“Bugonia” and the False Promises of Conspiracy and Corporate Culture
"Bugonia" partially delivers on a bizarre mix of class commentary, conspiracy and the idiosyncrasies of corporate culture juxtaposed against those it exploits.
Sometimes I wish conspiracies were real. If all of society’s problems could be traced back to one entity, the curtain pulled back on the source of our suffering. Yorgos Lanthimos’ latest film, Bugonia, centers on humans’ desperate need for an explanation, for the complexities of the world to be wrapped neatly in a nice bow.
Lanthimos’ past films are anything but explainable, rivalling the late, great David Lynch in intentional awkwardness and mind-bending social commentary. His most mainstream hit, Poor Things, was a confounding display of wonder and subversion, laughing in the face of coming-of-age tales across the ages.
His 2015 film, The Lobster, could be correctly described as both a hilarious dark comedy and a deeply depressing account of humankind’s desperation for love. A hard line to walk, but he does it with sadistic glee. It is not uncommon for his films to evoke laughter at the most harrowing of circumstances, poking fun at the dark corners of the human psyche.
So it was a delight to see a trailer for his next film, Bugonia, led by his frequent collaborator Emma Stone and the unnervingly excellent Jesse Plemons. It promised a bizarre mix of class commentary, conspiracy, and the idiosyncrasies of corporate culture juxtaposed against those it exploits.
Does it deliver? Partially.
Its two leads shine as opposite ends of the conspiracy spectrum, beginning with Jesse Plemons as Teddy Gatz, a greasy-haired, basement-dwelling, self-castrating and conspiracy-addled wreck of a man. His character feels like an amalgamation of Plemons’ past roles, a creepy, calculating individual with a face of stone and a mind steeped in pain.
Emma Stone, on the other end of the spectrum, plays Michelle, a high-powered CEO with a master’s in corporate jargon and fake smiles. It is truly hilarious to see her corporate mannerisms within the context of a hostage situation, whether it is to “have a dialogue” about being trapped in a basement, or that she would “love to keep the conversation going.” So often do we see corporations respond to serious accusations with obfuscation, so having the power dynamics flipped shines a spotlight on the ridiculousness of their tactics.
Rounding out the main cast is Donny Gatz, Teddy’s timid, cherubic, and deeply troubled cousin. He acts as both a straight man to the absurdity of Teddy’s beliefs and comic relief for the audience. Though with Lanthimos, comic relief usually comes with a heavy price, and this film is no different.
So with such strong characters, seamless acting, and expert cinematography, paired with a powerfully evocative soundtrack, why doesn’t this film fully deliver on its premise?
The primary problem with this film is its pacing — the Achilles heel of most middling films. The second act lags a bit as the hostage element, while initially compelling, doesn’t hold its weight long enough to reach its conclusion. There’s little to no stress of discovery, and what little threat there is is played for laughs.
Teddy and Michelle’s interactions are displayed through tight, unwavering close-ups, with an occasional reaction shot from Donny played for laughs. This adds to the emotionally claustrophobic setting, but lacks progression. Teddy and Michelle disagree; they argue, their arguing escalates, quick cut to Donny for a reaction shot, and then violence. Rinse and repeat. It has been done before and done better.
Most notably, the style of dialogue is a departure from Lanthimos’ previous films. Usually his characters deliver stilted, cryptic lines with flat expressions, like a Wes Anderson film where the joy and whimsy is replaced with despair and depression. Every unusual phrase, every Lynchian delivery, reveals a world of perspective for each character. It makes you lean in and hang on every word, trying to decipher what was really going on in their heads. Perhaps if you listen closely enough, the absurd situation will finally make sense, and that uncomfortable feeling will dissipate.
Of course, it never does. But with Bugonia, that feeling hardly begins.
Bugonia’s dialogue is the most naturalistic of his films, likely due to screenplay writer Will Tracy (of The Menu and Succession fame), who adapted this story from the South Korean black comedy Save the Green Planet! In fact, the director of Save the Green Planet! Jang Joon-hwan, was initially supposed to direct Bugonia, which helps to explain why it feels less like a Lanthimos project and lacks the dreamlike quality present when writer Efthimis Filippou and Lanthimos worked together on his previous projects.
Taking this into account reframes the low points of this film, but doesn’t erase them. Even so, this film remains leagues above most.
The slightly underwhelming middle section is broken up by flashbacks with truly compelling imagery, like a sour-faced child holding IV tubes that lead up into the sky, tethering his ailing mother to the Earth while she drifts aimlessly above. Or a sick woman lying in a tub, stuck with excessively large acupuncture needles while her son removes them one by one, forming a bouquet of empty syringes. Illness is depicted through the eyes of those who must cope with its consequences. Visual depictions of loss, the inability to let go, and the futility in trying to ease the pain of another: brilliant.
Every Chekov’s gun fires, every puzzle piece of the narrative falls neatly into place. And when the last act picks up, it feels like the film is given a rousing dose of adrenaline. The slow ruminations give way to a deliberate jumble of chaos as the elements that have been talked about for an hour and a half finally make an appearance.
The very last scene is a montage of misanthropic proportions that would make Holden Caulfield weep with joy.
The final twist, while predictable, was executed in an absurd and thoroughly entertaining manner. You can guess it from the first thirty seconds of the trailer, but I think that was intentional. Playing along, testing your assumption against the events in the film, is meant to be part of the intrigue.
The very last scene is a montage of misanthropic proportions that would make Holden Caulfield weep with joy. I’m convinced Lanthomos signed on to direct after reading this scene alone, for its painstakingly long runtime does nothing to help the audience feel comfortable, and left everyone in my theater in stunned silence after the credits rolled.
Its bleak ending is actually hinted at with the title of the film, Bugonia. Bugonia refers to the ancient Greek belief that bloodlessly sacrificing a cow would lead to the spontaneous release of bees from its corpse, improving the surrounding agriculture. Using death to heal the world. Bees are a strong symbol throughout the film, and the ending fully realizes its titular reference
Bugonia is a flawed film, but its flaws are greatly outweighed by its stronger elements, making for an entertaining, if inconsistent, delve into conspiracy and delusion. While it may disappoint Lanthimos fans (such as myself) due to its relatively tame execution, mainstream audiences may find it more palatable, right up until the last three minutes. Either way, this film is deserving of a theater watch, so catch it before it is replaced with something much more conventional.
Bugonia
Directed by Yorgos Lanthimos
Focus Features, Oct. 2025
118 min.
The Indypendent is reader-funded. We publish a free monthly newspaper, a website, a weekly radio show on WBAI-99.5 FM and more. To make a one-time or recurring monthly donation, click here.




