The Square

You have to be astonished that this one collected a Palme. Not least, it evidently lies in the shadow of Haneke, winner of two recent Palmes for much better movies.

The satire on the art world, the rattling of the bourgeoisie, both seem too overdrawn to be effective. Sketches go on too long, as when the museum director videos his apology, or the ape-man detonates the society party. Cutaways that don't happen, or do but are merely irritating, seem like unsuccessful adaptions of Haneke's grating style.

A few folks left my screening up around the 90 minute mark, their patience evidently worn thin. They'd seen the best of it, like the director's fling with the journo.

Now, if you really want to see someone stick it right up the bourgeoisie, you can't go past Haneke's mordant misbehaviour in Benny's Video (1992).

Director Ruben Ostland has followed up his 2014 Golden Globe nominee Force Majeure with Cannes Palme d'Or winner The Square. The film is both a satire of the cultural elite of Stockholm and a sad commentary about the separation between individuals both within circles and between circles. The lead character, Christian (Claes Bang), is the curator of a museum of modern art that seeks to draw attention and donors through avant-garde exhibits and over-the-edge social media campaigns. The film follows Christian through a few weeks of his life when one of the hot new exhibits is "The Square", an actual square in the museum courtyard that is meant to be "a sanctuary of trust and caring." But rather than show trust and caring, the movie The Square raises a number of troubling questions: How thin is the veneer of civilization? Can political correctness substitute for empathy? Is art whatever a curator chooses to put in an art museum? And enveloping these questions is the separation of the circle of Stockholm's cultural elites from the City's homeless and immigrant population, as well as the separation of individuals within the City's cultural elite. One set piece in particular portrays the inability of the Stockholm's elite to communicate on a human level: It is Christian's meeting with Anne (Elisabeth Moss), a publicist, the day after a night of sex—and a bizarre argument over what to do with a used condom. In this scene Christian is totally unable to say the needed words about what had happened between them. (Anne, an American, comes across as much more able to relate to others than any of the Swedes in the movie.) Another memorable scene is the one in which a banquet for museum donors is interrupted when the performer (Terry Notary), playing an ape, goes out of control. The diners, who are initially frozen by their need for decorum, or perhaps by their need to display political correctness, ultimately go ape themselves. Perhaps not a total surprise since the same donor diners had earlier stampeded their way to a luncheon in a lighter scene. There are many sub-plots in the film—some satirizing interactions within Stockholm's upper class, others between classes— perhaps leaving some viewers displeased by the way the film jumps without warning from one set piece to another. Others may dislike long stretches of art-film inactivity in many of the episodes—something that explains why the movie lasts for 2 hours and 22 minutes. Nevertheless, The Square does capture the alienation of modern society, and does it with plenty of dark humor.

Like almost everyone else reviewing here, my wife and I found this way, way too long. Maybe 45 minutes too long. Maybe an hour.

Scene after scene we found ourselves remarking to each other, "what was the point of that?" Just one example: the scene with the ape street performer ran for something like 7-8 minutes. We thought it could have been done in a fraction of that and nothing would have been lost. Then I later thought they could have done without it entirely and I'm not sure anything would have been lost.

The scene with the museum director given the speech on the steps of the foyer? What was the point? What did it add? Nothing that we could see.

Scene after scene we turned to each other and asked the same question.

So instead of being a tight 1:30 to 1:45 movie, this ran on for a tedious 2 and a half hours.

I have a personal rule of thumb when it comes to films. Movies that are written and directed by the same person are so often self-indulgent. I'm going to have to amend that to: movies written, directed and edited by the same person are invariably self-indulgent and way too long.

A good director here would have told the writer what was wrong with the script and suggested what needed to be rewritten. A good editor would have gone back to the director and told him that it was running too long and that by cutting this or that that the result would have been better.

Unfortunately this film has, needless to say, the same person in all three roles. and as a result, it's way too long and was just tedious.

Sorry, but I just don't understand the rave reviews some have given this. Yes, this is ALMOST a good film. But only ALMOST.

American reporter Anne (Elisabeth Moss) interviews Christian (Claes Bang), the curator of an avantgarde modern art museum in Stockholm. His phone and his wallet get stolen by a crew of pickpockets. His assistant Michael helps track the phone and suggests sending threatening letters to all the apartments within the phone's location. Christian does it and faces unexpected consequences.

The scheme is actually quite clever and it works in the movie. Christian is very frustrating in the politically correct way. He is off-putting but that's the point. He could easily fix the problem with the kid but he's too scared of him. It would be more understandable if the kid is a teenager. It's silly and shows his lack of a backbone. There are a couple of amazing scenes and there are quite a few filler scenes in two and a half hours. It definitely could be cut down to two hours. The Tourette's scene is fun. Moss has a couple of great scenes and she's the best actor in the movie. This is not a movie to root for the guy but also not to root against him. It's not really a comedy or that intense as a drama. It's a movie of frustration at all of his fallibilities. It is great at painting a picture of a man trying to be good but lacks the courage to be truly good when backed into a corner.

First thought after leaving the cinema, what the f**k did I just watch?

If you are on the fence about watching The Square, here are a few things to keep in mind. First of all, you don't just watch The Square, you experience The Square. All 2 hours and 22 minutes of it, this movie is looong. The first half of the movie is brilliant and creative, in the second half you just get run over by Ruben Östlunds full force of artistic fury. Yes this movie is artsy, super artsy. If you are a fan of modern art then this is the movie for you, you will experience some of the most powerful artistic scenes in modern movie history.

second, this movie does not give a f**k about your feelings, The Square is not created for the plot, the movie is created to deliver a message. When the movie is finished the employees of the cinema you will be visiting won't have to clean up leftover popcorn from the floor, they will be scraping your jaws from it.

My girlfriend was crying on the way home after watching this, not because it is heartbreaking but because she had trouble processing what she just had experienced.

There you have it, I hope that a few of you have second thoughts about watching the movie now and that the rest of you can't wait to get hold of a ticket!

Fred out