Alex Garland's Provocative Men Asks: Are Men OK?
A surrealist nightmare of gender terror from one of Hollywood’s most distinctive directors.

You can't always judge a movie by its title, but Men clearly wants viewers to do just that. On the surface, at least, this surrealist-horror provocation from writer-director Alex Garland is essentially an elaborate, extended, wryly literal riff on the Twitterverse throwaway line about badly behaved dudes: "Ugh. Men. They're all the same."
And yet: This daring, strange, unrepentantly bizarre film, barely resembles anything you've seen before, almost entirely to its credit.
The story follows Harper (Jessie Buckley), a young Londoner still reeling from the death of her husband, who we eventually find out was abusive, as she enters a sprawling hideaway in the English countryside. She's left the city to heal by herself, but from the moment she arrives she encounters a string of, well, men—all of whom act inappropriately, or worse, and all of whom are played by Rory Kinnear.
Kinnear's characters are a catalog of stock terrible dudes: the handsy vicar who blames her for her husband's death, the landlord who can't help but make nosy and awkward remarks, the surly teenager who insults her.
Kinnear's recurrence is part actorly exercise, part metaphorical conceit: These aren't fleshed-out characters so much as illustrative types, as each demonstrates a different way in which men make women uncomfortable or put them in danger. Each encounter restates the titular provocation: Ugh, men, amirite?
And then there are more depraved characters still, including a fully naked man who is scarred and bloody (and also played by Kinnear) who stalks Harper at her retreat and later appears as a sort of pagan forest demon, his skin flecked with thorns and his forehead marked with a green leaf. What in the bloody hell is going on here?
Garland, to his credit, doesn't offer an obvious answer. Instead, the movie moves into ever-more surrealist territory, achieving, in its final moments, a menacing, dreamlike, quasi-trance state.
This sort of gory nightmare-scape will be familiar to viewers who have seen his previous features Ex Machina and Annihilation but may frustrate those looking for clarity and closure.
Clarity and closure, however, aren't the point. Men is a ghoulish tone poem about grief, trauma, and gender-terror, and the icky weirdness of various bodily orifices. It's a breakup movie as filtered through the dream-logic surrealism of David Lynch and the gross-out body horror of David Cronenberg.
In other words, it's an Alex Garland movie through and through. Garland made his name as a novelist and screenwriter, penning the book version of The Beach as well as the screenplays to superior horror films like 28 Days Later and Sunshine before striking out on his own as a director. Behind the camera, Garland's work has focused on female agency and power, natural decay, the frayed bonds of marriage, and the maddening unknowability of a supposedly rule-bound universe that sometimes simply refuses to follow rules, an idea he explored at greater length in 2020's underrated FX miniseries Devs. Over and over again, Garland seems to be trying to decondition viewers from their desire to fully understand the world by battering them with horrific-yet-mesmerizing forms of psychedelia. Oscar Isaac dancing worldlessly with a creepy robot slave isn't a thesis statement; it's just something that washes over you. You either accept its wordless non-logic or you don't.
And so it is with Men, which in the end is far from the simplistic indictment of men you might expect from its gimmicky title. Although it starts with what might seem like a one-note provocation, it slowly twists that provocation into something altogether more opaque, more obscure, and more fascinatingly unique. Men, the gender, may or may not be OK, but Men, the movie, is great.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Does it ask 'Are men okay?' or is this simply the typically arrogant presumption from someone who finds it easier make assumptions than ask questions? Could the film lampoon the entire in-group that operates under the numbing set of assertions that men are by their very nature, simply a set of caricatures? It's fairly difficult to take a recommendation, an insistence that a movie is great (mistaking the reviewer's opinion for fact, no less), from a review that insists that men may not be okay, linking to Reddit...
Yeah. It sounds entirely plausible that it's not impugning men, especially since it's the same actor as "men", but Suderman's doing his darnedest to project it that way (whether he's being paid to or not). I saw Under the Skin. Managed not to project it onto all women. I'll pass on Men.
Okay good review and all but can you please stop using “gender” instead of “sex”? Gender is a nonsense inner feeling based mostly on stereotypes. Sex is a biological reality. Why are you guys giving in to this woke bs and using “gender” instead of “sex”?
Clicks is always the answer here.
Alex Garland's Provocative Men Asks: Are Men OK?
Is that really the question we should be asking? Shouldn't we be asking if women are ok? And in particular, black women?
Black trans women, you monster.
Disabled, Black trans women, you monster.
Disabled, Black trans women who want to transition back, you monster.
Women are not okay since they simultaneously want to do away with men and become them.
And so it is with Men, which in the end is far from the simplistic indictment of men you might expect from its gimmicky title.
From the trailer, it hardly looked simplistic. It looked to me like a complex impressionist painting of what it's like to be an upper middle class woman suffering the horrors of the patriarchy, which is no easy undertaking, I can tell you. And the lack of diversity in the characters of the Men portrayed in the film helps the viewer understand just which men are the ones who besiege women on a daily, even hourly basis.
I will be watching Men with my daughter and use the viewing experience as an opportunity to discuss with her the world she's headed into.
sounds interesting. and like some shrooms we had maybe 20 years ago.
The picture for the article is a picture of a man, correct?
The "gender wars" still being, historically, nascent, I thought I might learn something from the movie. After it ended, I blurted out "what the hell was that about?" The women behind me in the theater laughed, seemingly in agreement.
I think I can take that response as comfort that not as many people take this stuff as seriously as the constant media attention to it would lead one to believe.
I saw it Friday afternoon (May 20). I loved Alex Garland's first two films, and this one didn't disappoint. You want folk horror? CHECK. You want body horror? Oh yeah, and it's pretty nuts. Do you want all the answers and explanations spoon-fed to you? Well you won't get THAT. But this was one of the most deeply disturbing movies I've seen in a LONG time. And ALSO: Not for the faint-of-heart.