Premise Misogynistic, But Film Is Much More

Like David Mamet’s “Oleanna,” Neil LaBute’s debut film “In the Company of Men” uses gender to make its point.

“Oleanna,” however, follows an arrogant professor and his seemingly dim woman student as they do a dance that the audience is invited to interpret. Do the professor’s efforts to “help” the woman amount to sexual harassment? Is the woman adhering to an agenda that victimizes a naive and stupid man?

Or is it some sad combination of the two?

Mamet doesn’t let us know for sure. And so the real gender war begins as audience members argue their opinions.

LaBute is up to something different.

On the surface, his film is, if anything, even more overtly gender-based. His protagonists are two corporate types, co-workers laboring on a six-week special project. One night, while passing time in an airport, they begin talking.

Before long, though, they are venting rage. Their targets at first are fairly non-exclusive, but gradually they start to lob their best shots at women.

Both have been hurt in the romance wars, and both have the scars to prove it. So, in the course of the conversation, they decide to “hurt somebody” back.

Their plan: to meet a suitable victim, shower her with attention and bring her along slowly to where she trusts one (or both) of them completely. Then, when she is most vulnerable, they resolve to dump her.

As LaBute himself even admits, the premise is clearly misogynistic. And it is this very premise that is earning the film, an independent production made on a limited budget with no-name actors, widespread national attention.

But much, if not most, of that attention is based on a false premise. For while “In the Company of Men” uses gender as a means to make a point, the real issue involves individual character and the unbridled quest for power.

For when a someone decides to go after what he (or she) wants, no matter who gets crushed in the process, the question is not one of sexism but of sociopathy. And Chad, the alpha male of LaBute’s duo, has all the traits of a true psychopath.

He backbites everyone. He undercuts his co-worker, Howard, while pretending to be watching out for him. He humiliates a male African-American intern in a manner that is as racist as it is sexual. And he ends up, having accomplished his task, acting as if nothing ever happened.

So then why has “In the Company of Men” caused so much gender buzz? Because it’s always tempting to settle for the most convenient answers. If someone such as LaBute uses sexual abuse as a way of making a larger point, many viewers will remain obsessed with what’s most obvious: the sexist posturing of a male.

And the sad truth is that, especially in the 1990s, it’s always easier to believe that every man is a jerk at heart.

, DataTimes ILLUSTRATION: Color Photo

MEMO: Today two writers, one male, one female, examine the movie “In The Company of Men, which has aroused so much controversy over gender relations. These two observers take divergent paths to surprisingly similar conclusions.

For another view see headline: Film serves as warning against power abusers by Andrea Vogt