The Square

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.

A clever, and insightful, but somewhat meandering, social satire that, in hindsight, feels more like a series of vignettes loosely connected by the films protagonist, a well-known museum curator. The satirical sections that focus on the Modern Art world are dead on, although with, perhaps too much restraint. For the most part they are so understated you might find yourself wondering if the filmmakers were intentionally being satiric; except for, obviously, the film's high-point "Welcome to the Jungle" - both its most humorous and chilling sequence - which literally has a punchline at the end. It could easily be argued the film is worth watching for this section alone. Primarily concerned with how individuals interact with society and the world around them, scenes often play out with the camera focused on one character's reaction as opposed to the action, or conversation, occurring off-screen. This can be a disorienting choice, and, at times, confusing, yet undoubtedly all that is intentional. But be warned, the film will make no attempt to tie up all its lose ends: some characters just drop out of sight, storylines are left dangling and the movie just comes to a stop as opposed to having a real climax. You can be left feeling poked and prodded by the film for having watched it, as opposed to rewarded. But, hey, it's Art.

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

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.

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).