Profiles Theatre is currently staging the World Premiere of In the Company of Men by Neil LaBute. As
a fan of both Profiles’ and LaBute’s works, I was enthusiastic about attending
the production. I viewed the film version many years ago; I found the film hateful
and inhabited by unsympathetic characters. I entered the theatre with hopes
that the staged version would find the heart and humanity absent from the
screenplay. My hopes were not fulfilled despite strong performances (especially
Brennan Roche) from the cast and a stylish set design by Thad Hallstein.
In the Company of Men
has the recognizable attributes that I have come to appreciate from LaBute; he
employs witty, naturalistic dialogue brimming with humor which eases the
audience into recognizing the distasteful characters as extreme replicas of
themselves. LaBute seduces the audience into empathizing and rooting for his
protagonists quite well by making them flawed, but charismatic, and undeniably
human. LaBute then proceeds to have these identifiable, likable people commit
atrocious and often amoral acts. The audience is left questioning whether they
are capable of similar behavior under the circumstances presented in the
script. It’s a fascinating template, which he has arguably exhausted through
his many plays. LaBute never cowers from sensitive, topical subject matter from
racism, misogyny, homophobia, bullying, religion, national tragedies, body
politics, etc. Therefore, his work is often controversial and received with a
mixture of accolades and disdain. However, his voice as an American observer
cannot be ignored especially as a playwright.
So why does In the
Company of Men – one of his earliest works – misfire as the astute social
commentary to which it seemingly aims? LaBute attempts to make commentary on
corporate America and misogyny in his script. He portrays the two misogynistic
lead male characters as ruthless and emotionally barbaric. However, he does not
give the audience a character with which to identify. In the opening scene of
the play, the two men plot a detestable scheme to hurt a woman because they
have both apparently been recently injured by ended relationships. Therefore, one
can assume that the woman chosen to be ill-treated will be the character with
which to connect. LaBute in turn gives us an under-developed character which is
hearing-impaired, and instantly a victim. Seems broad, right? That’s because it
is. We understand that this character has a good sense of humor about her
surdity and that she struggles to date because of her unique voice stemming
from her handicap. However, that’s all the information we are allowed. We can
sympathize with her pain in being hurt by them men, but without finer detail in
characterization from the playwright the impact lacks strength.
This is where LaBute’s commentary on misogyny becomes
misogynistic. We know more about the two male characters’ pasts,
relationship-history, education, and friendship. They are more fully-fleshed
than the female character (named Christine). Despite LaBute’s attempt to
reverse expected nudity on stage – two men expose their genitalia while no
women appear top or bottomless – one of the male characters, Howard, was given
explanatory motivation for his actions. He is also given a softer side by genuinely
falling in love with Christine. While it doesn't excuse him, he comes across as
equally victimized as she does. This occurs because both Howard and Christine
were part of a scheme concocted by the second male character, Chad. They are
both sufferers of Chad’s jealousy towards Howard and his successes. In the end,
Chad is left unscathed and promoted in corporate America, Christine finds internal
peace and self-empowerment, while Howard is left emotionally distraught, demoted,
and alone. So who is the true victim?
So is this a cautionary tale? Is it a character study? Or is
it a reflection of our merciless society?
There are other arbitrary, less-significant issues with the
script: unnecessary atmospheric-characters and direct-address which makes the
piece stylistically incoherent while contributing very little to the
development of the characters and story line Yet, the idea with which the
audience leaves is compelling: “I can be whoever I want to be.” There is a lot
of power in that statement and it rings true for each of the central
characters. However, the faulty execution of the idea makes for a disagreeable play,
albeit for inadvertent reasons.
Also, check out my review of American Theatre Company's Speech & Debate!
