Men
Released: 2022
Director: Alex Garland
Men, the most recent effort by direct Alex Garland, has been a divisive film to say the least. It brings his history of cerebral, feminist-leaning storytelling to a head, directly confronting the concepts we’ve seen pop up in his previous works. Perhaps it is because of its confrontational nature that the reception has been so mixed; it’s hard not to feel like Garland is scolding you at least a little bit.
The thing is, the people who have their hackles raised the most seem to be the people who need to sit and stew in some of these ideas the most.
The film is confrontational about men, about all men, and the way that their behavior dehumanizes women. Even more so, it seems to have a laser-sharp focus directly pointing at some of the toxic online culture we often find ourselves embroiled in, especially for women. This is a particularly interesting juxtaposition alongside some of the primordial imagery it calls upon, though it seems to be calling out the idea that each generation of misogynistic culture bears responsibility for birthing the next.
First of all, the entire nightmare begins with an unsolicited dick pic.
In all honesty, it actually begins with Harper’s voice. She calls out into the void, blissfully unaware of the presence of any others. She takes the opportunity to be creative, and she’s enjoying herself, until she realizes that she’s been noticed. Once that happens, the pursuit and harassment become near-constant. It’s an all too familiar experience for many. We realize that merely using her voice and being heard is what prompts her subsequent attacks. It’s interesting, then, that her vocal riff becomes part of the film’s score going forward. It doesn’t allow us to lose her voice throughout the film, but also serves as a reminder of why she is suffering.
Men is a film that wears its metaphors on its sleeve, but that doesn’t mean it is without nuance. There are levels in the types of harm done by those Harper encounters.
The Vicar represents a lot of the structural pillars that uphold patriarchal values – the Church and religious fundamentalism among them. However, there are still modern parallels in his behavior, namely in his sexual aggression towards Harper. Watching him brings to mind swaths of incels, who both blame women for their sexlessness as well as their innate desires. He attempts to couch his gaslighting and cruelty in empty platitudes, and he’s easily angered when she rebuffs his attention.
Samuel, the young boy, has shades of the gamergate movement, presented in-film as a literal manchild who harangues Harper to play games to his exacting specifications or else feel his wrath. This is a trap in and of itself, because there was no way for Harper to play his games correctly; Samuel was always going to find a way to harm her. When Harper attempts to send her location to a friend in order to get help, this messaged it co-opted by the boy, who responds with “I KNOW WHERE YOU ARE, BITCH.” It immediately gave me a chilling memory of women who have been doxxed by such men, never able to feel safe from them.
There are those individuals that women know to fear, and others that we find reasons to put up with. To some, her landlord Geoffrey’s turn might seem to come out of nowhere, but the signs were there from the start, and continuously escalated from the very beginning. This is never clearer than when she enters the pub, just looking to have a drink in peace. Here, she is immediately accosted by the officer who responded to her call, who proceeds to downplay and dismiss the incident, and patronize to her. Geoffrey jumps in, offering words of support and insists she allow him to buy her a drink, despite her own objections. Even the bartender, who has witnessed her clear distress and heard her objections, does not push back and acquiesces to Geoffrey’s insistence.
We all know a man like Geoffrey in particular. Maybe it’s a male relative or colleague with outdated views and no filter. Anyone we’re forced to play nice with due to proximity or circumstances, and we justify it. They’re harmless. They’re old-fashioned. They’re nice enough. Because as women it’s our job to keep the peace rather than protect our own dignity. So we put up with them.
And when the darkness finally surfaces, we ask ourselves why we never saw it.
The film does not provide an easy jumping off point for male viewers, a “good” guy for them to project on and disengage from Harper’s discomfort. Harper’s suffering is the narrative, and we all must bear it. Male viewers will perhaps want a character to point at and tell themselves, this is who they are, one of the good ones. Instead, the film provides a void, and asks the men in the audience to truly reflect on what kind of man they would be in the circumstances.
In some ways, then, this is perhaps a film intended for its male audience rather than its female one. Alex Garland isn’t saying anything women don’t already know; however, it is validating the things we have always known. The central message of this film seems to implicate all men in the subjugation of women. Not a single one of the ones we see on screen treats Harper with the respect she should receive.
Yes, all men are complicit. But they can choose to do better.
Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars – not perfect, but one that really caught my attention and ended up being a surprise for me.
Scariness level: This movie is much more distressing than it is outright scary, because many of those viewing it will have experienced similar things.