How utterly despicable can a lead protagonist be before the audience feels like switching off in disgust? After all, the audience can take a bad guy being as ruthless as possible. Most of the time we thrive on the knowledge that no matter how cruel and sadistic they may be, that come the end credits, our hero will have vanquished them once and for all. When the lead character is portrayed as these things, it can more times than not, be very hard to swallow; why would we want to spend two hours of our time in the shadow of these wretched people? Scorsese has made a career out of portraying incredibly unforgiving anti-heroes, and making them interesting and watchable. Just look at DeNiro's 'Jake LaMotta', 'Travis Bickle' or 'Rupert Pupkin'. These are all incredibly hard and complex creations. They exhibit nasty and and sometimes brutal behavior and yet they are three of the most captivating characters in screen history. While characters like 'Hannibal Lector' and 'Darth Vader' usually top 'best ever villain' polls, they offer us sometimes cartoonish and unrealistic portrayals of psychopathic tendancies. That is why we love them so much; they are the epitome of evil, but offer us no grounds to assume people like this exist in real life. We can look on from afar, completely removed from the action on screen. That is why they are so fun to watch. Which brings me to "In The Company Of Men". This film I propose has the most vile, and stomach churning characters in recent memory. And why is this? Well because in the ways that we enjoy other villains for their over the top theatricality, those presented here are all the more barbaric and ruthless in that they stem from a very real place. There are people like that out there today. We can run into people like this just outside our door. And that is what makes "In The Company Of Men" the uncomfortably fascinating experience that it is.
Whatever happened to Director Neil LaBute? It was with this that he made his Directorial debut and it was met with much critical acclaim and award winning success. Now wasting his considerable talents on execrable affairs such as 2006's horrific remake of "The Wicker Man" (one of the worst films I have ever seen) and this years pointless remake of "Death At A Funeral", that he crafted something as scathingly clever and well observed as this, is quite surprising. Working from his original stage play the film plays on its own terms and offers plenty to think about come the end credits. Chad and Howard have both been recently dumped. On a six week business trip to an unnamed city they find themselves both embittered by women. Sick of pining and feeling terrible for those they perceive to treat them like rubbish they both hatch a plan. Both will date the same 'lowly' woman for the time they are in town. Both will treat her like royalty. Then, when her spirits are raised and she begins to feel great about herself for the first in a very long time, they will both humiliate and dump her. It is their way of 'taking back the power' and enacting revenge on the female species they feel has wronged them so. That their pray in question is the meek and very unassuming Christine, a deaf employee at their agency, things begin falling into place. That is until both mens actions have unforeseen affects on them. An unusual and often uncomfortable examination of misogyny in the workplace, this is one film going experience that could not be described as an 'easy or fun watch'. Indeed, upon watching it, I myself began to feel quite queasy at the sheer level of cruelty and torture on display. Not quite the same form of torture used in the "Hostel" and "Saw" films; what our protagonists specialise in here is emotional torture.
Eckhart in his first lead role in a major motion picture is repulsive, malevolent and magnificent. His is a character that thrives on power over others. He could be seen is quite a misogynist, what with his scorned put downs and general dislike of those of the opposite sex. I however believe him to be more misanthropic in nature. Look closer and you see that while on this particular occasion, those on the receiving end of his power hungry trip are women, he has the same scant regard for everyone. His hatred in this case might extend to Christine, but he holds everyone he works with in that regard. They are puny to him and he must have dominance and power over them. Eckhart portrays him brilliantly. Underneath his good looks and wide smile lies very complex and sociopathic tendencies. It could be argued that Eckhart built his career on the back of this performance and he gives it everything he has got, despite the fact it is such an ugly person. A very risky part indeed, but under Eckhart's wing it is guided to safety. He is joined by Matt Malloy as Howard. An actor I have heard nothing of before or since, he nontheless plays the puny and weak number two, to Eckhart. Sure he doesn't come up with the original plan, but he doesn't do anything to stop it. Malloy is the audience in this game of destruction. We are complicit in Chads ploy, just as Howard is. As he grows ever more uncomfortable of the game, so does the audience. Howard just might be the worse by sheer fact that he has the ability to tell wrong from right. Chad it seems has lost that trait a long time ago. As a foil to Eckhart he contrasts him in not only in looks but also personality. He is the submissive, to Eckharts domineer. Completing the trio of characters is Stacey Edwards as the unfortunate prey. She is heartbreaking in her role. Portraying deaf in a character cannot be easy and is always a tight line to walk, but Edwards here exercises a wealth of emotion with her eyes. It is through them we see the sheer pain events have transpired to. The cast are without a single false note.
As the source material is originally a play, it is evident throughout the entire film. In fact, this is one of the films criticisms. The film has very little cinematic quality to it. It favours long takes, over stylish cinematography and quick cuts. As a result the film moves at quite a languid pace. This style, certainly does allow events and actors to breathe but for such a dialogue based piece, it demonstrates very little to set it apart from its original stage production. Music is initially disjointing, until you realise the tribal rhythms are intentional in reflecting the predatorial tendencies of the protagonists; they are on the hunt and the music emulates this. Morals run very murky indeed here. LaBute seems intent on showing what men are truly capable of. Do all have the potential to be either a Chad or a Howard? LaBute seems to think so; in his world all men are cowards or barbaric. Christine is the one pure thing in this world and it is she that the men are conspiring to destroy. The title itself could mean both the sexist, male domineering company these men work for, or either the time we spend in their company. The film will almost certainly not be to everyones taste; those who don't mind the heavy dialogue and pitch black humour the film strives for, might find the uncomfortable subject matter and lead characters too miserable to want to see them through to the end of their little 'game' Those who have the head and stomach for it though will be rewarded with a very interesting and probing examination of the darkest side of men. LaBute writes fluidly and callously and exhibits a great ear for dialogue. All in all, not exactly a truly fun experience, but overall, very rewarding and rich for all the right reasons. Just remember Chad and Howard the next time someone brings up how horrible their favourite movie monsters are. After all, the scariest monsters, are those that really exist.
Verdict: 81%
A very well observed but sometimes excruciatingly cruel debut from LaBute. The cast all exhibit high standards and the writing is pitch perfect but watching in any sort of nihilist mood is 100% not advised. If this is, as it is suggested a 'black comedy', then it must go down as one of the darkest in recent memory. A fantastic debut from both Eckhart and LaBute.
