Like gravedigging, you have to dig deep if you want to get the payoff.
Alex Garland's film about the abuse of women succeeds thanks to its rich tapestry of jarring images. While fans of traditional horror may feel disappointed by its lack of jump scares, those who appreciate the more cerebral psychology of neo-horror (à la Hereditary) will find what they are looking for here.
The film is largely a success thanks to its strong cast and rampant symbolism, though Garland's choice to focus more on the women as victims rather than the titular men as aggressors means the movie misses its mark when it comes to demanding receipts.
My interpretation of the symbolism:
:rotating_light::construction::octagonal_sign::warning:MAJOR SPOILERS FROM HERE ON OUT:warning::octagonal_sign::construction::rotating_light:
The film, obviously, is on a mission to portray women (or at least one woman) as a victim to the male gender. That the director wants to paint all men with this broad stroke is evident in the choice to have the same actor (Rory Kinnear) play all of the aggressors, saying, in essence, that deep down all men are the same man: a being that's driven to hurt women.
Of course, her abusive husband, James, isn’t played by Rory Kinnear. Does this mean he’s somehow different than the other men who appear later in the film? Absolutely not, and proof of that is Jame’s injuries. After he falls / jumps from the building, we see that a gate post splits his right arm from his elbow to his hand, and that his left ankle is broken. Later on in the film, all of the men in the town who besiege Harper are shown to share these exact same injuries, illustrating that they are the same man as the abusive estranged husband.
This point is also reinforced by the presence of 'the naked man'. 'The naked man' is the personification of "The Green Man" (who is also symbolized in the stone carving on the church altar). According to Wikipedia, “The Green Man is a legendary being primarily interpreted as a symbol of rebirth, representing the cycle of new growth that occurs every spring,” which indicates that, as violence breeds violence, the cycle of violent men will continue with no end in sight. This is also what’s meant by the endless cycle of men birthing men that we witness in the film’s climax.
A quick glance at the film’s characters shows us several types of abusers that exist in society.
First, her husband, who starts off emotionally abusing his wife -- “If you leave me, I’ll kill myself” -- before graduating to physical abuse.
Then there’s Geoffrey, the man who rents her the mansion. He represents the “nice guy” who imposes his generosity on women and, when he’s later rebuffed, hurls insults at the women who aren’t interested in him.
The priest represents the patriarchy of religion and the structure put in place to perpetuate male domination and abuse.
Samuel is the young man 'frat bro' who feels he’s entitled to his ‘bit of fun’ and rebukes women who dare refuse him what he considers to be his due.
The police officer represents authority because, when he arrives at Harper’s rental property the night of the home invasion, he stands in her front yard yet neither says nor does anything. He’s as useless and impotent as the police and other authorities women might turn to when they seek assistance.
All of this is not to say that Jessie doesn’t have her allies. There is her best friend Riley (Gayle Rankin) who provides moral support throughout the film, and the kind policewoman who speaks with Harper when the police initially arrest the naked man. Garland’s point here is that the best place for a woman to get the support and assistance she needs is with other women.
This concept is driven home by the second figure etched into the altar (on the opposite face of The Green Man), that of the sheela na gig. The sheela na gig is a carving of a woman with an exaggerated vulva and is used to symbolize fertility and protection against evil.
That’s a brief rundown of the symbolism in Men, and also serves to illustrate what I appreciate about the film: it’s not because it’s horror that I have to turn off my brain. [/spoiler]
Goodness me, this film is the most polarising film I think I have ever seen. There appears to be one group of people who unresolvedly hate the film and another who absolutely love it but nothing in between.
I can see why people would walk-out in cinema showings and hate the movie with a passion. Nothing happens as such, there is little to no story but I maintain that this is the point. When we are gone, life goes on slowly, inexorably, if we could observe it as a ‘ghost’ that is how it would seem. We have no idea but I would guess most of use through some longing would try and connect with those we loved and knew, we would return to places that were familiar to us, similar to the zombies in Romero’s ‘Dead’ films would we gravity to places that meant something to us, were important, in our lives.
There isn’t much dialogue and there are long stretches, 20 minutes or more, where little happens, the pie-eating scene is famous in the annoyance for some, yet for others, it shows the solitude of grief and how it can be dealt with. One real bugbear for me though, when there was some small dialogue, is Casey Affleck’s insistence on the realism of ‘mumblecore’. I could understand little of what he said. I’m old and my hearing is not what it was but it is also okay, I’ve had it tested recently, he mumbles and it’s hard to understand what he says. So annoying. Luckily as a ghost, he says nothing. Rooney Mara has I would less dialogue but skilfully acts emotions with just her face or even how she walks to and from a room or to a door.
This is not a film for the average film-goer and in particular the multiplex ‘action movie-romantic comedy’ crowd but if you are patient prepared for a quiet thoughtful film then you might be able to take something away from it.
I’m somewhere in between the two camps. I can see that the film does drag on and showing the futility of staying in a place where you no longer belong, trying to change something you can’t change and not letting go in glorious slow-time with little dialogue or on-screen stimulation is perhaps, whilst making a valid point, foolhardy. The idea of the ghost being a traditional Halloween sheet is a clever touch and seems to be saying it is a ghost but it doesn’t matter. To be utterly fair to Lowery and his cast I stuck without and overall I enjoyed it more than it rubbed me up the wrong way. I’m not sure about the time-traveling aspect or what it was adding to the story or what it was trying to say, perhaps ‘this goes on forever’ it is truly the circle of life and there is no end or beginning unless you choose to leave it. Only love helps you leave it. Perhaps, maybe?
Then again if you can stand the slow pace and the odd story this is probably the point you make your mind up about the story and what it means. It could mean different to each and every one of use.
Then again you could intensely dislike it, it will not be the first film that will make you feel this way nor the last, you could equally really like it. Who knows?
