In the Company of Men

Rating:
Summary: Blackest of the black but well worth investigating
Review: I just finished watching "In the Company of Men" on the Independent Film Channel. It is an unforgettable film. I recommend it highly to anyone who wants to understand the dark side of human nature. In some ways I am speechless because the movie is moving on such a visceral level. The main male characters are so repellent as human beings, that it is psychologically difficult to bring myself to admit that I enjoyed the movie. Yet, my reaction to the film and that of many other viewers is testament to its power as a social commentary. Writer-Director LaBute allows the movie to play to its unjust end without obvious commentary or justification. This disturbing technique makes the comedy all the more black, and, for me, was the ultimate commentary any director can give.

The movie centres on a ploy by Chad (played by Aaron Eckhart), who begins the movie telling his sidekick Howard (Matt Malloy) how much he hates women. Subsequently, he coaxes Howard into a devilish plan in which they both are to lead on an innocent woman and viciously dump her. Chad explains this to Howard as just desserts for the way women have treated men. Chad thinks their six-week work off site trip to a satellite office will be the perfect vehicle to carry through the plan and have a little fun at someone else's expense. I believe Howard goes along with the plan, in part because he realizes it will never happen, and, in part, because he wants to agree with Chad as a way of fawning on him. However, the plan does indeed take fruition in the form of Christine, a deaf woman at the satellite office (played by Stacy Edwards). The rest of the movie Chad and Howard court Christine separately as their plan spirals out of their control with unexpected consequences.

The "courtship" of Christine is so duplicitous one can hardly watch. For Chad, the game represents a potential conquest over Howard as well as Christine. Howard shows obvious distaste for the ploy, but for him it is a chance to be on the inside looking out, instead of on the outside looking in. One wonders how this situation will be righted such that justice and fairness prevail. They do not prevail and any realistic viewer senses this from the very beginning. However, we cannot help but watch, all the while hoping and praying that Chad and Howard are not as twisted and cynical as they profess to be. For me, it was like watching a time-delayed sporting event already having heard the outcome, yet watching anyway hoping it was all a mistake. And this is part of the comedy of the film. It is the blackest of comedy as in a horror film where we laugh at death and do not know why. I saw Chad and Howard toying with this beautiful woman, knowing what his design was. And I laughed. I wasn't sure whether I was sickened by the spectacle and laughed as a reflex or truly found their games funny.

I cannot say enough about the depth of this film. On so many levels it causes one to think in terms of our pre-conditioning, our heroes, and basic human interaction. First, it does not have an expected happy end. The movie is a black comedy in the mode of "Swimming with Sharks" or "The Player" because the bad guy wins in a way. Quite frankly, in real life, this is often the case. Second, you cannot help but notice Chad is a good-looking, charming individual. Sure, he talks behind people's back and is utterly ruthless and contemptuous. You know he is evil. Nevertheless, you understand his allure. I believe this is where the comedic effect comes in. In watching films and reading novels, one is trained to look for a heroic character with which to identify. This makes the inevitable happy end all the more satisfying, when that person emerges victorious. Chad is that character. Yet, by the end of the movie, you realize he is so repugnant and unredeeming, that you feel sickened for having ever identified with him at all. The laugh is on you. Third, the Chad- Christine- Howard triangle was another interesting element to the movie. Chad is your classic tall, good-looking, socially adept predator. Howard is his socially inept sidekick. True to real life, the dynamics of the love triangle have Howard getting the short end of the stick, as Christine prefers the smooth predator to the inept wallflower. Matt Malloy does an excellent job making it difficult to identify with Howard. At first, as the shy and downtrodden character, one is ready to switch allegiance to him. However, in the crucial scenes at the end, he proves himself vindictive as he lashes out when stepped on.

In the end, everyone is left shattered by this silly game. The irony is that both men do fall desperately in love with the beautiful Christine, the supposed wallflower here (Howard is the true Wallflower), despite her handicap. Neither can admit it their love. And the game runs its course. Chad is too numb to acknowledge his feelings as his desire (to prop up his ego and) win a victory at all costs takes precedence. Howard is too shocked at having lost in this game where he was finally supposed to have control. He lashes out in his maliciousness and vindictiveness when the truth becomes known. An excellent portrayal and a splendid performance from all three major characters.

Rating:
Summary: I had no idea this movie went over the heads of that many
Review: Looking over the reviews before me, I see the point, craftsmanship and genius of this film was lost on quite a few movie-goers. The cinematography is stark. Not unimaginative or dull, as many pretentious young film majors who've been looking at their textbook a little too closely will claim. It's meant to be so in order to articulate the drabness and soullessness of "the office". Work is a place we go to because it is a necessity; we need it to make money, thus we need it to live our lives. We check our real interests, what we'd really like to be doing at the moment at the doors, toil from nine to five, and then punch out to return to our "real" lives again. Looked at from a certain point of view, from this film's point of view, it's a smothering of humanity. The characters put on false faces of camaraderie at in their "company of men"; it is necessary to get the job done, but in reality they are all fighting, clawing against each other. The acting here is superb. Eckart here has to play someone who is acting, and it's fascinating to watch his demonic character Chad put on an almost completely convincing face of warmth, empathy and understanding, all the while his cold-blooded and near-inhuman true nature lurks and swivels just beneath the surface, and Eckhart pulls this dual-edged task off perfectly. The stumbles in conversation, the awkward pauses, and the facial expressions of the characters are the stars here, not scenery, cinematography, or even metaphor. As for those who think that this film has an inherent moral lesson: there is none, I'm sorry. Evil is not punished by film's end; it succeeds, in fact. If anything, the moral here is that _good_ is punished, if you were paying attention. In the Company of Men exists as a portrait of the inhumanity of the corporate world, and of a dog eat dog capitalistic society that nurtures it. I find every one of these characters entirely believable, to answer another negative review I found ridiculous. Not to turn this into a didactic, reactionary lecture, but I've seen callousness and sadism that rivals Chad's, and stupidity that far exceeds that of any of the other characters. People like Chad do exist, and certainly do not solely exist as part of "a one dimensional director's imagination." I'd also venture to say that it takes a stab at commenting on how we humans choose our mates; are we really, deep down, attracted to the integrity, intelligence and sincerity that we all claim to be searching for in our significant others, or will we all choose dashing, handsome Chads instead of someone who really cares for us? This is what surprised me about the reviews pre-mentioned: the questions the film poses and the idealisms it critiques really aren't all that esoteric. While I could see someone without a proper ear for dialogue becoming bored with the film, I can't see anyone calling it "pretentious". If anything, it's perhaps the most humble and honest of any independent "art" film I've ever seen.

Rating:
Summary: Refreshing change of pace
Review: The first time I saw this movie I was amazed at the liberties the director and writers took with regards to the treatment of women in general, and especially the lead female character. In a day and age where people knock each other over to be politically correct, it is nice to see someone push the envelope and make a funny, crass and disturbing movie which will offend nearly everyone. Although I liked the movie I can only give it 4 stars (out of 5) due to the weak ending. I would recommend this movie to anyone looking for something out of the ordinary, and who does not mind a little (OK a lot) dark humor.

Rating:
Summary: In the Company of Mediocrity
Review: I saw this film when it first was released, and enjoyed it somewhat. Revisiting the film now, I had a very different experience.

The pictures, the angles, the camera as a whole reveal nothing. Stephen Scharff, in his book The Elements of Cinema, talks about liberating surface energy by juxtaposing shots (the baby carriage followed by the face of the student in Potemkin, for example) - in this film, even where he cuts to a different shot (and there was more cutting than I remembered), nothing new came from it. It was barely even a visual release (to wit: they're in the bathroom, the little guy is on the toilet in the stall, and the big guy is talking and smoking, and LaBute periodically and uninterestingly cuts to a shot of the little guy's feet fidgeting, sometimes when he's laughing, so they kind of wiggle and dance - it's not good).

The premise, the need to restore their dignity as men by treating a homely, lonely woman with affection and then dumping her cruelly, didn't hook me. I didn't buy it. It didn't make sense - I wasn't convinced by the big guy's arguments, and the little guy only halfway capitulates. There was no strong, interesting choice on the part of the characters.

The pacing of the acting didn't feel good either. The big guy says so much and the little guy nods and asks short questions. There wasn't a strong back and forth energy, like in a good game of tennis. This was more like watching a guy bench press while another guy spots him. And the "wallflower" that they pick is so pretty - she's supposed to be a drooler when she tries to speak, but it's neither disturbing nor compelling. The little guy is just plain boring (as his character is supposed to be, but it doesn't make for an interesting, watchable performance).

The film is also populated with non-actors as extras (or bad actors) and they're not used well. It's very stiff and cheap looking. The lighting scheme is crudely differentiated. Set pieces are often clunky and awkardly filmed. And the pace of the film, from Week 1 to Week 2 and so forth, didn't keep up. There was precious little to watch the second time around.

Disposable is the word, as opposed to 'continually relevant and useful' (the criteria for a classic). It's clear that LaBute doesn't know how to use a camera, that he can only write - the whole thing is therefore a weak effort. Acting can't save it.

Rating:
Summary: Guerilla filmmaking at its finest.
Review: No budget, little film stock, and only 3 (central) characters are the only things limited in this inventive indie-shot in Ft Wayne, Indiana no less.

Last year's version, "Swimming with Sharks" showed that an innovative idea, combined with some first rate acting can provide a wonderful alternative to big budget, high efx fare.

As with Sharks, the subject matter here, that a venomous young man might engage a co-worker in morally and emotionally degrading a young deaf woman, is extremely edgy and, at many times, difficult to watch.

I appreciate greatly the efforts of all the principals, particularly writer-director Neil LaBute, and actress Stacy Williams, who's performance as a hearing-impaired woman is phenomenal.

LaBute's follow-up (Your Friends and Neighbors) will be highly anticipated, and likely put under a finer microscope, but enjoy In the Company of Men for what it is, simple excellence.

Rating:
Summary: Chilling
Review: I came away from watching this video thinking, God help us if the characters in this movie are typical of real men. This movie shows human nature at its ugliest. The scene where Chad dumps Christine gave me chills, likewise the scene where Chad reveals the truth to Howard. The acting by all three leads was incredible. I can see that this movie would not appeal to a lot of people, and I don't think I would recommend it to many of my friends, but I thought it was definitely worthwhile.

Rating:
Summary: Ick
Review: I can't believe this is listed as a comedy. I've witnessed more hilarious heart bypasses, and none of those cut as deeply.

Rating:
Summary: In the Company of Men
Review: This is definitely a "you-either-love-it-or-you-hate-it" sort of movie. Personally, I loved it - I saw it two years ago and have not stopped thinking about it. Cruel? Sure. Despicable characters? You bet. And are they redeemed? Nope. Is it a "man's movie"? I don't know - I'm a woman and found it chillingly, compellingly, incredibly, horribly terrific. The very tension created by watching it made my face ache. In fact I was surprised by how many male reviewers hated it. I would be interested in reading reviews from other women. This film is talky, gritty, and mean, much like "Glengarry Glen Ross" and "Swimming With Sharks" - two of my all-time favorite films. If you like movies that get not just inside the skin of people but under their crusts, revealing the pus and deformity that lies beneath the surface, this one's for you. But don't expect to find too many people who will sit through it with you. It's definitely not for the weak of heart.

Rating:
Summary: In the Company of Men
Review: I heard about this film from a friend. He told me it was extremely funny, in a cruel sort of way. We decided to rent it one night, and I found it well worth the money. It had a very original plot and a lot of laughs. The humor was a little twisted, but that's what was so funny. Maybe it's because I'm a little twisted, I don't know. If you liked "Go", you should see this movie.

Rating:
Summary: Something different
Review: Normally, arthouse movies like this consists of style, tons of babble and VERY unlikable characters (I.E. "HurlyBurly", "Basquait", any Quentin Tarrantino movie, and my personal, sincere favorite "HEAT"). What I like about them is that they are something new from what you would find from the average movie theater and what you get out of all that babble is a message (except with that godawful HurlyBurly). "In a Company of Men" was slow at the beginning, but give it time! I saw a sinister love triangle and felt a smidge guilty when I laughed at the sleaziest moments! Because of this, I call this an artsy, dark toned, less cartoonish version of "Something About Mary".