The review of Triangle of Sadness opens with a nod to a well-worn joke: a Russian oligarch, an American communist, an arms dealer, an IT specialist, and a cadre of striking models walk into a bar. In this story, they do not land in a bar, but aboard a luxury yacht destined to sink under the influence of a single dramatic trait. The vessel founders at a coveted destination, and a handful of survivors reach a tropical island.
From starkly different social strata, the cast must band together to survive, yet misfortune follows: none are naturally adept at living off the land. Abigail, the cleaning crew member, can fish with her hands and start a fire, skills that matter when food is scarce. Renouncing a life of serving the wealthy, she tastes power and quickly imposes her terms, reshaping the group’s dynamics as others become increasingly dependent on her leadership.
Life on the island morphs into a brutal parody of the saying that the last will be first. The film nods to a long-standing debate about class divisions, echoing concerns voiced years earlier about social fragmentation and inequality. The theme remains tragically relevant, underscoring how swiftly affluence can mute compassion and amplify self-interest.
Östlund has long specialized in social satire, applying a sharp lens to human behavior. His early success, Force Majeure, examines a family crisis that erupts from a ski vacation mishap, revealing how quickly fear and selfish instincts surface in close quarters. The responses of each character expose vulnerabilities beneath the veneer of civility.
The Square, another of his provocative projects, centers on a contemporary art installation designed to critique inequality while the director himself plays a role that complicates the critique. A pivotal scene unfolds at a high-end restaurant where a performance intended as satire spirals into chaos, highlighting how easily art can collide with reality and judgment.
Triangle of Sadness continues Östlund’s pattern of forcing people out of their comfort zones and into circumstances that reveal their true selves. The film opens with a lighthearted fashion show and the slogan All are equal, then questions whether true equality exists when beauty standards still govern who gets attention and who does not.
Östlund has spoken of the film as an examination of beauty as a currency, drawing on insights from the fashion world to probe vanity and status. The director keeps elevating the lens, challenging audiences to reassess the pomp and pretense that so many societies celebrate.
Triangle of Sadness, a name that also refers to the facial area where Botox injections are common, unfolds in three parts. The first centers on the relationship between model Carl and his partner Yaya, whose romance is tested by money matters and shifting power dynamics. The tension escalates as dinner complicates a social divide: Yaya earns more, while Carl struggles to keep up a show of hospitality and affection.
The second act takes place aboard a ship captained by a figure who embodies revolutionary rhetoric. A stormy dinner scene lingers in memory as the wealthy guests confront a surge of appetite and chaos. The ship’s breakdown of its plumbing and the ensuing mess serve as a stark metaphor for the fragility of luxury under pressure. A Russian oligarch, who later survives the wreck, reveals how wealth figures into his past as a purveyor of agricultural inputs, a reminder that material success often rests on overlooked compromises.
The final act shifts to life on the island, where Abigail evolves from a discreet servant into a woman who wields influence. The tools of wealth—expensive watches, jewels, and social capital—lose their meaning in the face of raw fear and the struggle for survival.
Cannes audiences received Triangle of Sadness as a pointed commentary on class conflict. The festival’s European audience, historically receptive to sharp social critique, was juxtaposed with the image of wealth in the theater—dressed in fine fabrics, adorned with costly jewelry, yet attentive to the same critical questions the film raises. The work asks if a society can sustain fairness when vanity and hierarchy still shape daily choices.
Viewed as a satire, the film offers multiple readings. Östlund’s visual decisions often push viewers to consider a non-linear structure, inviting different sequences of events to produce new interpretations of the same story. The result is a provocative piece that resists comforting conclusions and invites ongoing reflection on how power and appearance influence human behavior. (Cited perspectives and thematic notes.)