I hated In the Company of Men. However, that reaction made
me think of a question asked by a university professor, as reported
in this month's Harper's: "What intellectual or characterological
flaws in you does that dislike point to?" In the Company
of Men lends itself to this query because the film so artfully
dodges the distinction between condemning the evils that men commit
and merely reporting the fact that such evil exists. If such an
intentional moral ambiguity troubles you--as it does me--then
this film will as well.
In the Company of Men tells the story of Chad (Aaron Eckhart)
and Howard (Matt Malloy), two white collar executives on an extended
business trip. Both profess to despise the cutthroat working world,
and both complain bitterly about the rejections they've suffered
at the hands of women. So Chad comes up with a plan to make them
feel better: In the six weeks the two are visiting the new branch
office, they will pick the same unlikely ugly duckling to court.
After lavishing her with affection, they will both simultaneously
reject her before leaving town. Says Chad, "She'll be reaching
for the sleeping pills within a week, and you and me, we'll laugh
about this until we're very old men." Chad soon picks out
Christine (Stacy Edwards), a beautiful deaf woman who works in
the typing pool, and the two men begin their sickening game.
Because of its story, In the Company of Men plays to the
worst romantic fears that women have about men: Even worse than
just using a woman for sex, the man is psychologically torturing
her for nothing but his own amusement. It's such an extreme scenario
that Chad and Howard, played chillingly by Eckhart and Malloy,
verge on--but never quite are--stereotypes in their calculated
cruelty. Chad is the mastermind, the good-looking motivator, while
Howard is too spineless and weak to resist Chad's plans. The corporate
setting also adds to the film's nerve-wracking tension. The sets
are stark, with little color. The film never even tells us the
name of the company, which city it's in, what Howard and Chad
do or what kind of company it is. The "this could happen
anywhere" quality is chilling.
Men and women will undoubtedly interpret this film differently,
and the critical response that In the Company of Men has
garnered is already amazingly varied. Many reviewers of ITCM
have split as to whether the film is a misogynist freak show or
a feminist indictment of male arrogance. Other reviewers have
said that the movie actually indicts all its characters, and that
Christine is equally manipulative in the way she handles Gary
and Howard's affections. Therefore, ITCM is more a severe
misanthropic indictment on both corporate culture and romance.
Regardless of these other critical responses, when I finished
watching ITCM, I felt disgusted and repulsed by the events
displayed on screen. The mind of Nick LaBute, the writer and director,
must be very sick indeed. But upon further reflection, if one
can achieve the necessary emotional detachment while watching
the film (which I initially couldn't--hence my intellectual flaw),
the film reveals itself as a feminist commentary on the kind of
cruelty that corporate culture and its adherents breed. The condemnation
of the characters and their flaws is very subtle, but I think
a myriad of small clues reveal it to attentive viewers. Obviously,
however, there's a lot of room for interpretation.
Interestingly, In the Company of Men evoked more repulsion
in me than a host of other films employing grotesque monsters,
serial killers or Tarantino-esque bloody violence. It's a testament
to LaBute's skill as a filmmaker that on a low budget and a script
that is, in essence, nothing but people talking, he can still
evoke such strong emotion and dissension among viewers. There
are rare times when a movie comes along that gets people talking
and arguing about not only the film's narrative meaning but also
its very intent. This is one of them; don't pass up your chance
to see it.