Alex Garland’s Men Aids in the Progression of Hollywood’s Feminism

Alex Garland’s latest film Men (2022) has quickly engendered polar opposite reactions from much of its audience. The controversy is not just about the film’s utilization of graphic body horror, but also, largely, its thematic content. Some audience members have appreciated the explicit feminism of the film, which directly acknowledges the unequal treatment of women in a patriarchy. Others are more hesitant to impart praise. While there may be good reason not to have enjoyed the film, there is no good reason to condemn it; Hollywood is increasingly progressive, but such an explicitly feminist film is nevertheless a definitive step forward, and should be celebrated as such.

Garland’s Men, which arrived in theaters at the end of last month, follows protagonist Harper’s trip to the countryside following a traumatic experience with her husband. The longer she stays in the idyllic home, the more men appear on the scene, bringing their own personal brand of terror. A nude stalker, a perverted vicar, a demanding child, an incompetent policeman, and the creepy owner of her temporary home offer Harper not a second of relief as they capitalize on her fears and on the constant demands of a woman’s perceived place in society. Women are treated as inferior; this may be our current place in society, but not the place in which we belong. 

From early on in the film, the truthful theme is abundantly clear: the patriarchy is ridiculously harmful to women. However, contrary to the claims of some of the film’s critics, it does not stop there. As the film progresses, the men are introduced, each fitting a traditionally male archetype: a husband, a religious authority, a child, a protector, a predator… These are not the only things men can be, but are indeed things which men consistently are. In turn, each expects Harper to fit in the respective female archetype: a wife, a virgin, a mother, a damsel in distress, prey…

These different relationships demonstrate the ways in which women are oppressed. From having to get one’s husband’s permission for a hysterectomy, to slut-shaming, to child marriages, to being held to a standard of calmness and nurturing that no man ever is, women face the products of a sexist society day in and day out, at every turn. Different places, of course, uphold the patriarchy in different ways, and some women’s experiences are much more dangerous than others. Regardless of location, though, women all share in many outdated expectations, as well as universal fears and limitations. Do you know any woman who feels safe walking alone at night?

An alternate phraseology for the film’s theme is “yes, all men.” This sentiment is meant to capture the fact that whether or not a man purposely exploits his power, every man benefits from his place in society. Of course, men have varying amounts of privilege. While all men maintain some amount because of their gender, men who fall into one or more marginalized groups lack many of the privileges of men who are straight, white, cisgender, heterosexual, able-bodied, etc. Although the film does not comment on these layers of privilege, it correctly points out that privilege itself need not be activated consciously, for it lies within one’s very identity. 

Critics of the film argue that Garland cannot absolve himself of his identification with this harmful privilege by creating a film which flaunts his understanding of feminism. This would be a wonderful criticism, were it what he intended to do. However, it does not seem to be his intention to absolve himself. In a more sympathetic reading, the film acts as an apology rather than supposed evidence of innocence. Assuming that Garland does not maintain a powerful cognitive dissonance on the matter, he would not create a film which stresses the universality of guilt among men in order to claim that he is somehow the exception to the rule. Should a man speak on women’s suffering? Probably not. Should a man, however, use his power and platform to create art about men’s crimes against women, both expressing and curating guilt? Absolutely.

One of the most important aspects of the film is its self-reflexivity. Again, barring (considerable) nuance, the film’s theme is easily recognizable less than halfway through its runtime. However, reader, resist the urge to diagnose Men as a short-film gone self-indulgent; the unrelenting and obvious repetition of the same thematic content formally parallels the ways in which real women are bombarded with sexism daily with no escape. If you find yourself watching, agonizing over the sheer duration of it all, the obviousness of the atrocities, and the obliviousness of all surrounding diegetic men, you have experienced the way in which the formal aspects work to further the film’s message. In a more specific example, one scene alone lasts 17 minutes; this uncommon addition yet again brings about feelings of helplessness and the inability to escape. As a woman, this is a hard film to watch– not because of how gruesome it is, but because of how emotionally relatable. As a man, if this is a hard film to watch, then it is serving its purpose. Sitting in those feelings– the uncomfortability, the guilt, the inexorableness– is a positive step for a man’s personal feminism. 

Ultimately, this film is not the quintessential feminist guidebook. It says little about intersectionality, lacks diversity, and makes no attempt to address the nuances of gender beyond the traditional binary. Not every film must tackle such complex subject matter. These are topics better suited to a different artist, one with firsthand experience in being oppressed. This film, however, has one theme to convey and does so admirably. Rather than attempting to include all of these (important) concepts, Garland addresses a clear-cut issue in a clear-cut way. It’s feminist message, though not revolutionary by any means, is unable to be missed nor denied; in Hollywood, this is certainly a step forward. Any man who has seen this film has spent an hour and 40 minutes face-to-face with his oppressive place in a misogynistic society. Hopefully, this sparks critical thought. At the very least, it necessitates awareness, and that is always a thing to be celebrated.