3 Stars 1 Buck

Brief Interviews with Hideous Men

by Ray Greene

posted September 24, 2009 9:23 AM

An intricate, intriguing but inconsistent misfire from actor-turned-director John Krasinski holds a promise of better things

Brief Interviews With Hideous Men is a noble failure of a film that’s worth a lot more than many of the safer if more achieved works premiering beside it at Sundance 2009. Based on the novel by the recently suicided writer David Foster Wallace, the film has been constructed as a kind of jazz fugue on masculinity by screenwriter and first time director (and The Office series regular) John Krasinski, who takes daring but only intermittently successful visual risks in how he stages and edits the disjointed scenes, faux interview segments and flashback dramatizations that comprise this work. With its relentless emphasis on the deviousness and unreliability of the male gender, Brief Interviews is like a bitter woman’s magazine article come to life—call it “Why All Men are Cheaters, and Why They Can’t Commit.” But that description makes this dense 72 minute film sound a lot more accessible and commercial than it actually is, and while Krasinski definitely emerges as a talent to watch, it’s hard to imagine audiences masochistic enough to want to transform this movie into anything more than marginal arthouse fodder, or, more likely, a Sundance Channel exclusive cablecast and indie DVD.

Brief Interviews’ nonlinear plot is framed as a series of interviews conducted as research by college professor Sara Quinn (Julianne Nicholson), a woman conducting unorthodox research into the traumatic effects of the feminist movement on the male gender. Having recently suffered a traumatic relationship breakup of her own, Professor Quinn may be exploring the topic for internal reasons that are never expressed—the character is such a cipher, a listener only, that it’s difficult to say. But the men she selects, who come from all walks of life and are of various races, are almost uniformly horrors—monsters of narcissism and betrayal—and the interweaving of their self-absorbed, me-centered justifications for their misogynistic behavior toward the women who love them wears very, very thin overtime.

It doesn’t help that Krasinski has failed to alter Wallace’s luminous text so that it fits comfortably in most of the actors’ mouths, or that Wallace’s ear for the dialect of the blue collar and Sammy Glick types who comprise most of Quinn’s interview subjects was such a hollow one. Some of the subjects in this gender-based Milligram experiment are unique and believable; others are two-dimensional archetypes; others (especially any character depicted as being below a certain level of education and income) are flat stereotypes that speak for the author’s contempt of people less elite and intelligent than he. Everybody speaks in undigested short-story prose sentences though, and while it’s possible for a truly great actor to make this riveting (as Frank Faison does in the one dramatization that has nothing to do with gender politics, and which is ironically the high point of the film), Krasinski does himself no favors by appearing in his movie to deliver an enormous climactic monologue full of words he sounds like he had to look up to pronounce.

There was clearly something broken in David Foster Wallace, and it may be that whatever hatred of self drove him to despair is reflected in the vision of men he created, and which Krasinski has replicated. It’s still amazing that the principle creators of this very short movie were both men though, for the views it espouses are so relentlessly and misanthropically and monochromatically filled with spite and bitterness that Brief Interviews makes Neil LaBute’s In the Company of Men seem like a delicate love-conquers-all dramedy by comparison. In a sense, the title is misleading given the world Krasinski has chosen to create, for all men are hideous in this movie—not a subset of the gender but its totality. But Krasinski is young, ambitious and overt, with laudable pretensions to a more literate cinema, and his visual daring and the structural sophistication of his editing is a marvel that keeps bringing the viewer back every time Brief Interviews threatens to go completely off track. Aside from the depressing celebrity pedigree, his is exactly the kind of movie Sundance pretends to venerate. It belonged at the 2009 festival, and Krasinski belongs in the director’s chair for another, equally ambitious and better movie to come.

Distributor: IFC Films
Cast: Julianne Nicholson, John Krasinski, Bobby Cannavale, and Timothy Hutton
Director/Screenwriter: John Krasinski, based on the book by David Foster Wallace
Producers: Eva Kolodner, Yael Melamede, John Krasinski and James Suskin
Genre: Drama
Rating: Unrated, but with obscene language, descriptions of sex and brief nudity.
Running time: 80 min.
Release date: September 25 (limited)

Originally posted: January 26, 2009

6 Comments

lovi said:

I like the I Julianne Nicholson

April 16, 2009 11:31 AM

Paul Muñiz said:

"Suicided" as a participle? ("To suicide" a verb?) "David Wallace Foster?" The "principle creators?"

Not to sound too much like the Moms or to be "contempt[uous] of people less elite and intelligent than" I, but the neologism, juggling the author's name and confusing "principle" with its homonym look to me like careless execution and suggest careless thinking.

I haven't seen the film yet, nor have I read the book, but I've read other of Wallace's writings. Sure, he was quite troubled, but he could step outside himself far and long enough to do a large body of writing -- far from perfect, often uneven, but always speaking from the heart. But so far I haven't seen in his work the tired ranting of Wm. Faulker in his post-war, post-Hollywood efforts -- I found "The Town," e.g., to be painfuly unreadable.

The movie may be unrelievedly depressing, lacking likeable men to contrast with the hideous ones, but it does have Wallace's battered psyche hanging out there for all to see.

Anyway, it is too bad that Mr. Greene has not seen fit to proofread this review, given that it's been out there for almost three months now.

April 17, 2009 8:37 PM

Ray Greene said:

I don't know how Wallace's name got transposed -- I've checked my original and it's correct there. That's all I can do.

I'll give you "principle." It's one of my black holes. An error I make every time I get bored or tired.

Like now.

As to the "neologism" you accuse me of, maybe you should consult a dictionary before busting out the sophomore grammarian vocab words. According to Merriam Webster, "suicided" has been an acceptable usage since 1841.

Since you're so hopped up on homonyms, I assume you're also up to speed on the concept of the intransitive verb, right?

I'm sorry. I have to go now.

My apostrophe is having contractions.

April 17, 2009 10:17 PM

Dreggor Gade said:

You know, maybe in a few years down the line when I get a cushy, plum job on a sitcom and end up with free time, free money, and free contacts with great talent, I'll shoot a vanity project too! Gosh, I loved Pynchon in college. So I'll shoot an incredibly unfilmable book also. I'll start small like Krasinski. He didn't jump straight to "Infinite Jest," so I won't go for "Gravity's Rainbow."

I think "The Crying of Lot 49" would be a fantastic vanity project that I could use to burn up lots and lots of money (screw the economy) and have my own Sundance moment, being avant-garde in my free time while raking it in as a network commodity (sitcom actor).

On second thought... that seems like a really selfish and guilty pleasure that does nobody any good whatsoever. I'll pass on the self-aggrandizement. I'll stick to adaptations that can work as features for the enjoyment of the audience (and not just the self-adulation of the writer/director).

April 19, 2009 12:16 PM

ampersand said:

John Krasinski first got the film rights for "Brief Interviews with Hideous Men" at the age of 23, as an unknown actor. He borrowed money from a friend to finance the project. He slowly began gathering a cast by approaching his favorite NY actors. This was all before he won the role of Jim on "The Office."

He might not have gotten his movie into Sundance had he not been famous, but he probably would have filmed it either way.

April 23, 2009 4:41 PM

bsw2108 said:

There's no such thing as an unfilmable movie. Sure there may be concepts that can't be written, blocked, and edited according to classical hollywood standards; that is far from saying that the concept is unfilmable. Fittingly enough, the concept of an unfilmable movie is ironized in Infinite Jest (James Incandenza's filmography contains several works which are deemed unfilmable: assumedly for the same reasons that some people think that the concept for Infite Jest was unwritable).

That said, I do agree that it is risky to adapt Brief Interveiws into a movie. It's hard to sell a disjointed movie, and DFW's work can only be faithfully adapted as a disjointed movie. However, there have been other films that don't follow the rules of narrativity to T and still manage to carve out a niche for themselves: look at the works of Godard, Lynch, Jarmusch, Soderbergh, etc. Each of these directors play with the idea of what makes an interesting narrative. Sure these are lofty goals, but you can't criticize the guy for trying. Personally, I'm excited to see how Krasiniski's film turns out: could go either way.

May 2, 2009 6:48 AM

Leave a comment