A Look in the Mirror: Ruben Östlund’s Triangle of Sadness
By Nathan Hubanks, Edited by Edith Zhang
Jeffery Cohen’s Monster Theory, broken into seven different theses, asserts in part that monsters are not individuals but rather cultural bodies. In essence, one becomes a monster by becoming part of a cultural group; it is not an individual themselves that is a monster but rather the group they find themselves a part of. The phenomenon is perfectly illustrated in the manner Ruben Östlund’s Best Picture Nominee Triangle of Sadness addresses social currency, arguing that amassing a wealth of social currency will inevitably corrupt an individual. Following Carl (Harris Dickinson) and Yaya (Charlbi Dean Kriek), a young influencer couple, the film explores the ways in which owning a significant percentile of social currency monsterizes individuals throughout the couple’s journey on a luxury cruise that leaves them stranded on an island. In the film, many characters are elevated to or dropped down from a high social wealth and respectively corrupted or purified. It coincides with Cohen’s theory that the monster is not an individual but rather a “cultural body,” here being wealthiness in social currency. Unlike the monster of great power, which actively leads to oppression, the cultural monster of social wealth causes individuals to outright ignore the wants and needs of those around them. They only seek to actively harm others if their social currency is directly at risk. Östlund depicts these social currencies through three distinct mediums: monetary currency, bodily beauty, and, on the island, vital food, exhibiting how an accumulation of a significant amount of any of these goods will monsterize an individual with the aforementioned traits that come with social wealth. In Triangle, social wealth is a cultural body that will inevitably lead to the monsterization of a character within it, illustrated by the ways the different characters garner and relinquish the monster's characteristics by entering and exiting the cultural body.
There is, in fact, a definite monster within Triangle of Sadness. Indeed, the most compelling evidence of its existence comes from the luxury cruise captain (Woody Harrelson)’s explicit mention of one: “There are very few people that look at themselves in the mirror and say ‘The person I see is a savage monster.’ Instead, they make up some construction that justifies what they do,” (1:23). Therefore, not only is it evident that a “monster” exists in the film, but the monster can be classified as a group of hypocritical “they”s that create “constructions that justify what ‘they’ do.”
This description calls for an investigation of what group of “they”s the captain's words are referring to. Such an investigation would only find that the cultural body in question is that of the socially wealthy because, in Triangle, they frequently use a “construction” of the false idea of equality to “justify what they do.” Throughout the film, multiple socially wealthy bodies triumphantly proclaim “we are all equal” whilst showcasing that they are evidently not: the monetarily wealthy Russian aristocrat tells it to an overworked service worker, and the rich in beauty runway models use it as their tagline as they showcase themselves to an average looking audience. Here, the socially wealthy have used the “construction” that ‘everybody is equal’ to “justify” their monstrous behavior; the monstrous behavior in question revealed earlier in the cruise captain's monologue: “While you’re swimming in abundance the rest of the world is drowning in misery,” (1:19). In essence, the monstrous action of the socially wealthy is their lack of any while “the rest of the world drowns.” Thus, Triangle characterizes the group as entirely indifferent to the wants and needs of others, only giving them attention if their own wealth is in danger.
Some monsters in the film enter the cultural body of social wealth via monetary currency. Yaya in Part One can be used as the earliest example. Yaya’s monstrousness is first seen when she has dinner with Carl at the beginning of Part One. During their date, she forces him to pay for her expensive meal despite the fact he never agreed and likely makes, according to the film’s opening monologue, just ‘a third of the money’ she does. When Carl protests, Yaya intentionally throws a conniption that attracts the attention of the other guests, leaving Carl no choice. Yaya later admits she’s “so good at being manipulative” (0:22) and knew exactly what she was doing. The dining interaction serves as an example of a monetarily wealthy individual protecting their own prosperity at the expense of another–a trait of the monstrous cultural body. Notably, Carl–who is not socially wealthy in monetary currency at the moment–does not exhibit any of these monstrous traits in Part One. For the rest of Part One, he argues that she and he “should be equals” (0:17); in other words, he wants to advocate for himself without bringing her down, demonstrating care for her needs, thus not showing the traits of a monster.
The monetarily wealthy characters continue to categorize themselves as monsters by ignoring the needs of others in Part Two. The initial instance is that of the female Russian aristocrat who encourages, and soon outright “commands” (0:52) that a service worker enters a hot tub while in uniform, despite the worker’s many explanations that doing so would breach protocol. In the end, the worker enters the hot tub and the aristocrat receives no punishment. The sequence exhibits how the aristocrat is able to completely ignore the interests of those around her to get what she wants just because of her social wealth; she is “swimming in abundance” while everyone else “drowns in misery.” In addition, the wealthy’s ignorance of others’ needs are highlighted in Yaya and Carl’s dismissal of their housekeeper’s need to clean their room. Abigail (Dolly de Leon), the housekeeper, needs to do her job and stay on schedule, but Yaya and Carl have monetary wealth and are able to effortlessly demand she works around them–they are ignoring her needs while they “swim in abundance.” In fact, many of the monetarily wealthy characters on the cruise let others drown while partaking in their social wealth: the arms dealers show no qualms about manufacturing weapons that have killed millions, the rich Russian businessman hijacks the PA system to falsely inform everybody that the ship is sinking for his own amusement, and the elder lady demands that the crew to clean the sails of the ship despite the fact the ship does not have any. Consequently, the behavior of the socially wealthy aligns with the established traits of Triangle’s monster– further evidencing that the monster is a cultural body.
The characters in Parts Two and Three without an abundance of monetary currency, including those who previously had one, exhibit none of the traits of the monster. At the start of Part Two, the head of the service crew instructs her employees to obey the guests regardless of their request–they are a non-wealthy group recognizing the interests of others. Throughout the film, the crew is repeatedly shown to genuinely follow through with the order, best exhibited when they clean up the mess caused by excessive vomiting. In Part Three, when the ship guests are stranded on an island, those same selfish guests are stripped of their monetary currency, and thereby, their social wealth, and they soon demonstrate that when no longer in the cultural body they do not express any of its monstrous traits. The formerly rich guests, including the PA hijacking Russian businessman, learn to support one another and look out for the interests of their group rather than just themselves–demonstrated by how they shave each other, hunt together, tell stories to one another, and support struggling members through tough times. Essentially, with no forms of social wealth, them as a group have been purified. This purification evidences that the monster of social wealth is a cultural body that one enters and exits–it is not an individual themself.
Nevertheless, gaining social wealth in beauty can equally monsterize an individual. To illustrate that beauty can be a literal form of currency, this essay highlights Carl’s proclamation that he and Yaya, two models, “mostly get free stuff” and that the “cruise was paid for [them],” (0:36). Quite on the nose, the Russian businessman responds that their “looks paid for the tickets” (0:36). Thus, it is clear that in the world of Triangle, beauty can be a form of wealth with equal power to purchase as monetary currency; and consequently, equal power to corrupt, as seen when Carl notices Yaya checking out a shirtless crew member. This crew member has jeopardized Carl’s social currency of beauty by stealing the attention of his girlfriend, thus, Carl becomes no longer indifferent to the crew member's needs–minutes later, he reports him for working shirtless on the job and the crew member is fired. The events illustrate that Carl, a member of the cultural body of social wealth via beauty, exhibits the monstrous trait of harming others to protect his own abundance of beauty. On the other hand, Yaya, equally wealthy in beauty, flirts with another guest despite her relationship with Carl, thereby ignoring Carl’s need for a stable relationship so she can indulge in her currency–her attractiveness. Yaya’s act further demonstrates that the socially wealthy ignore the needs of others while they “swim in abundance.” And yet, later in the film, Carl partakes in the exact same act when he and Abigail have a barter of their social currencies. Carl trades his exceptional beauty for Abigail’s resources, choosing to sleep with her for pretzel sticks despite the fact Yaya explicitly condemned the act. Because he ignored Yaya’s need so he could swim in his own abundance of beauty, Carl marks yet another character who exhibits monstrous traits when they enter the cultural body of social wealth.
Finally, in Part Three, Triangle depicts a new type of social wealth that arises among the members stranded on an island: food. Similarly to the other social currencies, the characters who amass great wealth in food join the corrupt cultural body and become monsters. The phenomenon is best demonstrated when Carl, a handicapped woman, and a pirate find a large bag of pretzel sticks–simultaneously gaining a significant amount of social currency. At first, they attempt to only eat a few; but having temporarily entered the cultural body of social wealth, they become monsters and eat all the pretzel sticks without considering the needs of the rest of the group. The event exhibits that the monster is a cultural body, and thus, as soon as the body is entered one gains its monstrous traits.
While the three characters immediately lose the status of social wealth upon eating all the pretzel sticks, Abigail, the housekeeper, is consistently the most wealthy in food on the island–and serves as yet another example of a socially wealthy monster. Before Part Three, as a housekeeper, Abigail showed none of the traits of a monster–coinciding with her lack of social currency. However, upon reaching the island, Abigail is quick to discover that she is the only one who can hunt, make fires, clean, or cook–allowing her to monopolize the group’s food. In doing so, Abigail enters the cultural body of social wealth and monsterizes herself, shown in how she keeps most of the food for herself and punishes those who do not obey her command. In addition to demonstrating indifference to the needs of others, Abigail also mimics the traits of a monster by going to extreme lengths to protect her own wealth. At the end of the film, Abigail and Yaya discover that the island they are stranded on has actually been a resort the whole time. In an instant, Abigail realizes that she will lose all her social wealth if the others find out–her monopoly on food has no value outside of their community. With her status in grave danger, Abigail protects herself and attempts to murder Yaya, sneaking up behind her while breathing and drooling heavily with dreary bloodshot eyes, running makeup, and an unwavering gaze– the appearance of a real monster. Although it is left ambiguous as to whether Abigail actually follows through, her attempt alone highlights her desire to protect her social currency–solidifying that the monster is a cultural body.
Östlund argues through his film that left in a natural state, humanity is pure in nature, depicting the characters without social wealth as compassionate for those around them. In essence, the default state of humanity is love in Triangle. Nevertheless, the film warns that any individual, no matter their race, class, or gender, will lose that love by amassing social currency, as doing so creates greed, neglect, and sometimes, malice. Because characters enter and exit the state of monsterhood throughout the film, the monster must be a cultural body. It is a group. A state, one of wealth–that creates monsters, not any genetic trait or ideology. Thus, Östlund’s film teaches us to be wary of the monstrous traits brought about by social wealth in the real world. It outlines the dangers of unchecked social currency–ignorance of others and insecurity of its loss–and pleads with the audience to, as Woody Harrelson says, “look at themselves in the mirror” (1:23) because, maybe, the person they will see “is a savage monster” (1:23).
Works Cited
Cohen, Jeffrey Jerome. Monster Theory: Reading Culture. University of Minnesota Press, 1997.
Östlund, Ruben, director. Triangle of Sadness. NEON, 2022.