“You know, if we were living in India your girl would be
burned on a pyre for even thinking about what she did to you.”
This dialogue, spoken by Chad (Aaron Eckhart) to his
colleague Howard (Matt Malloy), occurs about ten minutes into Neil Labute’s
film “In The Company of Men”. Howard has just been jilted by his longterm
lover, and feels sad and rejected. Chad, too, has had issues with women in his
life lately, and is consoling him. This dialogue, on the surface, is sinister
yet seems like the kind of thing men would say to one another in a quiet,
private, shared moment.
But look closely, because it reveals clues to their
characters which are at the core of this movie. It reveals their lack of
respect for other cultures. It belies misogyny. And it is also Chad’s gambit,
his attempt to bring Howard round to his scheme by which they emotionally
cripple a woman for life, as revenge for the (supposed) evils that have been
enacted on them.
As a gambit, it succeeds. This line, and many others spoken
by Chad early on, wheedle Howard into submission, praying on his insecurities
and reassuring him. Chad makes the fundamentally evil seem palatable, which is
his greatest trick. Note how he tiptoes around what he is actually planning to
do. It’s not “we are going to ruin this woman’s life for no real good reason”. It’s
more “out comes the rug, and us pulling it hard”. Salesman tactics. Shop talk. Chad
delivers his words like a pep talk, or perhaps even a sermon. Pitched as an attempt
to restore dignity to Howard’s life.
It is fitting, of course, that Chad and Howard are corporate
suits of the type found in American Psycho, which isn’t too far off being an
adaptation of the themes Ellis was getting at, a couple of years before Mary
Harron’s film came along. These are men living in a clean, sterile world. Their
jobs don’t really matter, only that there are near-constant moments for
dick-swinging and male bravado to take over- take the scene where Chad flicks
through a company prospectus, pointing at the men and repeatedly saying “I hate
that guy”. We get the impression that this world has created a culture of
hostility; at one point a minor character, when asked why he hasn’t decided to
date Christine, a deaf girl working in the company, his only response is “in a
company like this, with these guys around?” We are firmly in a world where male
bravado runs supreme.
Christine, played by Stacy Edwards, is the woman that the
two men ultimately choose as their prey, so to speak, and the rest of the film
details their attempts at unravelling her life, which is undermined only by
their insecurity and their own, barely-formed feelings. As a screen presence,
she’s perfect for this kind of material. She’s pretty, and endearing, and we
sense her joy at the interest apparently being shown to her by these two men. The
men, too, even concede that she’s a “nice” person, and in one awkward yet
perfectly pitched scene Chad reveals that he could see himself married to her.
Yet feelings and emotions do not come easily to these men,
and vast sequences go by where the two men talk about things without talking
about the things they actually want to talk about. This is, I think, what the
film is actually about; pent up male rage, stifled psychological states, and
how our modern corporate culture has created that. One scene sees Chad
lecturing Howard on their great plan while Howard awkwardly occupies a toilet
cubicle. Chad doesn’t seem to care, and occasionally asks Howard why he’s
taking so long. The fact that he might want some privacy simply does not occur
to him.
Labute’s screenplay is an excellent one, with layered and
textured dialogue which is never boring to listen to, and could have been
written by Mamet. It fearlessly plumbs the male mind. It was made on what I gather
is a minuscule budget, yet never shows it. The camerawork from Tony Hettinger
is largely still, and flat, allowing us to see the faces and hear the words,
limiting itself to a couple of pans- this could very easily be a play. The colour
range is dull, to reflect the hellish conditions that have led to this brutal
anomie.
But mainly, it’s the actors who bring this film alive.
Eckhart’s performance is genuinely chilling, and he brings to life a character
whom you are never sure quite when he is being honest. His words, his laughs, all
appear natural yet in the context in which we know him we are unnerved by how
much of a façade this seems to be. Malloy’s character on the other hand is the
beta to Chad’s alpha, a nervous man always wringing his hands, sick of his
nice-guy status. Both performances get under the skin of the characters, and
both end up being equally dangerous in their own ways.
This is a fascinating that just stops short of being a
perfect one. A couple of stylistic choices held me back; one shot lingers just
a little too long over some “CAUTION” tape, and there’s a bizarre tribal score
that is occasionally intrusive. The end scenes work, although they veer
slightly too close to being undeservedly “neat”.
Yet these are small niggles. This is a truly disturbing
film, which I recommend wholeheartedly with the caveat that you’ve probably never
seen evil like this before; armed with suspenders, a nice shirt, and a false
smile. It does a dangerous thing in allowing us to empathise with the
characters so as to condone them. But crucially, it never lectures, and any
open-minded audience member is treated to a film which respects your
intelligence; I mean that as a very high compliment indeed.
No comments:
Post a Comment