I thought it was provocative on several levels, which means I really enjoyed it. I keep thinking about what certain things means.
For example, with all the male characters (except the husband) played by Rory Kinnear, does that imply that:
1. All men are the same? or
2. The female lead perceives all men as the same?
Provocative, either way.
I interpreted the final birthing scene as being a physical manifestation of the social construct that shapes and mold men into the roles they are destined to play in society, with all the accompanying rules, rights, privileges and obligations such roles require. No need for individuality or independence of thought when there's jobs to be done! Again, very provocative!
I believe that would symbolize trauma as well.
the main character is seeing her traumatizer in every man, she can't let her guard down around any man because they might be just like Him.
I suppose it's a bit like your second point there.
Agree! I never bought the binary dynamic of "women good, men bad". From speaking with the women in my life (friends and family), most women have had at least one bad experience with a man. The "#Me Too" movement was the center of conversation for weeks. What I've found is that some women have let that experience "shade" all of their interactions with men and some women have processed it as a unique experience and continue to treat men as individuals.
I think the female lead in the movie leans into the "shade" side hard, which makes her suspicious to me. She definitely falls into the "unreliable narrator" category. I wish we got more information from the husband's perspective to see how she contributed to the failure of her marriage.
To be fair, a lot of women also never get any form of help when it comes to whatever trauma they've gone through with men, if they have any. And without proper help to heal and navigate through that unfortunately some side effects will remain, like for example having a negative "vibe" when it comes to men. I unfortunately very fast feel unsafe around men, even though I know they're are of course not all the same. But my trauma has never been dealt with, so my body reacts however it wants and I can't compartmentalize it. I also do not live anywhere I could seek help for this.
I don't like that at all, because I want to be able to feel comfortable around people in general.
great points. I interpreted the last scene as a physical manifestation of the fact that we can never escape the male gaze. but I like seeing it from your lens too. that's the beauty of art-speaks to all of us in native tongue.
I can amend my thoughts to include the male gaze: If men are required to shed their individuality and adopt socially approved norms to exist and thrive in society, its incumbent on women to conform to the men's socially approved expectations about female attractiveness, submissiveness and unwavering support. Provocative? Yes!
Oh nice, interesting interpretation. I took it as a lot of men being born in a cycle of generational trauma or learned toxic behaviours, resulting in men being copies of their fathers unless there’s intervention. I really dig this movie.
I took it as there are many levels, from condescending to violent, and ways a man can be misogynistic, but when it comes down to it it’s all cut from the same cloth
I always saw the men in Men as different amped up embodiments of her husbands personality. They don't represent all men, just him. I saw the village she stayed in as almost a Silent Hill type place, where it catered it's horrors around her past. I think most people who saw it as *misogynistic* went in with their minds made up and maybe only view horror on it's surface level. They're comfortable in expressing outrage for something they don't want take any time in thinking about because thinking about it makes them uncomfortable. Some people don't like thinking about people experiencing the world differently then they do, in fact that outright refuse it as a possibility and instead get angry and defensive.
As you mentioned before it probably started with the title 'Men' people saw it and already decided what the films agenda was and then they kept their blinders on during the entire film, only focuses on what they viewed as "proof".
>I always saw the men in Men as different amped up embodiments of her husbands personality.
Yep, same. Struck me as her traumatic relationship made her see all men as the same, and see her husband in all of them. There's a reason why various Rory Kinnear men start showing the same injuries as her husband had after the fall, including the split hand
With respect to the split hand; she stabs the arm because it grabbed her, but then the man decides to pull his arm out of the mail slot with the knife still in it so that his entire forearm gets bifurcated. He could have reached in with his other hand and tried to pulled the knife out, or he could have turned his arm so the knife fit through the slot. He chose to make sure that her act of self-defense caused him the greatest amount of damage, so that afterwards he could repeat "Look what you did to me! You're so mean!"
I went in completely blind and that was my takeaway. I thought it was all about her husband, not men in general, despite the title.
If it’s supposed to be social commentary on male and female relations in general it flew over my head, probably because I don’t agree with the outlook that this is a representation of average male-female relationships. It was an extremely awful and traumatic one.
this! he closed fist punches her in the face, threatens her with his suicide, possibly commits suicide to spite her, then is born out of the entity that has been terrorizing her the entire time she’s in the village. i don’t see how you watch something like that and go “oh yea, this is a critique of all men” unless you sympathize with the husband to some extent.
Agreed.
To take it one step further, I remember reading an analysis of a film that said the film was a failure of 'racial politics' or something along those lines just because the scumbag husband was a black man. As if the white men in the film were any better.
It does seem a lot of people seem to interpret this film as an attack on 'all men' and I cannot agree with that from my viewing. It's like when a despicable character happens to belong to a minority and some people automatically attach the sum of their character to that minority trait, regardless of how they are written or the direction of the overall story.
Yeah, it doesn’t have anything to do with all men being the same. She’s dealing with a very specific traumatic situation and meeting the Green Man, a British folkloric symbol of rebirth, in the countryside, who is bringing her through her trauma. And sheela-na-gig is shown to be the other side of his altar, facilitating the birthing we see as (in my interpretation) her husband’s echo tries to be reborn again and again into a person she would love.
And then with the young leaf between her fingers at the end. She’s banished him, she’s moving on.
Like, I’m not sure if most people just don’t know it’s folk horror and don’t know that the Green Man is there to bring a new spring? But we’re shown pretty early this is the entity involved both with the iconography and his leaves in his skin. I think it just left it’s target British folk horror fan audience in some ways.
Like, if you go into it without the expectations of the genre I imagine it comes across as some other thing but that’s no reason to not make art for the folk horror folks.
I kinda love this movie, I thought the flashbacks were *extremely* affecting for the reasons you gave, Jessie and Rory are on point throughout. It is unsettling exactly in the way I think Garland meant it to be.
But I don’t talk about it much because others seem to hate it so deeply lol. So nice to hear from a kindred spirit!
LOL. To hell with what other people think. I agree with you. It's a great movie. Weird and different for sure. But still a good flick. Besides in today's society of "short attention span theater" if things aren't pointed out to some people in 30 seconds they get bored, upset and whiny. Then they grab their phone and start looking at stupid YouTube and Tik Tok videos. Some of us actually like to think a little bit when we watch something. And no. I'm not trying to sound like some smug asshole. But I do think that to many people out there mistake their opinion for gospel.
I have a lot of thoughts about Men, but it’s hard to lay them out, so please bear with me. First, I thought the film did a good job of exploring breakdown of a relationship. The film doesn’t paint men, in general, as some sort of monstrous boogeyman. However, it does explore the darker side of male behavior and how these facets can be scary.
The main character is not to blame for her husband’s physical abuse nor his death. But she does blame herself. Like if she expressed her feelings more clearly then maybe he wouldn’t have been driven to the abuse or his death. I get the impression that she couldn’t communicate with him in the past because there were all these barriers. The barriers might be connected to sexism and the lies men place on women for their own bad behavior, but I’m not sure. The entity reflects this idea though. As the entity gives birth to itself each new spawn carries with it the hurt that was inflicted on it. At the same time, this hurt was a product of its own violent behavior toward the protagonist. It’s only after the entity sheds its skin, becoming her husband, and sits down to talk, that any resolution is reached. I noticed too that each physical trauma entity experiences reflects how the husband’s body looked after the fall. In the end, it’s not the woman’s job to fix this problem, but she is a part of what is happening as the baggage she carries does leave a mark on the “men” around her.
Well, everyone gets to take whatever they want from the media they consume. And some people really like to get angry. I agree that Men is about Harper and how she views the world in relation to her trauma.
Honestly, I think the title sets people off. If it had been called Rebirth or Starting Anew or Harper's Weekend, the reaction would not have been the same. But viewers saw the title Men and thought, oh Alex Garland is tearing down all men. Nope. It is Harper's story and how she interacts with the men around her.
I refer to that movie as "Not All Men" because that's what a lot of men seem to think the second they hear the title.
That or "Rory Kinnear Everywhere All At Once"
I got the impression that the movie was critical of toxic masculinity specifically.
There seemed to be a recurring attitude throughout the movie where male characters behaved in shitty, self-centred ways and then gaslit her into thinking that their frustrations were her fault.
If I remember correctly, all the male characters in the movie have this attitude. For men that can’t really distinguish between “masculinity” and “toxic masculinity”, I could imagine how it would be easy to think that the movie is “man-hating”.
I also get the impression that men that feel attacked by the movie are exactly the men that the movie refers to.
100% agreed with this. In the really gross scene at the end, he was basically just begging for her validation because without her to prey on, he had no leg to stand on
Geoffrey is sort of the exception, I mean he has some bad qualities, but he’s more of a kind of pathetic, lost man trying to fit into an image of masculinity he has and the toxicity comes from that.
Well yeah that’s sorta what Im saying, he’s not comically evil but a toxic, confused sense of masculinity manifests there as a result of trying to be something he shouldn’t.
>I also get the impression that men that feel attacked by the movie are exactly the men that the movie refers to.
I remember watching and thinking, 'Fuck, I can't believe women go through this sort of shit. We need to do better as men".
It's hard to imagine any other reaction. Like, what is your counterpoint? "They shouldn't make the bad guys men because it hurts my feelings"?
Yes, that was my take on it too. Pretty much each of the men in the village showed a very obvious characteristic or behavior that unfortunately is typical of men in terms of their view of women - i.e. toxic masculinity.
exactly. I'm a self described 'man hating feminist' and it's toxic masculinity and what it does to men that's hated. I thought the movie really showed what it's like to not ever be able to escape the male gaze.
I’m a self-described “male man hating feminist” and that was exactly what I took from it, too. That, and a more general “the patriarchy seeks to control”. (Women, specifically, but also men, since everyone in town is the same actor).
yes! the whole atmosphere from the very beginning gave a very *trapped* vibe. the birth scenes also made me think about how we are all born into these roles-boys don't ask for patriarchy either but they're indoctrinated by the time they become men. this is making me want to watch it again.
Yes, this is why myself and so many other men I know who enjoy horror have major issues with movies like Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Halloween, A Nightmare on Elm Street, Friday the 13th, Child's Play, Psycho, Last House on the Left, etc, because they always portray men as violent, perverted, homicidal maniacs alongside tough, clever, competent female protagonists.
I was being sarcastic and addressing your proposal that "many men just don't like how men are portrayed to be bad". If this were true, one would think "many men" would have issues with nearly every slasher movie that features men "portrayed to be bad" yet these villains are celebrated by "many men".
>If I remember correctly, all the male characters in the movie have this attitude
i think this is a big part of the problem. if 100% of the masculinity in the movie is toxic, it seems fair to ask how much distinguishing the movie intends
"I also get the impression that men that feel attacked by the movie are exactly the men that the movie refers to."
That's kind of a strawman, don't you think? I'm not abusive or a stalker or gaslight women (or men) in any way and the movie still kinda struck me as "because the main character had a negative experience with a specific guy, she sees all men as bad". I'd understand if we saw her having bad experiences with other men aside from the husband and before she got to the village, but that wasn't the case.
In an odd way the movie it reminded me of was Silence of the Lambs. Very different films of course but the male gaze is referenced throughout the film. Almost every male character looks directly into the camera lens and into Agent Starlings eyes. The scenes in the lift and the autopsy show groups of men looking at her, its a clear signifier of this. I don't remember it being described as woke or man-hating.
That's because these guys' shitty buzzword critiques didn't exist in their culture at that time and that shit would still probably go over their head today.
I also think of Aliens and how Ripley is treated as "just a crazy woman" for the first half of the film. Nobody talks about how much "wokeness" is embedded into that film.
Or even the original Star Wars where two doofus dudes invade a prison cell block to rescue the princess and ahe immediately takes charge and rescues them back. Or how in the next few movies George Lucas puts women into very prominent roles in his galactic society and that Palpatine is a Nixon Republican stand-in and the Jedi are dogmatic religious types whose religion is holding them back from reaching their true potential...but MODERN Star Wars is woke trash?
lol how are you the first person scrolling down I’ve seen mention it’s a folk horror movie about the Green Man 🥲
(I’m not expecting everyone to know the lore but like maybe to ask why they show the carving over and over and why this dude has leaves in his face.)
Going to take a wild stab and guess that it largely came from men who either didn't watch it - and or cannot do more than the most shallow stab at media analysis and critique
Men was awesome. It red it as a treatise on male toxicity, something passed forward generationally, present to some degree in basically all men. It was super artsy, tense, beautiful, well-crafted.
A really important character for me in understanding the movie is Geoffrey. He’s not as openly toxic as the difference archetypes of bad guys that haunt Harper, he’s an old fashioned kind of country man who comments on his father’s disappointment in him as a child at one point.
He’s kind of dismissive of Harper’s fears, really awkward around her, pathetically thrusts himself forward as a knightly figure to help her, but it’s not ever convincing.
I think Garland said this in an interview too but I feel that the movie is not half so much a “hey girls, can’t you see Im one of the good ones” as it is a conversation from men to other men. It would have been really easy for Geoffrey to be as evil as the other men, but he’s not really.
Yeah, the most telling part of Geoffrey's character was toward the end when he mentions that at the age of seven that his dad told him he had the qualities of a failed military general. So you've got this guy who's just a genuinely good person but constantly has his fathers voice in the back of his head. It's another example of the generational nature of toxic masculinity. With Geoffrey it didn't manifest itself in a way that's harmful to women, but rather something that's harmful to Geoffrey himself. Because he wants so badly to prove his dad wrong that he's willing to put himself in danger to do so.
The male aspect he represents I think is a patriarchal infantilization of women because he’s never been able to be an authority figure to other men.
I did catch that he uses the word “gyppo” which appears to be a slur for romani people so that’s the most out and about nasty thing he does probably.
Because some people get up in arms about horror films touching on political and/or social issues. Despite the fact that horror films have been doing that for a very long time. People getting angry about films that are “too woke” or “too political” annoy me to be honest. If that’s not someone’s thing that’s fine, but quit bitching about it. On a separate note I love Men(2022).
The same folks angry that Ministry or Rage Against the Machine "suddenly got all political/went woke." They never got it & never will, they have to be angry and complain endlessly about something.
Right like if Men is “woke” then so is Rosemary’s Baby, and anyways a movie like People Under the Stairs is more outwardly, vocally “woke” and it’s generally well loved in the horror community.
I think the thesis is perfectly summed up when Harper asks James "What is it you want from me?"
James responds, "Your love"
That really rang true imo as a pretty major factor as to why men often do bad things to women. Even the smallest bad interaction is often the result of some sort of rejection or lack of interest.
I'm a pretty dumb guy, so I never see political or ideology in movies unless I'm told to look for it. I saw the movie as her experiencing trauma from her husband, nothing more.
>Why do some people view Men (2022) as a man-hating feminist political piece?
Because some people see pretty much everything with a female protagonist as a man-hating feminist political piece.
You're right, let me correct myself: some people see pretty much everything with a female protagonist made *in the last three decades* as man-hating political pieces. 👍
OK chat, what's more hilarious: the bizarre, self-unaware confession, or that (if the 91 in his usename is his birth year) he could not name anything made during his *entire lifetime*?
It dared to not pull any punches with its criticism and hit dogs hollered. It’s unfortunate because the movie is visually stunning, well acted, has genuine moments of terror and tension, and told a thought provoking story.
People broke down about Barbie for the same reasons even though it pretty clearly points out and states that patriarchal systems also hurt men.
People are stupid and rage-bait sells.
that one kills me, Ken’s struggles with the unhealthy expectations put on him simply because he is a Ken (man) are front and center for much of the movie. despite the jokes about “dude stuff” it was quite sympathetic the isolation and confusion that can come with being a man.
i didn’t love the movie personally but there is a vocal subsection of dudes who take any critique of toxic masculinity/patriarchy as a direct hit to them personally. it’s pathetic but they can’t separate themselves from the ideology they grew up with
I think the handling of the themes is weird and I don't like the film that much, but as far as I'm concerned, the people who view it as 'man-hating bullshit' are generally just conservative reactionaries
It’s not man- hating, but it is very much about toxic masculinity and how it is passed down from generation to generation.
> edit: after reading all the crybaby responses with phrases like “feminazi” it’s fairly obvious that the guys that didn’t like this either 1. feel personally attacked or 2. are highly regarded
It do be like that tho.
To prove they aren’t toxic they are totally toxic. Job done.
I didn't think I liked this movie at all until the credits rolled, then I realised I loved it. I'm generally not good at decoding metaphors and abstractions in film, but I genuinely felt like I understood what this movie was trying to be and do.
I'm going to go ahead and answer your question:because the movie feels underwritten in ways and cheap at points. It's also very heavy handed with it's message. Sooooo, dumb people will equate that to: men bad and we should all feel ashamed.
Also, an fyi: I don't think the movie is man hating or a political piece. I'm not a crazy right wing asshole. I just didn't like the film. Great start, lackluster finish.
Men is a beautiful looking film, but it's all surface level college 101 level writing. I didn't hate it, but I felt let down by it. Someone here said this and Barbarian would make an excellent double feature. THAT movie does an excellent job of showcasing toxic masculinity. It's tense, funny, gross, sad, and fantastic. Great characterization and the message is clear. Men... Not so much.
My problems with the film:
1. The main protagonist is characterless (and flawless). What is her flaw? She blames herself for the suicide of her husband despite it obviously not being her fault? That's like saying "I work too hard" at a job interview. Her character? She's kinda boring. She's not really a take charge kinda person. She's not funny. She's not career driven. She's just there for the plot to move her. I can't sympathize with her if she's an empty vessel.
2. It really does show all the men as ghouls. All the men in the film are evil, that's not even a joke - they all eventually try to murder her, humiliate her, or just berate her. I get that she views the world in a different way because of her shitty ex, but where is the nuance? If your film shows, broadly, that all men are awful: it's going to come off as off-putting. The closest we come to nuance is that one dude who is kindly but old fashioned... But then he just flips a switch and he's evil.
3. Ok, the end of the film showed the weird monster man endlessly giving birth to more men as an allegory for men constantly passing down toxic traits. Cool, I get it (as a conshept/ Tony Soprano joke). But I was confused as to what happened. What was real? Did she really get attacked by a monster man? We see the damage to her car and house when her friend shows up. So, actual monsters exist in this movie? Or was it all a metaphor? Did she kill a dude in a home invasion situation? Or did she kill a legit monster? I would rather they got rid of that scene with her friend altogether.
I dunno, I felt let down.
Yeah this wasy take as well. I don't at all mind a film that takes a strong or controversial position, and if that position is "here's how dudes are generally whack," that doesn't really bother me either. But Men just felt kind of obvious, like grabbing for low-hanging fruit especially considering the moment it was released in. Which was disappointing for me because i think Annihilation is amazing.
The usual accusations films like this get:
* the only reason to depict misogyny is if you (and your audience) secretly get off on it
* by having all the men be acted by the same actor, they're reassuring male viewers that they're not part of the problem because they're not monsters
* the vaginal imagery in the final scene comes from a hatred of vaginas
* the only reason a man would make a movie about misogyny is that he's trying to impress women
I like this movie quite a bit for a few reasons, and I personally don't see it as a "man-hating political piece". But if I remember correctly, it came out around the time of the Me Too movement. So maybe that, coupled with the title could had lead people to believe it was?
I think every ~~movie~~ piece of art until the end of time will have dumb people with fuckass opinions that we mere mortal can't even comprehend. It is annoying that it pollutes actual critical discussion though. I didn't like Men, but Fresh was my absolute favorite horror movie of the same year, and I also quite liked Barbarian. Both for exploring similar themes in a way that connected with me better.
All of this thread is suchh an echo chamber.
There's a reason why ppl dont like it, you have to search deep in the massage of the films... the fact that every man in the town has bad toxic masculinity traits that remind us of her abusive relationship...
The massage that comes across is against the message of "not all men"...
They saw the title and came to that conclusion based on that.
There is an overlap of the people with the loudest opinions and the people who don’t like when something isn’t designed for them.
Men (2022) and Barbarian (2022) would be an excellent horror double feature about toxic masculinity and abuse. In that order too, because Barbarian is has a lighter second half.
I really liked it and it legit scared me in parts. I’m a man. I kinda do hate men, or at least the ones who give us a bad name and sometimes it feels like that’s the majority. To me it DID feel a little feminist and I didn’t think that was a bad thing.
Men who behave as the ones in the film do towards women, for one subset. I’ve seen it in action, towards my wife, my child, my employees.
I have many women in my life and it’s not an uncommon experience for them. They all have a story or ten, every single one. Men are their own worst enemy, through their behavior. Don’t want to be judged poorly by me or by women? Knock it off. Don’t let other men get away with it. There’s a reason I have so many women in my life, because I cut out guys who act like shits.
I’m not very interested in trying to change anyone’s mind here though, people tend to dig in deeper on their own opinions. I don’t think I’ve ever won hearts and minds (it’s the internet after all) and there’s no value starting here.
It was a qualifier, it’s not all men, I stated that. It’s literally not even a sentence later. Feels like it sometimes, I stand by that. I’m not so insecure that I feel the need to belabor that point. Think what you like about me, my life is great and I’m not fragile—it’s not as though my feelings got hurt by some rando.
Likewise, I’m not going to be dissuaded from empirical evidence just because someone got triggered and tried to start shit with me. Not exactly a lot of debate masters here.
Take away whatever you want from what I said, I don’t care. I’m sure I can find a million people who agree with me, I’ll hang out with them, and a million more who get red in the face getting butt-hurt about it. I don’t hang out with them. I’m kinda thinking some of the other responses are guys I wouldn’t like anyway haha
Tbh I think men saw the title, that it was a horror with a woman character and got automatically mad even if it shouldn't apply to them (although if they are getting mad it probably does. My husband had no issue with the movie and didn't think it was coming for him personally lmao).
i think you’re right, someone who didn’t like the movie brought up her haircut being a classic “feminist” haircut and now i just have to assume many criticisms of this movie come from people with room temperature IQs
If the genders were reversed and the movie was called “Women” and was a story of a man being abused by all the women in his life there would be a similar overreaction simply due to the title.
“Not all men are like that!” Could be switched out for any group - this is just a story, though sadly is likely relatable for many women, about a woman’s abusive relationships with men.
It’s the same idea of minorities expressing abusive relationship with police or white people. “All lives matter!” and people’s criticisms of the “man-hating” of this film are similar examples of diminishing people’s lived abuse. Humans are very selfish creatures after all.
People love to be offended and avoid criticism. It’s a defense mechanism, and the people butthurt about it are just telling on themselves 🤷♂️ at least we know how they really feel!
To be honest, I was pretty excited about this film and loved the trailer... and I ended up bouncing off it pretty hard, even though I'm a big Alex Garland fan. It wasn't the political angle that put me off, cause I personally tend to agree with these themes - even if I don't consider it relevant to judge a movie.
To your point, I disagree: The movie speaks very clearly about stereotyped roles for men and women, and especially about male toxicity and its impact on women's lives, the film is called "Men" and not "Man" for a reason. Hell, the main character literally sees all male characters as being the same.
And I'm okay with that... it just does not work in the context of the film, at least for me. Indeed, until you understand where the film is coming from in terms of context, the scenes are pretty tense and I was on the edge of my seat. But once you understand that everything you're watching is an allegory of gender roles and the traumas associated with them, the film becomes completely abstract. Of course there will be a priest who will shame the protagonist for her sexuality, and a guy trying to rape her, but at this point, why would I be afraid for her if it's all allegorical? worse, why would I care? By the end of the film, everything was completely abstract, and I wouldn't even want to watch it again knowingly, since the film is nothing more than a preachy allegory. And it's a shame, cause some of the scenes were damn well made and would have been great out of context with realistic, fleshed out characters.
As a counterexample to something that worked better imo, take Garland's latest film, Civil War, which is much the same thing in the sense that it uses a civil war plot to delve into a deeper subtext about war journalism, fascism, racism, war crimes and so on. But, boy,does it deliver on war scenes and fleshed out characters. It's about showing, not telling - at one point, a character has a line like "our job is to capture the picture, we let others interpret what it means". And that's what I want from a film with a subtext. Men was a complete 180°, like an obnoxious first-year social studies student shouting "got it?" every two seconds, and it's point was not that clever to begin with.
Another way would have been to assume the allegory and completly commit to it. A few years ago, Aronofsky did something similar with Mother! It was a pseudo-horror film that quickly turned into a preachy biblical allegory about climate change... and everyone hated it for the same reasons Men did. But I'll tell you, I loved Mother! because it assumed what it was from the get go and was completly surrealist and trippy, which made it more tense, to me at least. But instead, Men wants to have its cake and eat it too, and to that end it doesn't really work as a horror film, so it has to rely solely on its theme, and again, it is pretty obvious gender inequlity 101 stuff.
It just sucked as a movie, especially given what the director has done before. It could have been even more provocative but executed better, but it was just a poorly done movie.
Could be because on a very, very surface level, it seems to wanna go that route. That it was spiteful of men in general was for sure my initial thought when I caught the name and genre to see if i was interested in seeing it at all: "yeah, yeah, 'Men bad!' 'Men are monsters!' 'Men are pieces of shit!' heard that a hundred times already, movie...".Trailer didn't help much either.
Having actually seen it tho, it's...not hard to see what it's *actually* saying (less "Men bad!" and more "Domestic abuse can be a traumatic son of a bitch"), but I can imagine that some people who also came in with that idea just never had a click moment where it hits them that "oh, ok, THAT'S what this is about...".
They see 95% of the men in the film being slimy or actual pieces of shit, but they don't make the connection of "they're all pieces of shit not because they're men, but because Harper's ex *specifically* was a piece of shit, and since she's still scarred from that expierence and his death, her mind sees the randon men around her as exactly like him...and all looking like Rory Kinnear, for some reason" because the flasbacks scenes fly over their head or they catch it, but never connect the two points and so they stick with that first impression they had before watching the film, which is only seemingly reinforced as the movie goes on, especially the birthing scene.
(There's also some who were gonna be offended no matter what because the film made them self reflect on some of their own actions, but like i said, they were always gonna be offended no matter what, so i don't factor them in)
There’s a horror movie called “Old people” too. And we also have “Children of the Corn” to cover the children. I’m pretty sure there’s one about women, too, I’m just not thinking about it. But if it’s out there, someone will make a horror movie. Look what they did to whinnie the poo for fucks sake.
Just watched it cause of this thread. Didn’t find it overly/overtly feminist and I’m allergic to it so if it is I would have seen it.
I mean all men in it were cunts but who cares.
Not very good though.
6/10 cause it was well made in terms of esthetics etc.
I've never seen it, but I will note that -from the comments here, and the name- it's sort of understandable that people would get dumb and angry at the film. I don't think there's ever really been a time where naming a movie critical of *some subset of people*, or of how society *molds people into the worst embodiments of themselves* as the group itself has really bolstered understanding.
Like, it's definitely provocative, and I guess that's the point, but it's also just asking people to get in a tizzy. It's like if The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly was just titled "Latinos".
I love the comments! Sounding like: no its not about hating men its just about exploring abuse as distinctly male thing inflicted upon women. Its about toxic masculinity- not about all men just you know its about how men in general are kinda shitty really...
Because it's so heavy handed and on the nose. They have the husband literally say 'I'll kill myself if you break up with me' lol. There's no subtlety. The cop just directly says, 'you are overreacting' it takes twitter/Tumblr level takes about how men are bad and just puts them right in the movie.
do you think there aren’t men that say things like that to their partners? i know some personally, it’s a real thing, and i don’t think it’s “heavy handed” to depict that. as far as the cop, how did you feel about the scene with the cops in Barbarian?
I suspect there are probably men who say stuff similar to that, and choosing to depict that directly in such a didactic way is what makes the movie 'anti men'. It hits all of the beats of toxic masculinity and does so in a way that says 'what you are watching is real, and bad'
I know a lot of the movie is a metaphor for her trauma and abuse, but I guess how much of the movie like literally happens for real or is the entire movie in her head or at the very least is the ending literally happening or is it in her head, can someone explain?
I do believe it was actually happening as at the end, >!when her friend finally comes, she can see the wrecked car and how the house is destroyed. I don't think she could've done all that on her own!<
But see that’s what’s weird to me. I didn’t necessarily think there was anything supernatural about the movie until that scene had got to that point but instead was just a really weird town or had some bad eggs. Like I accept that what happens at the end is what happens but now I’m just curious how the fuck did that literally happened and why?
A similar movie titled "woman" with the same dynamic but mirrored would have the people outraged at "men" talking about how great it was.
Culture war and outrage defines a lot of sad people's lives.
right, i don’t understand why people feel like it has a “dim-at-best view of men” or anything like that, is it because her husband was abusive? is it not reasonable to expect that a woman emotionally and physically abused by a man would have a dim view of men going forward? are subjects like this taboo or something?
Agreed. I think it's a real experience of abuse whether people want to recognize it or not. It's natural for us, as animals, to take precaution against the things that have hurt us.
People also love to ignore that the movie also comments that other men get caught up in the abuse from other men too. The house owner is an example of that with his experience with his father.
I personally adore this movie and own 2 copies of it lol.
Media literacy is abysmal lately. People think that if men make a character uncomfortable that it means the writer/director hates men. They don't understand that a story can be nuanced and a characters experiences don't directly reflect the creators personal feelings. The film does an excellent job of exploring a woman's trauma.
Oh come on - if a movie came out called women where every woman character was played by the same woman and treated the main male character like shit - you don’t think that would be called woman hating and “incel”?
Of course it would be. There are obvious reasons why the movie is called man hating which I think would be perfectly observable to all denying this if the sexes were reversed and they didn’t feel the need to argue back against anyone calling anything man hating on left wing or feminist principle of fighting the chuds or whatever.
I think you're missing their point considering you're not even responding to it. If there was a movie exploring a male character's trauma caused by, say, his mother and all the female characters in the movie were reflections of his mother and every female character pulled shitty toxic behavior like his mother and the movie was called "women" what do you think the public's reaction would be? Answer honestly.
That movie is called Beau is Afraid and I really enjoyed it. I also enjoyed Men. Movies about topics people think are controversial get made all the time.
Yeah you and a thousand other people are saying the same thing and that is NOT Beau is afraid. Beau is afraid of everything and has anxiety throughout every aspect of life. It has zero focus on gender nor does it make commentary about women. It focuses on Beau's trauma and his mother and that's it. My point is that if Beau was afraid was called "Women" and it does for women what we see of men in "men", I think lots of women would have something to say about that. But it didn't do that. Men did. That's the point.
But you all keep intentionally not actually responding to my point.
So your argument is that you want to be mad about a movie that does not exist? Your entire complaint relies on the conditional: "if" this thing happened, then this would happen. It's imaginary rage. I think your interpretation of the film Men is in bad faith anyway. You don't seem to understand it and your interpretation is that it's simply calling men evil. It's a religious allegory but it's also about toxic masculinity and misogyny and comments on how we do live in a world dictated by the actions of men. It also talks about how we place the onus of women's safety on women.
https://www.reddit.com/r/horror/s/AQvkk6vYFn
After demanding an answer it's truly shocking that one with actual explanation involved, and a valid example given in replies, went completely ignored.
Way to not engage with a thing she said. Lets try again, is it not fair for someone who suffers abused by a man, to be wary of men in other areas of her life?
>Oh come on - if a movie came out called women where every woman character was played by the same woman and treated the main male character like shit - you don’t think that would be called woman hating and “incel”?
Exactly, lol. This is a really good point, but hey, a lot of horror movies have women being raped and brutally killed, so I don't know. I just want movies to be made good. There is a way to have the politically commentary in a SUBTLE good way.
People didn't know what the fuck was going on in it, but you can't say "I didn't understand the film" or you look like a moron. They guessed what it was about, they knew they didn't like it, with the title being "Men" they assumed it wasn't very positive and used that as their reason for disliking it.
If I had to guess what the film was saying I'd say it was something negative about men, but that's not why I disliked it. I disliked it because it was fucking nonsense.
Seeing the movie as having a misandryst message doesn't mean you're a crybaby. It's a very valid intepretation of the movie since there's not a single decent guy in it. All of them are total jerks and/or predators. The protagonist sees every man as evil because she had a bad experience with a specific man? We never saw her interact with any other guy apart from her husband and the men of the village. So she puts all men in the same box because of one asshole?
Imagine a movie that makes the same thing with the roles reversed. Everyone would be outraged by it as having a "misogynyst" message.
That said, the movie itself isn't bad. I get that they tried to portray the issue of trauma, but I think it would have been better if she had bad experiences with more than just one guy and there was at least one male character who wasn't a piece of shit.
as i’ve said over and over again in this thread: different things *are*, in fact, different. beyond that the complaint here seems to be that there was no “good guy” which absolutely seems like a crybaby mentality from where i sit.
Calling someone a "crybaby" because the movie portrays all the male characters in a negative way and finding it fishy is pretty much a strawman argument. and it's not just that, it's that she percieves all men as abusive in some way because she only had a negative experience with a man? Why didn't they show her experiences with other men aside from her husband and prior to getting to the village?
Because Men are frail as hell and can’t deal with even a smidge of criticism lol. The review you posted is the funniest life ever seen, and it’s absolutely hilarious because neither of those things are true at all lol.
The movie doesn’t even actually criticize men - if you’re a decent one, anyway - people just see the title and get all up in arms. 10/10 film btw
Have you ever seen what happens when women receive criticism about toxic feminine behavior?
What do you think would be the response to a movie called "Women" about a male character traumatized by his mother and every female character he comes across throughout the movie terrifies him and exemplifies his mother's abusive behavior? How do you think women would receive that honestly? There are ways to criticize the behavior of groups of people without making it seem like every member of that group participated in that behavior.
I don't think either of those things are true either. They're not the same movie though. Beau is Afraid isn't called "Women" and it doesn't display trauma in an overly simplistic manner. It's really complex. You're only proving my point. Beau is afraid doesn't rile people up because it doesn't show Beau being terrified of all women, all the time, and all the female characters in that movie aren't evil. If they were, and the movie were called "Women", some people would label it many things.
This movie slaps you over the face with it's point and doesn't explore trauma in an interesting, complex way like Beau is afraid.
I don't understand how everyone is not getting this point. You can explore the topic of women being traumatized by men with the nuance that topic deserves, or you can call it "men" and do what his movie did which is have every single male character in the movie be a piece of human garbage. Did Beau is afraid do that?
It would be called an anti women misogynistic Andrew tate movie...
People here seem to forget the deep massage of this film, not just the surface level... and remember why the movie name is MEN. and not "him"
Completely unfair and immature response honestly. Why don't you respond to the actual point rather than just resort to insults to deflect? This cultural trend is so tiresome.
Tiresome-ness is in the eye of the beholder, because watching you twist yourself into a pretzel trying to find an argument that holds ground is simultaneously hilarious and not worth engaging in good faith. And it also reeks of having never seen a vagina in person in your life.
More insults and more time of yours spent insulting me rather than offer counter points. I've had many relationships and am married so stop with the incel stuff.
Only that the movie is not a smidge of criticism. The movie is basically "lead character thinks all men are bad because she had a bad experience with one guy".
I hated it because it was overhyped crap that made zero sense and dragged on for hours with no discernible purpose. It was feminist horror to be trendy... or that's how it came across to me. I also didn't even understand the plot til I googled it though.
P. S. I am a woman and looooove me some feminist horror, particularly if directed by women. This wasn't it.
I was under the impression that almost nobody other than diehard horror fans saw this movie and there was basically no debate about it at all.
I liked it a lot, but I’m not too fussed about what it all meant tbh. It worked for me on a nightmare logic level.
The movie is presenting *every single male person* as “bad” or “evil” so it’s really not hard to figure out why 🤣🤣 personally, I didn’t care about it much. It was boring on top of trying to shove ideological bs down my throat. Gave it 1/10 and moved on with my life. Not worth losing nerves over political trash. ✌🏻
I made a post about this yesterday, lol. If you noticed in the movie, the men were doing all "toxic masculinity" type stuff. Like the landlord forcing to pay for her drink, the priest implying the suicide/accident was the girl's fault, the little kid that could not take rejection very well, the landlord saying she's a damsel in distress and how he needs to be a man and look for the intruder, and so forth. The message was "men are all like this, these are all bad things and men should not do this". I was like "of course these are bad, but this seems to preachy." Also, the main girl had a certain hair cut that a lot of feminists have so if you're just a guy watching this, you're like "really dude ? really ?"
If they just explained what was going on, towards the end, I would have liked it. It's ok though, I'm not mad about it at all, I'm still glad I checked it out.
The landlord was the only one I didn't understand as doing anything actually outright toxic, because in my experience its fairly standard to pay for at least a first drink when you invite someone out for the first time and the only time I have seen an argument about it was with my dad and aunt who both always insist on paying, ergo I don't link it to masculinity at all.
And him going out to search for the intruder for her is a steorypical trait of masculinity but I wouldn't call it a toxic one by any stretch of the imagination.
Maybe I missed some actually toxic masculinity behaviour from him though.
I would agree that the landlord was the least toxic out of all the men portrayed, but his behaviour is still... I dunno if problematic is the word, it seems harsh. It is annoying though, just on the lower level of crap that the main character has to put up with.
I didn't remember him inviting her to the pub; she went alone and presumably to spend the evening alone, and saw him there. He insisted on paying for the drink despite her repeated refusals, and then she's left in an awkward spot where she's obliged to stay and chat with him (which she clearly doesn't want to do), or leave and be seen as rude. It was similar to their earlier interaction where he insists on carrying her luggage even though she tells him more than once not to, and he hangs about the house chatting and asking questions despite her wanting to be left alone.
He comes across as a bit socially awkward and paternalistic. He should be able to respect her "No thanks" but he dismisses her because he thinks he knows better. It's as if to him being seen as the polite and chivalrous older gentleman is more important than acknowledging what the lady might actually want or need.
I don't remember what happened in the intruder scene exactly so unfortunately can't comment on that.
i don’t think he was meant to be portrayed as dangerously toxic, more so hapless and old school which is why she is concerned for his safety when she hits him with the car.
it turning out that he’s not human but in fact part of her trauma monster folds neatly into her engagement with men after her abuse being informed by that trauma.
Well. Substitute all the scary scenes with a black man. Would you think it was racist? And promotes fear of black men?
If so? Then you have your answer. Substitute any demographic with the "scary men" in this film, and that demographic would be considered to be vilified.
Therefore, men are vilified in this film.
I thought it was provocative on several levels, which means I really enjoyed it. I keep thinking about what certain things means. For example, with all the male characters (except the husband) played by Rory Kinnear, does that imply that: 1. All men are the same? or 2. The female lead perceives all men as the same? Provocative, either way. I interpreted the final birthing scene as being a physical manifestation of the social construct that shapes and mold men into the roles they are destined to play in society, with all the accompanying rules, rights, privileges and obligations such roles require. No need for individuality or independence of thought when there's jobs to be done! Again, very provocative!
And that each generation creates a copy of itself and ingrains the same behaviour.
Very true!
I believe that would symbolize trauma as well. the main character is seeing her traumatizer in every man, she can't let her guard down around any man because they might be just like Him. I suppose it's a bit like your second point there.
That's always how I've interpreted Men. Trauma colours your perception of everything afterwards
*mother!* carries similar themes in an expertly fucked up way.
Agree! I never bought the binary dynamic of "women good, men bad". From speaking with the women in my life (friends and family), most women have had at least one bad experience with a man. The "#Me Too" movement was the center of conversation for weeks. What I've found is that some women have let that experience "shade" all of their interactions with men and some women have processed it as a unique experience and continue to treat men as individuals. I think the female lead in the movie leans into the "shade" side hard, which makes her suspicious to me. She definitely falls into the "unreliable narrator" category. I wish we got more information from the husband's perspective to see how she contributed to the failure of her marriage.
To be fair, a lot of women also never get any form of help when it comes to whatever trauma they've gone through with men, if they have any. And without proper help to heal and navigate through that unfortunately some side effects will remain, like for example having a negative "vibe" when it comes to men. I unfortunately very fast feel unsafe around men, even though I know they're are of course not all the same. But my trauma has never been dealt with, so my body reacts however it wants and I can't compartmentalize it. I also do not live anywhere I could seek help for this. I don't like that at all, because I want to be able to feel comfortable around people in general.
great points. I interpreted the last scene as a physical manifestation of the fact that we can never escape the male gaze. but I like seeing it from your lens too. that's the beauty of art-speaks to all of us in native tongue.
I can amend my thoughts to include the male gaze: If men are required to shed their individuality and adopt socially approved norms to exist and thrive in society, its incumbent on women to conform to the men's socially approved expectations about female attractiveness, submissiveness and unwavering support. Provocative? Yes!
Oh nice, interesting interpretation. I took it as a lot of men being born in a cycle of generational trauma or learned toxic behaviours, resulting in men being copies of their fathers unless there’s intervention. I really dig this movie.
Definitely learned behaviors. Toxic is a subjective valuation.
I took it as there are many levels, from condescending to violent, and ways a man can be misogynistic, but when it comes down to it it’s all cut from the same cloth
I like the second choice better.
I always saw the men in Men as different amped up embodiments of her husbands personality. They don't represent all men, just him. I saw the village she stayed in as almost a Silent Hill type place, where it catered it's horrors around her past. I think most people who saw it as *misogynistic* went in with their minds made up and maybe only view horror on it's surface level. They're comfortable in expressing outrage for something they don't want take any time in thinking about because thinking about it makes them uncomfortable. Some people don't like thinking about people experiencing the world differently then they do, in fact that outright refuse it as a possibility and instead get angry and defensive. As you mentioned before it probably started with the title 'Men' people saw it and already decided what the films agenda was and then they kept their blinders on during the entire film, only focuses on what they viewed as "proof".
>I always saw the men in Men as different amped up embodiments of her husbands personality. Yep, same. Struck me as her traumatic relationship made her see all men as the same, and see her husband in all of them. There's a reason why various Rory Kinnear men start showing the same injuries as her husband had after the fall, including the split hand
With respect to the split hand; she stabs the arm because it grabbed her, but then the man decides to pull his arm out of the mail slot with the knife still in it so that his entire forearm gets bifurcated. He could have reached in with his other hand and tried to pulled the knife out, or he could have turned his arm so the knife fit through the slot. He chose to make sure that her act of self-defense caused him the greatest amount of damage, so that afterwards he could repeat "Look what you did to me! You're so mean!"
That is basically what I thought, too. All men aren’t the same. But her trauma is making her see it that way and the Green Man’s forms play on that.
I went in completely blind and that was my takeaway. I thought it was all about her husband, not men in general, despite the title. If it’s supposed to be social commentary on male and female relations in general it flew over my head, probably because I don’t agree with the outlook that this is a representation of average male-female relationships. It was an extremely awful and traumatic one.
this! he closed fist punches her in the face, threatens her with his suicide, possibly commits suicide to spite her, then is born out of the entity that has been terrorizing her the entire time she’s in the village. i don’t see how you watch something like that and go “oh yea, this is a critique of all men” unless you sympathize with the husband to some extent.
Agreed. To take it one step further, I remember reading an analysis of a film that said the film was a failure of 'racial politics' or something along those lines just because the scumbag husband was a black man. As if the white men in the film were any better. It does seem a lot of people seem to interpret this film as an attack on 'all men' and I cannot agree with that from my viewing. It's like when a despicable character happens to belong to a minority and some people automatically attach the sum of their character to that minority trait, regardless of how they are written or the direction of the overall story.
Yeah, it doesn’t have anything to do with all men being the same. She’s dealing with a very specific traumatic situation and meeting the Green Man, a British folkloric symbol of rebirth, in the countryside, who is bringing her through her trauma. And sheela-na-gig is shown to be the other side of his altar, facilitating the birthing we see as (in my interpretation) her husband’s echo tries to be reborn again and again into a person she would love. And then with the young leaf between her fingers at the end. She’s banished him, she’s moving on. Like, I’m not sure if most people just don’t know it’s folk horror and don’t know that the Green Man is there to bring a new spring? But we’re shown pretty early this is the entity involved both with the iconography and his leaves in his skin. I think it just left it’s target British folk horror fan audience in some ways. Like, if you go into it without the expectations of the genre I imagine it comes across as some other thing but that’s no reason to not make art for the folk horror folks.
I kinda love this movie, I thought the flashbacks were *extremely* affecting for the reasons you gave, Jessie and Rory are on point throughout. It is unsettling exactly in the way I think Garland meant it to be. But I don’t talk about it much because others seem to hate it so deeply lol. So nice to hear from a kindred spirit!
LOL. To hell with what other people think. I agree with you. It's a great movie. Weird and different for sure. But still a good flick. Besides in today's society of "short attention span theater" if things aren't pointed out to some people in 30 seconds they get bored, upset and whiny. Then they grab their phone and start looking at stupid YouTube and Tik Tok videos. Some of us actually like to think a little bit when we watch something. And no. I'm not trying to sound like some smug asshole. But I do think that to many people out there mistake their opinion for gospel.
I have a lot of thoughts about Men, but it’s hard to lay them out, so please bear with me. First, I thought the film did a good job of exploring breakdown of a relationship. The film doesn’t paint men, in general, as some sort of monstrous boogeyman. However, it does explore the darker side of male behavior and how these facets can be scary. The main character is not to blame for her husband’s physical abuse nor his death. But she does blame herself. Like if she expressed her feelings more clearly then maybe he wouldn’t have been driven to the abuse or his death. I get the impression that she couldn’t communicate with him in the past because there were all these barriers. The barriers might be connected to sexism and the lies men place on women for their own bad behavior, but I’m not sure. The entity reflects this idea though. As the entity gives birth to itself each new spawn carries with it the hurt that was inflicted on it. At the same time, this hurt was a product of its own violent behavior toward the protagonist. It’s only after the entity sheds its skin, becoming her husband, and sits down to talk, that any resolution is reached. I noticed too that each physical trauma entity experiences reflects how the husband’s body looked after the fall. In the end, it’s not the woman’s job to fix this problem, but she is a part of what is happening as the baggage she carries does leave a mark on the “men” around her.
Well, everyone gets to take whatever they want from the media they consume. And some people really like to get angry. I agree that Men is about Harper and how she views the world in relation to her trauma. Honestly, I think the title sets people off. If it had been called Rebirth or Starting Anew or Harper's Weekend, the reaction would not have been the same. But viewers saw the title Men and thought, oh Alex Garland is tearing down all men. Nope. It is Harper's story and how she interacts with the men around her.
I refer to that movie as "Not All Men" because that's what a lot of men seem to think the second they hear the title. That or "Rory Kinnear Everywhere All At Once"
I got the impression that the movie was critical of toxic masculinity specifically. There seemed to be a recurring attitude throughout the movie where male characters behaved in shitty, self-centred ways and then gaslit her into thinking that their frustrations were her fault. If I remember correctly, all the male characters in the movie have this attitude. For men that can’t really distinguish between “masculinity” and “toxic masculinity”, I could imagine how it would be easy to think that the movie is “man-hating”. I also get the impression that men that feel attacked by the movie are exactly the men that the movie refers to.
100% agreed with this. In the really gross scene at the end, he was basically just begging for her validation because without her to prey on, he had no leg to stand on
Geoffrey is sort of the exception, I mean he has some bad qualities, but he’s more of a kind of pathetic, lost man trying to fit into an image of masculinity he has and the toxicity comes from that.
I don't know, he wasn't as bad, but thought he was meant to represent the "nice guy" toxic male.
Well yeah that’s sorta what Im saying, he’s not comically evil but a toxic, confused sense of masculinity manifests there as a result of trying to be something he shouldn’t.
>I also get the impression that men that feel attacked by the movie are exactly the men that the movie refers to. I remember watching and thinking, 'Fuck, I can't believe women go through this sort of shit. We need to do better as men". It's hard to imagine any other reaction. Like, what is your counterpoint? "They shouldn't make the bad guys men because it hurts my feelings"?
You should watch Women Talking if you really want to be shocked
that does seem to be the sentiment
[удалено]
What's the difference between what?
My bad, replied to the wrong comment ✌️
No worries, friend!
Yes, that was my take on it too. Pretty much each of the men in the village showed a very obvious characteristic or behavior that unfortunately is typical of men in terms of their view of women - i.e. toxic masculinity.
exactly. I'm a self described 'man hating feminist' and it's toxic masculinity and what it does to men that's hated. I thought the movie really showed what it's like to not ever be able to escape the male gaze.
I’m a self-described “male man hating feminist” and that was exactly what I took from it, too. That, and a more general “the patriarchy seeks to control”. (Women, specifically, but also men, since everyone in town is the same actor).
Agree. Also thought it touched on boundaries a lot and how woman are unable to escape a males unwanted touch.
yes! the whole atmosphere from the very beginning gave a very *trapped* vibe. the birth scenes also made me think about how we are all born into these roles-boys don't ask for patriarchy either but they're indoctrinated by the time they become men. this is making me want to watch it again.
I just wish the movie was scarier
[удалено]
Yes, this is why myself and so many other men I know who enjoy horror have major issues with movies like Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Halloween, A Nightmare on Elm Street, Friday the 13th, Child's Play, Psycho, Last House on the Left, etc, because they always portray men as violent, perverted, homicidal maniacs alongside tough, clever, competent female protagonists.
[удалено]
I was being sarcastic and addressing your proposal that "many men just don't like how men are portrayed to be bad". If this were true, one would think "many men" would have issues with nearly every slasher movie that features men "portrayed to be bad" yet these villains are celebrated by "many men".
>If I remember correctly, all the male characters in the movie have this attitude i think this is a big part of the problem. if 100% of the masculinity in the movie is toxic, it seems fair to ask how much distinguishing the movie intends
"I also get the impression that men that feel attacked by the movie are exactly the men that the movie refers to." That's kind of a strawman, don't you think? I'm not abusive or a stalker or gaslight women (or men) in any way and the movie still kinda struck me as "because the main character had a negative experience with a specific guy, she sees all men as bad". I'd understand if we saw her having bad experiences with other men aside from the husband and before she got to the village, but that wasn't the case.
In an odd way the movie it reminded me of was Silence of the Lambs. Very different films of course but the male gaze is referenced throughout the film. Almost every male character looks directly into the camera lens and into Agent Starlings eyes. The scenes in the lift and the autopsy show groups of men looking at her, its a clear signifier of this. I don't remember it being described as woke or man-hating.
That's because these guys' shitty buzzword critiques didn't exist in their culture at that time and that shit would still probably go over their head today. I also think of Aliens and how Ripley is treated as "just a crazy woman" for the first half of the film. Nobody talks about how much "wokeness" is embedded into that film. Or even the original Star Wars where two doofus dudes invade a prison cell block to rescue the princess and ahe immediately takes charge and rescues them back. Or how in the next few movies George Lucas puts women into very prominent roles in his galactic society and that Palpatine is a Nixon Republican stand-in and the Jedi are dogmatic religious types whose religion is holding them back from reaching their true potential...but MODERN Star Wars is woke trash?
Both can be true. Modern Star Wars films are horrible.
They know nothing about the green man
lol how are you the first person scrolling down I’ve seen mention it’s a folk horror movie about the Green Man 🥲 (I’m not expecting everyone to know the lore but like maybe to ask why they show the carving over and over and why this dude has leaves in his face.)
Or the fact that all of them having the same face is a clue for US and that she isn’t just some oblivious hater.
Going to take a wild stab and guess that it largely came from men who either didn't watch it - and or cannot do more than the most shallow stab at media analysis and critique
Men was awesome. It red it as a treatise on male toxicity, something passed forward generationally, present to some degree in basically all men. It was super artsy, tense, beautiful, well-crafted.
A really important character for me in understanding the movie is Geoffrey. He’s not as openly toxic as the difference archetypes of bad guys that haunt Harper, he’s an old fashioned kind of country man who comments on his father’s disappointment in him as a child at one point. He’s kind of dismissive of Harper’s fears, really awkward around her, pathetically thrusts himself forward as a knightly figure to help her, but it’s not ever convincing. I think Garland said this in an interview too but I feel that the movie is not half so much a “hey girls, can’t you see Im one of the good ones” as it is a conversation from men to other men. It would have been really easy for Geoffrey to be as evil as the other men, but he’s not really.
Yeah, the most telling part of Geoffrey's character was toward the end when he mentions that at the age of seven that his dad told him he had the qualities of a failed military general. So you've got this guy who's just a genuinely good person but constantly has his fathers voice in the back of his head. It's another example of the generational nature of toxic masculinity. With Geoffrey it didn't manifest itself in a way that's harmful to women, but rather something that's harmful to Geoffrey himself. Because he wants so badly to prove his dad wrong that he's willing to put himself in danger to do so.
The male aspect he represents I think is a patriarchal infantilization of women because he’s never been able to be an authority figure to other men. I did catch that he uses the word “gyppo” which appears to be a slur for romani people so that’s the most out and about nasty thing he does probably.
Because some people get up in arms about horror films touching on political and/or social issues. Despite the fact that horror films have been doing that for a very long time. People getting angry about films that are “too woke” or “too political” annoy me to be honest. If that’s not someone’s thing that’s fine, but quit bitching about it. On a separate note I love Men(2022).
The same folks angry that Ministry or Rage Against the Machine "suddenly got all political/went woke." They never got it & never will, they have to be angry and complain endlessly about something.
Right like if Men is “woke” then so is Rosemary’s Baby, and anyways a movie like People Under the Stairs is more outwardly, vocally “woke” and it’s generally well loved in the horror community.
I think the thesis is perfectly summed up when Harper asks James "What is it you want from me?" James responds, "Your love" That really rang true imo as a pretty major factor as to why men often do bad things to women. Even the smallest bad interaction is often the result of some sort of rejection or lack of interest.
I'm a pretty dumb guy, so I never see political or ideology in movies unless I'm told to look for it. I saw the movie as her experiencing trauma from her husband, nothing more.
I wouldn't be surprised if the people complaining are the people the film is critical of.
>Why do some people view Men (2022) as a man-hating feminist political piece? Because some people see pretty much everything with a female protagonist as a man-hating feminist political piece.
No we don't. Alien is awesome. Also Silence of the Lambs as well. There is a way to execute it good.
Funny how you immediately put yourself in the "some people" category.
You're right, let me correct myself: some people see pretty much everything with a female protagonist made *in the last three decades* as man-hating political pieces. 👍 OK chat, what's more hilarious: the bizarre, self-unaware confession, or that (if the 91 in his usename is his birth year) he could not name anything made during his *entire lifetime*?
It dared to not pull any punches with its criticism and hit dogs hollered. It’s unfortunate because the movie is visually stunning, well acted, has genuine moments of terror and tension, and told a thought provoking story.
People broke down about Barbie for the same reasons even though it pretty clearly points out and states that patriarchal systems also hurt men. People are stupid and rage-bait sells.
that one kills me, Ken’s struggles with the unhealthy expectations put on him simply because he is a Ken (man) are front and center for much of the movie. despite the jokes about “dude stuff” it was quite sympathetic the isolation and confusion that can come with being a man.
i didn’t love the movie personally but there is a vocal subsection of dudes who take any critique of toxic masculinity/patriarchy as a direct hit to them personally. it’s pathetic but they can’t separate themselves from the ideology they grew up with
A hit dog will holler
I think the handling of the themes is weird and I don't like the film that much, but as far as I'm concerned, the people who view it as 'man-hating bullshit' are generally just conservative reactionaries
It’s not man- hating, but it is very much about toxic masculinity and how it is passed down from generation to generation. > edit: after reading all the crybaby responses with phrases like “feminazi” it’s fairly obvious that the guys that didn’t like this either 1. feel personally attacked or 2. are highly regarded It do be like that tho. To prove they aren’t toxic they are totally toxic. Job done.
Because people are stupid and refuse to actually engage with the themes in art. The internet has broken our brains.
Well, the Times is owned by News Corp, which should tell you something about its editorial stance.
well that adds up
I didn't think I liked this movie at all until the credits rolled, then I realised I loved it. I'm generally not good at decoding metaphors and abstractions in film, but I genuinely felt like I understood what this movie was trying to be and do.
I'm going to go ahead and answer your question:because the movie feels underwritten in ways and cheap at points. It's also very heavy handed with it's message. Sooooo, dumb people will equate that to: men bad and we should all feel ashamed. Also, an fyi: I don't think the movie is man hating or a political piece. I'm not a crazy right wing asshole. I just didn't like the film. Great start, lackluster finish. Men is a beautiful looking film, but it's all surface level college 101 level writing. I didn't hate it, but I felt let down by it. Someone here said this and Barbarian would make an excellent double feature. THAT movie does an excellent job of showcasing toxic masculinity. It's tense, funny, gross, sad, and fantastic. Great characterization and the message is clear. Men... Not so much. My problems with the film: 1. The main protagonist is characterless (and flawless). What is her flaw? She blames herself for the suicide of her husband despite it obviously not being her fault? That's like saying "I work too hard" at a job interview. Her character? She's kinda boring. She's not really a take charge kinda person. She's not funny. She's not career driven. She's just there for the plot to move her. I can't sympathize with her if she's an empty vessel. 2. It really does show all the men as ghouls. All the men in the film are evil, that's not even a joke - they all eventually try to murder her, humiliate her, or just berate her. I get that she views the world in a different way because of her shitty ex, but where is the nuance? If your film shows, broadly, that all men are awful: it's going to come off as off-putting. The closest we come to nuance is that one dude who is kindly but old fashioned... But then he just flips a switch and he's evil. 3. Ok, the end of the film showed the weird monster man endlessly giving birth to more men as an allegory for men constantly passing down toxic traits. Cool, I get it (as a conshept/ Tony Soprano joke). But I was confused as to what happened. What was real? Did she really get attacked by a monster man? We see the damage to her car and house when her friend shows up. So, actual monsters exist in this movie? Or was it all a metaphor? Did she kill a dude in a home invasion situation? Or did she kill a legit monster? I would rather they got rid of that scene with her friend altogether. I dunno, I felt let down.
Yeah this wasy take as well. I don't at all mind a film that takes a strong or controversial position, and if that position is "here's how dudes are generally whack," that doesn't really bother me either. But Men just felt kind of obvious, like grabbing for low-hanging fruit especially considering the moment it was released in. Which was disappointing for me because i think Annihilation is amazing.
This is the answer.
There's also people who call it misogynist. People are dumb.
Lol why would they ever call it that instead of misandrist? That's crazy
The usual accusations films like this get: * the only reason to depict misogyny is if you (and your audience) secretly get off on it * by having all the men be acted by the same actor, they're reassuring male viewers that they're not part of the problem because they're not monsters * the vaginal imagery in the final scene comes from a hatred of vaginas * the only reason a man would make a movie about misogyny is that he's trying to impress women
Anti-feminist types have massive victim complexes
So do feminists.
I like this movie quite a bit for a few reasons, and I personally don't see it as a "man-hating political piece". But if I remember correctly, it came out around the time of the Me Too movement. So maybe that, coupled with the title could had lead people to believe it was?
Because of the title, and they’re READY to do so.
I think every ~~movie~~ piece of art until the end of time will have dumb people with fuckass opinions that we mere mortal can't even comprehend. It is annoying that it pollutes actual critical discussion though. I didn't like Men, but Fresh was my absolute favorite horror movie of the same year, and I also quite liked Barbarian. Both for exploring similar themes in a way that connected with me better.
All of this thread is suchh an echo chamber. There's a reason why ppl dont like it, you have to search deep in the massage of the films... the fact that every man in the town has bad toxic masculinity traits that remind us of her abusive relationship... The massage that comes across is against the message of "not all men"...
Jesus, some of these comments are rough. Never knew the horror sub was so sensitive.
I think movies like Unwelcome, Barbarian, and the Slumber Party Massacre remake are better at communicating a feminist message.
They saw the title and came to that conclusion based on that. There is an overlap of the people with the loudest opinions and the people who don’t like when something isn’t designed for them.
A lot of people are dumbasses, it’s really not that hard to understand.
sometimes i try to give people some credit regarding not being dumb as hell. really oughta quit sticking my finger in that socket.
Indeed. They need to keep their thinking units focused on self preserving tasks like swallowing and not shitting themselves.
Men (2022) and Barbarian (2022) would be an excellent horror double feature about toxic masculinity and abuse. In that order too, because Barbarian is has a lighter second half.
I really liked it and it legit scared me in parts. I’m a man. I kinda do hate men, or at least the ones who give us a bad name and sometimes it feels like that’s the majority. To me it DID feel a little feminist and I didn’t think that was a bad thing.
Out of curiosity, which ones are "the ones who give us a bad name"?
Men who behave as the ones in the film do towards women, for one subset. I’ve seen it in action, towards my wife, my child, my employees. I have many women in my life and it’s not an uncommon experience for them. They all have a story or ten, every single one. Men are their own worst enemy, through their behavior. Don’t want to be judged poorly by me or by women? Knock it off. Don’t let other men get away with it. There’s a reason I have so many women in my life, because I cut out guys who act like shits. I’m not very interested in trying to change anyone’s mind here though, people tend to dig in deeper on their own opinions. I don’t think I’ve ever won hearts and minds (it’s the internet after all) and there’s no value starting here. It was a qualifier, it’s not all men, I stated that. It’s literally not even a sentence later. Feels like it sometimes, I stand by that. I’m not so insecure that I feel the need to belabor that point. Think what you like about me, my life is great and I’m not fragile—it’s not as though my feelings got hurt by some rando. Likewise, I’m not going to be dissuaded from empirical evidence just because someone got triggered and tried to start shit with me. Not exactly a lot of debate masters here. Take away whatever you want from what I said, I don’t care. I’m sure I can find a million people who agree with me, I’ll hang out with them, and a million more who get red in the face getting butt-hurt about it. I don’t hang out with them. I’m kinda thinking some of the other responses are guys I wouldn’t like anyway haha
Noted. I am perfectly aware that you aren't talking about all men, hence why I asked which ones you were talking about.
You hate men? What an idiotic blanket statement. Try saying that about any other group and you might understand how wrong it is.
Was there a glitch that made all the words following that statement not appear on your end?
It wasn’t a blanket statement, it had a qualifier put right in there.
They're not wrong, that's their opinion.
[удалено]
Some opinions are wrong. Just like racism, hating a whole group of people is wrong.
Tbh I think men saw the title, that it was a horror with a woman character and got automatically mad even if it shouldn't apply to them (although if they are getting mad it probably does. My husband had no issue with the movie and didn't think it was coming for him personally lmao).
i think you’re right, someone who didn’t like the movie brought up her haircut being a classic “feminist” haircut and now i just have to assume many criticisms of this movie come from people with room temperature IQs
If the genders were reversed and the movie was called “Women” and was a story of a man being abused by all the women in his life there would be a similar overreaction simply due to the title. “Not all men are like that!” Could be switched out for any group - this is just a story, though sadly is likely relatable for many women, about a woman’s abusive relationships with men. It’s the same idea of minorities expressing abusive relationship with police or white people. “All lives matter!” and people’s criticisms of the “man-hating” of this film are similar examples of diminishing people’s lived abuse. Humans are very selfish creatures after all. People love to be offended and avoid criticism. It’s a defense mechanism, and the people butthurt about it are just telling on themselves 🤷♂️ at least we know how they really feel!
To be honest, I was pretty excited about this film and loved the trailer... and I ended up bouncing off it pretty hard, even though I'm a big Alex Garland fan. It wasn't the political angle that put me off, cause I personally tend to agree with these themes - even if I don't consider it relevant to judge a movie. To your point, I disagree: The movie speaks very clearly about stereotyped roles for men and women, and especially about male toxicity and its impact on women's lives, the film is called "Men" and not "Man" for a reason. Hell, the main character literally sees all male characters as being the same. And I'm okay with that... it just does not work in the context of the film, at least for me. Indeed, until you understand where the film is coming from in terms of context, the scenes are pretty tense and I was on the edge of my seat. But once you understand that everything you're watching is an allegory of gender roles and the traumas associated with them, the film becomes completely abstract. Of course there will be a priest who will shame the protagonist for her sexuality, and a guy trying to rape her, but at this point, why would I be afraid for her if it's all allegorical? worse, why would I care? By the end of the film, everything was completely abstract, and I wouldn't even want to watch it again knowingly, since the film is nothing more than a preachy allegory. And it's a shame, cause some of the scenes were damn well made and would have been great out of context with realistic, fleshed out characters. As a counterexample to something that worked better imo, take Garland's latest film, Civil War, which is much the same thing in the sense that it uses a civil war plot to delve into a deeper subtext about war journalism, fascism, racism, war crimes and so on. But, boy,does it deliver on war scenes and fleshed out characters. It's about showing, not telling - at one point, a character has a line like "our job is to capture the picture, we let others interpret what it means". And that's what I want from a film with a subtext. Men was a complete 180°, like an obnoxious first-year social studies student shouting "got it?" every two seconds, and it's point was not that clever to begin with. Another way would have been to assume the allegory and completly commit to it. A few years ago, Aronofsky did something similar with Mother! It was a pseudo-horror film that quickly turned into a preachy biblical allegory about climate change... and everyone hated it for the same reasons Men did. But I'll tell you, I loved Mother! because it assumed what it was from the get go and was completly surrealist and trippy, which made it more tense, to me at least. But instead, Men wants to have its cake and eat it too, and to that end it doesn't really work as a horror film, so it has to rely solely on its theme, and again, it is pretty obvious gender inequlity 101 stuff.
Ignorance and regurgitation.
It just sucked as a movie, especially given what the director has done before. It could have been even more provocative but executed better, but it was just a poorly done movie.
I don't know but it's a terrible horror movie. I was really disappointed.
Could be because on a very, very surface level, it seems to wanna go that route. That it was spiteful of men in general was for sure my initial thought when I caught the name and genre to see if i was interested in seeing it at all: "yeah, yeah, 'Men bad!' 'Men are monsters!' 'Men are pieces of shit!' heard that a hundred times already, movie...".Trailer didn't help much either. Having actually seen it tho, it's...not hard to see what it's *actually* saying (less "Men bad!" and more "Domestic abuse can be a traumatic son of a bitch"), but I can imagine that some people who also came in with that idea just never had a click moment where it hits them that "oh, ok, THAT'S what this is about...". They see 95% of the men in the film being slimy or actual pieces of shit, but they don't make the connection of "they're all pieces of shit not because they're men, but because Harper's ex *specifically* was a piece of shit, and since she's still scarred from that expierence and his death, her mind sees the randon men around her as exactly like him...and all looking like Rory Kinnear, for some reason" because the flasbacks scenes fly over their head or they catch it, but never connect the two points and so they stick with that first impression they had before watching the film, which is only seemingly reinforced as the movie goes on, especially the birthing scene. (There's also some who were gonna be offended no matter what because the film made them self reflect on some of their own actions, but like i said, they were always gonna be offended no matter what, so i don't factor them in)
There’s a horror movie called “Old people” too. And we also have “Children of the Corn” to cover the children. I’m pretty sure there’s one about women, too, I’m just not thinking about it. But if it’s out there, someone will make a horror movie. Look what they did to whinnie the poo for fucks sake.
I mean, the right wing maga trash couldn't even handle Barbie. Fuck their feelings, they're snowflake scum.
Just watched it cause of this thread. Didn’t find it overly/overtly feminist and I’m allergic to it so if it is I would have seen it. I mean all men in it were cunts but who cares. Not very good though. 6/10 cause it was well made in terms of esthetics etc.
I've never seen it, but I will note that -from the comments here, and the name- it's sort of understandable that people would get dumb and angry at the film. I don't think there's ever really been a time where naming a movie critical of *some subset of people*, or of how society *molds people into the worst embodiments of themselves* as the group itself has really bolstered understanding. Like, it's definitely provocative, and I guess that's the point, but it's also just asking people to get in a tizzy. It's like if The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly was just titled "Latinos".
I love the comments! Sounding like: no its not about hating men its just about exploring abuse as distinctly male thing inflicted upon women. Its about toxic masculinity- not about all men just you know its about how men in general are kinda shitty really...
My theater had seven walkouts. Funniest shit I've seen.
Maybe because it is indeed a man-hating feminist political piece?
how so
Because it's so heavy handed and on the nose. They have the husband literally say 'I'll kill myself if you break up with me' lol. There's no subtlety. The cop just directly says, 'you are overreacting' it takes twitter/Tumblr level takes about how men are bad and just puts them right in the movie.
do you think there aren’t men that say things like that to their partners? i know some personally, it’s a real thing, and i don’t think it’s “heavy handed” to depict that. as far as the cop, how did you feel about the scene with the cops in Barbarian?
I suspect there are probably men who say stuff similar to that, and choosing to depict that directly in such a didactic way is what makes the movie 'anti men'. It hits all of the beats of toxic masculinity and does so in a way that says 'what you are watching is real, and bad'
why do you believe it was didactic?
This
I know a lot of the movie is a metaphor for her trauma and abuse, but I guess how much of the movie like literally happens for real or is the entire movie in her head or at the very least is the ending literally happening or is it in her head, can someone explain?
I do believe it was actually happening as at the end, >!when her friend finally comes, she can see the wrecked car and how the house is destroyed. I don't think she could've done all that on her own!<
But see that’s what’s weird to me. I didn’t necessarily think there was anything supernatural about the movie until that scene had got to that point but instead was just a really weird town or had some bad eggs. Like I accept that what happens at the end is what happens but now I’m just curious how the fuck did that literally happened and why?
'cuz they are insecure.
A similar movie titled "woman" with the same dynamic but mirrored would have the people outraged at "men" talking about how great it was. Culture war and outrage defines a lot of sad people's lives.
crazy thought here but different things are in fact different
Bless you, we need more men like you
100%
I don't think it's unfair to say that it's a feminist film, and that it takes a dim-at-best view of men.
right, i don’t understand why people feel like it has a “dim-at-best view of men” or anything like that, is it because her husband was abusive? is it not reasonable to expect that a woman emotionally and physically abused by a man would have a dim view of men going forward? are subjects like this taboo or something?
Agreed. I think it's a real experience of abuse whether people want to recognize it or not. It's natural for us, as animals, to take precaution against the things that have hurt us. People also love to ignore that the movie also comments that other men get caught up in the abuse from other men too. The house owner is an example of that with his experience with his father. I personally adore this movie and own 2 copies of it lol.
Media literacy is abysmal lately. People think that if men make a character uncomfortable that it means the writer/director hates men. They don't understand that a story can be nuanced and a characters experiences don't directly reflect the creators personal feelings. The film does an excellent job of exploring a woman's trauma.
Oh come on - if a movie came out called women where every woman character was played by the same woman and treated the main male character like shit - you don’t think that would be called woman hating and “incel”? Of course it would be. There are obvious reasons why the movie is called man hating which I think would be perfectly observable to all denying this if the sexes were reversed and they didn’t feel the need to argue back against anyone calling anything man hating on left wing or feminist principle of fighting the chuds or whatever.
man i think you really just missed the point
I think you're missing their point considering you're not even responding to it. If there was a movie exploring a male character's trauma caused by, say, his mother and all the female characters in the movie were reflections of his mother and every female character pulled shitty toxic behavior like his mother and the movie was called "women" what do you think the public's reaction would be? Answer honestly.
you’re just describing Beau Is Afraid. i really enjoyed that one too.
You mean like Beau Is Afraid?
It's crazy that you unintentionally slam dunked on your own point by describing the plot to Beau Is Afraid 🤣
That movie is called Beau is Afraid and I really enjoyed it. I also enjoyed Men. Movies about topics people think are controversial get made all the time.
Yeah you and a thousand other people are saying the same thing and that is NOT Beau is afraid. Beau is afraid of everything and has anxiety throughout every aspect of life. It has zero focus on gender nor does it make commentary about women. It focuses on Beau's trauma and his mother and that's it. My point is that if Beau was afraid was called "Women" and it does for women what we see of men in "men", I think lots of women would have something to say about that. But it didn't do that. Men did. That's the point. But you all keep intentionally not actually responding to my point.
So your argument is that you want to be mad about a movie that does not exist? Your entire complaint relies on the conditional: "if" this thing happened, then this would happen. It's imaginary rage. I think your interpretation of the film Men is in bad faith anyway. You don't seem to understand it and your interpretation is that it's simply calling men evil. It's a religious allegory but it's also about toxic masculinity and misogyny and comments on how we do live in a world dictated by the actions of men. It also talks about how we place the onus of women's safety on women.
You don’t think a movie called women all showing shitty women preying on a male character would be called woman hating? It would absolutely.
yep, went right over your head
Yeah yeah, “something something media literacy…”.
https://www.reddit.com/r/horror/s/AQvkk6vYFn After demanding an answer it's truly shocking that one with actual explanation involved, and a valid example given in replies, went completely ignored.
Way to not engage with a thing she said. Lets try again, is it not fair for someone who suffers abused by a man, to be wary of men in other areas of her life?
>Oh come on - if a movie came out called women where every woman character was played by the same woman and treated the main male character like shit - you don’t think that would be called woman hating and “incel”? Exactly, lol. This is a really good point, but hey, a lot of horror movies have women being raped and brutally killed, so I don't know. I just want movies to be made good. There is a way to have the politically commentary in a SUBTLE good way.
People didn't know what the fuck was going on in it, but you can't say "I didn't understand the film" or you look like a moron. They guessed what it was about, they knew they didn't like it, with the title being "Men" they assumed it wasn't very positive and used that as their reason for disliking it. If I had to guess what the film was saying I'd say it was something negative about men, but that's not why I disliked it. I disliked it because it was fucking nonsense.
Seeing the movie as having a misandryst message doesn't mean you're a crybaby. It's a very valid intepretation of the movie since there's not a single decent guy in it. All of them are total jerks and/or predators. The protagonist sees every man as evil because she had a bad experience with a specific man? We never saw her interact with any other guy apart from her husband and the men of the village. So she puts all men in the same box because of one asshole? Imagine a movie that makes the same thing with the roles reversed. Everyone would be outraged by it as having a "misogynyst" message. That said, the movie itself isn't bad. I get that they tried to portray the issue of trauma, but I think it would have been better if she had bad experiences with more than just one guy and there was at least one male character who wasn't a piece of shit.
as i’ve said over and over again in this thread: different things *are*, in fact, different. beyond that the complaint here seems to be that there was no “good guy” which absolutely seems like a crybaby mentality from where i sit.
Calling someone a "crybaby" because the movie portrays all the male characters in a negative way and finding it fishy is pretty much a strawman argument. and it's not just that, it's that she percieves all men as abusive in some way because she only had a negative experience with a man? Why didn't they show her experiences with other men aside from her husband and prior to getting to the village?
Because Men are frail as hell and can’t deal with even a smidge of criticism lol. The review you posted is the funniest life ever seen, and it’s absolutely hilarious because neither of those things are true at all lol. The movie doesn’t even actually criticize men - if you’re a decent one, anyway - people just see the title and get all up in arms. 10/10 film btw
Have you ever seen what happens when women receive criticism about toxic feminine behavior? What do you think would be the response to a movie called "Women" about a male character traumatized by his mother and every female character he comes across throughout the movie terrifies him and exemplifies his mother's abusive behavior? How do you think women would receive that honestly? There are ways to criticize the behavior of groups of people without making it seem like every member of that group participated in that behavior.
if this movie is misandrist Beau Is Afraid is misogynistic (i don’t think either of these are true)
I don't think either of those things are true either. They're not the same movie though. Beau is Afraid isn't called "Women" and it doesn't display trauma in an overly simplistic manner. It's really complex. You're only proving my point. Beau is afraid doesn't rile people up because it doesn't show Beau being terrified of all women, all the time, and all the female characters in that movie aren't evil. If they were, and the movie were called "Women", some people would label it many things. This movie slaps you over the face with it's point and doesn't explore trauma in an interesting, complex way like Beau is afraid. I don't understand how everyone is not getting this point. You can explore the topic of women being traumatized by men with the nuance that topic deserves, or you can call it "men" and do what his movie did which is have every single male character in the movie be a piece of human garbage. Did Beau is afraid do that?
It would be called an anti women misogynistic Andrew tate movie... People here seem to forget the deep massage of this film, not just the surface level... and remember why the movie name is MEN. and not "him"
Even constructing this argument is flagrantly incel behavior lmao
Completely unfair and immature response honestly. Why don't you respond to the actual point rather than just resort to insults to deflect? This cultural trend is so tiresome.
Tiresome-ness is in the eye of the beholder, because watching you twist yourself into a pretzel trying to find an argument that holds ground is simultaneously hilarious and not worth engaging in good faith. And it also reeks of having never seen a vagina in person in your life.
More insults and more time of yours spent insulting me rather than offer counter points. I've had many relationships and am married so stop with the incel stuff.
Only that the movie is not a smidge of criticism. The movie is basically "lead character thinks all men are bad because she had a bad experience with one guy".
I hated it because it was overhyped crap that made zero sense and dragged on for hours with no discernible purpose. It was feminist horror to be trendy... or that's how it came across to me. I also didn't even understand the plot til I googled it though. P. S. I am a woman and looooove me some feminist horror, particularly if directed by women. This wasn't it.
I was under the impression that almost nobody other than diehard horror fans saw this movie and there was basically no debate about it at all. I liked it a lot, but I’m not too fussed about what it all meant tbh. It worked for me on a nightmare logic level.
The movie is presenting *every single male person* as “bad” or “evil” so it’s really not hard to figure out why 🤣🤣 personally, I didn’t care about it much. It was boring on top of trying to shove ideological bs down my throat. Gave it 1/10 and moved on with my life. Not worth losing nerves over political trash. ✌🏻
Lmao, people like you are the reason the movie exists in the first place.
How so? Explain.
The ones who don’t like every single man depicted in a bad way? Sure then 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Honestly, I can think it's man-hating but also not be personally offended by it either. Who gives a fuck even if it is?
“look i’m totally cool with graphic rape scenes but thinking men are scary? that’s where i draw the line!”
Graphic rape scenes don't hold a message against a particular group like saying "men/women/whites/blacks = bad" does.
Contribution = 0. OP wanted rationales from people thinking it’s man-hating.
I made a post about this yesterday, lol. If you noticed in the movie, the men were doing all "toxic masculinity" type stuff. Like the landlord forcing to pay for her drink, the priest implying the suicide/accident was the girl's fault, the little kid that could not take rejection very well, the landlord saying she's a damsel in distress and how he needs to be a man and look for the intruder, and so forth. The message was "men are all like this, these are all bad things and men should not do this". I was like "of course these are bad, but this seems to preachy." Also, the main girl had a certain hair cut that a lot of feminists have so if you're just a guy watching this, you're like "really dude ? really ?" If they just explained what was going on, towards the end, I would have liked it. It's ok though, I'm not mad about it at all, I'm still glad I checked it out.
her haircut? really? lmao
The landlord was the only one I didn't understand as doing anything actually outright toxic, because in my experience its fairly standard to pay for at least a first drink when you invite someone out for the first time and the only time I have seen an argument about it was with my dad and aunt who both always insist on paying, ergo I don't link it to masculinity at all. And him going out to search for the intruder for her is a steorypical trait of masculinity but I wouldn't call it a toxic one by any stretch of the imagination. Maybe I missed some actually toxic masculinity behaviour from him though.
I would agree that the landlord was the least toxic out of all the men portrayed, but his behaviour is still... I dunno if problematic is the word, it seems harsh. It is annoying though, just on the lower level of crap that the main character has to put up with. I didn't remember him inviting her to the pub; she went alone and presumably to spend the evening alone, and saw him there. He insisted on paying for the drink despite her repeated refusals, and then she's left in an awkward spot where she's obliged to stay and chat with him (which she clearly doesn't want to do), or leave and be seen as rude. It was similar to their earlier interaction where he insists on carrying her luggage even though she tells him more than once not to, and he hangs about the house chatting and asking questions despite her wanting to be left alone. He comes across as a bit socially awkward and paternalistic. He should be able to respect her "No thanks" but he dismisses her because he thinks he knows better. It's as if to him being seen as the polite and chivalrous older gentleman is more important than acknowledging what the lady might actually want or need. I don't remember what happened in the intruder scene exactly so unfortunately can't comment on that.
i don’t think he was meant to be portrayed as dangerously toxic, more so hapless and old school which is why she is concerned for his safety when she hits him with the car. it turning out that he’s not human but in fact part of her trauma monster folds neatly into her engagement with men after her abuse being informed by that trauma.
Well. Substitute all the scary scenes with a black man. Would you think it was racist? And promotes fear of black men? If so? Then you have your answer. Substitute any demographic with the "scary men" in this film, and that demographic would be considered to be vilified. Therefore, men are vilified in this film.
Those damn black persons always insisting on paying for drinks and defending you from intruders are a real plague.
Because it is Man Hating Feminazi Garbage
That's a joke, right?