Explanation for the people who dont understand it; the movie is about hypocrisy and how we as a society draw the line on certain subjects in society using the question "what is art?". Through out the movie you see homeless people begging in the street and they all get ignored by these upper class people and they show no concern for them but when the museum posts a video of a fictional homeless child getting blown up they get outraged at this and say they care about the homeless. we as the viewers know the curator doesnt hate the homeless since he gives them money when he can and even trusts one to watch his things when he goes to find his daughters but him accidentally approving a video makes him worse than the people who ignore the poor according to everyone else. why is not helping poor people okay but making a fictional video not okay? The curator and the museum are also not free of this because if you pay attention to the art available in the museum through out the movie its things like piles of dirt and stacks of chairs and basically garbage and these are things that are seen as valuable art pieces that you should pay to see but when he traces his phone down to the apartments where you would find things like the dirt piles and chairs and garbage its seen as a place you should avoid and not even want to go to and the people there are bad. why is a pile of chairs in a museum seen as art but a pile of chairs in a slum not? The arc of the young boy is simillar because when the curator wants his phone and wallet back(something he doesnt even value that much since he gives away the money away after he finds it) he is willing to go to any lengths and dangers to get his justice like printing hundreds of letters. But when the boy tells him how he has ruined his life and seeks justice he is not even willing to print a single letter to tell his parents that it was a mistake. Why is he deserving of justice while the boy does not? finally the time of the apology to the boy. When the boy is simply asking for an apology genuinely The curator doesnt see any reason to do it. he sees it as such a minor thing but when he suspects he might have killed the boy he is willing to swim through trash, call him and even visit him. why is it acceptable to ignore people who are in a bit of trouble but noble to help people who are already too far gone? this is the same theme during the ape man scene. People are told how to act around him and those who dont are harrased by him but no one really cares because it is art but when he starts harrasing the woman people care and get angry at him even though its still part of the "art"
idk but my teacher told about the gorilla scene today and said it's the artist (the performer is an actor) that shows the extremes of art and the guests are the victims. that's what stuck with me at least, I have yet to watch the movie
idk but my teacher told about the gorilla scene today and said it's the artist (the performer is an actor) that shows the extremes of art and the guests are the victims. that's what stuck with me at least, I have yet to watch the movie
Meh, the entire thought is just reach helping hand to others even if noone reached it to you? I mean, that's good thinking, i aprove, but movie could be done better
Explanation for the people who dont understand it; the movie is about hypocrisy and how we as a society draw the line on certain subjects in society using the question "what is art?". Through out the movie you see homeless people begging in the street and they all get ignored by these upper class people and they show no concern for them but when the museum posts a video of a fictional homeless child getting blown up they get outraged at this and say they care about the homeless. we as the viewers know the curator doesnt hate the homeless since he gives them money when he can and even trusts one to watch his things when he goes to find his daughters but him accidentally approving a video makes him worse than the people who ignore the poor according to everyone else. why is not helping poor people okay but making a fictional video not okay?
The curator and the museum are also not free of this because if you pay attention to the art available in the museum through out the movie its things like piles of dirt and stacks of chairs and basically garbage and these are things that are seen as valuable art pieces that you should pay to see but when he traces his phone down to the apartments where you would find things like the dirt piles and chairs and garbage its seen as a place you should avoid and not even want to go to and the people there are bad. why is a pile of chairs in a museum seen as art but a pile of chairs in a slum not?
The arc of the young boy is simillar because when the curator wants his phone and wallet back(something he doesnt even value that much since he gives away the money away after he finds it) he is willing to go to any lengths and dangers to get his justice like printing hundreds of letters. But when the boy tells him how he has ruined his life and seeks justice he is not even willing to print a single letter to tell his parents that it was a mistake. Why is he deserving of justice while the boy does not?
finally the time of the apology to the boy. When the boy is simply asking for an apology genuinely The curator doesnt see any reason to do it. he sees it as such a minor thing but when he suspects he might have killed the boy he is willing to swim through trash, call him and even visit him. why is it acceptable to ignore people who are in a bit of trouble but noble to help people who are already too far gone? this is the same theme during the ape man scene. People are told how to act around him and those who dont are harrased by him but no one really cares because it is art but when he starts harrasing the woman people care and get angry at him even though its still part of the "art"
thank you
For some reason I sat through this movie. I don’t know if I understood it then and I for sure don’t understood it now.
Same
this movie is so confusing and chaotic. idk whats the point or what message they try to convey
fucking watch out for apes
idk but my teacher told about the gorilla scene today and said it's the artist (the performer is an actor) that shows the extremes of art and the guests are the victims. that's what stuck with me at least, I have yet to watch the movie
Wait what? That’s how it ends?
I don’t… I just… what???
This the most chaotic movie to be recapped that even now I still have no idea what the is going on
I thought the title of this video was about my ex-boyfriend.
Nobody cares
@@dontsubscribethanksat least it made me laugh
What's the message the movie wants to convey
idk but my teacher told about the gorilla scene today and said it's the artist (the performer is an actor) that shows the extremes of art and the guests are the victims. that's what stuck with me at least, I have yet to watch the movie
a lot from that Gorilla scene was improvised, and a lot of the background actors actually felt like it was real, and they felt frightened
I love the Square! Claes Bang and Elizabeth Moss are my favorites. Weird obscure movie, but great.
Lousy story even for 10 minutes..
Meh, the entire thought is just reach helping hand to others even if noone reached it to you? I mean, that's good thinking, i aprove, but movie could be done better
You got that out of a recap with no analysis, maybe watch it yourself?
No
🤔 Wtf. What was that even about....😂 what a weird. Non cohesive story.
Detonate😊
this is a comedy??? 😂
Caredo was in and see alot we see watch 👮👮👮👮👮👮👮👮👮
Just an awful film ...not one bit worse than traingle of sadness
Please recap Triangle of Sadness