Yet among the young couple’s relationship, we can also make out the drama of emotional unintelligence lying behind the absurdism. Such beings could be called incapable of experiencing higher feelings or understanding higher values, among which is love. At certain moments, the drama of emotional unintelligence is masked by lighthearted romantic-comedy elements, which contrast with the dark satirical elements and contribute to the emotional layering of the characters. They are satirical when the conflicts between them are based on social dogmas, and romantic-comedic when comic mismatches of character occur between them. Screwball comedy is woven in a particularly subtle way into the relationship between the two characters, who themselves embody the two principles, the masculine and the feminine. The woman, Yaya, is more financially secure and more successful than the man, Carl, which reverses the gender roles in their relationship and provides fertile ground for a kind of battle between them. Several episodes in which the question of money and female dominance form the central conflict find their place in the storyline. The first conversation we see between Carl and Yaya is a highly tense dialogue in which they argue over who will pay the restaurant bill, which puts the male figure, Carl, in a particularly uncomfortable position and drives him to an emotional breakdown. The dominant female character shows itself in the episodes where Yaya feels so comfortable in her success that she grants herself moral permission to flirt with other men. The drama in this screwball comedy comes from the characters’ overly extreme and sincere reactions. This dramatic and romantic quality of their relationship makes the viewer feel pity for their flat emotionality while at the same time making them mock the couple’s way of life. Overall, the devices of romantic comedy serve as a moment of respite for the viewer, who is continually thrown into the depths of the many comic subgenres woven into the plot and forced to experience them.
Carl and Yaya, acting according to the established capitalist model, don’t hesitate to set off on a luxury cruise, which turns out to be a genuine adventure for them. The characters this setting introduces us to, and who thrive within it, allow absurdism and dark humor to exist in the plot. The dark humor presented in the film turns out to be an inherent element carried by certain characters, while the elements of absurdism incorporated into brilliant episodes bring together all the subgenre elements as a whole. The dark humor in the plot rests on characters who have deep emotional problems that surface in comic situations. Jarmo is one of the types who himself embodies dark humor. Aboard the cruise, Jarmo unknowingly begins a journey of self-discovery and understanding of the concept of masculinity. Despite the wealth this man possesses, he lacks basic social skills, has no enthusiasm for life, and can be classified as a stereotypical bore. Therese is another character who embodies, through dark humor, the misfortune of social status. Despite her wealth, following a stroke she loses the ability both to say more than one word and to walk. In this character’s case, the vulgarity of the persona is embodied through a state of illness. Also interesting are the characters Winston and Clementine, an elderly couple who work in the manufacture and supply of weapons to countries. In their case, death and war are mocked to such an extent that the characters themselves are named after Winston Churchill and his wife. As a fitting end to their dark and comic existence, the couple’s earthly journey ends thanks to the explosive properties of their own grenades. Dimitry is one of the leading supporting characters who support and complement the social palette of the setting in a particularly authentic way. He carries a talkative and communicative persona, but is himself a large man who possesses countless wealth from manure production. His ultra-capitalist character carries the subtext of embodying the image of the pig through Dimitry. Dimitry is also incapable of experiencing higher feelings, as shown when he collects the jewelry from his dead wife’s corpse and keeps it for himself. And yet, this character is the most humane of them all. He admits that his wealth is the result of economic changes that happened to work in his favor. In other words, the message conveyed by this character’s existence is that even the pig is a more morally sound being than the wealthy human class. The absurdism within the film reaches extreme levels, weaving together brutalism, slapstick comedy, and political allegory across several consecutive episodes. All of this is made possible thanks to the rich social palette of ridiculous figures that our era offers and which are so skillfully captured dramaturgically. The culmination of this brilliant comedic work is the captain’s dinner aboard the cruise. This episode is a pure embodiment of absurdism. Under thoroughly unsuitable weather conditions, the elite of society gathers to honor the drunken communist captain, in an event that should be refined but instead turns into a fountain of seasickness. The cruise’s society unites in an utterly meaningless celebration in order to uphold its utterly meaningless status, and the result is pure absurdity. And after a series of proverbial political musings delivered over the cruise intercom by a drunken American communist and a Russian capitalist, the cruise comes under attack by terrorists, which could beautifully be classified as dark absurdism.
Just as the escalation of drama and comedy reaches its brutal, absurdist peak, the plot changes direction and turns into an adventure psychological drama, one that retains its comic and absurd elements while continuing the dramatic thread of the romance. Several characters find themselves on a potentially deserted island, where they must fight for survival using skills they in fact do not possess. Complex social phenomena unfold within this newly formed small society, whose only purpose is to bring about the practical survival of its members. Of course, the twist comes when the person with the richest practical, everyday skills turns out to be the most socially weak character among all the survivors, and he forces his way to becoming a tyrant with authoritarian power. The final episodes aim to bring catharsis to the characters’ relationships and personalities and to expose their true nature.
The themes the film touches on are especially topical and fit quite naturally with the satirical, dark, and dramatic genre character of the work. They carry a particular cultural weight, and according to the convention of satire, it is best suited for teaching lessons and mocking vice. The characters and their reactions form the foundation on which the essence of the plot in “Triangle of Sadness” rests. To set the established model in motion, and to present the theme of absurdities in contemporary society in a grotesque and instructive way, devices such as allegory, hyperbolizing situations (even though their authenticity is in fact plausible in the real world), and ironizing characters through absurd, fateful events are employed. Ever since the development of literary genres, whose features and qualities have carried over into dramaturgy and, accordingly, into cinema, satire has been a fundamental genre device for distorting vices and absurdities. However, the drama integrated into the plot adds yet another layer to the whole cultural weight — not only are the actions of the elite absurd, but they themselves, at their core, are empty, emotionally immature, and an example of spiritual poverty. In other words, within the very essence of the characters — who serve as models — there lies a certain tragedy that the viewer must sense and feel, because cultural and social dogmas are not simply foolish and unnecessary; they are the fruit of poverty and popularize such poverty as a model for living.
The film quite skillfully grades its dramaturgical acts by social engagement, and along with them, its genre intensity. The film’s opening scenes, showing the relationship between Carl and Yaya, are satire mixed with romantic comedy — that is, they show us just how ridiculous the relationship between two young people can be when they insist that glamour and popularity must be an inevitable part of their lives. The viewer can forgive their foolishness, because they are a sample of young and beautiful people who often go through a series of adventures before reaching an understanding of the world and themselves. Alas, once they step onto the cruise and meet the characters who are allegories of social sins and figures built on dark humor, their reaction, together with the symbiosis of cruise society, predisposes not construction but destruction of moral foundations and spiritual values. Genre-wise, we move quite logically toward more brutal satirical devices, since the plot deepens conflicts instead of resolving them. It also allows itself to comment on social obsessions with appearance, wealth, and status. When the work reaches a combination of absurdism, brutalism, slapstick comedy, and overt political allegory (which has been building up due to economic and business questions in earlier episodes), the viewer knows that the satire is dealing with a very serious cultural and social question about identity, values, and the aspirations of the society that builds its economic and political characteristics. The ship becomes a setting of brutal and complex satire, which, after the narrative’s climax, lowers its depth back down to the surface of the adventure plot — a thoroughly logical postulate, a basic rule, a foundation of genre storylines. In the same way, we return to the foundations of development and the society of the cruise. Now it must contend with the most basic everyday tasks. A kind of Noah’s Ark, in dramaturgical and genre terms, becomes the ending of the plot. Of course, the complicated romantic relationships and the irony of the satire remain, so that the ending can feel organic to the wholeness of the plot. And yet, in the final episodes of this epic film narrative — an adventure romance — the characteristic traits of the social representatives remain, but are no longer so exaggerated. Rather, they undergo development and change, even catharsis. As for the overall stylistic choices in the film’s plot, they are entirely typical of satire and drama. The characters, situations, and their reactions are familiar to the viewer, because they are borrowed from real-life stereotypes of elite society. They can easily be identified, along with their motives and qualities. The production is entertaining, but should not be reproached for it, because it addresses genuinely serious social phenomena.
“Triangle of Sadness” is a film that, beyond its socio-cultural weight, is especially necessary and instructive for the development of society’s character. Precisely because of this brilliance, it has been very well received, and its brutalism, within its genre, is remembered as a good lesson. In support of the successful outcome of this film’s public impact, it won the Palme d’Or at Cannes, received a Golden Globe nomination for Best Film, Comedy or Musical, an Academy Award nomination for Best International Feature, and a number of other recognized achievements and awards. The film received strong critical acclaim, with special attention paid to its genre mastery, and became a sensation both in Europe and across the Atlantic. Critics describe the film as a work that will definitely make you laugh but will leave you with food for thought afterward, which can actually be interpreted as a successful recreation of the rules of satire. Additionally, the richness of economic, social, and personal questions harmonizes authentically with the film’s genre choices.
In conclusion, the genre mastery of this work awakens, in modern cinema, a somewhat forgotten tradition of social and public satire, and paves the way for good comedic works, since it opens society’s eyes to the countless absurdities of our time — absurdities it would be a shame not to bring to the screen.
KinoCritic 
Leave a comment