The Painter and the Thief
On the Record
Forgot your password?
Don't have an account? Sign up here
Already have an account? Log in here
and the Terms and Policies,
and to receive email from Rotten Tomatoes and Fandango.
Please enter your email address and we will email you a new password.
We encourage our community to report abusive content and/ or spam. Our team will review flagged items and determine whether or not they meet our community guidelines.
Please choose best explanation for why you are flagging this review.
Thank you for your submission. This post has been submitted for our review.
Sincerely, The Rotten Tomatoes Team
Good story, very good actors. Much critics of " modern art" and human behaviours. It could be much better avoiding some stuff trying to make laugh unnecessarily.
Lovely exploration of the many indignities our animal roots bestow upon us.
It's quite an original film but it seems to me that it could be a bit shorter and less didactic.
Watched The Square in the OV, that was great. I really enjoyed it, despite the lenght, it had wit and encouraged the viewer to think. The acting was great. This movie is most certainly on the rewatch list
This documentary will CHANGE YOUR PERSPECTIVE and make you feel that there is much more to learn behind the media agenda, which has, for decades, pushed against Michael Jackson!
It includes COURT WITNESSES and, that alone speaks volumes, as we never heard of them before!
I definitely stand for the Truth and Justice, and this documentary shows it in a very clear way!
Everyone should watch it and understand how and why it all started.
Non compreso da molti nel mio paese. regia superlativa, fotografia eccezionale, interpretato da 10.
At the outset, this good looking project promised to be a grand comment on the foolishness and greed that has taken over aspects of the modern art fraternity - instead, as it progressed, it sadly became precisely what it set out to parody. This is very unfortunate as it shows us the filmmaker may not have been particularly brave enough to deliver a focused message. Cinematographer and director work well together, turning in a visually excellent movie but this is far from good enough. With a script that ultimately offers little commitment, shape or true soul – it simply becomes a series of stylish but poorly connected sequences - pretentiously shouting to the viewer "look at my savvy creativity".
Come the half-way mark of this unnecessarily over-long, disconnected effort, it becomes painfully obvious that we, the audience, are the ones being conned. Performances are uniformly good but, as for listing several international actors as stars - this is simply dishonest marketing - call them what they are: ‘Guest Stars'.
Then, we have the director/writer/co-editor indulging his fetishes by using (or is it abusing) actress Elizabeth Moss for a gratuitous sex scene that's initiated from simplistic ‘c' word utterances. This segment goes on to simply culminate in one (of many) plot dead-ends - tending to look rather obviously added for its sensationalistic elements, then ultimately, coming across as simply perverse. Another major sequence features a man violently ‘aping' an Ape which goes on far too long - only to also lead to yet another dead-end (with the truly shocking end result left hanging).
Many will be seduced by this low approach to ‘high-art' (just as the awards groups seem to be) but looking at the bulk of user comments (caringly penned by those who bought tickets and invested valuable time to see this so-called ‘parody')...it becomes abundantly clear many observant viewers were awake to its superficial deceptions. Several mainstream critics were also honest enough to call it out for what it was.
While some might rave, for equally as many, it's just another disappointing cop-out.
This is a classic movie where the concept execution loses almost everything. This happens even though the author and director are the same person. No easy feat. Confusing to the viewer, since you are there to suspend reality and believe. The dinner scene is one of the more contrived plots ever committed to film. The irony is obvious, but even the director cannot deliver a movement forward. Disappointing to say the least.
The Square is a 2017 satirical drama film written and directed by Ruben Ostlund.
This movie certainly is different, containing a few memorable and unique scenes. I can see what the film is trying to achieve, and although there are a number of subplots unfolding together, overall it is too long. Still it is an interesting film, containing a charismatic performance by Bang in the lead role.
AANF GGNF PdO
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.