The Square (2017)

☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

The Square (2017) – R. Östlund

Far from perfect and politically distant from my own views, yet unusual, provocative, and surprising enough to warrant 4 stars (but did it deserve the Palme d’Or?).  Director Ruben Östlund hones in on the world of contemporary modern/post-modern art and skewers it rather unsubtly, with those same old-and-worn points suggesting that art is a con-game (even monkeys – or bonobos – can create it; you could put any old object in a museum and call it art; even curators don’t understand the obfuscating jargon used to describe it).  A richer vein of inquiry focuses on the presence or absence of altruistic motivation in humans/human society; this is the focus of the artwork/exhibition that the Swedish X-Royal museum, curated by Christian (Claes Bang), is hosting, entitled The Square.  “The Square is a sanctuary of trust and caring. Within it we all share equal rights and obligations.”  Apparently Östlund has filmed portions of a real exhibition (on trust?) and also modelled the most memorable scene (where a group of rich art patrons is challenged and threatened by a man pretending to be an ape) on a real event that took place in a Swedish museum. That doesn’t take away from the success of the film but it blurs the authorship a bit.  Similarly blurry is the take-home point about altruism.  Curator Christian is a flawed character:  he engages in an altruistic act but is punished for doing so and responds with a misguided attack of his own which has a rippling set of consequences. Östlund foregrounds evolutionary psychology by having Christian ready to engage in indiscriminate sex (but ironically protecting his semen, in a very bizarre scene – perhaps suggesting a modern over-riding of the historical male motive) whereas his latest conquest, played by Elizabeth Moss, embodies the female concern with having an emotional connection with a partner (who can provide security for offspring).  Östlund may be satirizing evolutionary psychology – or more probably, he is satirizing our efforts to transcend the baser motives from our ancestral roots (which I believe we can and often should do).  In interviews, Östlund refers to humans as herd animals who keep their heads down when there is a threat rather than reach out to help another in distress – a justification for the well-known “bystander effect”.  I’m not sure this necessarily works either – or we shouldn’t accept it as an excuse; by having Christian played for a sucker when he does intervene, Östlund highlights our failing ability to trust others in our society.  On this point, I think we may agree – it is sad that we have transformed into a society that is fearful of others (and that our politicians utilise this fear for political gain) – but the film offers no solution to this problem.  The Square itself is not given the chance it deserves to operate as a way out (I hesitate to say “it takes a village” but that is the point, I think) – and again, perhaps Östlund sees it as unviable.  For my mind, however, efforts to build trust and a sense of community (especially where division has been sown) would be worthwhile.  Setting aside these deeper points, the film is often funny and sometimes wry in a Roy Andersson way, anecdotal rather than purely plot-driven, suspenseful and discomfort-inducing, and obviously thought-provoking and challenging.