User reviews

"Sweden!" cried out President Donald Trump some time ago. 'Just look at what has happened in Sweden!' he seemed to proclaim again. But what did he mean? "Play" is the title of a devilish Ruben Östlund film; a strange amalgamation of "La Haine" and "Funny Games" which combines cinema vérité with psychological horror and social commentary. What social commentary, it seems, is left up to the viewer: audiences have appeared to whittle it down to one of two (but it could be both) things: class and ethnicity, with Swedish politicians even finding time to chip in to make thoughts known - do remarks by socialists expunge the film from charges of racism when they proclaim it is about class? Or is "Play" so clever, that they have entirely missed the fact it is a damning critic of multiculturalism.

The film opens in a shopping centre with a disagreement between two Swedish boys over an amount of money one of them has dropped and lost. "500 Krona!?" one of them exclaims - 'it's nothing', replies the other. Across the way, however, a gang of black youths who are mostly their age are eyeing them up in order to essentially mug them. Within the first scene, Östlund wants us to realise this is a society characterised by differences in income and racial disparity.

Elsewhere in the film is the lament that authority has disappeared from Swedish society: bus conductors; mall security guards and shop assistants are either powerless to giving louts a good whack or vacant altogether, save for nearer the very end where they exasperatingly appear at just the wrong moment to punish the wrong people. The film enjoys its static camera-work and neo-realistic settings, wherein dozens of people wander around the public domain, but what seems to have been deliberately kept of screen above all else is the presence of a policeman.

Where this seems to lead, or will eventually lead, is an increase in vigilantism - parents and friends of those already victim to spates of crime taking matters into their own hands and administering their own forms of justice in the absence of a state enforcing the law: not unlike various London communities forced into defending themselves form the hordes in 2011, or other groups trying to do something about paedophile gangs operating under the radar in northern England. There are two instances of this in "Play", one closing the film which doubly encompasses Sweden's apparent ignorance to what is going on amongst its young that someone is labelled a racist for trying to obtain justice.

"Play" depicts a couple of hours in the life of three boys in the city of Gothenburg and its outskirts on a grey winter's day - they are Sebastian; Alex and John, although John is of Chinese ethnicity. Whatever the problem with immigration, or immigrant crime waves specifically, John has at least seemingly integrated. When we first encounter them, they are at the offices where one of their mothers works - an upscale law firm (we can read "Adact" on the wall) whose employees dress impeccably. Östlund loiters on the entrance of the office for a while after everyone has departed, almost pointlessly, until a staffer reveals the practice to be so bourgeois that they wipe clean a glass door that was already in perfect condition.

Sebastian et al. traverse to the local shopping mall, where the earlier group of black youths are still messing around having failed to lull the twosome from the opening scene into what will transpire to be a psychologically sadistic game of bullying and robbery. The two groups first come into contact in a sports shop, where Östlund quite brilliantly keeps the coloured gang off-screen as they holler and whoop while we focus on our increasingly anxious protagonists. By the time they have been followed outside and onto the tram home, it is evident something is wrong, and from there transpires the rest of the harrowing tale.

The film's beating heart, the idea that bullies belonging to a minority string defenceless white Swedish kids along to mug them, I read is based on a spate of actual incidences of this happening over a three year period. Meanwhile, adults are too ditzy worrying about broken porcelain in cafes and blocked aisles on trains to really notice what's going on. Writers and journalists such as Jonas Hassen-Khemiri and Åsa Linderborg have made accusations, veiled or otherwise, that the film is in some way racist, while America Zavala applauds it for attacking the pitfalls of a system characterised by class.

Thematically, the film seems to reach the conclusion that Sweden is a racially and culturally diverse place - whites don dreadlocks and listen to reggae; Native Americans busk in town squares and white girls dance to Zimbabwean pop music for school performance projects. It is, however, experiencing teething problems as it makes some sort of cordial transition into multicultural permanency.

When all is said and done, one does not have to do much research to find stories, radiating in particular out of the city of Malmo, which report chaos and a complete social breakdown on account of multi-racial ghettos rioting for reasons that even the police do not know. One may also read of 'no-go' zones and youth criminality in classrooms so rife that schools have even had to shut for periods of time due to teachers feeling unsafe. Whatever the answer to any of this, Östlund has above all other things managed to make something which actually feels like a piece of cinema - something free of convention; something unpredictable and both harrowing and atmospheric without any real need for pyrotechnics. It is wholly worth seeing for these reasons and more.

Teenage boys can be horrible: watching 'Play' brought back shuddering memories from my own childhood. In 'Play', the horror is made more interesting by being set against a background of differential affluence and a racial divide; the fine line between "play" and pure bullying is also nicely explored. But it's a slow film, with no rapid cutting or background music: indeed, it's shot in a strange manner with static cameras often leaving part of the subject (or even parts of the subjects, heads for example) off screen. The result gives you the feeling of an by-stander, overhearing parts of somebody else's story; eventually, the tension builds, but it feels like a deliberately off-putting way to make a movie. At the end, I didn't know quite what to think about it: one can alternatively feel repelled by, and sympathetic to, its protagonists, but the surely intentional absence of a clear moral or emotional message means the film ends nowhere. Perhaps we're meant to leave this movie pondering matters of class and race; I left it just glad I'm not fourteen any more.

This is a really good movie that challenges our perceptions about class, age, and ethnicity. What I appreciate is that Östlund dares to tackle this difficult subject without moralizing or even trying to justify what the immigrant gang is doing. Instead, the director portrays a grim reality that many people today live in, thereby challenging society's attitude towards these violent youth gangs. The argument that erupts at the end between the father and some woman captures the frustration everyday people currently experiences in a brilliant way. Unfortunately, what brings the film down is the boring cinematography. I understand that Östlund wants to come across as a bit arty and artistic, but please, let go of Roy Andersson's mind-numbingly dull style! It drags the pace down to a painfully slow level. However, with that said, I will still recommend this movie as watchworthy. Few directors even dare to touch this theme after all!

Despite having spent much of the film frustrated at the technique used, I found myself unable to turn away and powerfully affected by the end. Shot with static cameras and long takes, sometimes with nothing happening on screen, the film makes us reluctant voyeurs in the same way that passers-by neither intervene nor quite ignore any drama in a public place. The effect is close to found footage from CCTV, with the action taking place in the background or even completely out of shot. The truth is that this could be happening anywhere in the world, right in front of us, and we would not necessarily know. The bullies have refined their tactics and each knows his role within the overall plan. The targets are slowly but surely trapped in a nightmare where bystanders are seeing everything and nothing. There is a scene where the victims ask for support from coffee shop staff but are unable to express their fears in a way that invites help. I would predict that most of us would be as reluctant as the baristas to call the police, or as unsympathetic as the tram workers who catch the children travelling without tickets.

Although filmed in Sweden and featuring older children, Play has overtones of the James Bulger case in UK, with the group developing rules almost independently of its members. Even the victims become complicit, calling back a child who attempts to escape, evoking ideas of Stockholm syndrome and horrific wartime collaborations.

The final scene adds nothing to the story apart from reversing ethnicities, but by then the impact has been felt. The story is frighteningly believable and compelling viewing.

Liberal upbringing, indifference in society, uncontrolled immigration from different continents, worship of fine goods - and so there are issues depicted in the film in question, mostly characteristic to Western societies. As children and teens are among most vulnerable strata, the topics mentioned above are reflected in an intensified and crooked manner. - for them, attempts for self-determination and acts of bullying are often intertwined.

Play is focused on one incident, but similar rackets occur and have occurred for decades, thus it is not astonishing or so; moreover, it is no secret that immigrant youth is more criminogenic than local one - it is nothing to do with racism, those evildoers could have easily come from the Balkans or Eastern Europe - by way of example of Sweden where youth gangs organized by race or ethnicity have become a serious issue in big cities.

Anyway, the depiction here is protracted and arid, some scenes are lacking reason, and the ending is numb. The cast is not impressive either, I would not recognize most of them in case I see them in other movies.

Thus, a mediocre movie to me, but it would be probably educational for families with children in multi-ethnic communities.

Ruben Østlund is one of these filmmakers who make timeless films. Play is one of these, a film from 2011. More current than when it was made. Østlund depicts a parallel society with children and young people. Here, the strongest right applies, and an eerie world is depicted. And around various forms of abuse of power and coercion, there are no adults who are capable of intervening. Does this sound familiar considering all the unrest in Sweden and other European countries today? With gangs and young criminals who commit serious crimes. This kind of thing starts somewhere, as this film depicts. As one of the very few, Østlund also dares to address integration and what can happen when it is not successful. Frighteningly good this one.

But not from Michael Haneke (The Piano Teacher, Funny Games) but from Ruben Östlund, Sweden. A toe-curling story that takes plausible after plausible step into the absurd. Sometimes too hard to watch. No happy endings here. Instead at the end the director chooses to open the fourth wall and suddenly turns fiction in a horrible truth and shows his true feathers as a clear racist.

A goodwill idea and important film to make, and it did stir up a debate in Sweden, but still I can't help bring annoyed by the way the film. It's well played by the kids portraying both the bullies and the bullied and robbed, and you can't help getting touched by some of the scenes. This is based upon a true event, and we clearly can see the technical the bully's make. This is not the first time they've done this.

Still the problem I've got with the film is it's documentary style. It's a bit too full of art and feelings. It takes the focus off the topic too often, and makes the film boring. When we want to know what happens next, we get to see things which probably is correct in time-line, but still becomes uninteresting in the narration. The director is filming this as too much of "a fly on the wall".

This film won the Nordic Council film prize, but is by far the worst film nominated. The prize should have gone to "Kompani Orheim" or "A royal affair", which I both rated a 9. If you like a slow film about this topic, You'll probably be more satisfied. The slowness resembles the one in Gus van Sants "Elephant" which also is a better movie.

I wonder how this film went over at investor pitch meetings. Imagine a posse of hostile Black kids shaking down much younger and smaller white and Asian-looking children for their phones? What if they do it with extreme psychological cruelty, relishing the extended emotional pain they inflict when a quick smash-and-grab would suffice?

What if all the adults shrug it off, won't help? What if there isn't a cop to be found in Gothenburg? Surely the "based on a true story" gambit will justify the nastiness of a way-too-long movie that also tortures its viewers.

So what if Afro-Swedish youngsters are villainized? Moral dilemmas over immigration fears and racism are hot topics - just check out the news. Bet on controversy to boost reviews and ticket sales while further polarizing a multiracial audience. Could it be that the film's oddball coda, laced with a dollop of extralegal citizen justice, was added to cinch its financing?

Ruben Ostlun delivers without redemption or enlightenment in an otherwise beautifully filmed movie notable for surprisingly solid, improvised performances by its non-pro cast. Not good enough. I would have passed.

At first, it seemed like auteur director Ruben Östlund was an accomplished, innovative, and talented filmmaker. He continues to push the boundaries with his works, finding new ways to portray complex social issues.

While this initial assessment is still true (for the most part), after viewing his five most recent feature films and two short films as of 2024, we can officially add him to the group of directors loosely defined as: Having immense talent and innovative ideas that manage to shine through every so often, but more often than not are unfortunately hindered by their pretentious attempts to make social commentary; they claim to be making socially significant films portraying serious real life issues including cultural acclimation, disability, discrimination, mental health stigmatization, politics, psychology, racism, religion, socioeconomic strata, sociology, and other such existential and philosophical themes. However, they ultimately end up not depicting exploitation as much as they themselves exploit their audiences, psychologically taunting us by drawing out plots and scenes unnecessarily and utilizing shock value tactics. Another well known director in this group is the Danish director Lars Von Trier.