When Speak No Evil came out earlier this year, audience sentiment was staunchly divided between those who preferred this new Americanized version and those who insisted the original Danish version (released only 2 years ago) was superior.
The thing is, I’m not sure it’s a fair comparison, as they were making wildly different statements. Hard to believe, since most of the plot points were identical.
The only real difference was the ending, as detailed by the Critical Drinker:
Despite the almost shot-for-shot remake, the makers of the American film had an entirely different message, one plainly painted by the events of the climax and of the closing shot.
I recommend watching the Drinker’s video so you can get a plot rundown and his take on it, but even if you don’t, you can see from the video title, he thinks the American version made a blunder. That it “missed the point” of the original.
It didn’t.
The original was a hideous critique of the specifically Scandinavian tradition of not making a fuss, of being accommodating, especially when a guest. Being a bother is apparently a cardinal sin in the North, which results in passivity and acceptance of poor behavior.
The movie just took it to the worst possible extreme, encapsulated by the closing line:
Bjorn: Why are you doing this?
Patrick: Because you let me.
In the remake, Ben also lets Patrick do all manner of things, stepping over every boundary. Why wouldn’t he? Ben never pushed back. Not even when his wife and child are threatened right in front of him.
It’s Louise, the wife, who takes a different turn in the remake. She’s the one who changes the ending. That was not an accident, nor was it a girl-power ra-ra moment.
The movie was a warning to women about the danger of attaching themselves to weak, passive men.
Marry one, or worse, bear his children, and you will be taking on a liability, one that may get you killed.
The Millstone Husband Disgusts Us All
In his video, the Drinker admonished the filmmakers for not giving Ben, the repulsive weakling husband, a redemption arc wherein he reclaimed his masculine power and protected his family from danger.
But that would have gone against the core message of the film: Weak men cannot be redeemed and for the safety of yourself and your children, they must be discarded.
This is a horror movie, so it would be incorrect to say the target audience of the film was women. And in truth, both sexes were equally repulsed by Ben.
But it is the women who are being directly spoken to in the film’s ending. The final moments in the film are of the family fleeing their ordeal. Louise is driving (of course she is), Patrick’s blood still splattered on her face. The camera lingers on her and it’s clear there is no coming back from this. There will be no return to normal.
The signs of Ben’s weakness were already there: His lack of employment, his consistent indecisiveness and passivity, his acceptance of Louise’s affair.
All that was embarrassing and gross to Louise (hence the affair). But now Ben’s actions nearly resulted in their murder.
At every turn, he refused to stand up to Patrick, but was happy to tell Louise to calm down when she voiced her concerns.
It’s not an accident that Patrick was portrayed as a Red Pill Alpha Bro, someone who took charge, made decisions… and looked damn good doing it.
People were so sure that the toxic alpha male was the cautionary tale of this movie. But he isn’t. It’s the millstone husband.
In normal life, many women are saddled with weak, effeminate millstone husbands. If they work, it’s something low-paid and/or not up to the man’s potential. He does little to nothing around the house or with the children because he needs to “decompress” or “that’s not my job.” He brings nothing to the family but a paycheck, and expects to be praised for it, perhaps growing increasingly hostile when he’s not.
These men are embarrassing, especially when they behave poorly at parties or work functions.
Such a man serves as a millstone around a woman’s neck. Creating work and alleviating no burden. Yes, they earn an income, but the weight of them far exceeds it, and that’s assuming they’re not in massive debt or an overspender.
The problem, of course, is that these men are being chosen by women. Intentionally.
Yes, It’s Feminism’s Fault
Women have spent multiple generations trying to stamp out aggression, anger, and disagreeableness in men. We tell our boys:
Don’t shout
Don’t hit
Don’t make a fuss
It doesn’t even seem to matter what the context is. Men (and boys) showing any anger, ever, is the reddest of red flags, a sure sign he’s not to be trusted.
Women have made it clear they are selecting for passivity, letting men know that if they want to be in relationships with women, they will comply.
Oddly, this isn’t malicious. It’s a protective instinct gone amuck. Male anger is so terrifying that it can be hard to witness even when it’s not directed at you. Two men shouting at one another once made me shake so violently I had to leave the room. Neither was angry with me, but I was afraid all the same. And so were the other girls.
The easy answer to such intrinsic emotional responses was to avoid men who are volatile or prone to outbursts. But it’s all gone too far. The rule is no longer “A man must never weaponize his superior physical strength against me.” It has become “A man must never show his temper.”
Even when its warranted.
Speak No Evil shows quite clearly what happens when you choose the agreeable man, the one who will do as you ask without complaint. The one who won’t raise his voice and will be polite when your mom has comments about his joblessness.
Choosing this man makes it easier to get your way, I suppose. But it comes at a terrible cost. The complete absence of masculine aggression in your husband can only mean one thing: you’re vulnerable to men who haven’t handed over their balls.
And the man who should be most invested in protecting you, and your children, won’t.
There can be no redder flag than that.
You're right.
But like... I almost don't blame parents nowadays for failing to discipline their kids when they are one call to CPS away from landing in jail if they do. Like how do you exercise authority over someone if they have a ready "get-out-of-jail-free" card always at hand?
Similarly, aren't men in the same boat with women? Remember the recording from the Depp/Heard trial? "Call for help, who's going to believe you?" Nowadays I don't question why so many men are going trans - I question why so FEW are doing so since it's an immediate trump card you can wave around. Like CS Lewis said in Abolition of Man - "we remove the organ then demand its function. We laugh at honor then are shocked to find traitors in our midst."
Good points. Message received.