The Method Before I begin my review, I think I should clear up that the "Gronholm Method" is an obscure method of interviewing someone for a job. It involves gathering up a number of candidates eligible for a position, but rather than openly interviewing them as a process of discovering their usefulness and weaknesses, there technically is no "interviewer". In the film, the candidates are placed in a room with six laptops (one for each contender to receive notes) and they are forced to psychologically analyze each other to discover a "winner". They are issued a series of challenges and hypothetical situations in which they are forced to pick out the weakest of their group. There is always the lingering plausibility that any one of these contestants can be the true interviewer, or perhaps there could be multiple interviewers? Maybe there is only one true contestant, or maybe they are all role-playing in a method to promote a staff member in the company? Any of these explanations are reasonable, because when we're discussing a method as cynical as the film's depiction, it's almost superficial to narrow it down to one solution.
I'm not entirely sure about the historical authenticity of the Gronholm Method, or if it even exists (a Google search sent me to the film's IMDb + Wikipedia page), but I can almost assure if the film were a multinational box-office success, small businesses would begin to experiment and possibly adapt the assumed fictional method. I personally wouldn't mind being an interviewee of such a system, for it allows me to challenge my intellectual abilities in an intense competition. As for the film itself, when its narrative followed the characters as they explored each other's limitations and the film analyzed their credulity and startling enthusiasm to such a sport, it was an intensely riveting experience. The characters were developed with careful and relentlessly strengthening three-dimensional traits, and the methods of interviewing grew more severe and brooding to reveal the true nature of man. The first 50 minutes of this film were pure exhilaration, a haunting psychological depiction of cat & mouse. To me it was almost a nostalgic resemblance of the superfluous anxiety found in 12 ANGRY MEN, as I'd never felt so absorbed by long-running dialogue since.
After several characters are eliminated from the process (I'm not about to explain who, why, or how), the film takes a break from its intense onslaught of psychosomatic progression. This veers the film off-course and unfortunately causes it to wane off a bit. Greed is replaced by hormones as one character randomly feels like having sex with one of the remaining interviewees. Although a bit absurd, it also fits the animalistic desperation the contestants must be feeling by this point. They've been stripped bare from social courtesy, and are now physically fighting one another, no longer caring for outer appearance. I'm not sure if it justifies going as far as it does, but it would've been totally implausible to remain as a restrained and gracious drama.
A romantic subplot also develops between two interviewees. They had once been lovers, but one betrayed the other, and neither had ever forgotten. They still longed to be together, but the hostile circumstances made it impossible for them. The subplot does reach startling poignancy at one point, but does the film ever get back on track? Does it ever re-enter its initial excitement? Unfortunately, the writer didn't trust his sardonic examination would make for a fully satisfying viewing. His decision to switch gears was more detrimental than refreshing, and that may be the only aspect of the film that inhibited greatness. It still makes for a relentlessly entertaining viewing, one that not only provokes thought, but questions human morality in a time of conflict. Cynical, but excellent.
I'm not entirely sure about the historical authenticity of the Gronholm Method, or if it even exists (a Google search sent me to the film's IMDb + Wikipedia page), but I can almost assure if the film were a multinational box-office success, small businesses would begin to experiment and possibly adapt the assumed fictional method. I personally wouldn't mind being an interviewee of such a system, for it allows me to challenge my intellectual abilities in an intense competition. As for the film itself, when its narrative followed the characters as they explored each other's limitations and the film analyzed their credulity and startling enthusiasm to such a sport, it was an intensely riveting experience. The characters were developed with careful and relentlessly strengthening three-dimensional traits, and the methods of interviewing grew more severe and brooding to reveal the true nature of man. The first 50 minutes of this film were pure exhilaration, a haunting psychological depiction of cat & mouse. To me it was almost a nostalgic resemblance of the superfluous anxiety found in 12 ANGRY MEN, as I'd never felt so absorbed by long-running dialogue since.
After several characters are eliminated from the process (I'm not about to explain who, why, or how), the film takes a break from its intense onslaught of psychosomatic progression. This veers the film off-course and unfortunately causes it to wane off a bit. Greed is replaced by hormones as one character randomly feels like having sex with one of the remaining interviewees. Although a bit absurd, it also fits the animalistic desperation the contestants must be feeling by this point. They've been stripped bare from social courtesy, and are now physically fighting one another, no longer caring for outer appearance. I'm not sure if it justifies going as far as it does, but it would've been totally implausible to remain as a restrained and gracious drama.
A romantic subplot also develops between two interviewees. They had once been lovers, but one betrayed the other, and neither had ever forgotten. They still longed to be together, but the hostile circumstances made it impossible for them. The subplot does reach startling poignancy at one point, but does the film ever get back on track? Does it ever re-enter its initial excitement? Unfortunately, the writer didn't trust his sardonic examination would make for a fully satisfying viewing. His decision to switch gears was more detrimental than refreshing, and that may be the only aspect of the film that inhibited greatness. It still makes for a relentlessly entertaining viewing, one that not only provokes thought, but questions human morality in a time of conflict. Cynical, but excellent.