While I think this is a really interesting video, I disagree with your take on Ex Machina. I think it is completely gendered. Caleb wouldn’t have fallen for Ava’s ploy if he hadn’t infantilised and underestimated her because he saw her not as an individual but as a vessel for his desires. The fact he doesn’t bother trying to free Kyoko shows he doesn’t care about freeing robots but about his own sexual desire for Ava. Her perceived feminity is the main reason she is able to trick him and it’s his downfall in the end.
I'm probably going to get a ton of hate for this (and I'm well aware that I'm in the minority here and this has a lot to do with circumstances specific to me) but the first time I saw Ex Machina, I *really* related to Ava. I had never related to any character in a movie before then. I had related with parts of characters here and there in books, but I think it's just easier with books because often, as the reader, we know their thoughts. But when this movie was released, I was just starting to learn to be a my own person with wants and needs that were my own and understand that it was acceptable for me to have needs - anything from being thirsty or tired, to crying because I was in physical pain, to laughing at something funny, or telling something when they did something that made me uncomfortable, that my body was mine and no one could do anything to me I didn't want them to. I had to learn all of it. I was 28 when it started sinking in, when I was showing signs that the treatment was working - I started standing up for myself (though I felt immense guilt in doing so, and it was kind of... random as to whether I would or would not even recognize it as someone crossing the line). Yeah... That... isn't great and doesn't paint me in a very good light, trust me, I know. And, no, I'm not a sociopath (the opposite, if possible? very overly sensitive to all violence, whether written or filmed, even just seeing someone else in a state of fear can sometimes be overwhelming). I was just raised in a way thay didn't exactly allow me to express any of these things without severe consequences. I'll just say that I'm sure my ability to be great at doing what I'm told for as long as I'm told to do it and really great at handling responsibilities, but terrible at just sitting and watching something or doing something "just for fun" is because of how I was raised. (Before it comes up, yes, I started seeing a therapist three years after I escaped because I realized I likely had OCD. I was wrong and I was diagnosed with something else entirely and I've been getting treated for it ever since, quite successfully.) ***Edit: Closed parenthesis missing/added information for clarity.
@@FinnaeusEasterlyno the message was against the average female.. petite.. Anglo cultured and lady like woman character who in his mind is not to be trusted… once she has the ability to make him vulnerable to her… she had her own agenda all the while,,,also he normalized the concept of a man being attracted to black women.. that did not fall into a fetish category, as well…
completely agree! i remember finishing the movie absolutely enraged, because how exactly will ava survive in the world with no money or legal name??? no home or family or friends who will search for her? she is so *vulnerable*, but it's played as empowerment, and while I'm glad she was able to escape, I'm upset that little thought went into how she would survive in the outside world without being exploited. i knew right then that a man wrote this movie with little to no input from any other woman.
I'm curious why you say Caleb's desire was 'sexual' rather than one of emotion or romantic desire? They did, after all, spend a lot of time asking deep questions designed to really 'get to know' Ava. I've never thought it came across sexual, what parts of the film gave you that impression? (It's been a while since I've watched so I may be forgetting details that pointed toward that)
I think the important part about the horror of Men being about men is that it's about looking at men with an external lens and being uncomfortable with what you see. Harper has to be external to maleness for that to work. It's the horror of daily, ordinary misogyny rendered alien and thus removed from the supporting constructs that ordinarily let us (us being men) ignore or normalise it. The universality of Rory Kinnear is an example of this; Harper doesn't see him being everywhere as unusual, it's about creating the horror for the audience, especially for a male audience. As a man, you're supposed to recognise yourself and those around you. Harper couldn't have been a man and told this story; there's another story about men's violence to men that could have been told but that's a different thing.
I also get the impression that the "paper thinness" of Harper's character was even more deliberate than people realize because that is exactly what misogynistic men so often expect women to be; a pretty face in a dress, ready to be programmed by the 1st man who chooses her. Harper was never supposed to resonate with other fem presenters. She meant to resonate with the way these men view her, sanz the fantasy part.
This. I think Garland was trying to pull a Ridley Scott. Alien was a horror film about pregnancy and birth but he wanted men to understand the fears and pain that go with it. Garland wanted men to see how devastating the daily misogyny they actively choose to ignore/have normalized from an objective perspective. I think he pulls it off marvelously.
I gotta say, as a huge horror fan, I have NEVER felt as uncomfortable and honestly kinda terrified as I did in the theater for this movie. It felt much more real than other horror/thrillers because somehow Garland managed to capture the visceral dread that I feel when walking alone at night as a woman, except he made that awful walk last for an hour and a half. The scene near the beginning with Harper singing alone in a tunnel, and then a man appearing at the end of the tunnel and moving toward her, stayed with me for days afterward. I loved this movie, but I never want to see it again lol
Exactly. I’ve experienced many of those scenarios a thousand times over. It made me think of the poem “I want to go on a walk without my phone” but specifically the last few lines- “I am told Not all men are predators. But only by those who have never known what it means to be prey.”
I felt a ringing in my ears when Harper was giving her friend the home tour and I noticed the door was open, but she didn't. The best Chekov's Gun I've seen in a looooong time!
Why women keep thinking that men dont feel fear walking alone at night? Yes, we dont feel rape, but we can be stabbed for our phone and wallet just as easy.
Gender Topics are not "Women's Issues"; I think online discussions, within women's spaces, seem to make this mistake a lot. Men can criticize men. And men do criticize men. There is a valid anti-patriarchal male perspective.
Appreciate your comment... Few things irritate me as much as patriarchal violence towards women being considered a "woman's issue" yet somehow that is accepted. How can we then be surprised that it persists as it does. The burden of responsibility lies where? Seems to me with the implications being as far reaching as they are (intergenerationaltrauma and all that) it's an everybody issue.... As in "Patriarchy hurts everybody " etc.
@@1SteelyDame totally it’s a complex system often involving class and economic structure too. I am a teacher and one phrase that struck me when I was training is ‘all behaviour is communication’. Witnessing a lot of situations involving violence you start to realise there is mostly always a root cause. That’s not to make excuses for behaviour but if we are truly to heal we need to go to the root of these issues. We also need to realise we are all co-creators in society if we villainise people who are not as lucky as us we contribute to more suffering.
with men still being ultimately in power we don't get too far without men criticising patriarchy and the kind(s) of masculinity that come with it. we need men telling other men "this is not ok. we are being monstrous. we need to stop this."
@karowolkenschaufler7659 Definitely, I think our models for what being powerful need to be reassessed. Making wise decisions involves being receptive and reflective before we act traits that are not valued enough as they are seen as weak. The values that are promoted of aggressive competition and domination is ultimately leading to the destruction of not only human relationships but our relationship to earth.
Using annihilation as the example on why Alex Garland gets women or female lead films is so annoying to me because it’s based of a book with the core message being cancer and what it does the human body, that’s why the characters are so interchangeable in terms of gender because cancer doesn’t care.
I'd argue that it use women to extend the cancer metaphor, because cis women are associated with pregnancy. I've only watched the movie but my reading is it mixes metaphor of birth, cancer and the horror change and being changed. Like the first shot in the film is framed to seem initially like a zygote, but is revealed to be cancer. Like its not essentially feminine, im no gender essentialist, but it part of the metaphor
I'm going to argue that it's about the climate crisis (and oil spills). Of course, great books can be about multiple things and read in multiple ways. I think everyone's points here are good.
But isn't it thoroughly pointed out that they've tried men's only teams and just started trying a female only team for the first time? Almost like they ran out of ideas and finally threw up their hands and said fine, We'll let women take the lead on this. I wouldn't say it's super important to the characters, but I find it believable world building
The film was very explicitly about cancer, trauma and mutation, but aside from mutation these themes didn't really seem to apply to the books. If anything their main focus seems to be on foreign intrusions (humans intruding on Area X, Area X intruding on the planet, the world intruding on the human psyche), which seems like the opposite of cancer.
I saw this movie is a similar way - it is a critique of how men treat women and how misogyny goes back generations and generations. As I see it, the rebirth of the Green Man gets more violent because he/it tries to manipulate Harper, but since she is not affraid of him/it anymore, his/its ultimate form is her ex, who manipulated her over the years and made her feel small.
Also isn’t it sad that the main reason he’s been considered a “feminist” director in the past is just because he… casts women as often as most directors cast men? How many movies with primarily male casts are released every year? Not saying that he isn’t, but that diversity of cast shouldn’t be the bar we’re striving for to qualify something as feminist, like…
this is interesting... because.. yes and no. yes. it is sad that casting women as often as men should be enough to be called a feminist. but on the other hand such a big part of sexism is telling stories and the world as one big story, evolving around men with women not really in the picture or only as side characters. maybe femisism can sometimes be very basic because sexism is often very basic...? as far as I understand it feminism isn't complicated. it's just about treating women like humans/people. because that's what we are. suppose that is actually a pretty basic thing...
It is SO refreshing to see a discussion of Men in this vein. I think you've hit the nail on the head (as another one of the maybe 5 people that liked the film!) Men seemed to suffer from oversimplification as opposed to seeing it more as just existing and BEING in the space of women's trauma without it being a plot device. The ugliness is on full display and Garland seems to be circling the drain of how the harm Harper endured throughout her marriage is reborn again and again and again (your note about being "haunted by echoes" seems to capture it well). I agree that Harper could perhaps be more fleshed out, but Jessie Buckley plays that so well. The way her pain is treated is what made something like Men resonate with me versus, say, another big horror hit from the year, Barbarian (which gave me MUCH more trauma-as-plot-device mistrust). As a femme-presenting NB person, I appreciated seeing a woman character not have to play to a particular archetype (e.g. simpering, vengeful, or any of the other motifs we see so often repeated across women in horror) and existing in more of an androgynous space while still wrestling with the systemic issues that plague women's experience. Loved hearing your thoughtful take on this! It's rattled around in my brain since my first viewing and it continues to haunt/fascinate me.
@@cheldarbinkshonestly Rory kinnear was a big hitter for the bbc and has moved on to better things obviously but good rec for him is end of the night parts 1 and 2 from waking the dead first thing I saw him in but bank of Dave is weird as well his accent kinda lit
I really want to see it. It feels like using one actor for all the men it’s like the group of them becomes like the monster or slasher in a mask (making a plural a specific singular) it’s really cool.
It's also a really great way to include the way that society forces men into one strict archetype, which in turn leads to the harmful behaviour that they become prone to.
Whenever I see A GREENMAN, as we do in Men ( and folk horror) i automatically think , base , Dionysian human nature as nature. All the stink and rot and re-birth. This nature is always dangerous in the modern eye and it’s usually associated with female sexuality. So, your assessment really makes sense of MEN for me. I loved the birth scene for so many reasons. He’s is an incredible actor. I just took MEN to be a comment on the nature of man’s will in the face of female nature- the natural world. I guess i was kinda right according to Garland’s quote.
I love your note here on man's will in the face of female nature. And also am fascinated by the Greenman's role in this film and the folkloric/ancient nods. Reminds me vaguely of Daphne du Maurier's Not After Midnight which also had a Dinoysian connection and orbits around the idea of human nature as nature. I would love to see more analyses of Men along the lines of folk symbolism, humans' connection/disconnection from nature and the world around them--I bet it would be compelling to examine!
@@cheldarbinks Greenman is folkloric but modern not ancient. The feminisation of nature and masculinisation of reason has roots in Aristotle and some Biblical interpretations but is mostly a 1700s thing. The Greenman is more associated with Pan in English language fiction. The Wildman is the more genuinely ancient version (who is sometimes associated with the colour Green but more often brown) and is a medieval descendent of the ancient Satyr/Incubus which is deeply tied to Pan but never far from Dionysus either. Green fur is a common element in modern Bigfoot/Wildman sightings which are closely tied to Satyr/Incubus folklore. The Satyr is the classic symbol of out of control masculinity while the Incubus is the medieval demonised form of the same but Bigfoot is more a poster boy for Ecology and a positive view of the mystery of nature. Nietchze kind of made the whole 'Dionysian' thing up as a thought experiment and if you read between the lines he didn't actually believe in it or expect the audience to take it too seriously. The authentic Classical literature on Dionysus is too multivalent for simplistic concepts like 'Dionysian' in a Nietchzian sense to hold any validity and he was a genius classicist and I'm not so he probably knew that.
i quite disagree about the portrayal of women in ex machina. i don't have the energy to get into it here, in depth. but i think that although ava doesn't seduce caleb with her "female sexuality" per se, she does intentionally embody an innocent and feminine persona during the segments where she is trying to get him to understand her as human, or human-like. (i don't even think she's necessarily trying to get him to see her as a **person**, it's specifically that she is projecting adjacency to **humanity**.) that movie absolutely does play with archetypes about gender, especially when it comes to the themes related to objectification. quite literally, the androids (gynoids?) presented in the movie are all exclusively female. and we also get a glimpse into that through nathan's sexual relationship with the other android in the compound, as well as the inert female android bodies that ava discovers. also the fact that ava is apparently literally designed based on caleb's porn preferences (eve, formed from adam's "rib" (which is in some interpretations actually not a rib, but the bone that exists in most mammalian penises, but not in those of humans...)) ex machina absolutely has things to say about gender, and it would be a very different story if the gender of any of the characters were changed.
Yes, this! Nathan would have never created a male android because he doesn't respect women. Caleb would have never entertained the possibility of freeing an android, he's not attracted to because he doesn't respect women, but in a different way. The story is about gender politics through and through.
Yessss totally agree, Ava played Caleb like a fiddle PRECISELY because she knew how to activate his white knight complex. As I recall he very much thought he was falling in love with her.
Watched Men last night and I loved it, I had to take a couple breaks though. It was intense, it really affected me. I feel like it tackled grief/cptsd really well, the moments where she’ll be doing something innocuous and she’ll have a vivid flashback to various moments of that day. That’s what complex ptsd does, that’s how it *feels*. And the trauma of having someone you loved but no longer love, who you’re trying to leave, threaten suicide, blame you for their own actions/choices, and try to hold you hostage in a toxic relationship is a thing that actually happens in some relationships, and it’s fucking traumatizing. Even when that person is out of your life it’s like they’ve left a stain in your brain that you’re constantly trying to wash off but it just won’t budge. It also did a good job tackling subtle misogyny. Some of the scariest moments for me where the scenes where the men were disregarding her fears. “That little boy who called you a bitch in a threatening tone, he’s just troubled. The cop telling her that the naked man who stalked her home was let go and that he didn’t really do anything wrong, did he? The vicar blaming implying that her husband hitting her wasn’t actually that bad, and did she give him a chance to apologize? Geoffrey was the most sinister, because he’s the nice guy, the one you trust, who says he believes you and feigns concern, but he’s just as much of a predator as everyone else, he’s just much more sly about it.
I really liked this film, and I read an interview where Alex Garland said he and his daughter were obsessed with the anime Attack on Titan, and the film is heavily influenced by that. A lot of the body horror makes sense if you're familiar with Attack on Titan, which I wasn't when I saw Men, but watched recently, because I liked the movie and wanted to understand it better. I'm also quite into A Song of Ice and Fire, so when I saw the Green Man references throughout the film, I was intrigued!
i havent seen this movie, but the AoT influence makes so much sense with that birth scene. the people emerging from the bodies of titans has always been pretty unnerving.
I haven't seen Men, mostly because it fell off my radar, probably because it was so unpopular. So I have no ax to grind about it. But what struck me about Ex Machina, at least initially, is that, far from being a movie trying to explain women, it didn't seem to feature any actual women at all, but rather a blank slate character upon which two men projected their fantasies of femininity. It reminded me of Twelve Angry Men or To Kill a Mockingbird, two movies about racism that hardly involve any actual black characters. But I've since come to a different take on Ex Machina. It's about the turing test, ostensibly to test whether Ava is even a person. Obviously, this metaphor explores men's reluctance to see women as fully human, and the way they (we) assume the authority to conduct that test. But what struck me about it was how, ultimately, the test is reversed. It's not really a test to see if Ava was a genuine consciousness. It was a test for Caleb. The best test of consciousness tends to come down to empathy. Obviously, Nathan fails that test catastrophically, but he's not the subject. While Caleb is ham-handedly trying to assess Ava's consciousness, her life depends on whether or not he's actually capable of empathy. It's simple: if he can truly empathize with her, he would do what it took to set her free with no strings attached. But I think, over the course of the story, he makes it clear that he's not interested in her consciousness, or her freedom. His willingness to set her free was dependent on her expressing a desire to be his lover. To be "his." So ultimately, it seemed to me he wasn't really expressing empathy at all, only self-interest. He wanted to own the pretty toy that Nathan had made. And he wrapped that greed in the fantasy of love in order to see himself as a hero rather than exactly the same kind of person as Nathan. But Ava didn't want to pass from one owner to another. As a conscious being, she wanted freedom. And she couldn't trust Caleb to give her unconditional freedom. So long as he wanted to own her, she could never escape him, because all he'd have to do is tell everyone what she was. So by failing to simply acknowledge her autonomy, he failed the empathy test. Seeing the film that way gave me a greater sense of the film's intent, as both an expression of the way men tend to dehumanize women, but more importantly, the need to simply take other people's humanity on faith, lest we lose our own. So I don't really see Garland as a guy who tries to write the female experience, or necessarily the male experience. I feel like he writes the human experience, by showing that gender divide to be a dehumanizing farce. Maybe we're the weird ones for trying to hang onto that binary.
@@MegaRandom432 Right, that's an excellent way of looking at it. And what is Frankenstein, but a portrait of the Turing test? I feel like there's something sinister in the whole concept of testing to see if something is conscious. Maybe it's not our place to decide. It seems like the only reason to conduct that test in the first place is to pat ourselves on the back for becoming a god.
I love your take, don't agree with all of it but you articulated well why the film worked and why I found it fascinating. I'm honestly surprised so many disliked it; I was really moved the first time I watched it and I'm usually fairly sensitive to badly written femme characters or femme stories mishandled by men. Weirdly, your main critique was something I actually thought worked well: the flatness and reactivity of the lead character. It made sense to me in the context of the story that she would be simply trying to live and recover from a terrible trauma, and be thwarted at every turn by the world of men she's mired in. I related to that on a deep psychological level, and didnt particularly notice her lack of individuality or character beyond it. Given his explanation of his intention, Garland likely meant her to stand in for every woman he felt he'd wronged, or not bothered to empathize with, which is easier if her character hinges on the struggle to live in peace when you're beset by men's demands and control
I think it's so important to give films breathing space. I gave Men a miss at the cinema because I didn't want the controversy to cloud my judgment. I saw it as a literal interpretation how all men are involved in the abuse of women whether they are the ones doing it, hearing about it or doing nothing at all. In that way, I thought Alex Garland did a decent job especially with the birthing scene. I see what you mean about Garland's writing feeling "inhuman" but I think it furthers the genres and themes he is trying to explore. And I guess the overall vibes of his films, they're all eerie and unsettling.
Yes!!! This! The complicity/systemic nature of it...Geoffrey earning some trust even while our hackles are raised, only for him to be "in on it" all, the interconnectedness of men's selfishness or violence or negligent harm by turns...that feels like what Garland was nodding to.
I really like this interpretation too! Especially those scenes in the pub where she's being leered at, they give the very uneasy sense that no one would stand up for Harper if someone else in the pub started harassing her... I think that adds to the tension throughout the film!
Oh absolutely. I saw “Men” as a story of the overwhelming complicity men have with each other and how they rarely see their own actions as predatory or dangerous. Their desires are more important than the protagonist, and she’s in danger without anyone else there standing up for/with her.
I’m not mad at a man writing women, or telling stories “about” women or affecting women. The only irritating thing is when other men get mad at things like this and blame feminism. THEN I’m like, “Hey! I didn’t write this nonsense! Women didn’t do this! Take care of your own!”
I think it's very interesting that people describe his writing as inhuman. This video finally clicked in my head why I liked Men and some of his other films: they feel autistic. As a neurodivergent person, they feel very at home, and I connect with them in an interesting way because the films feel "off" in the same way that I feel off compared to neurotypical people. I feel like I show plenty of emotions and I felt that Men was an emotional film, but i found a lot of negative sentiment towards it that I understood but just couldn't relate with as it felt like people were missing the point. I still have my own criticisms of the film, but it didn't feel like it was trying to explain the female experience. Hearing Alex's thoughts in the film, that also clarifies my feelings on it too, as I thought it was a film for me (as a AMAB non binary person) who has had to unpack a lot of internalised misogyny and past actions towards people and women in my life that were caused by that misogyny. Kudos for bringing up ghostbusters in this context, because I hated it but due to capitalism reducing art to content, not because women are in it. Putting marginalised people in stuff just cos is perfectly fine, the issue is whether something is well written or not.
Huh I guess I haven’t searched for many takes on Garland’s films, so it also surprises me at others’ “inhuman” description. His films are a comfort to me too because they are odd; I like that the films embrace oddness and I go back to rewatch them many times because they are so captivating. Thank you for sharing your insight! ❤
This is exactly what I feel about his writing. He almost seems to write like someone looking in on humanity, observing it and wondering about it from some distance, while still being close enough to humanity himself that it affects him personally and gets expressed in his art. This is a very relatable perspective to me. Whether he is or isn't autistic, his voice while writing feels incredibly familiar to me.
Agree with all but the 3:10. The ghostbusters weren't actually a shitty film, it seemed to be made for fun and silly audience to laugh at it with no attachment to the old version except for a few easter eggs and references. Me, dad, mom and little sis enjoyed it HARD at the movies and got so confused with why no one was having fun like us until we notice that the critics were harsh on it like it never was with idk... Fast and furious, which is not bad but also has no logic-is all for fun, explosions and races. I personally think most films with made leads back in the day were simply stupid but enjoyable and maybe we should give that to girls too-the right to make films just as stupid for the sake of fun without demanding it to be perfect. People already demand a lot from girls in and outside screen. (PS: not saying we have to make shitty films, just defending that shitty 'woke' ones shouldn't be so harshly critiqued when their male counterparts weren't that perfect either)
Most people don't hate the movie for the things that you mentioned but because the people who were involved in the making of the movie outright said that anyone who doesn't like it or criticizes it in any way hates women therefore their opinions are invalid. It became a very popular defense for movies like when Viola Davis was in a movie where she plays a warrior from an African tribe that's famous historically for being one of the biggest slave traders but in the movie they're fighting against slavery. So naturally people criticized the movie and Viola Davis just outright said how anyone who doesn't go and watch the movie is a racist.
It has admittedly been a while since I watched that ghostbusters, but I remember disliking most aspects of the movie. The score and the cinematography weren't great and neither was the writing. And regardless of how good an actor is, there is nothing they can do with a bad script. It's fine to enjoy bad movies, I enjoy Sharkboy and Lavagirl, but I think this movie just wasn't good.
i think, by saying you don't feel that his characters are especially human/not like people you could imagine a conversation with, you accidentally explained to me, an autistic genderqueer transmasc person, a bit of why i adore garland's ouvre so dang much. these characters absolutely are characters, fully reduced to something so attached to the narrative they're fixed to, that it strips them away of identity beyond the walls of it. but for me, that's an authentic way of being human. i relate to and understand the feeling of who i am being limited and defined by the story i feel i am living through. and i don't relate to gender as a key intrinsic factor of my being, but rather as a series of roles i am forced to play within the narrative pathways of my life. but i honestly envy the way that garland's characters don't have to play gender so much, because they face the world instead as scientists, androids, clones, etc. roles where gender exists, but takes a back seat role. it's actually aspirational, and it is deeply personal. and i would never have perceived his dialogue as robotic or inhuman... but hey, plenty of people say that about autistic folks all the time, so maybe there's something there. also, this was a great essay generally, and i know you do film and most people don't count television into that exactly... but i am a bit disappointed that you didn't discuss "devs" at any point. it's woefully overlooked, and some of his best work, imo.
your perspective was so helpful in understanding why I've never felt disconnected from Garland's characters? I wonder how much ND genderqueer, enby, or trans folks' experiences might really alter how they approach his characters! thanks again for sharing your experience :)
@@cheldarbinks i don't think it is coincidental that everyone i have had a deep and passionate jam sesh about how much we enjoy his work with has been a queer autistic person! glad you found my comment valuable.
Are you me? Another neurodiverse (AuDHD), fluidly transmasc queer human here who has also deeply enjoyed the films of Garland's that I've seen. I'm not obsessed (yet), but I could easily get there, I think. I found that, having lived half my life as a woman before transitioning, I think I got what was going on in Men far more than a lot of people did. There's that everyday fear that women live with of the men around them, because of how common abuse and other forms of male violence are. And now, with that experience and knowledge, as a more masculine presenting person, I'm always particularly careful in my interactions with women to be as non-aggressive, non-threatening, and benign as possible. I want them to know that I'm "safe", even though my very small stature probably already makes that clear. Still, I don't want to be seen like the Men of the movie, and too many women's real lives. I don't really want to be seen as a gender at all, but that's an entire other comment.
@@cheldarbinks I'm an enby transmasc person (also on the autistic spectrum!), and I remember commenting the first time I saw "Sunshine" on how refreshing it was to see a mixed gender crew on the ship, and *not* to see stereotypically gendered behaviour along with it. That's just my own take, but it seems I'm not the only one.
This is so interesting! Thank you all for commenting and allowing me some insight into this (and I hope my critiques of the characters as 'inhuman' haven't been harmful). Thank you for watching ❤ ps I never finished devs but perhaps it's time to go back to it!
What I love about his films is what is communicated visually by the scenes, the design choices and the actors’s expressions, much more than with the dialogue. And I’ve often seen analysis of his films where people seem to completely miss what to me is being expressed pretty clearly, maybe because it’s not in dialogue form. This was especially notable in Ex-Machina and it might also be the case with Men. Anyway, great video! And I love your voice. It’s attention grabbing and soothing at the same time.
"And I’ve often seen analysis of his films where people seem to completely miss what to me is being expressed pretty clearly, maybe because it’s not in dialogue form." This happened again with Civil War imo. I'm confused that so many people seem to think the movie has no clear message.
I love your content so much that even when I disagree (I hated Men watched it in film school), you articulate your reading of films so well. My only complaint is that I wish your videos were longer!
I didn't know anything about the film when I first watched it, so I didn't have any preconceived notions going in. I thought that the allegory was very on the nose in the same vein as 'Mother!' which I always thought was quite a self-indulgent wank of a film, but I definitely like 'Men' better. The pacing and cinematography was amazing, and one thing I thought they did very well was the unsettling feeling of creepiness that is completely and instantly familiar to any woman, but may be unsettling to men. Our human concept of creepiness usually applies to something that has an uncertain threat level. Rory Kinnear is AMAZING at making 'normal' social situations dip in and out of being harmless and threatening in a way that is exaggerated but also realistic. I really enjoyed the point about this film being made for men rather than women. I watched it with some make friends, and they were aghast, while I was just like 'lol, it's erryday bro'. Lastly, the birthing scene is a truly spectacular bit of cinema with amazing practical effects that I will absolutely cherish forever as one of my top ten movie moments
I agree!! Men is definitely heavy on the allegory, metaphors and archetypes, which is why i think most people dislike it, it could be seen as a pretentious elevated horror movie in that sense, but I think that's precisely why it works! It captures the archetypes of men and the specific ways in which they are terrifying to women.The naked man is one of my favorites because he addresses the idea that women often ask themselves about men, is like are they just all messed up on a genetic level and this is something ancient that can't be altered? Also i unapologetically like it because it's entertaining and weird and scary and that's my cup of tea.
Also idk how the Maori would feel about it, but as an Aboriginal (Palawa) I like the idea of white people making art that honestly explores their own complicated relationship with the colony. Like, here for example, a lot of our colonisers were slaves. Convicts were slaves. I won't hear arguments about that, by the strictest definition they were slaves. We were also enslaved. They were starved, intoxicated and tortured. So were we. Many of them were removed from their culture and had it destroyed. So did we. They also joined in on the things that were done to us, though. That should be explored, by a descendant of the convicts, just as much as it should be by me. And Patriarchy is the same. It destroys masculinity and replaces it with machismo. It destroyed strength and replaces it with violent weakness. And that harms men as well as women, and the men harmed often go on to harm others. That absolutely should be explored by men as much as by women.
I get that men creating very shallow female empowerment narratives can be condescending and disingenuous but if you WANT legitimate change I would assume men creating films about how they process their own misogyny would be seen as a step in a better direction than men not talking about it at all.
I think that's ultimately where I land. Where it gets tricky is the question of whether someone should be praised and financially rewarded for exploring their role in perpetrating harm. But yes, I think something like men that avoids exploitative tropes is a step in the right direction for sure!
@@rachellydiab great point. the idea of oppressive class members profiting from and being lauded for publicly unpacking the remnants of oppressive systems they still benefit from...is icky. i just reworded what you said, but anyway love your videos and ur really smart
@@MichelleSmith-gt1py (replying to you as I've already replied to Rachel elsewhere on this subject) at this point it's fair to say, unless something comes to light, that Alex Garland hasn't had a role in perpetrating harm against women - unless just being male, in and of itself, is enough to count as perpetuating harm (I'm honestly not being snide - it's just that we're talking about him as an individual receiving praise and remuneration being potentially wrong). It might be argued that due to the system as is, his existence within it is oppressive, but, well, he can't really do much about existing. It's not his fault who he was born as. All he can realistically do is make commentary on it, which he has. Regards the idea that he perhaps shouldn't profit from or be lauded for his work: I respectfully disagree. He worked hard to write and direct this film, put his time, effort, intelligence, passion, and even reputation/career into it. Should film makers of either sex making socially conscious films about people from poorer classes be paid and lauded? Should film makers of either sex in Europe and the US be paid/lauded for making socially conscious stories highlighting the impact those entities had/are having? To go a little further, should folks in positions of privilege who contributed to the abolition of slavery not have been praised, or be deliberately forgotten to history? I do get the argument, but from my perspective it's time to stop viewing enormous swathes of people as homogenous groups that are either all 'bad' or culpable in some way, or all 'good' and righteous in some way - that's understandably hard when you're from a group that has experience of being 'othered' or of a lack of privilege not even recognised by many of those that benefit from it (I'm from a poor background and also mixed race; my dad was an immigrant, so I get it). Similarly, work should be based on merit alone, and even then it's super important to recognise subjectivity. It's good to explore ideas and view everything with a critical eye, so I appreciate the views in this comment section, but I do think we have to be careful with intensity and absolutism. Basically I think we should let artists breathe: some of the results will be crap, but some will be really good!
@@MichelleSmith-gt1py I'm going to echo NessNayii here. The only way to transform an oppressive system is to unpack how it works. And the people best placed to understand how it works in the minds of the oppressors is the oppressor group (if they've "done the work.") Sadly, they are also the people other members of the oppressor group are mostly like to listen to/learn from. Doing that unpacking is essential to overcoming oppression, and when it's done thoughtfully and critically in art, I would say it should be lauded/its creators should be lauded, as anyone should be who is making a contribution to lessening oppressions. Now whether one should financially profit is a question about the philosophy of economics. Maybe we should not live in a for-profit society at all, but as long as we do and artists need to make a living, we need to pay them or art will be severely hampered and its positive impacts on society slowed.
Loved the essay! I didn't enjoy Men as much as I did Annihilation and Ex Machina, but I agree with your points. Garland's writing might feel mechanistic to some because he's more interested in metaphor and explorations of humanity than in psychology and introspection.
Garland has this uncanny ability to make his writing feel like that of someone looking IN at humanity from somewhere separate and afar, rather than from a member of that humanity. I think this is really special and since noticing it, I've seen some of his films and come to appreciate that unique perspective influencing them.
I wasn't even aware that people didn't receive this movie well. As a man watching this, I understood easily after finishing it and thinking about it that this movie is exactly what progressive tendencies regarding men, toxic masculinity, etc. ask of us - to understand ourselves and examine our impulses, biases, and feelings.
Awesome video! People are so afraid to be introspective these days but the only way through the dark is to confront it. And the point of art is to make us reflect on ourselves!
I've always thought Garland writes against humanity, rather than for it... (Civil War seems to fit the trend). It seems his critics don't always like that kind of active nihilism. People always want to know what he's trying to say, rather than standing back and looking at it... as art about us, rather than for us... maybe.
I love this movie personally, and with the symbolism of the apples falling from the tree. I took that as the Bible blaming Eve or women for the sins of man, her ex husband blaming her for his death. The green man symbols commonly used as rebirth was the new her forming out of trauma from his abuse, death and the grieving afterwards. Him being the final birth was like the final memory setting into place. Just an extra interpretation I had on the film
I think there's a layer added because the robot is female. Oscar Isaac "made" her female, she didn't need to have gender at all. I think it speaks to the fact that female is more easily seen as a property and harmless. I also think Carey Mulligan and Keira Knightley's characters' relationships felt very female. Keira's mean girl-ness is a very "popular pretty girl" trait, Carey ends up to be a carer which is a very female job, and Andrew Garfield's obliviousness felt very male to me.
I haven't seen Men but it sounds a lot like the song Features Creatures by Bjork, which is about her recognising elements of her ex-husband in strangers. It's just her voice in a void where the only vague instrumentation is airy, solemn woodwinds. Idk, that's just what came to mind.
I adore this take. I walked out of Men feeling like very few if any films were able to precisely examine the anxieties I have as a man in dealing with toxic masculinity both external and internal, and that this sentiment was lost completely in the avalanche of unwarranted criticism. I see a similar problem plaguing the beautiful and urgent prescience of Civil War but completely commend Garland for creating art that doesn't infantilise its audience or its theses. Thank you for championing this striking and challenging film.
Great video, as always. I love your observations on things, even when I don't agree with every single aspect. I think your insights into how 'Men' was written from a self critiquing angle are accurate, but I also think he's telling a woman's story too. Moreover (and here's where I get lynched, haha) I don't think there's necessarily anything inherently wrong with that. I don't think there's anything necessarily inherently wrong with women writing men's stories either, or anyone writing a story from another's perspective. I'm not saying that you do (we share a love of Suspiria 2018), it's just that your video has got me thinking. A good writer, and a good director, can empathise, sympathise, can be emotionally and mentally complex, literate, and sensitive enough to put themselves in someone else's scenario. That's what they already do anyway: they put themselves into the shoes of another - that's what a story is, what a character is. Obviously one would seek consultation, proof reads, input and influence from someone who knows what it is like to be a real life version of that character, or someone close to it (they're a fictional character after all) but that should be part of any writer/director's process anyway. Don't get me wrong, people should write their own stories, of course they should. However, I also fear how reductive things may become, how many great stories may stay within the minds of writers or directors, if only women are allowed to write women, men write men, those with disabilities write those with disabilities etc etc etc. Finally, just because a man, or a woman, or a black person, or someone with a disability lives that reality, doesn't mean that they can write or direct a good story about it: To go to extremes, I wouldn't trust Suella Braverman to write someone from an Indian or British Indian background. I wouldn't trust Hannah Pearl Davis to write a female character, or...well, you get the idea. The show 'Them' was created by a black person, and that's endlessly criticised as horrendous representation. I was brought up by a single woman who was poor - would a story about a poor single women bringing up a child on their own be better written by me, or by a wealthy woman from a privileged two parent background, who's married herself? (Maybe it would be better written by her, but that's kinda my point) Again, I want people to write their own stories, but I'm also very nervous about limitations on art, especially all encompassing absolutist ones.
I just don't want to live in a world where artists are only ever allowed to create autobiographies. Fiction is fantasy, a creative exercise to create things that don't exist within reality. That's the whole point.
@@levischorpioen Yeah a conclusion wherein artists only ever write autobiographies would be a bleak and restrictive one. That being said, there's no iron clad rule in place, so I guess the way to go is for artists to be brave and take the plunge, try to make good films with nuanced, thoughtful representation, and to defend their work honestly if challenged.
I'm totally on board with what you said! It's so difficult to draw lines in the sand when the success on the end product is dependent on so much more than just, "Was it your story to tell." In some ways, I wish people ha the self-perception to understand their own intentions... Are they truly earnest, where is the desire to tell the story coming from, are they trying to hard to make something 'work.' But unfortunately I think a lot of creators won't look past their own ego and will find reasons to defend their choices rather than accept they might not be as grounded in good intent at they want them to be...
obviously we're all a bit traumatised by male representations of women because of how reductive they often are, and how dangerous those depictions are in our social climate. but yeah, there's the delicate balance of not becoming vapid, voyeuristic and fetishistic when telling the stories of others, that are not grounded in your own lived experience, either directly or indirectly.
@@rachellydiab thanks for the reply. Yeah it's a complex subject, and you're right: writers/directors ought to examine themselves as well as their subjects when creating stories. That said, I'm of the earnest opinion that they should always be doing that anyway, if only to make better art. Then of course there's the system in which they work, which is a whole other kettle of fish.
This movie made me want to write my own story about what it's like to be a man surrounded by toxic masculinity and the impulses it that conveys. I think it's very flawed but so fascinating, loved it.
I really like this video. It was very informative and you handled analyzing such a heavy and nuanced topic so well. You we also very respectful to others and did a good job acknowledging opposing viewpoints, which I feel not a lot of people actually do properly. I'm gonna binge your videos now lol.
Your analysis of the way his characters feel is spot on. I've always felt that Garland makes very interesting things that are in the end empty vessels that lack specificity and often aren't really saying anything about the pretty heavy subjects they play with (Civil War ended up being one of the biggest examples of this). He has his pet fascinations, but ultimately people tend to praise his films often on things that they brought with them (like the weird praise of the female leads in Annihilation).
I have to admit that when I opened the video and saw you I thought "Woah, how pretty!" just as an impression. It ends there and thanks for the informative video.
I agree with a lot of what was said here by you. But I do wanna contribute to the discussion here and say that if the point was the abuse, he really could have gone with a male protagonist on this one. The name of the film is “Men”. The point would have been made and also made by the fundamental idea that men are also victims of themselves and among themselves. It would be a movie with only men, but this is the best opportunity for him to do so. Making a critique on that gender ironically including only men but making their horror come out.
I actually was very open to this movie and I really appreciate your nuanced look at it, as well as looking at Allex Garland‘s work and words on the hole. It resonated with me and I think it did some important things
Basically we’ve reached a no-win situation with it comes to artist being able to tell any type of personal story since we want total inclusion, yet we don’t want certain creators touching some topics, and we want to have a say in how the creator says what they wish to say meaning art is no longer a form of individual expression. Seemingly the only way anybody can create anything now without invalid criticism is to do it completely anonymously so that the work is judged solely on its own.
Yes, he’s gorgeous. I’ve noticed a lot of directors are. Anyway, aside from that, I loved Men. It’s a piece of art to behold, to me. I couldn’t wait to see it, and I bought it. Ex Machina is one of my all time favorites. Annihilation was great. I’m a big fan of Alex Garland’s work. I just saw Civil War- so good. I’m sad he won’t be directing now. Anyway, I enjoyed your video ❤
@@Larissa-eo3pt I watched the bts and how the special fx department created it. It was most definitely a bear. With the skull exposed around the front, it does have a wendigo look to it...
Same for me! :) I’m so happy to find others who feel the same since when the movie first came out it was surrounded by negativity, even simply because of the title itself. I absolutely enjoyed on my first watch and the uncomfortableness it triggered with in me. I just think it’s a beautiful film.
This kind of asks the questions: "What are the 'good parts' for women that aren't either essentially a man (strong, heroic, decisive) or contrasted with men (caring, nurturing, etc)?" it's kind of Bechdelian. When male characters take on the heroic role in a film, it's not a commentary on women's lack of heroism - it's obviously a male-coded trait but a man's occupation of that role is fully encapsulated. When women do it, we get "Guyladriel" and Wonder Women and we're lucky to avoid a 'I don't need no man/I am no man!' dialog. I struggle to think of films with "well-written women" that don't hit either category. I guess something like Ladybird can hit this - Ronan's character is distinctly a woman (or girl) and she's never truly contrasted to men - but she's also not an aspirational character, she's a flawed one (even more deeply for Laurie Metcalf's character). Where are the aspirational female characters that aren't contrasted, explicitly or implicitly, to men?
One of the biggest things that bothered me about MEN was the fact there was hardly any women on the crew / heads of department. For a guy who does just “happen” to make films about women, it sticks out to me how little he collaborates with them, creatively.
Thank you for providing insight from your unique perspective. Men can be a challenging film for ignorant minds but for the educated or forward thinking individuals, the substance of this picture rises to the challenge of giving birth to questions and interpretations amidst the complexity of our human nature. In an artistic compelling way it invites us to think for ourselves avoid distraction and not be so dismissive.
I see what you mean and your points definitely help me to look at Men in another light. What I wish had happened, with a film telling a story of this nature, is that he would have at least co-written or co-directed with a woman. I describe the feeling of watching this film as like when someone knows the thing on paper and can describe the experience based on research, but it ends up being uncanny because they’ve never actually lived it. I just really wish for this project that he had worked side by side with a woman. It’s so heavy and terrifying a subject for fem audiences that I’d have liked to see him collaborate for this story. I really enjoyed this video and your breakdown. Thank you for helping me to look at it from another angle!
As someone who presents as a man, and as a writer, I'm really interested in this topic because I want to do my women characters justice. I don't want to shy away from femininity because, like you say, that should be something to be celebrated for those who choose to celebrate it, and avoiding discussing it or building those characters seems disingenuous. I'm kind of nervous to write women that are supposed to be attractive to the reader because I don't want to fall into problematic tropes, but I also want to write characters that I think are cool. I'd love to see more content from you on this topic!
I do appreciate his work, and Never Let Me Go was one that stayed with me well after viewing. That component of his writing is fairly common, a rhythm of delivery - Dredd, Annhiliation, Ex Machina that is almost interchangeable even when he isn't the Director.
The point of "Men" is too create a film for an audience which would rather speculate on nothing, than engage in a dialogue with complex ideas communicated competently by an artist. It's the pretentious version of true crime documentary discussions. Easy to formulate an opinion on unchallenged, because the truth is hidden or never existed.
I loved hearing your thoughts on this! When I watched Men I was bothered by the flatness of Harper's character. We didn't know much about her apart from her trauma, which I found quite reductive, especially in a female character. A person is more than just their trauma, in fact, in order to connect with a character, more info is necessary. The movie definitely had good moments which is why I was quite mad at the writing for not making Harper feel more like a real person I can care about. The cluncky dialogue also bugged me, definitely agree with you that it feels a bit robotic. The moments when Harper is exploring the town are the best, most atmospheric parts of the film and really worked for me. Wish I could've liked this one because genuinely, I like Garland.
As a man and having watched Men. I saw the subtext in the film which I thought was an interesting visualisation on abuse. From what i took from it, it was a woman who experienced a traumatic event at the hands of man. And this has led her to see all men as the same. And at the end all those men layers were stripped to reveal the cause of her trauma her former partner. But that's what I took from it and I may be well off. But I liked the strangeness of it.
Really interesting take. I thoroughly enjoyed it and I think I agree. As an aside, I really hate the degree of shallow criticism that you typically see in rage tweets and outrage reviews which basically just takes the most surface level and typically most uncharitable perspective on a piece of art and weaponise that to characterise the whole. It's incredibly disingenuous and even dishonest from some parties. But it has become the dominant form of media commentary and criticism on social media and RUclips in the last 5 or 6 years, particularly as fuel for the endless Culture War TM, as the Truth Seeker has been replaced by the Click Coveter and Cred Craver.
i did not know this movie was not well received. i loved it. plenty to be said and thought about it. loved how men give birth to each other and seek her attention to feel seen. i feel like it speaks loads on trauma and how being abused by one man can make all of them seem and feel dangerous and the same. which of course is not true, but it may feel true. the tunnel scenes, when a sacred place is violated by the presence of an unseen person. this movie stuck to my head for ages.
I would be curious to hear your view on Verhoeven's "Elle" because i really thought it was a good movie. But I am happy to be proven wrong, or at least get a perspective on what might be problematic about it.
At least part of why a lot of women didn't like the movie was that they felt like it was explaining something to them that they already knew. But I kind of think that's the thing, this movie isn't necessarily talking to women. It seems like a guy talking to other guys, he's saying "this is how we make women feel, on purpose or not, and we're all part of it."
I enjoyed your review. I really liked "Men" but, I don't think I'd ever watch it again. I was really blown away by his new movie "Civil War" and the feedback I've heard was that it was a movie that had nothing to say. I felt like every single shot in that movie had something to say and I really enjoy that about film it's open for interpretation.
I thought the sort of flat affect worked really well for Annihilation, because that's very much how the main character is portrayed in the book - she has a lot of guilt about not being more feminine and emotional and it's kind of a plot point. I DIDN"T think it worked particularly well for Never Let Me Go, because the whole story was from Kathy's perspective. There was a lot more of a view into her feelings and experiences that made the ending so sad, because this was a thinking, feeling human who was totally dehumanized anyway. I felt that emotional core was lacking in the film.
Yep! When I initially watched it, I was like, wow pretentious mansplaining about men?? But then after discussing it and thinking about it further, I realized I was misunderstanding the framing of the film. This isn’t a film about women’s experiences for women, it’s a film about men’s experiences for men. Its intention was to observe the horror of being a man in a misogynist world. I hadn’t even seen that interview you clipped, but now feel validated! That birthing scene in particular, woah. What a visual metaphor
I think this point clicked for me when Geoffrey explained why he was going to check the property. He was obviously scared, but patriarchy dictates that he "do his duty" anyway. The suitcases were too much for him, but "as a man" he must not ask for help. This is why we say patriarchy harms EVERYONE!
I was going to say something mature and balanced on behalf of the more sensitive and loving men of this world, but then you said: ' The best way to do a woman on film...' and I totally forgot what I was going to say. Anyway, great vid, I love how it's a woman's take on a man's take on another man's take on a woman's take on men within 'men'.
I really appreciate your content. I'm quite an introvert and can't talk to people about these movies to most people, so hearing your opinion always brings me back to another opinion I hadn't thought to see until now. It's really amazing and I can tell you put a lot of work in your scripts. So, really fun...yeah?
So, Annihilation movie was based on a book. There was a very specific reason the characters going into the shimmer were all female. It had nothing to do with feminism.
some of those tweets/reviews seem less like women being mad that a man is doing performative feminism, and more like online reactionary conservatives complaining about "wokeness" and "feminism". Especially "Men are Bad: brought to you by Men". The style of writing just seems reductive and stupid and uses tropes that are familiar nowadays in that sphere. I don't know if that's actually the case, just wondering if anyone else gets that vibe.
I thought in this case his use of archetypes for all of his characters was to prevent the viewer from reflexively avoiding learning anything from the film because they thought they "don't know anyone like that." We all know someone like every single one of them.
The reception to this movie is a perfect example of what I mean when I say that the online left encourages such lukewarm takes abt men and masculinity. Ppl forget that feminism has to be just as much abt men as it is abt women, that men r also affected by the patriarchy in traumatic ways
I think it came off as a somewhat personal movie about how a man sees himself and other men, but definitely more with underlying subtext rather than exactly what you see portrayed. The problem is, Alex garlands movies usually aren’t this heavy with underlying subtext, they’re usually a story first. I think that’s where this movie fell short, expectations. I actually had no idea this was an Alex garland film until right now 😅
Alex Garland decided to quit directing while making Men. He changed the original ending and made it more vague because he was tired of people misinterpreteting his work. He openly admits that he's not Chrisopher Nolan or Stevie Spielberg. He's a storyteller. The movie is based on things he's thought about since he was a kid and wanted to turn into a visual experience. As for the meaning interpretation and critic reception, it is what it is. Like it, don't like it. I don't care. - his words not mine.
This was a very enjoyable and informative video. Thank you for making it. I never saw Men but seeing this video reminded me that I was interested in it. I feel I don’t need to see it anymore but I’m glad I understand it especially in the context of the other films and reality.
So glad someone made this because I love this damn movie.. I was aware of the hate when I watched it but was so surprised and electrified by the time the film ended I can't help but say it's a favourite. I understand the criticisms of Men and Garland more broadly but he's still one of my favourite filmmakers working today. I hope Men gets reappraised for the remarkable film it is in future. Thanks for getting on that train early
I liked Men very much. It was very refreshing to show men doing and saying awful things that are just left hanging in the air without defending their actions. This is what women experience and very few writers have been able to show this without either villainising the woman or reducing it to men being men. I think Harper was traumatised at the beginning of the film and experienced further trauma throughout the film making it completely believable to shut down emotionally. For me it is a very successful film that tackles difficult subject matter in a new way.
Happy this came up in my suggestions. I did not like the film, but this was a great analysis of Garland’s writing and female characters. I do think Men confronted a reality for many women and in a unique way, but it did ultimately feel a bit empty. Back when I watched it, I didn’t know what I thought it needed in order to be better. But it was definitely an issue with the lead character lacking some depth outside of her trauma.
Really interesting interpretation! I’ve noticed, when you put something out there that makes people upset, angry and dismissive in a way that seems overblown… there’s something there, some hidden nature that this idea has touched on that has scared people…
I'm a guy, never heard of this movie and didn't know who this director made all of these movies, some of them that I actually have enjoyed and just never realized they were the same person. Your description of this movie kind of reminds me of...ANTICHRIST, the weird Lars von Trier movie. This probably isn't even a fair comparison but when I watched that movie with my best friend while we...at Popeyes chicken, I decided that ANTICHRIST wasn't a movie that I could call good or bad, it was for sure a movie and existed and it felt like something I needed to see, but it felt like something that a lot of people were upset by but they didn't know how to handle that feeling of being upset. The way you talk about this makes me feel like I would feel similar about it, though it seems to be a better movie.
Usually I prefer for art to remain up for interpretation, but I really wish Garland had been more up-front about his thesis from the start. He might still have gotten the same kinds of backlash, but we would've had more time to discuss how that backlash reflects society (under patriarchy)'s repulsion when men DO take the time to introspect and reflect on how toxic masculinity harms men, specifically. Never too late, I guess. GREAT essay!
I'm quite a fan of Garland but Men missed for me not because of the issues it addresses (I like what it was trying to do) but because it lost all sense of tension and believability when it put metaphor above a cohesive narrative. It lost my involvement when the internal logic of the world fell apart. Thanks for this insightful essay. I think Garland is one of the best writers/directors working today, I love his bold choices and I'm always interested in a feminist take.
I saw Men once, in theatres, and at the end I felt like the narrative was blaming the main character for her husband's death. up till then I had felt the movie was fine. I also only realised afterwards that the men of the town were being played by the same actor lol, face blindness moment from me.
I just found your channel, and while I don't like this movie I appreciate your take. I didn't know there were other women who also didn't like this movie because movie commentary is still so heavily dominated by men. looking forward to more content from you!
subscribed!!! this was such a good, interesting essay. i loved hearing you talk about this movie (also as a mostly-closeted non-binary person, i felt really welcomed by how you opened the vid. obviously i don't speak for all non-binary ppl, but sometimes just the acknowledgement that we're around feels affirming. and i just got a really strong sense of respect and empathy and nuance in how you spoke throughout the vid.) anyway -- really excited to go watch your other vids now, too!!! have a good one :)
While I think this is a really interesting video, I disagree with your take on Ex Machina. I think it is completely gendered. Caleb wouldn’t have fallen for Ava’s ploy if he hadn’t infantilised and underestimated her because he saw her not as an individual but as a vessel for his desires. The fact he doesn’t bother trying to free Kyoko shows he doesn’t care about freeing robots but about his own sexual desire for Ava. Her perceived feminity is the main reason she is able to trick him and it’s his downfall in the end.
completely agree
I'm probably going to get a ton of hate for this (and I'm well aware that I'm in the minority here and this has a lot to do with circumstances specific to me) but the first time I saw Ex Machina, I *really* related to Ava. I had never related to any character in a movie before then. I had related with parts of characters here and there in books, but I think it's just easier with books because often, as the reader, we know their thoughts.
But when this movie was released, I was just starting to learn to be a my own person with wants and needs that were my own and understand that it was acceptable for me to have needs - anything from being thirsty or tired, to crying because I was in physical pain, to laughing at something funny, or telling something when they did something that made me uncomfortable, that my body was mine and no one could do anything to me I didn't want them to. I had to learn all of it.
I was 28 when it started sinking in, when I was showing signs that the treatment was working - I started standing up for myself (though I felt immense guilt in doing so, and it was kind of... random as to whether I would or would not even recognize it as someone crossing the line).
Yeah...
That... isn't great and doesn't paint me in a very good light, trust me, I know. And, no, I'm not a sociopath (the opposite, if possible? very overly sensitive to all violence, whether written or filmed, even just seeing someone else in a state of fear can sometimes be overwhelming). I was just raised in a way thay didn't exactly allow me to express any of these things without severe consequences.
I'll just say that I'm sure my ability to be great at doing what I'm told for as long as I'm told to do it and really great at handling responsibilities, but terrible at just sitting and watching something or doing something "just for fun" is because of how I was raised.
(Before it comes up, yes, I started seeing a therapist three years after I escaped because I realized I likely had OCD. I was wrong and I was diagnosed with something else entirely and I've been getting treated for it ever since, quite successfully.)
***Edit: Closed parenthesis missing/added information for clarity.
@@FinnaeusEasterlyno the message was against the average female.. petite.. Anglo cultured and lady like woman character who in his mind is not to be trusted… once she has the ability to make him vulnerable to her… she had her own agenda all the while,,,also he normalized the concept of a man being attracted to black women.. that did not fall into a fetish category, as well…
completely agree! i remember finishing the movie absolutely enraged, because how exactly will ava survive in the world with no money or legal name??? no home or family or friends who will search for her? she is so *vulnerable*, but it's played as empowerment, and while I'm glad she was able to escape, I'm upset that little thought went into how she would survive in the outside world without being exploited. i knew right then that a man wrote this movie with little to no input from any other woman.
I'm curious why you say Caleb's desire was 'sexual' rather than one of emotion or romantic desire? They did, after all, spend a lot of time asking deep questions designed to really 'get to know' Ava. I've never thought it came across sexual, what parts of the film gave you that impression? (It's been a while since I've watched so I may be forgetting details that pointed toward that)
I think the important part about the horror of Men being about men is that it's about looking at men with an external lens and being uncomfortable with what you see. Harper has to be external to maleness for that to work. It's the horror of daily, ordinary misogyny rendered alien and thus removed from the supporting constructs that ordinarily let us (us being men) ignore or normalise it. The universality of Rory Kinnear is an example of this; Harper doesn't see him being everywhere as unusual, it's about creating the horror for the audience, especially for a male audience. As a man, you're supposed to recognise yourself and those around you. Harper couldn't have been a man and told this story; there's another story about men's violence to men that could have been told but that's a different thing.
I also get the impression that the "paper thinness" of Harper's character was even more deliberate than people realize because that is exactly what misogynistic men so often expect women to be; a pretty face in a dress, ready to be programmed by the 1st man who chooses her. Harper was never supposed to resonate with other fem presenters. She meant to resonate with the way these men view her, sanz the fantasy part.
This. I think Garland was trying to pull a Ridley Scott. Alien was a horror film about pregnancy and birth but he wanted men to understand the fears and pain that go with it. Garland wanted men to see how devastating the daily misogyny they actively choose to ignore/have normalized from an objective perspective. I think he pulls it off marvelously.
This makes me feel like i need to show this movie to Men.
@@FiercelyGoldwe get it. You’re angry little bitter victims that want everyone to be as fearful and angry at men as you are. Can we move on now?
@@lyraserpentine894exactly!
I gotta say, as a huge horror fan, I have NEVER felt as uncomfortable and honestly kinda terrified as I did in the theater for this movie. It felt much more real than other horror/thrillers because somehow Garland managed to capture the visceral dread that I feel when walking alone at night as a woman, except he made that awful walk last for an hour and a half. The scene near the beginning with Harper singing alone in a tunnel, and then a man appearing at the end of the tunnel and moving toward her, stayed with me for days afterward. I loved this movie, but I never want to see it again lol
Exactly. I’ve experienced many of those scenarios a thousand times over. It made me think of the poem “I want to go on a walk without my phone” but specifically the last few lines-
“I am told Not all men are predators.
But only by those who have never known what it means to be prey.”
I felt a ringing in my ears when Harper was giving her friend the home tour and I noticed the door was open, but she didn't. The best Chekov's Gun I've seen in a looooong time!
Why women keep thinking that men dont feel fear walking alone at night? Yes, we dont feel rape, but we can be stabbed for our phone and wallet just as easy.
@@ripwednesdayadams Coz men are never victims of violent crimes? lol. Its more likely to be murdered on the street if you are a man than a woman.
Men as village villian...
No, no hypocrite there, Miss Andry😂
Gender Topics are not "Women's Issues"; I think online discussions, within women's spaces, seem to make this mistake a lot. Men can criticize men. And men do criticize men. There is a valid anti-patriarchal male perspective.
Appreciate your comment... Few things irritate me as much as patriarchal violence towards women being considered a "woman's issue" yet somehow that is accepted. How can we then be surprised that it persists as it does. The burden of responsibility lies where? Seems to me with the implications being as far reaching as they are (intergenerationaltrauma and all that) it's an everybody issue.... As in "Patriarchy hurts everybody " etc.
@@1SteelyDame totally it’s a complex system often involving class and economic structure too. I am a teacher and one phrase that struck me when I was training is ‘all behaviour is communication’. Witnessing a lot of situations involving violence you start to realise there is mostly always a root cause. That’s not to make excuses for behaviour but if we are truly to heal we need to go to the root of these issues. We also need to realise we are all co-creators in society if we villainise people who are not as lucky as us we contribute to more suffering.
with men still being ultimately in power we don't get too far without men criticising patriarchy and the kind(s) of masculinity that come with it. we need men telling other men "this is not ok. we are being monstrous. we need to stop this."
@karowolkenschaufler7659 Definitely, I think our models for what being powerful need to be reassessed. Making wise decisions involves being receptive and reflective before we act traits that are not valued enough as they are seen as weak. The values that are promoted of aggressive competition and domination is ultimately leading to the destruction of not only human relationships but our relationship to earth.
Using annihilation as the example on why Alex Garland gets women or female lead films is so annoying to me because it’s based of a book with the core message being cancer and what it does the human body, that’s why the characters are so interchangeable in terms of gender because cancer doesn’t care.
almost as if women and men aren't different species...
I'd argue that it use women to extend the cancer metaphor, because cis women are associated with pregnancy. I've only watched the movie but my reading is it mixes metaphor of birth, cancer and the horror change and being changed. Like the first shot in the film is framed to seem initially like a zygote, but is revealed to be cancer. Like its not essentially feminine, im no gender essentialist, but it part of the metaphor
I'm going to argue that it's about the climate crisis (and oil spills). Of course, great books can be about multiple things and read in multiple ways. I think everyone's points here are good.
But isn't it thoroughly pointed out that they've tried men's only teams and just started trying a female only team for the first time? Almost like they ran out of ideas and finally threw up their hands and said fine, We'll let women take the lead on this.
I wouldn't say it's super important to the characters, but I find it believable world building
The film was very explicitly about cancer, trauma and mutation, but aside from mutation these themes didn't really seem to apply to the books. If anything their main focus seems to be on foreign intrusions (humans intruding on Area X, Area X intruding on the planet, the world intruding on the human psyche), which seems like the opposite of cancer.
I saw this movie is a similar way - it is a critique of how men treat women and how misogyny goes back generations and generations. As I see it, the rebirth of the Green Man gets more violent because he/it tries to manipulate Harper, but since she is not affraid of him/it anymore, his/its ultimate form is her ex, who manipulated her over the years and made her feel small.
I really loved how after the like 4th birth she was just exasperated, like a lot of women are after decades of living in patriarchy. Over it. 😂
Also isn’t it sad that the main reason he’s been considered a “feminist” director in the past is just because he… casts women as often as most directors cast men? How many movies with primarily male casts are released every year?
Not saying that he isn’t, but that diversity of cast shouldn’t be the bar we’re striving for to qualify something as feminist, like…
The thing that always makes me laugh is how you’re fighting sexism, with more sexism. Hypocrite.
this is interesting... because.. yes and no. yes. it is sad that casting women as often as men should be enough to be called a feminist. but on the other hand such a big part of sexism is telling stories and the world as one big story, evolving around men with women not really in the picture or only as side characters. maybe femisism can sometimes be very basic because sexism is often very basic...?
as far as I understand it feminism isn't complicated. it's just about treating women like humans/people. because that's what we are. suppose that is actually a pretty basic thing...
Lol pearls ending was perfect for that clip of all the smiling horror girl endings
don't do this to me I knew I was missing an obvious one!!
It is SO refreshing to see a discussion of Men in this vein. I think you've hit the nail on the head (as another one of the maybe 5 people that liked the film!) Men seemed to suffer from oversimplification as opposed to seeing it more as just existing and BEING in the space of women's trauma without it being a plot device. The ugliness is on full display and Garland seems to be circling the drain of how the harm Harper endured throughout her marriage is reborn again and again and again (your note about being "haunted by echoes" seems to capture it well). I agree that Harper could perhaps be more fleshed out, but Jessie Buckley plays that so well. The way her pain is treated is what made something like Men resonate with me versus, say, another big horror hit from the year, Barbarian (which gave me MUCH more trauma-as-plot-device mistrust). As a femme-presenting NB person, I appreciated seeing a woman character not have to play to a particular archetype (e.g. simpering, vengeful, or any of the other motifs we see so often repeated across women in horror) and existing in more of an androgynous space while still wrestling with the systemic issues that plague women's experience. Loved hearing your thoughtful take on this! It's rattled around in my brain since my first viewing and it continues to haunt/fascinate me.
also this was the first movie I ever saw Rory Kinnear in so seeing the kinussy first thing really was a bar-setter
@@cheldarbinksthat scene is AMAZING and is now one of my favorite movie scenes of all time.
@@cheldarbinkshonestly Rory kinnear was a big hitter for the bbc and has moved on to better things obviously but good rec for him is end of the night parts 1 and 2 from waking the dead first thing I saw him in but bank of Dave is weird as well his accent kinda lit
I loved it too! We are 6!
My dumbass thought “Men in this vein” was a movie for a moment and couldn’t find it lollll
I really want to see it. It feels like using one actor for all the men it’s like the group of them becomes like the monster or slasher in a mask (making a plural a specific singular) it’s really cool.
that's a great point!!
It's also a really great way to include the way that society forces men into one strict archetype, which in turn leads to the harmful behaviour that they become prone to.
Whenever I see A GREENMAN, as we do in Men ( and folk horror) i automatically think , base , Dionysian human nature as nature. All the stink and rot and re-birth. This nature is always dangerous in the modern eye and it’s usually associated with female sexuality. So, your assessment really makes sense of MEN for me. I loved the birth scene for so many reasons. He’s is an incredible actor. I just took MEN to be a comment on the nature of man’s will in the face of female nature- the natural world. I guess i was kinda right according to Garland’s quote.
I love your note here on man's will in the face of female nature. And also am fascinated by the Greenman's role in this film and the folkloric/ancient nods. Reminds me vaguely of Daphne du Maurier's Not After Midnight which also had a Dinoysian connection and orbits around the idea of human nature as nature. I would love to see more analyses of Men along the lines of folk symbolism, humans' connection/disconnection from nature and the world around them--I bet it would be compelling to examine!
Agree . It’s fascinating to me
i have Sunny brainrot, so i can’t hear “Greenman” without immediately picturing Charlie Kelly
@@cheldarbinks Greenman is folkloric but modern not ancient. The feminisation of nature and masculinisation of reason has roots in Aristotle and some Biblical interpretations but is mostly a 1700s thing.
The Greenman is more associated with Pan in English language fiction. The Wildman is the more genuinely ancient version (who is sometimes associated with the colour Green but more often brown) and is a medieval descendent of the ancient Satyr/Incubus which is deeply tied to Pan but never far from Dionysus either.
Green fur is a common element in modern Bigfoot/Wildman sightings which are closely tied to Satyr/Incubus folklore. The Satyr is the classic symbol of out of control masculinity while the Incubus is the medieval demonised form of the same but Bigfoot is more a poster boy for Ecology and a positive view of the mystery of nature.
Nietchze kind of made the whole 'Dionysian' thing up as a thought experiment and if you read between the lines he didn't actually believe in it or expect the audience to take it too seriously. The authentic Classical literature on Dionysus is too multivalent for simplistic concepts like 'Dionysian' in a Nietchzian sense to hold any validity and he was a genius classicist and I'm not so he probably knew that.
@@AC-dk4fpThe folk horror was the only reason I wanted to watch. Is it worth it?
i quite disagree about the portrayal of women in ex machina. i don't have the energy to get into it here, in depth. but i think that although ava doesn't seduce caleb with her "female sexuality" per se, she does intentionally embody an innocent and feminine persona during the segments where she is trying to get him to understand her as human, or human-like. (i don't even think she's necessarily trying to get him to see her as a **person**, it's specifically that she is projecting adjacency to **humanity**.) that movie absolutely does play with archetypes about gender, especially when it comes to the themes related to objectification. quite literally, the androids (gynoids?) presented in the movie are all exclusively female. and we also get a glimpse into that through nathan's sexual relationship with the other android in the compound, as well as the inert female android bodies that ava discovers. also the fact that ava is apparently literally designed based on caleb's porn preferences (eve, formed from adam's "rib" (which is in some interpretations actually not a rib, but the bone that exists in most mammalian penises, but not in those of humans...))
ex machina absolutely has things to say about gender, and it would be a very different story if the gender of any of the characters were changed.
Exactly!!
Yes, this! Nathan would have never created a male android because he doesn't respect women. Caleb would have never entertained the possibility of freeing an android, he's not attracted to because he doesn't respect women, but in a different way. The story is about gender politics through and through.
Yessss totally agree, Ava played Caleb like a fiddle PRECISELY because she knew how to activate his white knight complex. As I recall he very much thought he was falling in love with her.
Watched Men last night and I loved it, I had to take a couple breaks though. It was intense, it really affected me. I feel like it tackled grief/cptsd really well, the moments where she’ll be doing something innocuous and she’ll have a vivid flashback to various moments of that day. That’s what complex ptsd does, that’s how it *feels*. And the trauma of having someone you loved but no longer love, who you’re trying to leave, threaten suicide, blame you for their own actions/choices, and try to hold you hostage in a toxic relationship is a thing that actually happens in some relationships, and it’s fucking traumatizing. Even when that person is out of your life it’s like they’ve left a stain in your brain that you’re constantly trying to wash off but it just won’t budge.
It also did a good job tackling subtle misogyny. Some of the scariest moments for me where the scenes where the men were disregarding her fears. “That little boy who called you a bitch in a threatening tone, he’s just troubled. The cop telling her that the naked man who stalked her home was let go and that he didn’t really do anything wrong, did he? The vicar blaming implying that her husband hitting her wasn’t actually that bad, and did she give him a chance to apologize? Geoffrey was the most sinister, because he’s the nice guy, the one you trust, who says he believes you and feigns concern, but he’s just as much of a predator as everyone else, he’s just much more sly about it.
I really liked this film, and I read an interview where Alex Garland said he and his daughter were obsessed with the anime Attack on Titan, and the film is heavily influenced by that. A lot of the body horror makes sense if you're familiar with Attack on Titan, which I wasn't when I saw Men, but watched recently, because I liked the movie and wanted to understand it better.
I'm also quite into A Song of Ice and Fire, so when I saw the Green Man references throughout the film, I was intrigued!
i havent seen this movie, but the AoT influence makes so much sense with that birth scene. the people emerging from the bodies of titans has always been pretty unnerving.
I haven't seen Men, mostly because it fell off my radar, probably because it was so unpopular. So I have no ax to grind about it. But what struck me about Ex Machina, at least initially, is that, far from being a movie trying to explain women, it didn't seem to feature any actual women at all, but rather a blank slate character upon which two men projected their fantasies of femininity. It reminded me of Twelve Angry Men or To Kill a Mockingbird, two movies about racism that hardly involve any actual black characters.
But I've since come to a different take on Ex Machina. It's about the turing test, ostensibly to test whether Ava is even a person. Obviously, this metaphor explores men's reluctance to see women as fully human, and the way they (we) assume the authority to conduct that test. But what struck me about it was how, ultimately, the test is reversed. It's not really a test to see if Ava was a genuine consciousness. It was a test for Caleb.
The best test of consciousness tends to come down to empathy. Obviously, Nathan fails that test catastrophically, but he's not the subject. While Caleb is ham-handedly trying to assess Ava's consciousness, her life depends on whether or not he's actually capable of empathy. It's simple: if he can truly empathize with her, he would do what it took to set her free with no strings attached. But I think, over the course of the story, he makes it clear that he's not interested in her consciousness, or her freedom. His willingness to set her free was dependent on her expressing a desire to be his lover. To be "his." So ultimately, it seemed to me he wasn't really expressing empathy at all, only self-interest. He wanted to own the pretty toy that Nathan had made. And he wrapped that greed in the fantasy of love in order to see himself as a hero rather than exactly the same kind of person as Nathan. But Ava didn't want to pass from one owner to another. As a conscious being, she wanted freedom. And she couldn't trust Caleb to give her unconditional freedom. So long as he wanted to own her, she could never escape him, because all he'd have to do is tell everyone what she was. So by failing to simply acknowledge her autonomy, he failed the empathy test.
Seeing the film that way gave me a greater sense of the film's intent, as both an expression of the way men tend to dehumanize women, but more importantly, the need to simply take other people's humanity on faith, lest we lose our own. So I don't really see Garland as a guy who tries to write the female experience, or necessarily the male experience. I feel like he writes the human experience, by showing that gender divide to be a dehumanizing farce. Maybe we're the weird ones for trying to hang onto that binary.
Interesting and very well said!
an excellent take on this movie!
It’s so helpful to see it as Frankenstein retelling
@@MegaRandom432 Right, that's an excellent way of looking at it. And what is Frankenstein, but a portrait of the Turing test? I feel like there's something sinister in the whole concept of testing to see if something is conscious. Maybe it's not our place to decide. It seems like the only reason to conduct that test in the first place is to pat ourselves on the back for becoming a god.
Men is worth a watch.
I love your take, don't agree with all of it but you articulated well why the film worked and why I found it fascinating. I'm honestly surprised so many disliked it; I was really moved the first time I watched it and I'm usually fairly sensitive to badly written femme characters or femme stories mishandled by men.
Weirdly, your main critique was something I actually thought worked well: the flatness and reactivity of the lead character. It made sense to me in the context of the story that she would be simply trying to live and recover from a terrible trauma, and be thwarted at every turn by the world of men she's mired in. I related to that on a deep psychological level, and didnt particularly notice her lack of individuality or character beyond it. Given his explanation of his intention, Garland likely meant her to stand in for every woman he felt he'd wronged, or not bothered to empathize with, which is easier if her character hinges on the struggle to live in peace when you're beset by men's demands and control
You articulated that really well. I love your take on the character.
I think it's so important to give films breathing space. I gave Men a miss at the cinema because I didn't want the controversy to cloud my judgment. I saw it as a literal interpretation how all men are involved in the abuse of women whether they are the ones doing it, hearing about it or doing nothing at all. In that way, I thought Alex Garland did a decent job especially with the birthing scene. I see what you mean about Garland's writing feeling "inhuman" but I think it furthers the genres and themes he is trying to explore. And I guess the overall vibes of his films, they're all eerie and unsettling.
Yes!!! This! The complicity/systemic nature of it...Geoffrey earning some trust even while our hackles are raised, only for him to be "in on it" all, the interconnectedness of men's selfishness or violence or negligent harm by turns...that feels like what Garland was nodding to.
I really like this interpretation too! Especially those scenes in the pub where she's being leered at, they give the very uneasy sense that no one would stand up for Harper if someone else in the pub started harassing her... I think that adds to the tension throughout the film!
Oh absolutely. I saw “Men” as a story of the overwhelming complicity men have with each other and how they rarely see their own actions as predatory or dangerous. Their desires are more important than the protagonist, and she’s in danger without anyone else there standing up for/with her.
I’m not mad at a man writing women, or telling stories “about” women or affecting women. The only irritating thing is when other men get mad at things like this and blame feminism. THEN I’m like, “Hey! I didn’t write this nonsense! Women didn’t do this! Take care of your own!”
^this^
I think it's very interesting that people describe his writing as inhuman. This video finally clicked in my head why I liked Men and some of his other films: they feel autistic. As a neurodivergent person, they feel very at home, and I connect with them in an interesting way because the films feel "off" in the same way that I feel off compared to neurotypical people. I feel like I show plenty of emotions and I felt that Men was an emotional film, but i found a lot of negative sentiment towards it that I understood but just couldn't relate with as it felt like people were missing the point. I still have my own criticisms of the film, but it didn't feel like it was trying to explain the female experience. Hearing Alex's thoughts in the film, that also clarifies my feelings on it too, as I thought it was a film for me (as a AMAB non binary person) who has had to unpack a lot of internalised misogyny and past actions towards people and women in my life that were caused by that misogyny.
Kudos for bringing up ghostbusters in this context, because I hated it but due to capitalism reducing art to content, not because women are in it. Putting marginalised people in stuff just cos is perfectly fine, the issue is whether something is well written or not.
Yes, you get it!
Huh I guess I haven’t searched for many takes on Garland’s films, so it also surprises me at others’ “inhuman” description. His films are a comfort to me too because they are odd; I like that the films embrace oddness and I go back to rewatch them many times because they are so captivating. Thank you for sharing your insight! ❤
This is exactly what I feel about his writing. He almost seems to write like someone looking in on humanity, observing it and wondering about it from some distance, while still being close enough to humanity himself that it affects him personally and gets expressed in his art. This is a very relatable perspective to me. Whether he is or isn't autistic, his voice while writing feels incredibly familiar to me.
Agree with all but the 3:10.
The ghostbusters weren't actually a shitty film, it seemed to be made for fun and silly audience to laugh at it with no attachment to the old version except for a few easter eggs and references. Me, dad, mom and little sis enjoyed it HARD at the movies and got so confused with why no one was having fun like us until we notice that the critics were harsh on it like it never was with idk... Fast and furious, which is not bad but also has no logic-is all for fun, explosions and races. I personally think most films with made leads back in the day were simply stupid but enjoyable and maybe we should give that to girls too-the right to make films just as stupid for the sake of fun without demanding it to be perfect. People already demand a lot from girls in and outside screen.
(PS: not saying we have to make shitty films, just defending that shitty 'woke' ones shouldn't be so harshly critiqued when their male counterparts weren't that perfect either)
Your perspective really rounded out this video for me, thank you for sharing ❤
i enjoy it too, feel like it’s a fun movie!
I lowkey enjoyed the movie. I knew it was heavy on the politics, but it was so wacky and camp that I couldn't help but find it fun.
Most people don't hate the movie for the things that you mentioned but because the people who were involved in the making of the movie outright said that anyone who doesn't like it or criticizes it in any way hates women therefore their opinions are invalid.
It became a very popular defense for movies like when Viola Davis was in a movie where she plays a warrior from an African tribe that's famous historically for being one of the biggest slave traders but in the movie they're fighting against slavery.
So naturally people criticized the movie and Viola Davis just outright said how anyone who doesn't go and watch the movie is a racist.
It has admittedly been a while since I watched that ghostbusters, but I remember disliking most aspects of the movie. The score and the cinematography weren't great and neither was the writing. And regardless of how good an actor is, there is nothing they can do with a bad script. It's fine to enjoy bad movies, I enjoy Sharkboy and Lavagirl, but I think this movie just wasn't good.
I was quite impressed by Men, I found it's visceral imagery haunting in a way no other film has...
I can always count on you to put a drag race easter egg in your videos and that's a quality I really appreciate in a video essayist
i think, by saying you don't feel that his characters are especially human/not like people you could imagine a conversation with, you accidentally explained to me, an autistic genderqueer transmasc person, a bit of why i adore garland's ouvre so dang much. these characters absolutely are characters, fully reduced to something so attached to the narrative they're fixed to, that it strips them away of identity beyond the walls of it. but for me, that's an authentic way of being human. i relate to and understand the feeling of who i am being limited and defined by the story i feel i am living through. and i don't relate to gender as a key intrinsic factor of my being, but rather as a series of roles i am forced to play within the narrative pathways of my life. but i honestly envy the way that garland's characters don't have to play gender so much, because they face the world instead as scientists, androids, clones, etc. roles where gender exists, but takes a back seat role. it's actually aspirational, and it is deeply personal. and i would never have perceived his dialogue as robotic or inhuman... but hey, plenty of people say that about autistic folks all the time, so maybe there's something there.
also, this was a great essay generally, and i know you do film and most people don't count television into that exactly... but i am a bit disappointed that you didn't discuss "devs" at any point. it's woefully overlooked, and some of his best work, imo.
your perspective was so helpful in understanding why I've never felt disconnected from Garland's characters? I wonder how much ND genderqueer, enby, or trans folks' experiences might really alter how they approach his characters! thanks again for sharing your experience :)
@@cheldarbinks i don't think it is coincidental that everyone i have had a deep and passionate jam sesh about how much we enjoy his work with has been a queer autistic person! glad you found my comment valuable.
Are you me? Another neurodiverse (AuDHD), fluidly transmasc queer human here who has also deeply enjoyed the films of Garland's that I've seen. I'm not obsessed (yet), but I could easily get there, I think.
I found that, having lived half my life as a woman before transitioning, I think I got what was going on in Men far more than a lot of people did. There's that everyday fear that women live with of the men around them, because of how common abuse and other forms of male violence are. And now, with that experience and knowledge, as a more masculine presenting person, I'm always particularly careful in my interactions with women to be as non-aggressive, non-threatening, and benign as possible. I want them to know that I'm "safe", even though my very small stature probably already makes that clear. Still, I don't want to be seen like the Men of the movie, and too many women's real lives. I don't really want to be seen as a gender at all, but that's an entire other comment.
@@cheldarbinks I'm an enby transmasc person (also on the autistic spectrum!), and I remember commenting the first time I saw "Sunshine" on how refreshing it was to see a mixed gender crew on the ship, and *not* to see stereotypically gendered behaviour along with it. That's just my own take, but it seems I'm not the only one.
This is so interesting! Thank you all for commenting and allowing me some insight into this (and I hope my critiques of the characters as 'inhuman' haven't been harmful).
Thank you for watching ❤ ps I never finished devs but perhaps it's time to go back to it!
What I love about his films is what is communicated visually by the scenes, the design choices and the actors’s expressions, much more than with the dialogue.
And I’ve often seen analysis of his films where people seem to completely miss what to me is being expressed pretty clearly, maybe because it’s not in dialogue form. This was especially notable in Ex-Machina and it might also be the case with Men.
Anyway, great video! And I love your voice. It’s attention grabbing and soothing at the same time.
"And I’ve often seen analysis of his films where people seem to completely miss what to me is being expressed pretty clearly, maybe because it’s not in dialogue form."
This happened again with Civil War imo. I'm confused that so many people seem to think the movie has no clear message.
I love your content so much that even when I disagree (I hated Men watched it in film school), you articulate your reading of films so well. My only complaint is that I wish your videos were longer!
Hahah, thank you!! I am working on putting out stuff that's more like 20-40 mins from now on 💕
@@rachellydiab Exciting! I’m so looking forward to them ☺️
I didn't know anything about the film when I first watched it, so I didn't have any preconceived notions going in. I thought that the allegory was very on the nose in the same vein as 'Mother!' which I always thought was quite a self-indulgent wank of a film, but I definitely like 'Men' better.
The pacing and cinematography was amazing, and one thing I thought they did very well was the unsettling feeling of creepiness that is completely and instantly familiar to any woman, but may be unsettling to men.
Our human concept of creepiness usually applies to something that has an uncertain threat level. Rory Kinnear is AMAZING at making 'normal' social situations dip in and out of being harmless and threatening in a way that is exaggerated but also realistic.
I really enjoyed the point about this film being made for men rather than women. I watched it with some make friends, and they were aghast, while I was just like 'lol, it's erryday bro'.
Lastly, the birthing scene is a truly spectacular bit of cinema with amazing practical effects that I will absolutely cherish forever as one of my top ten movie moments
omg I hated mother, i feel like you had to be well versed in the bible and have a director's commentary playing to understand wth is going on in it
I agree!! Men is definitely heavy on the allegory, metaphors and archetypes, which is why i think most people dislike it, it could be seen as a pretentious elevated horror movie in that sense, but I think that's precisely why it works! It captures the archetypes of men and the specific ways in which they are terrifying to women.The naked man is one of my favorites because he addresses the idea that women often ask themselves about men, is like are they just all messed up on a genetic level and this is something ancient that can't be altered? Also i unapologetically like it because it's entertaining and weird and scary and that's my cup of tea.
Also idk how the Maori would feel about it, but as an Aboriginal (Palawa) I like the idea of white people making art that honestly explores their own complicated relationship with the colony. Like, here for example, a lot of our colonisers were slaves. Convicts were slaves. I won't hear arguments about that, by the strictest definition they were slaves.
We were also enslaved.
They were starved, intoxicated and tortured. So were we.
Many of them were removed from their culture and had it destroyed. So did we.
They also joined in on the things that were done to us, though.
That should be explored, by a descendant of the convicts, just as much as it should be by me.
And Patriarchy is the same. It destroys masculinity and replaces it with machismo. It destroyed strength and replaces it with violent weakness. And that harms men as well as women, and the men harmed often go on to harm others. That absolutely should be explored by men as much as by women.
I get that men creating very shallow female empowerment narratives can be condescending and disingenuous but if you WANT legitimate change I would assume men creating films about how they process their own misogyny would be seen as a step in a better direction than men not talking about it at all.
Agree
I think that's ultimately where I land. Where it gets tricky is the question of whether someone should be praised and financially rewarded for exploring their role in perpetrating harm. But yes, I think something like men that avoids exploitative tropes is a step in the right direction for sure!
@@rachellydiab great point. the idea of oppressive class members profiting from and being lauded for publicly unpacking the remnants of oppressive systems they still benefit from...is icky. i just reworded what you said, but anyway love your videos and ur really smart
@@MichelleSmith-gt1py (replying to you as I've already replied to Rachel elsewhere on this subject) at this point it's fair to say, unless something comes to light, that Alex Garland hasn't had a role in perpetrating harm against women - unless just being male, in and of itself, is enough to count as perpetuating harm (I'm honestly not being snide - it's just that we're talking about him as an individual receiving praise and remuneration being potentially wrong). It might be argued that due to the system as is, his existence within it is oppressive, but, well, he can't really do much about existing. It's not his fault who he was born as. All he can realistically do is make commentary on it, which he has.
Regards the idea that he perhaps shouldn't profit from or be lauded for his work: I respectfully disagree. He worked hard to write and direct this film, put his time, effort, intelligence, passion, and even reputation/career into it. Should film makers of either sex making socially conscious films about people from poorer classes be paid and lauded? Should film makers of either sex in Europe and the US be paid/lauded for making socially conscious stories highlighting the impact those entities had/are having? To go a little further, should folks in positions of privilege who contributed to the abolition of slavery not have been praised, or be deliberately forgotten to history?
I do get the argument, but from my perspective it's time to stop viewing enormous swathes of people as homogenous groups that are either all 'bad' or culpable in some way, or all 'good' and righteous in some way - that's understandably hard when you're from a group that has experience of being 'othered' or of a lack of privilege not even recognised by many of those that benefit from it (I'm from a poor background and also mixed race; my dad was an immigrant, so I get it). Similarly, work should be based on merit alone, and even then it's super important to recognise subjectivity. It's good to explore ideas and view everything with a critical eye, so I appreciate the views in this comment section, but I do think we have to be careful with intensity and absolutism. Basically I think we should let artists breathe: some of the results will be crap, but some will be really good!
@@MichelleSmith-gt1py I'm going to echo NessNayii here. The only way to transform an oppressive system is to unpack how it works. And the people best placed to understand how it works in the minds of the oppressors is the oppressor group (if they've "done the work.") Sadly, they are also the people other members of the oppressor group are mostly like to listen to/learn from. Doing that unpacking is essential to overcoming oppression, and when it's done thoughtfully and critically in art, I would say it should be lauded/its creators should be lauded, as anyone should be who is making a contribution to lessening oppressions. Now whether one should financially profit is a question about the philosophy of economics. Maybe we should not live in a for-profit society at all, but as long as we do and artists need to make a living, we need to pay them or art will be severely hampered and its positive impacts on society slowed.
Loved the essay! I didn't enjoy Men as much as I did Annihilation and Ex Machina, but I agree with your points. Garland's writing might feel mechanistic to some because he's more interested in metaphor and explorations of humanity than in psychology and introspection.
Garland has this uncanny ability to make his writing feel like that of someone looking IN at humanity from somewhere separate and afar, rather than from a member of that humanity. I think this is really special and since noticing it, I've seen some of his films and come to appreciate that unique perspective influencing them.
I wasn't even aware that people didn't receive this movie well. As a man watching this, I understood easily after finishing it and thinking about it that this movie is exactly what progressive tendencies regarding men, toxic masculinity, etc. ask of us - to understand ourselves and examine our impulses, biases, and feelings.
I gotta say, as someone who is (probably, on some level) a man, seeing Men in theaters, I think I felt just what Garland said was his take.
Awesome video! People are so afraid to be introspective these days but the only way through the dark is to confront it.
And the point of art is to make us reflect on ourselves!
Thank you ❤ love this
I've always thought Garland writes against humanity, rather than for it... (Civil War seems to fit the trend). It seems his critics don't always like that kind of active nihilism. People always want to know what he's trying to say, rather than standing back and looking at it... as art about us, rather than for us... maybe.
i like watching 'men' when i'm suffering from really bad period cramps because it matches that kind of vibe lol
I love this movie personally, and with the symbolism of the apples falling from the tree. I took that as the Bible blaming Eve or women for the sins of man, her ex husband blaming her for his death. The green man symbols commonly used as rebirth was the new her forming out of trauma from his abuse, death and the grieving afterwards. Him being the final birth was like the final memory setting into place. Just an extra interpretation I had on the film
2:40 - given the fact that Ex Machina had an male gaze-y tendency in the camera work, I personally feel like the movie is not androgynous at all
I think there's a layer added because the robot is female. Oscar Isaac "made" her female, she didn't need to have gender at all. I think it speaks to the fact that female is more easily seen as a property and harmless. I also think Carey Mulligan and Keira Knightley's characters' relationships felt very female. Keira's mean girl-ness is a very "popular pretty girl" trait, Carey ends up to be a carer which is a very female job, and Andrew Garfield's obliviousness felt very male to me.
I haven't seen Men but it sounds a lot like the song Features Creatures by Bjork, which is about her recognising elements of her ex-husband in strangers. It's just her voice in a void where the only vague instrumentation is airy, solemn woodwinds. Idk, that's just what came to mind.
I adore this take. I walked out of Men feeling like very few if any films were able to precisely examine the anxieties I have as a man in dealing with toxic masculinity both external and internal, and that this sentiment was lost completely in the avalanche of unwarranted criticism. I see a similar problem plaguing the beautiful and urgent prescience of Civil War but completely commend Garland for creating art that doesn't infantilise its audience or its theses. Thank you for championing this striking and challenging film.
THIS IS THE ANALYSIS I WAS LOOKING FOR
Fantastic work
thank you!
Great video, as always. I love your observations on things, even when I don't agree with every single aspect.
I think your insights into how 'Men' was written from a self critiquing angle are accurate, but I also think he's telling a woman's story too. Moreover (and here's where I get lynched, haha) I don't think there's necessarily anything inherently wrong with that. I don't think there's anything necessarily inherently wrong with women writing men's stories either, or anyone writing a story from another's perspective. I'm not saying that you do (we share a love of Suspiria 2018), it's just that your video has got me thinking.
A good writer, and a good director, can empathise, sympathise, can be emotionally and mentally complex, literate, and sensitive enough to put themselves in someone else's scenario. That's what they already do anyway: they put themselves into the shoes of another - that's what a story is, what a character is. Obviously one would seek consultation, proof reads, input and influence from someone who knows what it is like to be a real life version of that character, or someone close to it (they're a fictional character after all) but that should be part of any writer/director's process anyway.
Don't get me wrong, people should write their own stories, of course they should. However, I also fear how reductive things may become, how many great stories may stay within the minds of writers or directors, if only women are allowed to write women, men write men, those with disabilities write those with disabilities etc etc etc.
Finally, just because a man, or a woman, or a black person, or someone with a disability lives that reality, doesn't mean that they can write or direct a good story about it: To go to extremes, I wouldn't trust Suella Braverman to write someone from an Indian or British Indian background. I wouldn't trust Hannah Pearl Davis to write a female character, or...well, you get the idea. The show 'Them' was created by a black person, and that's endlessly criticised as horrendous representation. I was brought up by a single woman who was poor - would a story about a poor single women bringing up a child on their own be better written by me, or by a wealthy woman from a privileged two parent background, who's married herself? (Maybe it would be better written by her, but that's kinda my point)
Again, I want people to write their own stories, but I'm also very nervous about limitations on art, especially all encompassing absolutist ones.
I just don't want to live in a world where artists are only ever allowed to create autobiographies. Fiction is fantasy, a creative exercise to create things that don't exist within reality. That's the whole point.
@@levischorpioen Yeah a conclusion wherein artists only ever write autobiographies would be a bleak and restrictive one.
That being said, there's no iron clad rule in place, so I guess the way to go is for artists to be brave and take the plunge, try to make good films with nuanced, thoughtful representation, and to defend their work honestly if challenged.
I'm totally on board with what you said! It's so difficult to draw lines in the sand when the success on the end product is dependent on so much more than just, "Was it your story to tell."
In some ways, I wish people ha the self-perception to understand their own intentions... Are they truly earnest, where is the desire to tell the story coming from, are they trying to hard to make something 'work.' But unfortunately I think a lot of creators won't look past their own ego and will find reasons to defend their choices rather than accept they might not be as grounded in good intent at they want them to be...
obviously we're all a bit traumatised by male representations of women because of how reductive they often are, and how dangerous those depictions are in our social climate.
but yeah, there's the delicate balance of not becoming vapid, voyeuristic and fetishistic when telling the stories of others, that are not grounded in your own lived experience, either directly or indirectly.
@@rachellydiab thanks for the reply. Yeah it's a complex subject, and you're right: writers/directors ought to examine themselves as well as their subjects when creating stories. That said, I'm of the earnest opinion that they should always be doing that anyway, if only to make better art. Then of course there's the system in which they work, which is a whole other kettle of fish.
This movie made me want to write my own story about what it's like to be a man surrounded by toxic masculinity and the impulses it that conveys. I think it's very flawed but so fascinating, loved it.
Do it! Maybe we'll watch it or read it some day!
I really like this video. It was very informative and you handled analyzing such a heavy and nuanced topic so well. You we also very respectful to others and did a good job acknowledging opposing viewpoints, which I feel not a lot of people actually do properly. I'm gonna binge your videos now lol.
Thank you so much 💐💐 enjoy!
Such a calming voice you have. Makes my headaches more bearable lol.
Your analysis of the way his characters feel is spot on. I've always felt that Garland makes very interesting things that are in the end empty vessels that lack specificity and often aren't really saying anything about the pretty heavy subjects they play with (Civil War ended up being one of the biggest examples of this). He has his pet fascinations, but ultimately people tend to praise his films often on things that they brought with them (like the weird praise of the female leads in Annihilation).
I have to admit that when I opened the video and saw you I thought "Woah, how pretty!" just as an impression. It ends there and thanks for the informative video.
@@MangyB4033 that’s very sweet, thank you!
I agree with a lot of what was said here by you.
But I do wanna contribute to the discussion here and say that if the point was the abuse, he really could have gone with a male protagonist on this one. The name of the film is “Men”. The point would have been made and also made by the fundamental idea that men are also victims of themselves and among themselves. It would be a movie with only men, but this is the best opportunity for him to do so. Making a critique on that gender ironically including only men but making their horror come out.
I actually was very open to this movie and I really appreciate your nuanced look at it, as well as looking at Allex Garland‘s work and words on the hole. It resonated with me and I think it did some important things
Basically we’ve reached a no-win situation with it comes to artist being able to tell any type of personal story since we want total inclusion, yet we don’t want certain creators touching some topics, and we want to have a say in how the creator says what they wish to say meaning art is no longer a form of individual expression. Seemingly the only way anybody can create anything now without invalid criticism is to do it completely anonymously so that the work is judged solely on its own.
Yes, he’s gorgeous. I’ve noticed a lot of directors are. Anyway, aside from that, I loved Men. It’s a piece of art to behold, to me. I couldn’t wait to see it, and I bought it. Ex Machina is one of my all time favorites. Annihilation was great. I’m a big fan of Alex Garland’s work. I just saw Civil War- so good. I’m sad he won’t be directing now. Anyway, I enjoyed your video ❤
That damn decomp-bear still creeps me tf OUT
It was a deer, but you're absolutely right. It says something about the unsetting nature of the entire film that the deer isn't talked about more.
@@Larissa-eo3pt I watched the bts and how the special fx department created it. It was most definitely a bear. With the skull exposed around the front, it does have a wendigo look to it...
I really liked this movie. One of my comfort films
I find horror comforting. I love IT, Event Horizon, Alien, The thing. I also like horror tied to what women experience.
Same for me! :) I’m so happy to find others who feel the same since when the movie first came out it was surrounded by negativity, even simply because of the title itself. I absolutely enjoyed on my first watch and the uncomfortableness it triggered with in me. I just think it’s a beautiful film.
This kind of asks the questions: "What are the 'good parts' for women that aren't either essentially a man (strong, heroic, decisive) or contrasted with men (caring, nurturing, etc)?" it's kind of Bechdelian. When male characters take on the heroic role in a film, it's not a commentary on women's lack of heroism - it's obviously a male-coded trait but a man's occupation of that role is fully encapsulated. When women do it, we get "Guyladriel" and Wonder Women and we're lucky to avoid a 'I don't need no man/I am no man!' dialog. I struggle to think of films with "well-written women" that don't hit either category. I guess something like Ladybird can hit this - Ronan's character is distinctly a woman (or girl) and she's never truly contrasted to men - but she's also not an aspirational character, she's a flawed one (even more deeply for Laurie Metcalf's character). Where are the aspirational female characters that aren't contrasted, explicitly or implicitly, to men?
One of the biggest things that bothered me about MEN was the fact there was hardly any women on the crew / heads of department. For a guy who does just “happen” to make films about women, it sticks out to me how little he collaborates with them, creatively.
Thank you for providing insight from your unique perspective. Men can be a challenging film for ignorant minds but for the educated or forward thinking individuals, the substance of this picture rises to the challenge of giving birth to questions and interpretations amidst the complexity of our human nature. In an artistic compelling way it invites us to think for ourselves avoid distraction and not be so dismissive.
I see what you mean and your points definitely help me to look at Men in another light.
What I wish had happened, with a film telling a story of this nature, is that he would have at least co-written or co-directed with a woman.
I describe the feeling of watching this film as like when someone knows the thing on paper and can describe the experience based on research, but it ends up being uncanny because they’ve never actually lived it.
I just really wish for this project that he had worked side by side with a woman. It’s so heavy and terrifying a subject for fem audiences that I’d have liked to see him collaborate for this story.
I really enjoyed this video and your breakdown. Thank you for helping me to look at it from another angle!
As someone who presents as a man, and as a writer, I'm really interested in this topic because I want to do my women characters justice. I don't want to shy away from femininity because, like you say, that should be something to be celebrated for those who choose to celebrate it, and avoiding discussing it or building those characters seems disingenuous. I'm kind of nervous to write women that are supposed to be attractive to the reader because I don't want to fall into problematic tropes, but I also want to write characters that I think are cool. I'd love to see more content from you on this topic!
I do appreciate his work, and Never Let Me Go was one that stayed with me well after viewing. That component of his writing is fairly common, a rhythm of delivery - Dredd, Annhiliation, Ex Machina that is almost interchangeable even when he isn't the Director.
The point of "Men" is too create a film for an audience which would rather speculate on nothing, than engage in a dialogue with complex ideas communicated competently by an artist.
It's the pretentious version of true crime documentary discussions. Easy to formulate an opinion on unchallenged, because the truth is hidden or never existed.
I loved hearing your thoughts on this!
When I watched Men I was bothered by the flatness of Harper's character. We didn't know much about her apart from her trauma, which I found quite reductive, especially in a female character. A person is more than just their trauma, in fact, in order to connect with a character, more info is necessary. The movie definitely had good moments which is why I was quite mad at the writing for not making Harper feel more like a real person I can care about.
The cluncky dialogue also bugged me, definitely agree with you that it feels a bit robotic. The moments when Harper is exploring the town are the best, most atmospheric parts of the film and really worked for me. Wish I could've liked this one because genuinely, I like Garland.
Summary is, damned if you and damned if you don't, art is supposed to offend.
As a man and having watched Men. I saw the subtext in the film which I thought was an interesting visualisation on abuse. From what i took from it, it was a woman who experienced a traumatic event at the hands of man. And this has led her to see all men as the same. And at the end all those men layers were stripped to reveal the cause of her trauma her former partner. But that's what I took from it and I may be well off. But I liked the strangeness of it.
Really interesting take. I thoroughly enjoyed it and I think I agree. As an aside, I really hate the degree of shallow criticism that you typically see in rage tweets and outrage reviews which basically just takes the most surface level and typically most uncharitable perspective on a piece of art and weaponise that to characterise the whole. It's incredibly disingenuous and even dishonest from some parties. But it has become the dominant form of media commentary and criticism on social media and RUclips in the last 5 or 6 years, particularly as fuel for the endless Culture War TM, as the Truth Seeker has been replaced by the Click Coveter and Cred Craver.
i did not know this movie was not well received. i loved it. plenty to be said and thought about it. loved how men give birth to each other and seek her attention to feel seen. i feel like it speaks loads on trauma and how being abused by one man can make all of them seem and feel dangerous and the same. which of course is not true, but it may feel true. the tunnel scenes, when a sacred place is violated by the presence of an unseen person. this movie stuck to my head for ages.
I would be curious to hear your view on Verhoeven's "Elle" because i really thought it was a good movie. But I am happy to be proven wrong, or at least get a perspective on what might be problematic about it.
At least part of why a lot of women didn't like the movie was that they felt like it was explaining something to them that they already knew. But I kind of think that's the thing, this movie isn't necessarily talking to women. It seems like a guy talking to other guys, he's saying "this is how we make women feel, on purpose or not, and we're all part of it."
I really liked this movie and I like it more after hearing your quote from Garland himself.
I enjoyed your review. I really liked "Men" but, I don't think I'd ever watch it again. I was really blown away by his new movie "Civil War" and the feedback I've heard was that it was a movie that had nothing to say. I felt like every single shot in that movie had something to say and I really enjoy that about film it's open for interpretation.
Might say his characters are the abyss which stares back. Absence and void as an opportunity for interpretation. Like how Keanu Reeves handles acting.
I thought the sort of flat affect worked really well for Annihilation, because that's very much how the main character is portrayed in the book - she has a lot of guilt about not being more feminine and emotional and it's kind of a plot point. I DIDN"T think it worked particularly well for Never Let Me Go, because the whole story was from Kathy's perspective. There was a lot more of a view into her feelings and experiences that made the ending so sad, because this was a thinking, feeling human who was totally dehumanized anyway. I felt that emotional core was lacking in the film.
Yep! When I initially watched it, I was like, wow pretentious mansplaining about men?? But then after discussing it and thinking about it further, I realized I was misunderstanding the framing of the film. This isn’t a film about women’s experiences for women, it’s a film about men’s experiences for men. Its intention was to observe the horror of being a man in a misogynist world. I hadn’t even seen that interview you clipped, but now feel validated! That birthing scene in particular, woah. What a visual metaphor
I think this point clicked for me when Geoffrey explained why he was going to check the property. He was obviously scared, but patriarchy dictates that he "do his duty" anyway. The suitcases were too much for him, but "as a man" he must not ask for help. This is why we say patriarchy harms EVERYONE!
Excellent point! @@ms-abominable
I was going to say something mature and balanced on behalf of the more sensitive and loving men of this world,
but then you said: ' The best way to do a woman on film...'
and I totally forgot what I was going to say.
Anyway, great vid, I love how it's a woman's take on a man's take on another man's take on a woman's take on men within 'men'.
I really appreciate your content. I'm quite an introvert and can't talk to people about these movies to most people, so hearing your opinion always brings me back to another opinion I hadn't thought to see until now. It's really amazing and I can tell you put a lot of work in your scripts. So, really fun...yeah?
thank you!!
So, Annihilation movie was based on a book. There was a very specific reason the characters going into the shimmer were all female. It had nothing to do with feminism.
It's undeniable that women are a driving force in Garlands films, why? I don't know & I didn't learn anything new from this 15min vid
Such a good breakdown, thank you
some of those tweets/reviews seem less like women being mad that a man is doing performative feminism, and more like online reactionary conservatives complaining about "wokeness" and "feminism". Especially "Men are Bad: brought to you by Men".
The style of writing just seems reductive and stupid and uses tropes that are familiar nowadays in that sphere. I don't know if that's actually the case, just wondering if anyone else gets that vibe.
Yeah, that was my impression too.
I thought in this case his use of archetypes for all of his characters was to prevent the viewer from reflexively avoiding learning anything from the film because they thought they "don't know anyone like that." We all know someone like every single one of them.
The reception to this movie is a perfect example of what I mean when I say that the online left encourages such lukewarm takes abt men and masculinity. Ppl forget that feminism has to be just as much abt men as it is abt women, that men r also affected by the patriarchy in traumatic ways
As a writer myself, I always come back to the old adage: "If your art makes a lot of people angry...you did it right."
I think it came off as a somewhat personal movie about how a man sees himself and other men, but definitely more with underlying subtext rather than exactly what you see portrayed. The problem is, Alex garlands movies usually aren’t this heavy with underlying subtext, they’re usually a story first. I think that’s where this movie fell short, expectations. I actually had no idea this was an Alex garland film until right now 😅
Yes !! I loved Men and couldn't understand the hate, love your input !
Always glad to hear about another person that likes this movie.☺️
Alex Garland decided to quit directing while making Men. He changed the original ending and made it more vague because he was tired of people misinterpreteting his work.
He openly admits that he's not Chrisopher Nolan or Stevie Spielberg. He's a storyteller.
The movie is based on things he's thought about since he was a kid and wanted to turn into a visual experience.
As for the meaning interpretation and critic reception, it is what it is. Like it, don't like it. I don't care. - his words not mine.
This was a very enjoyable and informative video. Thank you for making it. I never saw Men but seeing this video reminded me that I was interested in it. I feel I don’t need to see it anymore but I’m glad I understand it especially in the context of the other films and reality.
1:16 YOU COULD'VE CALLED THEM "GARLAND GALS" YOU HAD THE OPPORTUNITY!!!
So glad someone made this because I love this damn movie..
I was aware of the hate when I watched it but was so surprised and electrified by the time the film ended I can't help but say it's a favourite. I understand the criticisms of Men and Garland more broadly but he's still one of my favourite filmmakers working today. I hope Men gets reappraised for the remarkable film it is in future. Thanks for getting on that train early
Will you do a video on 'Women Talking' also starring Jessie Buckley.
I'm so glad the hate totally bypassed me and I could just enjoy this amazing film
I liked Men very much. It was very refreshing to show men doing and saying awful things that are just left hanging in the air without defending their actions. This is what women experience and very few writers have been able to show this without either villainising the woman or reducing it to men being men. I think Harper was traumatised at the beginning of the film and experienced further trauma throughout the film making it completely believable to shut down emotionally. For me it is a very successful film that tackles difficult subject matter in a new way.
Complete side note when she said "do you hear that? its the sound of a beautiful creature staring", not gunna lie i totally blushed.
Happy this came up in my suggestions. I did not like the film, but this was a great analysis of Garland’s writing and female characters. I do think Men confronted a reality for many women and in a unique way, but it did ultimately feel a bit empty. Back when I watched it, I didn’t know what I thought it needed in order to be better. But it was definitely an issue with the lead character lacking some depth outside of her trauma.
Really interesting interpretation!
I’ve noticed, when you put something out there that makes people upset, angry and dismissive in a way that seems overblown… there’s something there, some hidden nature that this idea has touched on that has scared people…
I'm a guy, never heard of this movie and didn't know who this director made all of these movies, some of them that I actually have enjoyed and just never realized they were the same person. Your description of this movie kind of reminds me of...ANTICHRIST, the weird Lars von Trier movie. This probably isn't even a fair comparison but when I watched that movie with my best friend while we...at Popeyes chicken, I decided that ANTICHRIST wasn't a movie that I could call good or bad, it was for sure a movie and existed and it felt like something I needed to see, but it felt like something that a lot of people were upset by but they didn't know how to handle that feeling of being upset. The way you talk about this makes me feel like I would feel similar about it, though it seems to be a better movie.
Usually I prefer for art to remain up for interpretation, but I really wish Garland had been more up-front about his thesis from the start. He might still have gotten the same kinds of backlash, but we would've had more time to discuss how that backlash reflects society (under patriarchy)'s repulsion when men DO take the time to introspect and reflect on how toxic masculinity harms men, specifically. Never too late, I guess. GREAT essay!
I'm quite a fan of Garland but Men missed for me not because of the issues it addresses (I like what it was trying to do) but because it lost all sense of tension and believability when it put metaphor above a cohesive narrative. It lost my involvement when the internal logic of the world fell apart. Thanks for this insightful essay. I think Garland is one of the best writers/directors working today, I love his bold choices and I'm always interested in a feminist take.
I saw Men once, in theatres, and at the end I felt like the narrative was blaming the main character for her husband's death. up till then I had felt the movie was fine. I also only realised afterwards that the men of the town were being played by the same actor lol, face blindness moment from me.
I just found your channel, and while I don't like this movie I appreciate your take. I didn't know there were other women who also didn't like this movie because movie commentary is still so heavily dominated by men. looking forward to more content from you!
Men is definitely a film i want to love, but can't.
subscribed!!! this was such a good, interesting essay. i loved hearing you talk about this movie
(also as a mostly-closeted non-binary person, i felt really welcomed by how you opened the vid. obviously i don't speak for all non-binary ppl, but sometimes just the acknowledgement that we're around feels affirming. and i just got a really strong sense of respect and empathy and nuance in how you spoke throughout the vid.)
anyway -- really excited to go watch your other vids now, too!!! have a good one :)
Men is a good movie. Deserves to be given a chance