By Eleni Alexandri
Triangle of Sadness is a 2022 film written and directed by the Swedish Ruben Östlund. The two-and-a-half-hour movie is categorized as a comedy-drama, while the minimal description on the Internet Movie Database (IMDB) reads: “A fashion model celebrity couple join an eventful cruise for the super-rich.”. However, Triangle of Sadness is much more than that.
The Plot
The film is divided into three acts, namely, Carl and Yaya (part 1), The Yacht (part 2), and The Island (part 3). During the first act, the first characters to be introduced are the model couple of Carl and Yaya. While Carl seems to be struggling to find his place in the fashion industry and make a name for himself, Yaya is a successful model and a famous influencer. Their relationship started as a marketing strategy, with the hope that the romance would bring more attention to each one of them individually; however, Carl seems to see this bond as more than just a business deal. Regardless, he feels emasculated by Yaya’s professional achievements, bigger financial gains, and increased reputation. He considers that as a reversal of the established gender roles, and he lashes out on each occasion the subject comes up. Furthermore, her yearning for a wealthy marriage that would meet all her future needs disturbs him and causes him to question her morals.
The second act takes place on the yacht, providing a luxury cruise for the wealthy guests who manage to get on board. The mantra of the crew staff is ‘Yes sir, yes ma’am!’ They are reminded of that by the head of the crew (Paula) while preparing for their upcoming journey; as for the ultimate morale boost, they began to chant ‘Money! Money!’, imagining the amount of generous tips they will soon be receiving. At the same time, the cleaning staff and mechanics are gathered in the lowest deck, all stuck in a small room with uncomfortable chairs. Among the guests of the yacht, there is Dimitry, a Russian nouveau riche businessman, seemingly unconcerned with his surroundings, crude and uncouth, accompanied by his wife Vera and his mistress Ludmilla. Furthermore, there is an elderly couple of tycoons who have amassed their wealth through the production of grenades and other combat weapons, and one more upstart tech-rich millionaire, named Jarmo, who is unbearably lonely and unable to find satisfaction and joy in his newly acquired fortune. Finally, two tickets granted to Yaya for her work as an influencer allowed the pair of fashion models to board the superyacht.
Soon after the trip commenced, guests began expressing unreasonable requests, making absurd comments, or engaging in pointless and shallow conversations. Vera, the Russian magnate’s wife, requested that everyone on the yacht stop working and join her in diving and swimming in the sea. Regardless of the chef’s concerns that this would result in the food that was currently being prepared going bad, the leader of the crew reminded everybody that the only reply was ‘Yes Sir!’. Vera’s wish eventually came true at the risk of infecting everyone later that day over supper. Following that came one of the film’s most memorable and gruesome moments, which depicted the boat passing through a rainstorm as all guests were suffering from a mix of food poisoning and seasickness, resulting in many and varied body discharges. While hell broke loose and fear spread throughout the yacht, Thomas, the Captain, and Dimitry got into a passionate debate over communism and capitalism, which was aired over the intercom and heard by everyone onboard. The boat was ambushed by pirates the next morning, and in an ironic twist of fate, the elderly pair of tycoons were the first guests to die from a grenade manufactured by their own firm.
The last part of the film takes place on the island, where a few survivors of the pirate attack got washed up. Among the survivors are Carl and Yaya, Dimitry, Paula, Jarmo, and a Filipino cleaning lady named Abigail. Soon, it became apparent that the only person with any survival skills in this group was Abigail. After this realization, hitherto discredited and invisible to most, Abigail seized the opportunity for dominance and supremacy and established a new order. On the yacht, she was merely a cleaning lady, but on the island, she was the revered chieftain. She not only handled and distributed the limited resources but also secured a basic shelter for herself within the freefall-type lifeboat, which was also washed up on the beach. Simultaneously, she bought off Carl’s amorous companionship in exchange for preferential treatment (extra food and shelter housing). Carl had now become a trophy man, doing what he had criticized Yaya for daring to consider. The climax of the final act peaks with Abigail and Yaya’s decision to explore the island in search of supplies. After several hours of hiking, the two women arrived on the opposite side of the island and discovered an elevator that led to a contemporary, luxurious resort. Their salvation was just a breath away; while the fatigued and emotionally charged Yaya sat on the sand trying to regain her composure, Abigail picked up a rock and prepared to overthrow whatever and whoever stood between her and her new life. Fin.
Textual analysis
The film provides fertile ground for semiotic analysis. The structure of the movie follows the well-known schema of Hubris – Atis – Nemesis – Tisis from the Greek tragedies. The audience witnesses the characters being blinded by the position of power in which they find themselves, which leads them to arrogant behaviors without a trace of empathy and humility. The punishment for these actions comes in the form of dramatic irony, such as in the arc of the elderly couple and the story of Carl. The beauty of dramatic irony lies in the fact that the characters do not realize the ironic situation in which they find themselves and how this poetic vengeance has such a powerful moral and ethical component. This distant observational spot provides a holistic and encompassing intake of the complex and intricate causal relationship between the action and the result, leading the audience into a process of reflection and potentially catharsis.
Another approach could come from Poetics of Expressiveness (PE) as developed by Alexander Zholkovsky and Yuri Shcheglov[1]. The concept of PE argues that every text is a derivation of its theme through the usage of expressive devices (for reference, see Shcheglov and Zholkovsky 1987; Zholkovsky 1978; 1980; 1985). One of the most utilized expressive devices in the movie is the one of ‘contrast’ (Shcheglov and Zholkovsky 1987: 58-59), carrying the central theme of privilege and power and the director’s commentary on modern society. The grotesque food poisoning sequence employs contrast to juxtapose the luxurious superyacht and the affluent formal appearance of guests with the repulsive sights of body discharges and flooding sewage. The expressive device of contrast is combined with the one of ‘metaphorical concretization’ (ibid. 52), which results in the depiction of corruption and dirty tactics, sin and immorality, and the eventual decay of the rich and powerful. Furthermore, it recalls the aspects of human frailty, morality, and weakness, which can never be overcome, regardless of an individual’s economic strength, social position, and overall supremacy. However, another use of contrast in combination with metaphorical concretization comes from the interchange between scenes of people suffering from seasickness and poisoning and the heated debate between the drunk Dimitry and Thomas (the captain) over communism and capitalism. As the guests struggle in despair, the two men representing authority and capital argue over theoretical political approaches. The conversation progresses to the point where Thomas, in a self-reflective moment, admits that he cannot be considered a socialist, as he would like to think of himself, given that he is “swimming in abundance while the world is drowning in misery” (Östlund 2022 – timestamp 01:19:53). This final line by Thomas, can also be seen as an ‘augmentation’ (Shcheglov and Zholkovsky 1987: 53), which offers an emphasis on an existing element.
On another note, the handling of Abigail’s character can be understood through the expressive device of ‘preparation’ (Shcheglov and Zholkovsky 1987: 61) and, more precisely, the included subcategory of ‘recoil’ (ibid.) The writer and director was aiming at a ‘sudden turn’ (ibid. 130) in order to surprise the audience with a plot twist; the character of Abigail has 13 seconds of screentime for the first two parts of the film (00:28:33 – 00:28:47 mark), while she appears again at 01:34:27 mark, during the third act, becoming one of the most prominent and pivotal characters of the film. Since ‘recoil’ and its properties are coming from the amalgamation of ‘preparation’ with ‘contrast’ (ibid. 123), the opposition between the absence of Abigail and the powerful presence of the character in the third act of the film contributes to the unexpected and dramatic development of the narrative. Furthermore, it is exactly the contrast between her initial inferiority and subsequent supremacy that allows the author to go beyond the commentary of the established social positions and question the very nature of power along with its impact on individuals.
Finally, another expressive device may be traced in the closing scene, which fades into black before the audience witnesses whether Abigail murders Yaya or, at the last moment, regains her clarity and lets her live. There is a ‘concretization’ (Shcheglov and Zholkovsky 1987: 52), at least in terms of Abigail’s intent and desire to commit to this heinous action. In a prior scene, Jarmo kills a donkey that the survivors found along the shore, initially reluctantly but subsequently savagely and intensely. The ‘dramatic symmetry’ creates a ‘mirror scene’ (ibid. 149) with Abigail lifting the rock and preparing to end Yaya’s life. However, this mirroring encompasses an internal contrast since one death, that of the animal, was necessary for the castaway’s survival, but the potential second killing would mean the extension of their suffering. Although the expressive devices reveal Abigail’s intention and underscore the level of her insanity, there is still no definite answer to what happened to Yaya.
Expanding the application of PE to the entire oeuvre of Ruben Östlund, would allow the reconstruction of the writer and director’s Poetic World (PW) and reveal the invariant themes that exist in all of his individual works. However, “PW is an invariant message by a given author which forms part of its code […] it accounts for his persistent employment of the same (“idiosycratic” [sic.]) constructions and even quite specific objects.” (Shcheglov and Zholkovsky 1987: 147). Triangle of Sadness (Östlund 2022) as a text entails polysemy and multiple readings according to the applied code by the readers, formed and developed by their own sociocultural and political context, and their epoch; the same goes for the construction of the text, and the PW, which is a universe created through the lens of its author based on his/her code. Thus, a complementary chronotopical analysis could provide additional information for a deeper comprehension of the text. According to Bakhtin, there are three variations of the intertwined relationship of time and space: the chronotope of depicted events, of the narrator, and of the author (1979: 338). The film presents a linear development of narration, and although the chronotope of the narrator could bring out some interesting results, especially about the oppressive lingering emotions of characters that kept building up and grew into violent actions, the focus will be on the third chronotope.
Alternatively named ‘metaphysical chronotope’ (Torop 2000: 84), this level regards the bridging of the fictional world with reality and connects the ideas and messages formed in the spatiotemporal environment of the author that he/she wishes to communicate to the viewer via his creation. Here, the film is set in the contemporary world, and it aims to depict through hyperbole and black humor a reflection of today’s society, along with a political commentary. In an interview with Agence France-Presse, Östlund stated that he was raised by a communist mother during the Cold War, and he identifies as a socialist who “believes in a strong state and a mixed economy”; he continued by saying that his film was never meant to depict wealthy people as the root of all evil and that in actuality Triangle of Sadness is much more about human nature, rather than politics (The World News 2022). Although it would be possible to unquestionably accept that statement, through analysis and specifically the application of PE, it becomes feasible not only to comprehend the influences of the author but also to negate any ‘parasitic themes’ (Shcheglov and Zholkovsky 1987: 70) through the detection of consistency in the use of expressive devices, and the construction of the author’s ‘dictionary of reality’ (ibid. 45).
A Political View
Triangle of Sadness is a film that has a clear and apparent political tone, and this understanding does not contradict the aforementioned statement of the director; indeed, his film is not about politics, but it engages in a political dialogue. As Kate Nash made clear with her paper on ‘cultural turn’ in social theory, political sociology should not be closely defined and limited to the study of the relationship between state and society, but rather “all social life should be seen as potentially political” (Nash 2001: 77). Furthermore, according to Carl Schmitt, the definition of ‘political’ could be reduced in the oppositional relationship between friend and enemy (1996 [1932]). Both takes on the definition of ‘political’ can be traced in the film, a story about contemporary social life, with characters representing different social positions and political ideologies, forming friend-enemy relationships, that lead to war and catastrophe.
Another significant aspect of Triangle of Sadness political tone can be provided through the theories of Bourdieu and his parallel of games as a portrayal of social life, which encompasses the elements of competition and inequality (Calhoun 2003). In this analogy, ‘fields’ are social spaces, which consist of two main components; “a configuration of social roles, agent positions, and the structures they fit into” (Hanks 2005: 72), and “the historical process in which those positions are actually taken up” (ibid.). In addition to the notion of field, there are also the ones of ‘habitus’ and ‘capital’. Habitus, for Bourdieu, represents the sense and feeling of the game by the player; a good player is not the one who just understands the rules, but the one who senses the game, gains insight, works strategically and has the aptitude for improvisation (Calhoun 2003: 275-276). Lastly, capital, represents the assets and resources at the disposal of the players, that are valued within the context of field; the notion of capital for Bourdieu exceeds the mere material property, namely economic capital, but also includes, cultural capital and social capital, that reflect the upbringing, education, and network of the players (ibid. 294).
In the movie, we can apply this theory and talk about three different fields, which form three different set of rules, and change the hierarchy of the players. For the first act, where the audience witnesses the spectacular world of fashion industry, the most valuable resource is beauty and appearance. In this game, Yaya is seemingly in the lead, and with her sense of the game she strategically thinking about preserving her position (the relationship with Carl for marketing reasons), but also about ensuring her role in the future (planning to become a trophy wife). Carl on the other hand, is left behind, feeling unfairly and unequally treated by the rules of the game, where in this patriarchal society he has to always prove his worth by being in the lead, and have a bigger accumulation of material property to take care of his partner. Although he seems to work as hard as Yaya, he is losing the game.
The second field is the yacht. Here the most valuable assets come mainly from the economic capital. The crew’s willingness to lean over backwards for the guests is a direct result of the monetary value. Wealthy guests are able to indulge in preposterous behavior because they can purchase their desired response. Everything ultimately amounts to a pure economic transactional relationship. Prestige, status, and network certainly contribute to the ascendance in the social hierarchy; however, the material property exerts a substantial influence. Distinct patterns of behavior among guests, who all possess a high social profile can be observed, proving that the degree of absurdity is dependent significantly on the economic capital. Finally, in the field of the island, Abigail’s sense of the game, her quick reflections, ability for improvisation and strategic utilization of the new set of rules, put her in the lead, as her survival skills, made her the most valuable person among the other contestants.
Noting the compelling nature of Bourdieu’s theories, and applicability in the analysis of the film, it is also possible to consider the notion of “inertia effect -or hysteresis- of the habitus” (Sapiro 2015: 487). This concept explains the objection to change and inflexibility of adaptation in times of “crisis, social change, or confrontation with another culture.” (ibid.) This phenomenon has various manifestations depending on the social group and the initial habitus of the individual. A false or distorted understanding of the field, along with the incapability of the individual to logically evaluate the current situation and prepare their next steps, results in inertia (ibid.) In Triangle of Sadness, the characters of Yaya, Carl, and Paula (the leader of the crew staff), could be examined under that notion. Paula, who could be seen as the embodiment of subproletariat, demonstrates no distinct changes in her conduct or, in Bourdieu’s metaphor, in her game-plan, despite the complete reversal of social hierarchy and status quo. She continued unquestionably and with no hesitation to serve the prevailing authority, without evaluating the reform field or the potential opportunities this new set of rules could mean for her game. On the other hand, Yaya and Carl, who were accustomed and at ease with using their looks as a currency, maintained the same approach throughout the entire film. The only difference, which was unrelated to their adaptability and improvisation skills, was that the new stage was a matriarchy, which enhanced Carl’s value as a participant.
While Bourdieu’s theories offer an important contribution in the understanding of the characters and entirety of the movie, another concept that can also enhance the comprehension of this political viewpoint is the ‘hubris syndrome’. In connection with the analysis of the preceding chapter and the examination of the narrative through the schema of Hubris-Atis-Nemesis-Tisis, the notion of hubris reappears, this time to provide insight into the impact of power on individuals, particularly leaders and authority figures; based on that theory power leads to unclarity, slips in judgment, and eventually unsound and highly hazardous decision making (for reference, see Owen 2008). Hubris syndrome, is a term developed by the medical doctor and politician Lord David Owen, based on the notion ‘hubris hypothesis’, coined by Richard Roll and introduced in 1986. According to Roll, hubris hypothesis offers an alternative explanation of empirical results’ interpretation regarding corporate managerial takeovers, mergers and tender offers (Roll 1986). Subsequently, Owen developed his theory with focus on leaders, connecting hubris to occupational hazard, risk and risk management, and even proposing the hubris syndrome as a personality disorder (in DSM-IV), along with a list of fourteen distinct criteria (Owen and Davidson 2009). Carrying the torch of that study, Manfred Kets de Vires explains how a truly hubristic people become self-imprisoned, denies any guidance and lose sight of their moral compass; mixing confidence with hubris and ignoring all the warning signs, the become hazardous on either an organizational, national, or even social level (de Vires 2016: 90). In Triangle of Sadness Abigail becomes the personification of all the above and exemplifies through hyperbole the threat that is power in the wrong hands.
Finally, another approach to the political viewpoint, and the connection of social structure and the nature of power can be offered by Jacques Derrida. The movie encompasses a process of deconstruction, in Derrida’s terminology (for reference, see Derrida 2021 [1997]), which nullifies and exhausts the binary oppositions and dichotomies. The contradicting elements, or rather representations of social class and status, that is, the relationship between the poor and the rich established in the second part of the movie, are overturned in the third act. The roles are now reversed; the prominent position of the economically dominant individuals is replaced by the deep knowledge of survival in harsh conditions of the hitherto underprivileged. This redistribution of roles causes the questioning and, ultimately, the deconstruction of established positions in real society. The dynamic process of deconstruction can be continued by assessing a new dichotomy, that of power and powerlessness. Although the alternation of binaries can continue indefinitely in the context of an internal dialogue of the viewer, many conclusions can be drawn from this process, such as for instance, a new understanding of human nature, the impact of power, and a more general worldview of fewer stereotypes and fixed positions. The film’s last few minutes leave an intentional open ending, as mentioned already, passing on to the viewer the responsibility of understanding the finale based on the deconstruction of established social roles. This also offers the freedom to develop a personal closure; although the plot seems to suggest that power corrupts and alters the personalities of individuals, in the end, the viewer has the opportunity to choose an optimistic and hopeful ending in which humanity and morality overcome corruption, or a pessimistic (in the view of some, realistic) ending, in which human weakness is subordinated to the infectious madness of power.
The Culture
Triangle of Sadness (Östlund 2022) belongs to a category of films characterized by their political undertone, black humor, social commentary, and satire. Other recent releases are Parasite (Bong 2019), The Platform (Gaztelu-Urrutia 2019), The Menu (Mylod 2022), Glass Onion (Johnson 2022), and TV-series like Snowpiercer (Manson and Friedman 2020-), a reboot of the same-titled movie of 2013 by Bong Joon Ho, White Lotus (White 2021), and Squid Game (Hwang 2021). Political ideologies and controversies, as well as the structure of society and the competition between social strata have always been a focus of the Seventh Art. However, films dealing with crucial political and social issues were deemed as a sophisticated form of cinema that did not appeal to the general public and usually did not manage to win recognition, major awards and prizes of world renown. It is rather a recent phenomenon that these productions gained popularity and received critical acclaim; something that can be examined deeper through the notion of ‘counterhegemony’ (Cohn 2012 [2000]) and the concept of ‘cultural conflict’, as introduced by James Davison Hunter in 1991.
Undoubtedly Western culture in a general context and America, more specifically Hollywood, have established themselves as dominant forces and have shaped the wider, if not the global, cultural spectrum. From the creation of the dazzling city of stars, glamour and cinema in the early twentieth century to the present day, Hollywood has been the primary source of entertainment. Clearly holding a near monopoly on production, at least as far as the general public was concerned, the Hollywood industry had both the power to transmit messages and values and to shape discourse through spectacular, audiovisual, grand narratives. Over the years, lengthy debates have emerged concerning the nationalistic ideologies and not-so-subtle soft power strategies employed in American productions. Eventually these evolved into jests among cinephiles; in the event of natural disaster, alien invasion, or other catastrophe, America has always been the focal point. Additionally, long discussions have taken place for decades – gaining more voice in recent years – regarding matters of representation, racism, and xenophobia in Hollywood, not only in the sphere of production but also recognition of talent in the form of awards[3]. Finally, Hollywood is a fantastic example of capitalism: “Capitalist power – the ability to control, modify and, sometimes, limit social creation through the rights of ownership – is the foundation of capital accumulation.” (McMahon 2022: 2). Thus, Hollywood, can be considered as a “system embodying American hegemony.” (Byungju and Gon 2008: 130)
After considering hegemony, it is logical to examine the counterhegemony. According to Cohn, counterhegemony is “an alternative ethical view of society – to challenge capitalism” (2012 [2000]: 112). Therefore, the subcultures (some of them developing into counter and anticultures) and marginal groups that not only ideologically oppose the capitalistic nature of Hollywood, but furthermore feel unrepresented, misrepresented, or mistreated by the industry, are the ones consisting of the counter force to this hegemony. This contention can also be described as a manifestation of ‘cultural conflict, as per Hunter (1991), which is defined as an overarching political opposition that encompasses a wide variety of socio-cultural matters, including (but not limited to) gender equality, LGBTQ+ rights, multiculturalism, and everything that “can be traced ultimately and finally to the matter of moral authority […] the basis by which people determine whether something is good or bad.” (ibid. 42). As a result of these cultural conflicts and a cluster of counterhegemonic forces, numerous social movements have emerged in recent years, bringing about social changes that transcend Hollywood. As a result, discussions regarding cultural appropriation, racism, homophobia, equality, inclusivity, political correctness and so on are now more prominent than previously.
Returning, however, to the movies and tv-series that were mentioned at the beginning of the chapter, one could still wonder whether this is an actual win from the side of counterhegemony. Triangle of Sadness (Östlund 2022) is a movie that was shot during the pandemic, with a budget of 15,6 million dollars (Keslassy 2021), and box office that reached 26,2 million dollars (Box Office Mojo); the director of the film, Ruben Östlund, stated in Cannes festival of 2022, that his intention was to “create a blend of the European cinema tradition, “of trying to say something about society”, with the productive American habit of making films that are driven by the need to please audiences and make money” (Thorpe 2022). Furthermore, Triangle of Sadness got forty-two award nominations in total[2], three of them of Best Picture, Best Direction, and Best Original Screenplay from the Academy Awards (Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences 2023). This information creates the impression that the film’s antisystemic themes and internal political ideologies, which reflect Östlund’s believes, are at odds with the lavish production, as well as the desire for, and warmly reception of recognition, acceptance, and support from the system itself.
According to Cohn, the chances of global society to successfully develop a counterhegemony with a “democratic, participatory model based on socialism” (2012 [2000]: 383) is miniscule. Most people, regardless their social status and their acknowledgment of social problems and global economy, “are not dissatisfied enough to seek major changes.” (ibid. 389). Additionally, while there might be a general agreement on the problematic nature of society, due to the wide range of social groups, there can be no consensus on objectives and solutions. Evidence in support of this position can also be found in the work of Peeter Selg, and his semiotic explanation of wicked problems (Selg 2021). Finally, another significant factor objecting the development of a true and effective counterhegemony, might come from the phenomenon encompassed in Weber’s metaphor of ‘iron cage’ (Weber 1930: 181). The notion of iron cage describes the way individuals who have been conditioned by and nurtured in a system of rationalization, surrender to social pressure that commands a goal-driven orientation to optimization and productivity, at the alter of freedom and creativity. Breaking the iron cage, and liberated stand against the system, seems to be a much harder and more intricate process, that requires a deep understanding of society, but also an intrinsic strength and profound introspection. This approach unfortunately implies that the change of status quo and the hope of a better society seems impossible. Especially to the question of whether art could change the world, the answer appears to be negative. However, and notwithstanding the limitations presented in the preceding paragraph, the answer to the proposed question is ‘yes’, art does have the potential to change the world. Clearly this is not a short-term process that will bring about change immediately, nevertheless, artistic texts offer the possibility of an open cultural dialogue, and an intrapersonal discussion with each reader. Based on Lotman’s semiotic theories of five types of communication (Lotman 1988), autocommunication and self-description (for reference, see Lotman and Uspenski 1978 [1971]), it is evident how culture is enhanced, enlarged, and attains plurality and heterogeneity. “In self-description, culture is richest where it creates and uses the maximum possible number of languages that diversify its self-image.” (Torop 2017). Thus, regardless of the supposed hypocrisy of films and productions such as Triangle of Sadness (Östlund 2022), and even so seemingly hegemony always wins, these texts have value and carry the potential of change.
Conclusion
Triangle of Sadness (Östlund 2022), is a film that, as seen in the preceding paragraphs, can provide rich ground for semiotic analysis and exploration of various facets of culture. Furthermore, it can highlight the fascinating features of cultural study, and the fact that culture is a self-reflective, ever-growing organism in which the researchers are constantly part of the object of their examination. However, and most importantly, the movie was chosen to demonstrate the appeal of dealing with pop cultural units. In many cases, conducting research on a cultural text reveals the object’s potential to serve as an example representing a wider phenomenon, or even a tool to illustrate and elucidate a complicated theory. This may be said for other disciplines as well, and it is not a specific feature of cultural studies and the humanities. However, through pop culture, it is possible to find a major common denominator that speaks to many people who are already familiar with the example and thus can easier form connections between the elements they are familiar with, and the not so clear features of a given phenomenon or theory. Pop culture could be the path to popularizing science and making research more intriguing and enjoyable for a wider audience.
References
Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences 2023. The 95th Academy Awards 2023: Honoring movies released in 2022. Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. Retrieved from: https://www.oscars.org/oscars/ceremonies/2023
Bakhtin, Mikhail 1979. Estetika Slovesnogo Tvorchestva [Aestehtics of Verbal Creativity]. Moscow: Iskusstvo.
Bong, Joon Ho 2013. Snowpiercer. SnowPiercer; Moho Film; Opus Pictures; Stillking Films; CJ E&M Financing & Investment Entertainment & Comics; CJ Entertainment; TMS Comics; TMS Entertainment; Union Investment Partners.
- 2019. Parasite. CJ Entertainment; Barunson E&A.
Box Office Mojo (s.a.) Triangle of Sadness (2022). Box Office Mojo by IMDBPro. Retrieved from: https://www.boxofficemojo.com/title/tt7322224/
Byung, Ju Shin; Gon, Namkung 2008. Films and cultural hegemony: American hegemony “outside” and “inside” the “007” movie series. Asian Perspective 32(2): 115-143.
Calhoon, Craig 2003. Pierre Bourdieu. In: Ritzer, George (ed.) The Blackwell Companion to Major Contemporary Social Theorists, volume 22. USA; UK; Australia; Germany: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. pp. 274-309.
Cohn, Theodore H. 2012 [2000]. Global Political Economy [6th edition]. New York: Longman.
de Vires, Manfred Kets 2016. The hubris factor in leadership. In: Garrad, Peter; Robinson, Graham (eds.) The Intoxication of Power. London: Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 89-99.
Derrida, Jacques 2021 [1997]. Deconstruction in a Nutshell: A Conversation with Jacques Derrida, [With a New Introduction]. Caputo, John D. (ed.). New York: Fordham University Press.
Gaztelu-Urrutia, Galder 2019. The Platform. Basque Films; Mr Miyagi Films; Plataforma La Película AIE; Consejería de Cultura del Gobierno Vasco; Euskal Irrati Telebista (EiTB); Eusko Jaularitza; Instituto de Crédito Oficial (ICO); Instituto de la Cinematografía y de las Arts Audiovisuales (ICAA); Radio Televisión Española (RTVE); Zentropa.
Hanks, William F. 2005. Pierre Bourdieu and the practices of language. Annual Review of Anthropology. 34: 67-83.
Hunter, James Davison 1991. Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America. United States: BasicBooks, A Division of HarperCollins Publishers, Inc.
Hwang, Dong-hyuk 2021 – (ongoing). Squid Game. Siren Pictures.
Johnson, Rian 2022. Glass Onion. Netflix; T-Street.
Keslassy, Elsa 2021. ‘The Square’ Helmer Ruben Ostlund on filming ‘Triangle of Sadnes’ with Woody Harrelson during pandemic (exclusive). Variety. Retrieved from: https://variety.com/2021/film/global/ruben-ostlund-triangle-of-sadness-goteborg-1234900476/
Lotman, Yuri M. 1988. The semiotics of culture and the concept of a text. Soviet Psychology. 26(3):52-58.
Lotman, Yuri; Uspenski, Boriss. 1978 [1971]. On the semiotic mechanism of culture. NewLiterary History 9(2): 211–232.
Manson, Graeme; Friedman, Josh 2020 – (ongoing). Snowpiercer. CJ Entertainment; Dog Fish Films; Studio T; Tomorrow Studios.
McMahon, James 2022. The Political Economy of Hollywood: Capitalist Power and Cultural Production. New York: Routledge.
Mylod, Mark 2022. The Menu. Hyperobject Industries; Searchlight Pictures.
Nash, Kate 2001. The ‘Cultural Turn’ in social theory: towards a theory of cultural politics. Sociology 35(1): 77-92.
Östlund, Ruben 2022. Triangle of Sadness. Imperative Entertainment; Plattform Produktion; Neon; Film I Väst; BBC Film; 30WEST; Essential Filmproduktion GmbH; Coproduction Office; Sveriges Television (SVT); ZDF/Arte; Arte France Cinéma; Turkish Radio & Television (TRT); Svenska Filminstitutet (SFI); Eurimages; Medienboard Berlin-Brandenburg; Det Danske Filminstitut; Filmförderung Hamburg Schleswig-Holstein; British Film Institute; Nordisk Film & TV-Fond; Danmarks Radio (DR); ARTE; Canal+; Ciné+; Heretic; Bord Cadre Films; Sovereign Films (II); Piano.
Owen, David 2008. In Sickness and in Power: Illness in Heads of Government During the Last 100 Years. Westport: Praeger Publishers Inc.
Owen, David; Davidson, Jonathan 2009. Hubris syndrome: an acquired personality disorder? A study of US presidents and UK prime ministers over the last 100 years. Brain 132(5): 1396-1406.
Sapiro, Gisèle 2015. Habitus: history of a concept. In: Wright, James D. (ed.) International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (second edition). Amsterdam: Elsevier Ltd. pp. 484-489.
Schmitt, Carl 1996 [1932]. The Concept of Political. Chicago; London: The University of Chicago Press.
Selg, Peeter 2021. A political – semiotic explanation of wicked problems. In: Hałas, Elżbieta; Maslowski, Nicolas (eds.) Politics of Symbolization Across Central and Eastern Europe. Berlin: Peter Lang. pp. 41-72.
Shcheglov, Yuri; Zholkovsky Alexander 1987. Poetics of Expressiveness: A Theory and Applications. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
The World News 2022. It’s Marx vs Reagan as Swedish rollercoaster hits Cannes film fest. The World News. Retrieved from: https://theworldnews.net/pk-news/it-s-marx-vs-reagan-as-swedish-rollercoaster-hits-cannes-film-fest
Thorpe, Vanessa 2022. ‘The end of western civilisation’: Triangle of Sadness director explains modelling world satire. The Guardian. Retrieved from: https://www.theguardian.com/film/2022/may/22/the-end-of-western-civilisation-triangle-of-sadness-director-explains-modelling-world-satire
Torop, Peeter 2000. Intersemiosis and intersemiotic translation. European Journal for Semiotic Studies 12(1): 71-100.
Torop, Peeter 2017. The change and identity of Estonian languages of culture. In: Estonian Human Development Report 2016/2017: Estonia at the Age of Migration, chapter 5.2. Retrieved from: https://2017.inimareng.ee/en/estonias-cultural-changes-in-an-open-world/the-change-and-identity-of-estonian-languages-of-culture/
Weber, Max 1930. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Parsons, Talcott (trans.) New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons; London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd.
White, Mike 2021 – (ongoing). White Lotus. Rip Cord Productions.
Zholkovsky, Alexander 1978. The literary text – thematic and expressive structure: an analysis of Pushkin‟s poem “Ya vas lyubil…”. New Literary History 9 (2): 263-278.
- 1980. Comparing poetic worlds. Diacritics 10 (4): 60-74.
1985. Poems. In: Dijk, Teun Adranus van (ed.) Discourse and Literature. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 105-120.
[3] Further reading: an interesting compilation of infographics analyzing the racism and stereotype-based mentality of the Academy Awards https://venngage.com/blog/oscar-racism-interactive-infographic/
[2] The entire list of award nominations and wins can be seen in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_of_Sadness#Accolades
[1] Based on the initial idea of Zholkovsky that was formulated around the 1950s.