SHERDOG MOVIE CLUB: Week 68 Discussion - Triangle

[RabidJesus]

Where are you guys watching this? I cant find it on netflix or vudu?

 

[Guestx]

Where are you guys watching this? I cant find it on netflix or vudu?

That's weird that it's not on Vudu, but you're in luck. This is one of the few times where a Club selection is available in full on YouTube:

 

[RabidJesus]

That's weird that it's not on Vudu, but you're in luck. This is one of the few times where a Club selection is available in full on YouTube:

Dope. Thanks

 

[Tycho- Taylor's Version]

Another plus of watching this is that it reminded me to re-watch Predestination, which I enjoyed even more the second time around.

Ethan Hawke is a boss.

 

[Guestx]

Another plus of watching this is that it reminded me to re-watch Predestination, which I enjoyed even more the second time around.

Ethan Hawke is a boss.

That's a great film. I think I watched it like . . . three times in a two-week span?

According to Box Office Mojo, it made a whopping $68,000 at the box office. Wikipedia says $4.8 million. Not sure what the cause for the discrepancy is, but either number sucks. Not sure why they didn't give this one a bigger push, but I'm glad to see that it seems to be finding an audience at home.

Also, Sarah Snook was awesome. I had not seen her in anything before this, but I thought she kicked ass.

 

[the muntjac]

The people in charge of giving this movie a push FAILED. They could have made their 12 million back almost without even trying.

This is true. I've seen some real shit movies made with a small budget that managed to turn a profit, and something like Triangle, a movie competent enough and better than a lot of churned out trash, made peanuts in return. It's odd.

 

[Guestx]

This is true. I've seen some real shit movies made with a small budget that managed to turn a profit, and something like Triangle, a movie competent enough and better than a lot of churned out trash, made peanuts in return. It's odd.

It's especially strange since horror movies tend to do gangbusters regardless.

Look at something like Ouija. It was made for $5 million and has a 7% RT score, and yet it still made over $100 million at the box office.

 

[MusterX]

It's especially strange since horror movies tend to do gangbusters regardless.

Look at something like Ouija. It was made for $5 million and has a 7% RT score, and yet it still made over $100 million at the box office.

And Triangle is leagues better than Ouija IMO.

 

[Tycho- Taylor's Version]

That's a great film. I think I watched it like . . . three times in a two-week span?

According to Box Office Mojo, it made a whopping $68,000 at the box office. Wikipedia says $4.8 million. Not sure what the cause for the discrepancy is, but either number sucks. Not sure why they didn't give this one a bigger push, but I'm glad to see that it seems to be finding an audience at home.

Also, Sarah Snook was awesome. I had not seen her in anything before this, but I thought she kicked ass.

Agreed, I definitely hadn't appreciated how polished it is. Hawke's character's explanations are so fluid and intuitive that you can just accept them point-blank and keep right on going.

Spoiler

In the scene where Snook's character is having dinner with her younger self, she (he in the film) makes this subtle face where she seems to simultaneously consider what she might say next, while also suddenly realizing why the lines she remembered worked so well on her when she was younger.

Subtle acting moment I very much appreciated.

 

[Guestx]

Agreed, I definitely hadn't appreciated how polished it is. Hawke's character's explanations are so fluid and intuitive that you can just accept them point-blank and keep right on going.

Spoiler

In the scene where Snook's character is having dinner with her younger self, she (he in the film) makes this subtle face where she seems to simultaneously consider what she might say next, while also suddenly realizing why the lines she remembered worked so well on her when she was younger.

Subtle acting moment I very much appreciated.

I can't say I remember that specific moment, but the movie as a whole was certainly awesome and her performance was great.

I should check out some of the Spierig brothers' other films. They apparently have one coming up called Winchester with the premise of:

Eccentric firearm heiress believes she is haunted by the souls of people killed by the Winchester repeating rifle.

I know that's based on a true story. I wonder exactly what kind of movie they'll make out of it.

 

[europe1]

The thing is though, there had to have been a first go around. After all, there are a finite number of lockets that have been dropped down through that grate. And there are a finite number of Sallys who have been killed.

We could probably count the Sally's and know about how many times this has been looping. I count at least 26 Sally's in this pic.

Conserning the whole "finite number of lockets/Sallys" argument.

I think we have to remember that it's impossible to show an "infinite" numbers of lockets and Sallys on-screen. You have to have some cut off number somewhere due to basic physics (thus always creating the impression that there is an finite number of times). The number of Sallys and lockets on-screen is just there to communicate that this has happened in a great multitude of times -- not that there is some specific message whatever this has happened an infinite/finite number of times.

Visually, I think the film looks nice. In the exterior shots, the cinematographer does a good job of capturing the feel of coastal living. A few shots I did think felt particularly green screeny, which took me out of the movie a bit, but what can you do? That's just the way films have to be shot sometimes, I guess.

I thought it looked really bad early on and improved on a continual basis for the films entire runtime. The longer the film went on, the more dynamic the directing became. We received a great range of color scheme, better visuals (like the cracked mirror or the rivulet of blood on her face), more dynamic camera movements (like that tracking shoot in the very end). The same goes with the acting, the initial crew's interactions seemed really bland and surface-level but the film got engaging as we spiralled into Jess's insanity.

It seemed so methodical that I wondered if the director did it on purpose. Like if he did a director-version of Al Pacino in Godfather. That is to say, be extremely bland and lifeless in the beginning and then systematically bring more life and emotion into the film for every second that goes -- so to give the viewer a sense of escalation and momentum.

The other possibility is that Jess died in the real world and was then sentenced to this Sisyphus-like task of living this existence over and over and over, a kind of purgatory. And that, paradoxically, the gods made sure that when the first real incarnation of Jess boarded the ship, that there was already another Jess on there to get the ball rolling. And they already deposited a collection of lockets and dead Sallys on board as well, even though Jess had not actually gone through those rotations for those lockets and dead Sallys to be there logically. That would be stupid though and not really supported by the text of the film, so if that's how the filmmakers want us to interpret it then I kind of want to tell them to fuck off.

Why does this seem unsupported in the film? It seems the most likely explenation from my viewing.

How does she get out of this loop? I read something earlier where someone said that the cab driver represents the ferryman Charon to escort her across the river Styx. But you have to pay him

Well... he's not literallly Charon. He's just there as some vauge, non-specific representative of death.

. What was even the point of Heather? She never makes it onto the boat, and her character is gone shortly after the movie begins, so I'm at a loss with her.

If the entire point of Heather was to cast some really lame doubt when they first enter the ship that it might be she's that's running around... then yeah that's just monumentally stupid.

There is a fifth dimension beyond that which is known to man. It is a dimension as vast as space and as timeless as infinity. It is the middle ground between light and shadow, between science and superstition, and it lies between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge. This is the dimension of imagination. It is an area which we call...Hey-Just-Roll-With-It-And-Have-Some-Fun Zone.

Having Rod Serling presenting something in the beginning automatically improves it by 2000 points.

Btw, I've been watching a lot of Twilight Zone lately (great show) and I guess it's just put me in the mood to just accept the weird realities in which our characters live in because hey, it's fun.

Funnily enough, recently I've been watching some of his other show, Night Gallery.

We should have some special SMC week where we watch a plethera of Twilight Zone/Night Gallery/The Outer Limits episodes and marvel at how excellent they are.

We always see a future version of Jess get beaten by a past version of herself, as if she can never get the upper hand on herself to be able to stop the cycle in time. She always get thwarted by herself before she can accomplish her task.

You know what, if they've counciously worked in some "I'm defeating/hurting myself, that's why I can't move on" theme into this movie, then it would probably be much better. Especially considering the purgatory-esque setting.

So why is she cursed, you may ask. Well, maybe because she's a shitbag mother who emotionally and physically beats her autistic child. The scene where she sees herself hit her son and then immediately goes and gets a hammer to bludgeon herself with was actually kinda impactful in more ways than one. People love and want to protect their children at any cost that even if they can see themselves hurting them, they immediately want to beat somebody to death, even if it's themselves.

To keep going with what I wrote previously, it would be really neat if that "killing myself scene" had been some sort of commentary on what happened to Jess in the real world. Like... if they've made it a commentary about a potential suicide or something.

I'm saying this, if its purgatory then that means that she died on the sail boat with everyone else in the storm. In purgatory she is trying to pay for her sins, chiefly the treatment of her autistic son.

pur·ga·to·ry
[ˈpərɡəˌtôrē]
NOUN

1. (in Roman Catholic doctrine) a place or state of suffering inhabited by the souls of sinners who are expiating their sins before going to heaven.

One note about the "purgatory" setting.

It seems to be more a creature of her own psyche -- rather than something enforced by a higher power. Jess willingly re-start the cycle when she's born the full emotional impact of what a monster she's been. It's her punishing herself.

Also, where the fuck is everybody today?

It's like they got stuck in their own loop somewhere and can't escape to make it to the Movie Club.

Well... we do hold this on Wednesdays. Sort of hard to get into a deep-diving discussion on a work day. I think we just have to accept that most march into the discussion on the weekend.

As for the central mystery: I'm a little concerned that it only exists for its own sake, so to speak, but I'm interested in what you guys have had to say about it so far.

Yes, I had this excact same worry.

The great thing about movies like Mullholland Drive or Persona is that the mystery does not exist independent. Unveiling the mystery, piece-by-piece tells you something very deep and profound about the characters, which gives emotional and narrative gravitas to the story itself.

I also want to point out that @shadow_priest_x has finally acknowledged the asset of attractiveness in a leading female, though conspicuously it took poverty-Rachel McAdams to bring it out of him.

I know, WTF right?

As an avid fan of Giallo's I have a great penchant for "asset of attractiveness" as the means for making a film visually thrilling... so hearing that said about just this film feels a bit jarring

And Melissa George is a pretty good looking girl as well as a talented performer, so from the get-go the film has that going for it.

This is probably the only time when I said to myself "damn Rache is a babe!"

That's one sexy rivulet of blood...

Did he just chuck the gun at her? Lmao what is going on here.

My personal Lmao moment was when Jess accidentally injured Victor fatally by bumping his head against a metal protrusion from the ships side. That was just hysterical... for quite the wrong reasons.

Another thing is that we would expect, as the Jesses progress, for things to start playing out wildly differently. For instance, by the third Jess (or thereabouts) she would know that her most recent incarnation is going to attack her with an axe. So, you know, maybe put a plan in motion to avoid that? But she doesn't. It's like she keeps falling for the same shit over and over.

I'm going to play the Devil's Advocate here.

As I mentioned earlier in this post -- this "purgatory" seems more like a creature of Jess's own mind than that enforced by some Allmighty God. It is self-punishment. She's venting her own emotional vexation over what a horrible mother she was onto her own self. That's why she willingly returns to the harbor, starting the cycle all over again.

So... Jess failling -- being unable to play on her own knowlage to achieve victory -- might be a symptom of this self-punishment. Jess represses vital knowlage because she does not want to "win". She wants to suffer. She wants to pay for her sins in life. She's not playing to win -- she's playing to keep the cycle going.

After all, this purgatory isn't enforced on her -- it's something she's chosen for herself by her own damaged psyche.

But as I said, I'm playing the Devi's Advocate here, so I think that's grasping for straws a bit.

 

[Guestx]

Conserning the whole "finite number of lockets/Sallys" argument.

I think we have to remember that it's impossible to show an "infinite" numbers of lockets and Sallys on-screen. You have to have some cut off number somewhere due to basic physics (thus always creating the impression that there is an finite number of times). The number of Sallys and lockets on-screen is just there to communicate that this has happened in a great multitude of times -- not that there is some specific message whatever this has happened an infinite/finite number of times.

Here's how I see it:

When she drops the locket, we see that there is now one more locket. Likewise, when she kills Sally, we see that there is not one more dead Sally to rest among the pile. So these two scenes put the idea of accumulation into the viewers mind.

We should think that the next time around, Jess will add one more locket and one more Sally to the pile. The number will increase by one each time.

And if that's the case, then that means that subtraction also works. That is, if we could rewind the cycle then we should see the subtraction, instead of addition, of lockets and Sallys. And eventually we would get to the beginning.

I think that if the filmmakers didn't want to us to think of it that way, then they should've never put the idea of accumulation into our minds.

Why does this seem unsupported in the film? It seems the most likely explenation from my viewing.

I just don't feel like it holds up logically.

Each iteration of Jess is supposed to be a living, conscious iteration of herself. If that's true, then how can there already be a Jess on board? When did THAT Jess go through the process of boarding the boat?

Well... he's not literallly Charon. He's just there as some vauge, non-specific representative of death.

I don't know. Maybe literally enough.

Charon is the ferryman that guides souls across the river Styx to the afterlife . . . for a price. In the case of Triangle, he's simply traded his boat for a cab, but his purpose is the same.

You have to remember that he even asks if she wants to pay up now or if he should wait and leave the meter running. Presumably if she would make the choice to pay him and settle up then she could move on to the next life and break the cycle.

Well... we do hold this on Wednesdays. Sort of hard to get into a deep-diving discussion on a work day. I think we just have to accept that most march into the discussion on the weekend.

I'm not sure about that. A lot of people actually do most of their Sherdog posting from work. That certainly used to be the case for me before I started working from home.

Besides, I always figure that most people are going to be too busy partying on the weekends to watch movies and dick around on Sherdog. That's why I picked Wednesday in the first place, because I figure Tuesday night is a nice, quiet evening at home for movie watching.

I know, WTF right?

I don't believe I've ever denied that a woman's attractiveness adds to her appeal on screen. If I ever seem to downplay it, it's because many moviegoers seem to think that that's all that matters. It's also because I think that our society today is over-sexualized as a whole, and this is especially true with movies.

Case in point: I have a friend where whenever I make the statement, "What do you think of [insert actress's name here]?" he always responds with what he thinks of her physically. He doesn't even consider that maybe I'm asking about her talents as a performer.

I mean, if I say, "What do you think of Leonardo DiCaprio?" I'm not asking if you think he has a big dick.

I'm going to play the Devil's Advocate here.

As I mentioned earlier in this post -- this "purgatory" seems more like a creature of Jess's own mind than that enforced by some Allmighty God. It is self-punishment. She's venting her own emotional vexation over what a horrible mother she was onto her own self. That's why she willingly returns to the harbor, starting the cycle all over again.

So... Jess failling -- being unable to play on her own knowlage to achieve victory -- might be a symptom of this self-punishment. Jess represses vital knowlage because she does not want to "win". She wants to suffer. She wants to pay for her sins in life. She's not playing to win -- she's playing to keep the cycle going.

After all, this purgatory isn't enforced on her -- it's something she's chosen for herself by her own damaged psyche.

But as I said, I'm playing the Devi's Advocate here, so I think that's grasping for straws a bit.

Well it's a nice thought at least. But like you imply, I'm not sure it's really supported by the text of the film.

 

[MusterX]

Conserning the whole "finite number of lockets/Sallys" argument.

I think we have to remember that it's impossible to show an "infinite" numbers of lockets and Sallys on-screen. You have to have some cut off number somewhere due to basic physics (thus always creating the impression that there is an finite number of times). The number of Sallys and lockets on-screen is just there to communicate that this has happened in a great multitude of times -- not that there is some specific message whatever this has happened an infinite/finite number of times.



One note about the "purgatory" setting.

It seems to be more a creature of her own psyche -- rather than something enforced by a higher power. Jess willingly re-start the cycle when she's born the full emotional impact of what a monster she's been. It's her punishing herself.

We don't know how many times but I see what you are saying. The lockets are a representation of a long or never ending cycle, same as the Sally's. I had said in another post the the name of the ship was the Aeolus which has to do with 3 separate personages but is also close to Aeon which is a billion years, or in some cases eternity.

As far as her punishing herself, I think you are on to something there because she relives the treatment of her son on the morning she was to go sailing and then bashes her own head in with a hammer. That's a very violent way to end someone. Its like she's killing that part of herself, but some of it remains because when she is riding in the car with her son trying to escape, some of the edgy pissyness starts to creep into her voice when the kid is upset about the blood on the windshield. You know that she hasn't completely changed and then the car accident happens and it starts over.

 

[Guestx]

We don't know how many times but I see what you are saying. The lockets are a representation of a long or never ending cycle, same as the Sally's. I had said in another post the the name of the ship was the Aeolus which has to do with 3 separate personages but is also close to Aeon which is a billion years, or in some cases eternity.

As far as her punishing herself, I think you are on to something there because she relives the treatment of her son on the morning she was to go sailing and then bashes her own head in with a hammer. That's a very violent way to end someone. Its like she's killing that part of herself, but some of it remains because when she is riding in the car with her son trying to escape, some of the edgy pissyness starts to creep into her voice when the kid is upset about the blood on the windshield. You know that she hasn't completely changes and then the car accident happens and it starts over.

On a related note, I have to say that, while she obviously had no business being that kid's mother, I would never want to take on the role of parent to a mentally challenged child. I think it would be very difficult and I'm not sure I have the patience or understanding for it.

 

[MusterX]

On a related note, I have to say that, while she obviously had no business being that kid's mother, I would never want to take on the role of parent to a mentally challenged child. I think it would be very difficult and I'm not sure I have the patience or understanding for it.

We don't get to pick our parents, hell, we don't get to pick anything in this world. Whatever happens, happens. Some good things and some bad things happen to all of us and you just hope the net balance is to the good side. What got me thinking more was seeing what happened to Ebert. Then I realized how many famous people die of terrible stuff, all forms of terrible cancer, thrombosis, suicide, strokes, and even worse things. It sucks to know that something terrible likely awaits you. H.P. Lovecraft was one of the most influential horror writers of all time, the guy died a horrible painful death of intestinal cancer, mental illness, and was penniless. Einstein died of aortic aneurism.

Sorry for being a negative MF'er lol.

 

[Guestx]

We don't get to pick our parents, hell, we don't get to pick anything in this world. Whatever happens, happens. Some good things and some bad things happen to all of us and you just hope the net balance is to the good side. What got me thinking more was seeing what happened to Ebert. Then I realized how many famous people die of terrible stuff, all forms of terrible cancer, thrombosis, suicide, strokes, and even worse things. It sucks to know that something terrible likely awaits you. H.P. Lovecraft was one of the most influential horror writers of all time, the guy died a horrible painful death of intestinal cancer, mental illness, and was penniless. Einstein died of aortic aneurism.

Sorry for being a negative MF'er lol.

Nah, I hear you. I think about that a lot actually. Material wealth can do a hell of a lot for a person but one thing it can't do is ensure good health or a good death.

I think if things started getting really bad for me I'd rather just end it myself than go through some slow, agonizing death where I'm miserable and without dignity.

And yeah, the Ebert doc is definitely eye opening in a lot of ways.

 

[MusterX]

I don't know. Maybe literally enough.

Charon is the ferryman that guides souls across the river Styx to the afterlife . . . for a price. In the case of Triangle, he's simply traded his boat for a cab, but his purpose is the same.

You have to remember that he even asks if she wants to pay up now or if he should wait and leave the meter running. Presumably if she would make the choice to pay him and settle up then she could move on to the next life and break the cycle.

Oh shit, the taxi driver tells her, "I'll leave the meter running."

 

[HereticBD]

I wish I could properly remember this movie to discuss it, because I remember liking it a lot. It's a total blur right now though. Gonna have to give it a re-watch.

Dude who made it went onto direct "Black Death", if I'm not mistaken, which IMO is one of the most underrated flicks of the last decade...or two...I can't remember. Christopher...err..something....oh' God, I'm so fuckin' old.

 

[Guestx]

Dude who made it went onto direct "Black Death", if I'm not mistaken, which IMO is one of the most underrated flicks of the last decade...or two...I can't remember. Christopher...err..something....oh' God, I'm so fuckin' old.

I always assumed Black Death was some cheap cash-in but I did see that it was the same director when I was making this thread. I'll have to check it out.

 

[MusterX]

I wish I could properly remember this movie to discuss it, because I remember liking it a lot. It's a total blur right now though. Gonna have to give it a re-watch.

Dude who made it went onto direct "Black Death", if I'm not mistaken, which IMO is one of the most underrated flicks of the last decade...or two...I can't remember. Christopher...err..something....oh' God, I'm so fuckin' old.

I guess I'll have to check out Black Death. Maybe this guy is p4p underrated king.