The short film THE INTERVIEW (Dave Klapproth, 2017) is by turns a funny, awkward, painful, and revolting image of the post-2008 corporate world. At a time in which labor has been devalued and real work has become scarce, young and old, male and female, and experienced and new find themselves fighting to gain a foothold in the ruthless corporate environment.
Three candidates arrive for a job interview at a generic looking corporate office: a family man, an almost senior citizen, and a fresh-out-of-college millennial. The three share their sad stories in the waiting room. The older candidate left the industry to care for his dying wife, the family man may lose his house, and the young woman is terrified of a tough job market. The interviewer talks to each candidate alone, telling him that he will bring all three back later. After speaking with the three separately, he brings them all back in and offers them a contest—whoever can solve a maze puzzle can have the job. When the contest is won, however, the real disaster occurs.
Here, part of the humor lies in the fact that corporate banality can paper over real absurdities that is the contemporary system. The movie is slow, with long pauses as three potential competitors attempt small talk. Discussing cancer at the office with strangers is always awkward, but perhaps even more so when competing for one open position. The position is rather awful, in fact, not much more than a simply lackey. Moreover, the final contest is silly and trivial. The odd maze may gesture toward Google’s famous logic quizzes, which don’t seem to prove anything except that managers like to make prospective employees do trick to prove their worth. The relationship between a plastic maze and a highly secure biological research facility seems tangential at best (also, the film begs the question: Why did he interview each alone if he knew he was going to bring them all back in at the end? The fact that he told them from the beginning makes the concluding “maze contest” look entirely prearranged from the beginning.
The film’s ending, however, dampens much of its potential satire. Too narratively driven to be abstract, the films odd lack of a traditional story arc challenges the viewer to derive any meaning from the scenario. Except to know that, in fact, work is awful and occasionally deadly. It’s best to stay away from it at all costs.