Play

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.

Seeing this movie in 2025 offers a truly unique experience. Watching Play now, you can clearly sense the death of culture and the fragile peace of European nations reflected in its story. The film's unsettling realism hits harder in today's context, making you question how much has changed-or hasn't-since it was made.

As a foreigner, I found the cafe owner's reaction fascinating yet frustrating. When he simply said, "Please call the police," it felt like he was brushing off a serious issue, reducing it to a formality. My impression was that he'd never faced such problems before and had no clue how to handle them. This helplessness seems woven into the film's fabric-it's so realistic that I had to remind myself this might just be the nature of their society, not an exaggeration. It left me wondering: if a child walked into a cafe in 2025 with the same desperate request, would people still respond so passively? Or would the events in Europe over the past few years-rising tensions, social shifts-push them to act differently, to actually help?

The film also digs into deeper ideas. A society that tramples its own values and then gets attacked doesn't deserve pity-it needs to confront the oppressor head-on. Play shows this through subtle moments, like the bureaucracy on the train. That scene stuck with me: the train conductor, trapped by rules, can't make a simple decision. It's a perfect metaphor for how systems enslave people, stripping away their ability to act freely or morally.

Visually, the cinematography is striking. The long, steady shots create a cold, almost documentary-like feel, forcing you to sit with the discomfort. It's not a film that spoon-feeds you answers; it demands you think. Looking back, I appreciate how it balances art and social commentary without preaching. It's a slow burn, but one that lingers.

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.

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.

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.