Men (2022) is directed by Alex Garland who has previously given us films like Ex-Machina, Annihilation and he even developed a Hulu Original series called Devs. I was not aware of this film for a while. The film most likely wasn’t publicized enough. I’m aware of Garland’s work. I’m one of his devoted followers. His film Ex-Machina starring Alicia Vikander, Domhnall Gleeson and Oscar Isaac makes my top 10 best Sci-Fi films of all time. Every word of praise falls short for that film. His next venture Annihilation starring Natalie Portman, Tessa Thompson and Oscar Isaac was a thought provoking watch. It doesn’t come close to the sheer brilliance of Ex-Machina but it is definitely a good film packed with interesting themes, something Garland is known for. So, when I realized Garland is coming out with his new film this year, I was excited.
Granted, I was very late to the party as mentioned above and yet I was desperate to see the film. As I wanted to replicate my previous experiences of his films, I made sure I don’t watch any released footage, including the trailer. Interestingly the film was a Sci-Fi/Horror. Garland has always been a Sci-Fi guy but him making an outright horror was new. His films did have the atmosphere of a horror film though. A24 was producing the film and that elevated my excitement. However, the film released in an awfully confusing pattern. It released in the USA on 20th May 2022 but on 1st June in the UK. Many markets have still don’t have release dates. Regardless, I was able to get my hands on the film and well I have some thoughts.
What does Men want to achieve?
When it comes to anything that Alex Garland does, you can be sure that it isn’t done in the most simplest form. Rather he deliberately makes his films vague so as keep the audience in the mix. He wants the audience to draw conclusions, hence his films are often open ended. But of you look at it that may result in a problem as well, when does open to interpretation become confusing? Like there has to be a line drawn, right? Not everything needs to be presented in a way where it leaves the audience flummoxed. I think this precisely is the issue this film faces.
While I understand the motive of the film and what Garland wants to say with it. The package it is wrapped in makes the film difficult to love. I think with each new film Garland’s filmography is becoming more and more vague. The title of the film- Men is directly related to everything that is going on in the film. Garland takes the issue of misogyny from the real world and puts it in front of us in a new fresh light. Although, if something is so new that it starts alienate you there is a problem. The horror in the film hits at some points. The film’s wish to be not just about misogyny but then to add the element of folklore as well seems excessive.
Especially because it is already a lot to explore and Garland has this annoying habit of including folk in the most confusing manner that doesn’t help us understand the themes explored in the story like The Lighthouse rather is becomes one of the many questions we’re seeking answers for.
How does Men fare like as a film?
Keeping Garland’s gigantic ambition aside, if we look at this film purely in the form of cinema and how does it do justice the format in which it is made, I think we’ll draw a fairer conclusion. I don’t think the creator’s status should be responsible for a film’s appreciation. From a story perspective the film is the weakest as apart from a tormented woman taking a vacation in the cabin, the film offers us nothing. The story is supposed to be means through which the creator puts out his thoughts in front of the world. However, Men doesn’t seem to do it right. It may be Garland’s excessive attempt to bring in so many elements that they stop functioning together or simply a weak story.
The visuals however were marvelous. Right from the first shot, the contradictory warm tone of Harper’s flashbacks in contrast to the cold English woods does set the tone of the film. The compositions when she in an old tunnel. The slow motion sequences that keep us in an awkward moment to feel like Harper. The horror imagery of the film, be it the green guy or the masked man or the masked crow. Garland knows how to employ images to evoke fear rather than cheap jump scares. The music of the film as well is one of its stand out features. The opera type pitch coupled with its dramatic application in silent moments.
I liked how Harper’s screams are used as music in the film. When she was in the tunnel and was hooting. Many times the performer’s screams are muted and instead a loud note is played to amplify their emotions.
Do the Actors fall short?
Talking about performers, I think Jessie Buckley delivers a career defining performance, especially given the limited material she has. The extent to which the film works is a lot to Buckley’s credit. She is great in the emotional moments. She is great when she simply needs to be an English woman. The candidness yet the distinctiveness that she has as Harper is simply great. Her previous film I’m Thinking of Ending Things by Charlie Kaufman was a similar movie, only more confusing.
I was impressed by her performance then and I’m taken aback by her performance now. Apart from there is really no one in the film. Rory Kinnear, the British actor plays to his part and shines when he is given enough attention. Kinnear has always been someone to deliver strong performances so him being great in his limited screen presence is no shock to anyone. Other characters in the film are simply plot devices or singular appearances.
Verdict
I think I’ve spoken enough about the film and I’ll get straight to the ratings. The film currently has an IMDb score of 6.1/10 and Rotten Tomatoes has deemed it 69% fresh. For me the film is a good watch given, the film’s great music, imagery and performances. For me the film is a 3 out of 5 stars. The film pales in comparison to Garland’s previous works such as Ex-Machina and even Annihilation. It is frustrating how a few answers from the film would’ve made it a better product. I would personally want Garland to return to his original form of filmmaking.
To answer the question posed in the title, Yes, the critics are correct. The film is a mix bag and definitely not for everyone. If you’ve liked Garland’s previous films there’s chance you’ll like it. If you’re a Charlie Kauffman fan, this film will work for you. Overall, Men is a good film to catch this weekend if you find yourself in a philosophical mood.
Men Movie Ending Explained
The following section of the article contains spoilers. If you’ve watched the film and feeling absolutely in a trance, I empathize. I’ll try to explain the film in the simplest form. This is my take on the film so it maybe subjective. However, Alex Garland himself in a recent interview said that the film’s ending can mean anything. So, it seems like there are no wrong answers. As I said above, the film explores the theme of misogyny hence, all the ‘men’ in the film are always imposing themselves on Harper. Her husband is imposing his wish to be loved on her and if not threatens her with suicide.
Geoffrey fancies himself as the hero of the Damsel in Distress, even though Harper is clearly refusing. The vicar is imposing his sexual desires on her and blames her for them. The boy who calls her bitch is imposing his interests on her like she is simply his muse. If you question why do they all look the same, well because it is supposed to show us how all men are the same. Now the last 20 minutes of the film are probably the most disturbing and confusing. In simple manner, if we look at it- The face carved in the stone is the Green Man and the naked man in the film seems to be the embodiment of it.
The female figure in the stone is Mother Nature i.e., Harper in the film. So when Harper refuses to reproduce for the Green Man, he starts giving birth to multiple versions of himself signifying how if women don’t do anything men will simply keep making the same versions of themselves. The last form being her husband makes sense as he is the main villain of her life. The visual cues are also same- every version has a broken ankle like James when he committed suicide. Their hand is cut from the middle similar to how his hand was impaled by the iron railing. It shows how he kept his promise of continuing to torment her. The last shot confirms that something actually happened not just some weird dream.
We see blood in the house, Harper’s car still crashed and her friend Riley seeing her alive sitting on the stairs. Now, Riley appears to be pregnant and that seems to put a smile on Harper’s face that can mean that she is happy for her or in this context that she is happy women is pregnant to balance the world filled with toxic masculinity.
Let me know what did you think of the film? Do you agree with me?
If you have any questions regarding Men (2022), feel free to ask in the comments below. For more content, stay tuned. As usual, like, subscribe and share our articles as we here are trying to build a community of people High on Cinema!
