MovieChat Forums > Men (2022) Discussion > What the fuck was Garland thinking when ...

What the fuck was Garland thinking when he wrote this?

posted 3 years ago by acidraindrop (3055)
22 replies | jump to latest

I had huge hopes. A haunting yet utterly meaningless trailer akin to It Comes At Night. The writer who did 28 Days Later and Dredd, two of my favorite films of all time. The incredibly evocative Sunshine. I didn't care for Annihilation but it grabs you, and just envelops you into its world both emotionally and visually.

What the hell happened here? Is it an exploration of grief? Is it an exploration of toxic masculinity? Is it an exploration of trauma? All of the above? Or maybe it's just an excuse to showcase some really talented actors, beautifully shot scenes, and impressive practical body horror.

But where's the substance? If Harper is projecting upon all men due to her ex-husband, why isn't it his body that she sees everywhere? If the movie is about the horrors of the masculine, what's up with the hermaphroditic, daisy-chain pregnancy at the end? What's up with the leaf imagery + naked man; is she being cursed by some trickster god? Why the fuck-you to the audience at the end: you spend the third act making us presume it's all imaginary, and then you give an a-ha twist after the Title Card; but unlike other films, this a-ha doesn't make me go a-ha. It makes me go wha-wha? There's nothing there for me to interpret about the blood or the car. If it were just the car and the blood on her neck sure! I'll buy that. But the blood at the door?? lol Are the cell phone scares just...cheap scares or is that representative of something—there's no follow up; it's just a creepy bit. The split arm? The mask on the bird? Just for scares??? Why the screaming shot in the tub when we don't really see her in the tub?

I don't expect the best writing in the world from Garland but I expected a bit more from this. And it doesn't have to be concrete. I enjoy my share of arthouse horror. You got It Comes At Night which intentionally doesn't tell you shit. You got Starfish which looks like the director just put a bunch of his dreams together. You got Mulholland Drive which looks like Lynch is presently dreaming while filming the movie. Vvitch. Climax. Hereditary. Possum.

I couldn't help but just think wtf. That ending. That title card. That epilogue. The credits music that starts like half a minute late (kinda mirror how the movie's music started like five seconds late). This movie doesn't make me feel or think. I'm just...utterly, utterly confused. Am I just not educated enough to appreciate this (*cough Lighthouse cough*)?

I can come up with some explanations. Some meanings. Some patterns. But it feels like I'm just forcing it. None of my ideas feel natural (or they just don't work when analyzed further). And I usually love trying to dig into subtext; I'm just at a loss here.

reply

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

it's pure shite.

reply

[–] alexjohans0n (2094) 2 years ago

I found this to be some one of the best zombie films to ever come out of London.

reply

[–] CMX (265) 2 years ago

https://www.highonfilms.com/men-2022-movie-ending-explained/ Heres a pretty in-depth analysis

reply

[–] acidraindrop (3055) 2 years ago

Thanks for the link. Solid writeup. Some of those, I'd caught. Others I definitely hadn't thought of. But I do think quite a bit of the analysis falls under what was I saying: it just feels forced. The article would pass as the basis for a more formal writeup, and brings up a number of discussion points, but I don't believe it really changes my feelings about the film.

I suppose my question was more rhetorical. I wasn't just asking what the movie was about; I was asking lol what was Garland trying to do here? If anything, even if every interpretation in that article was intended, it does give off the impression that Garland was forcibly injecting meaning and nuance into a thin narrative. Instead of creating a story that builds on some of these themes and ideas.

Lighthouse comes to mind, which is a movie, I don't even like. I read more into the background of the film after being thoroughly confused by it, but after reading into it, and admitting it's probably beyond me...I felt that Lighthouse was a thoughtfully composed film. I don't feel that here. I feel like Garland is going through a checkbox of modern horror cinema + feminist themes.

But again, I do appreciate the link. I'll forward it to a friend who saw the film with me when it came out, see what she thinks. Perhaps the movie is just not my cup of tea.

reply

[–] CMX (265) 2 years ago

Cool.Lighthouse is pretty much my favorite film of the 21st century,havent read much about the background of it and dont feel the need to.Not sure what i think of this film,just saw it yesterday.Yeah the analysis if meant by Garland comes across as pushing an agenda but do what you want as an artist i suppose.

reply

[–] acidraindrop (3055) 2 years ago

Haha nice, Lighthouse was a hell of a movie. Glad you enjoyed it for what it was.

I'm not one of the more intensely conservative folk on this board, so I don't care if some sort of sociopolitical point is being pushed in a film. To me film is art, and art is meant to meant to make you think, most of the time anyways.

Someone else posted a comment on this board, which I didn't really believe at the time, but after seeing it, I see why. It was something like, Garland is trying to make a movie about feminism but doesn't actually know anything about it. That's what I mean by the checkboxes, as opposed to something more...cohesive. Like...babadook is about grief, hill house is about grief/trauma, hereditary is about mental illness. And I think all three of them present, in their very own way, a meditation on these human themes.

I wished Men was...better. lol I think it has all the components there for an exciting discourse. But I think he's trying too hard.

If you have any further thoughts on the movie, do come back to post!! I don't mean for my negativity with this film to be a deterrent to discussion.

reply

[–] mirelurk (884) 2 years ago

The Horror genre has become extremely pretentious over the past decade. It's become the go-to genre for overconfident dorks like Garland who think that they have something meaningful to say about anything. Same thing as Luca Guadignino and the Suspiria remake and Edgar Wright and Last Night in Soho

The pioneers that created this trend are The Babadook, It Follows, The Witch, Get Out, and Hereditary. These are all good or great movies, but like all successful Horror movies they have inspired an avalanche of awful imitators

A24 is the main culprit in terms of distributing this overwrought, self-indulgent trash. You can go through their catalogue and find a number of these movies which are either "art horror" or "horror dramas"

reply

[–] acidraindrop (3055) 2 years ago

Last Night in Soho was another disappointment. I usually do think positively of the A24 moniker, but you're right. I think the brand has been diluted this point. Because as you pointed out, there are some quality, "pretentious" horror films. The issue is when ppl thought they could try to emulate the style and failing miserably, which, I guess, isn't unlike any other copycatting when it comes to iconic, genre defying films that break the mold.

My friend actually commented afterwards saying, Garland should have stayed out of horror because but doesn't know how to make a horror movie. Which is kinda in line with what you were going with. It's like, okay, you made some great movies, but you got a bit arrogant in thinking you could just add some sparkle and glitter, and pop out a meaningful scary movie.

reply

[–] mirelurk (884) 2 years ago

Yeah, I think of the Horror genre now as the crime-comedy genre after Goodfellas, Pulp Fiction, and Fargo were released in the 90s. We're still feeling the effects today

But with Horror movies now it's even worse because you see a bunch of wannabe film geeks treating boring fart movies as if they were super intellectual. It's the worst

Smart movies, in any genre, cannot be mass-produced. This is a fundamental rule. FAKE smart movies can, and the ability to tell them apart is what separates a genuine film geek from a pretender

reply

[–] acidraindrop (3055) 2 years ago

Yeah!! I was just thinking about Pulp Fiction when I wrote my reply actually lol. I've enjoyed some of the imitations but it's clear when people were just looking for some low hanging fruit. Good observation about how you can't just mass produce a smart movie. You can't just replicate something brilliant, otherwise, the first thing wouldn't be brillaint.

Again, a shame. I see some good ideas in this film. And the presentation is stellar. But Jesus, it's like my quote earlier. Garland thought it'd be cool to make a feminist film about the horrors of misogyny, but without knowing much about either, and not really putting effort into his message. So you end up getting, a "fake smart movie" as you said. It's so superficial.

reply

[–] mirelurk (884) 2 years ago

I've been extremely frustrated with the Horror genre for many years now, but this is actually the norm. Classics are always followed up by ridiculous imitations

The only diff is that because the imitations now are slow paced, pretend to have social or psychological commentary, and are directed by the same douche that wrote the screenplay that we are supposedly in an era of Horror renaissance

It's a lie. Yes, the era from 2005-2015 was pretty trashy, but at least it wasn't pretentious. That's what Drama and Sci-Fi are for

reply

[–] SlackerInc (1101) 2 years ago

I would argue that "Ex Machina" is stealth-horror, and very effective at that.

reply

[–] TheArgentinian (7072) 2 years ago

Men who criticize this movie and its filmmaker for making it are the same kind of men who call others "beta" unironically.

reply

[–] acidraindrop (3055) 2 years ago

No.

reply

[–] Naptown317Native (524) 2 years ago

Go blow a dude

reply

[–] TheArgentinian (7072) 2 years ago

So much toxic masculinity. Proving this movie's point. Haha, idiot.

reply

[–] Naptown317Native (524) 2 years ago

You are a very toxic woman.

reply

[–] TheArgentinian (7072) 2 years ago

"I know you are but what am I?".

Go play on the grass, kid

reply

[–] Naptown317Native (524) 2 years ago

Go dance in traffic, queer.

reply

[–] TheArgentinian (7072) 2 years ago

Queer, lol. Ok, boomer.

reply

[–] Naptown317Native (524) 2 years ago

Nighty-night, groomer.

reply

[–] SlackerInc (1101) 2 years ago

It's sad that you engage in such binary thinking. I criticized a MRA type on a thread here for saying the men in this movie were reasonable. That's a misogynist WTF. But I can think (as James Berardinelli did) that this movie was good for the first two-thirds and then really fell down in the third act, without by doing so indicting myself for misogyny.

reply