BRIEF INTERVIEWS WITH HIDEOUS MEN (2009)

Posted by Daniel Metz

Here’s what I knew about this film going in:
1. It is directed by that guy from the Office and Away We Go
2. It is based on a book by that dead author whose lobster book Corinna is reading
3. It has Gob Bluth in it
4. Peter Travers liked it

The film is theatrical and literary, feigning cinematic qualities as if to apologize for its bad behavior. Perhaps I should start from the beginning: the film is a non-linear narrative, cutting back and forth between scenes of men explaining bizarre parts of their psycho-sexuality, and a narrative about a very pretty freckly red head and the man who broke her heart. It features non-cinematic monologues galore; whether they be from closeted-virgin Will Forte, an extra from Super Fly, or the film’s director John Krasinski, the men in this movie talk and talk, their language too-articulate and over-prepared. They deliver their lines as if they were poorly auditioning for a realist drama or some twisted version of the Vagina Monologues.

She's cute, ain't she? Notice the blurry Gob Bluth in the background

The director lets us off the hook, however, by using little cinema tricks he learned from Jean-Luc Godard, Woody Allen, and a number of other people who used to be experimental filmmakers. Unfortunately, I am not sure that a few jump-cuts are going to help us. I am not sure Krasinski cuts up his film with the same life, vigor, inspiration, or political ideology that JLG used when he spliced up Jean Seberg’s beauty in a stolen American car. I am not sure Krasinski manipulated space and time by inserting his characters into their own pasts with the same wit, insight, and fun that Woody did when introducing his uncle Nickels in his magnum opus. The tricks here seem forced, lacking the aesthetic support that better filmmakers provide.

titular interview set against creative backdrop

There are a number of truly great moments in the flick, however, and that may be its biggest problem. It is an amalgamation of scenes without the necessary artistic glue to hold it together. There is a knock-out scene in which a black man describes his father, a bathroom attendant, with great detail and greater disgust. The scene itself is magnificent, as we see his father responding to his son’s criticisms so that they form a trans-time debate. Unfortunately, the film cannot hold this level of pleasure, however, because the acting is so theatrical, the moments so unconnected…

Krasinski, as the heart-breaking boyfriend, looms over the film like a spectre, appearing in the borders of a number of scenes and finally hamming it up for an extended monologue about seducing a Birkenstock. If there were a different director at the helm, he never would have allowed the actor to ramble in such a petty attempt at a tour-de-force. This scene does allow us to understand the project of the film, however, as the following scene shows the lead character explaining her thesis to her adviser: she wants to study the effects of the feminist movement on men, and so she goes out interviewing hideous men. Oh, I get it now.