Okay, Google: Explain "Men."

The title of this article may be the exact response director Alex Garland was hoping to achieve. Did A24 back this movie because of Garland’s success with the company directing Ex Machina (2014), a genuinely excellent sci-fi horror starring Alicia Vikander, Oscar Isaac, and Domhnall Gleeson. Did they think they could compound that success with a screenplay written by Garland (a man), capitalizing on the condemnation of men in the Me-Too era? How different would this concept be under a different company, under different penmanship, and different direction?

Alright, disclaimer: this film is tough to watch. The slasher and body-horror elements are squeamishly disturbing and surreal. The film is also hard to watch at times because there is a lot of information to keep up with found in so many small, obscure references throughout the film. It can be hard to find any solid through-line other than “that’s the same guy," and the continuation of exploring the main character's trauma. It's just too much in a film that would work better by spelling a few things out rather than compounding easter eggs.

On top of that, anyone going into this film may be triggered by some content. Physical, mental, and emotional abuse are all depicted in this film, including threats of suicide, stalking, harassment, gaslighting, victim-blaming, and more. Suppose you’re still inclined to see this movie after that disclaimer, the more power to you. It may be prudent to find a distraction anytime Harper’s (Jessie Buckley) deceased sort-of-ex-husband, James (Paapa Essiedu), is on screen.

Despite the story, Rory Kinnear is captivating in his role. Once you’ve looked up his credits, you’ll nod in recognition and kudos at the long lists of British dramas and Shakespearean roles. Kinnear plays many of the men in this film, all the same but different, thanks to costuming, makeup, and special effects. His commitment to the vision and content of this film is commendable and only an actor with his experience could pull off this role.

It’s very easy to mentally check out of this film halfway through as it’s tough to keep up with the details. At the end of the film is a “rolling birth” where every character Kinnear plays gives grotesque birth to the next, and then finally James. A CGI vagina is not the issue here, which would be such a default argument to try and throw at someone who doesn’t like the film or this sequence.

The problem, at least in part, is the commandeering of this fundamentally female experience for men in a male-directed film for the sake of being provocative and not for any effective thematic, surrealist, or existentialist means. Although, perhaps that's part of the commentary Garland wanted to create. But it doesn't work without a streamlined, understandable story. The scene also lasts way too long, only for minimal payoff.

Besides Kinnear’s performance, there are three things this film does well, as it does have its technical aspects playing hardball even if its messaging and thematic payoff are playing way out in left-field. First, the film is edited well to increase its poetic, Brother’s-Grimm-esque fairy-tale sense of surrealism. Individual sections of this film look like poetic segments somewhat reminiscent of the

documentary Baraka (dir. Ron Fricke, 1992).

This association is also helped by the stunning visuals throughout the film, particularly of nature and the resulting poetic comments on light and dark, day and night, and life and death. The film's poetic, evidentiary editing and nature cinematography are best combined in the tunnel scene, which sets up the main conflict of Harper versus the men. The last thing the film does well is teasing a mystery through the non-linear reveal of Harper and James’s marriage, particularly by leaving the audience with a mystery after the first scene, to be answered about mid-way through the film.

There becomes a point where some films want to be provocative for the sake of being provocative and end up just being too subjective for any consensus on a thematic takeaway or lasting message, besides "men are the worst," even though the filmmaker wants to leave the film up for interpretation. Garland stated to the L.A. Times, “…if anyone is provoked by this film, hopefully they can query the provocation.” Clearly, being provocative was the goal, but it seems entirely self-serving and not rooted in genuinely exploring how societal structures torment women and work so well for men.