Under the Skin (Jonathan Glazer)

[Spinal]

Wow, just discovered that the composer is a 26-year old woman working on her first film. Impressive.

[quido8_5]

Hmmm, this is a lot to process.

You can say that again. Long time observer, former poster, deciding to hopefully contribute to the conversation here.

I believe this may be one of those movies that can't be watched, only rewatched. It hasn't left my head since I left the theater last week. Johansson was chilling throughout, though she found some room to be relatable. The score was both fantastic and used perfectly. I, too, was shocked that Glazer was able to sustain that tone throughout the whole film. One thing that I've been wrestling with (especially after reading the article Boner posted): who is the predator at any given moment? I love that Glazer opted for a far more ambiguous route than the novel, allows for a richer discussion about identity, consumerism and the weight of human life.

One thing that I might be able to add to the discussion: I'm struck by the linearity of the story line. Though it is one of the most baffling films I've ever seen (makes Tree of Life look like Forest Gump), I believe that the character finding out what/who she is and who she can relate to (if anyone) knit the film together and explored some difficult topics about who we manipulate others vs. try to find genuine connections with them. Her arch is complex and difficult to fully grasp, but it's clear by that final scene that [

Show Spoiler

we know that she is someone who desperately longs to know who she is or has become. I found the shot of Johansson's face, just prior to the pyre, heartbreaking.

]

Also, [

Show Spoiler

lol on the vag check after she nearly sleeps with the dude.

] One quick clarifying question, does anyone know who's house the biker went to? Was it the elephant man?

[Bosco B Thug]

Incredulous even as some sort of fable (though apparently it's germinated from an actual plot-containing book, driven by humorous satire... bold oppositional move by Glazer; anyway, irate mainstream audiences seem a given), an uneasy marriage between many things, at first seemingly one between British-tradition realism and Kubrick. That latter point is actually a great compliment, as Glazer successfully creates something free-flowing and true under a hand of remarkable restraint. Meanwhile, Kubrick, yes, but also Brakhage, Silent cinema (as Pop Trash and Ivan already astutely observed), and, most remarkably, Bresson.

[Boner M]

Gonna continue discussion here instead of facebook...

It sounds like we're in agreement that the mid-film shift doesn't entirely work, but you were willing to let it slide just a bit more than I was. Don't get me wrong, it's still a very good film, and the second half is by no means a wash, but Glazer lost me a bit with the mirror, the fog, the forest, and whatnot.

I didn't have a problem with the mirror and forest scenes (the latter especially because it has the film's most memorable image, ie the dissolve from foetal sleep to forest, which reminded me of Apichatpong), but I actually think the fog patch scene is one of the most crucial and mysterious scenes in the film; it's pretty thudding if you read it as metaphor, but I saw it more as exposition, ie, she encounters something on Earth that reminds her of the abyss from which she originated (or is at least more familiar with), and is accordingly seduced by it.

[Henry Gale]

Anyone checked this out at home yet? (Hopefully with as good a screen, sound and as few distractions or breaks as possible.)

It's now out On Demand, iTunes and the like. It's also pretty damn great but uncompromisingly its own thing, so be prepared (and pumped!) for that.

[Irish]

Beautiful and empty.

The visuals are gorgeous. I love the use of negative space. It's a clever, artistic way to visually communicate certain actions. But we end up seeing the same action three or four times, and it plays out more or less the same way each time. That's not clever or artistic. If the repetition itself doesn't have any particular point (and here, I don't think it does), then it just feels lazy.

The music was well done and effective but I hated the way it was used. It's one thing to use a jarring soundtrack to evoke emotion against more placid visuals. But to do it repeatedly, over the course of two hours, turns the movie into a one trick pony. It's old Hollywood and melodramatic and I can't help but think it a crutch. The filmmakers hit the sound hard because the rest of the film isn't strong enough to evoke any true feeling.

That's where my biggest problem lies. A few folks drew comparisons between this and Kubrick, but aside from catchy visuals and an icy tone, I don't see it. Kubrick never did anything this empty, this devoid of ideas. Even when he was at his coldest (The Shining?), there was still something human at work in his movies.

And yeah, I know. It's a movie about an alien. But the film doesn't have any characters, just set ups. It doesn't have anything new or interesting to say about the heroine's experience. Instead, it relies almost entirely on being opaque to generate interest. Now that I really resented. The Slant review posted above contains more narrative information in its first paragraph than the film does in its entire runtime.

That's bullshit, because it means the movie isn't self contained. I've got to do all the heavy lifting on it's behalf. I've got to know going in that Scarlett is an intergalactic hunter-gatherer and I've got to be empathetic as hell towards her for this movie to register at all. Otherwise, none of it makes any sense. It's a music video, catchy visuals and a helluva score and not much else.

[Boner M]

Beautiful and empty.

The visuals are gorgeous. I love the use of negative space. It's a clever, artistic way to visually communicate certain actions. But we end up seeing the same action three or four times, and it plays out more or less the same way each time. That's not clever or artistic. If the repetition itself doesn't have any particular point (and here, I don't think it does), then it just feels lazy.

It's a film about an entity built for routine veering from that routine after experiencing difference within a field of sameness. The repetition is crucial. And the action hardly plays out the same way each time. The first time it's insinuating and creepy, the second time it's darkly funny (the smash cut from the guy dancing at the club to him dancing in the abyss is pretty hilarious) and then horrifying, the third time we only follow the guy to door, and the fourth time with the facially-disfigured guy is a completely different tone altogether.

As for the film being devoid of ideas, it's pretty obviously using uncanny/genre-fied premises to get at ideas of everyday estrangement and inequality (specifically gender-based). Whether you think it successfully explores them is another matter, but they're there.

[Boner M]

Also, looking at the ratings: who is Frank TJ Mackey?

[ledfloyd]

Man. This is the first film I've watched at home in a long time without ever pausing or looking at my phone. That may say more about my general attention deficit, but this broke right through it. Still kind of in a daze, but what a deeply engrossing film, and I'm also astounded at the ability to keep it going to feature length.

[Irish]

It's a film about an entity built for routine veering from that routine after experiencing difference within a field of sameness. The repetition is crucial. And the action hardly plays out the same way each time.

I have to disagree, B. The repetition serves no other purpose than establishing that she has routine. Each "black room" scene has a similar structure and visual motif. They each take place about 15 to 20 minutes apart. But they don't inform on the characters in a meaningful way. They don't provide the audience with any new insight. The club kid dances and the deformed man says "It's a dream." So what? That doesn't tell us anything we don't already know.

All of this takes an hour -- half the film's runtime -- but why? If we shuffled those scenes around and presented them in a different order, would it matter?

As for the film being devoid of ideas, it's pretty obviously using uncanny/genre-fied premises to get at ideas of everyday estrangement and inequality (specifically gender-based). Whether you think it successfully explores them is another matter, but they're there.

I'm not sure that the film presents a singular social dynamic is enough. I wouldn't call that an "idea" in and of itself, because there's no interpretation or insight involved.

[ledfloyd]

All of this takes an hour -- half the film's runtime -- but why?

Why not? It's consistently engaging. That said, I think there is a slow evolution from encounter to encounter and something clearly changes when she meets the deformed guy.

[Boner M]

I have to disagree, B. The repetition serves no other purpose than establishing that she has routine. Each "black room" scene has a similar structure and visual motif. They each take place about 15 to 20 minutes apart. But they don't inform on the characters in a meaningful way. They don't provide the audience with any new insight. The club kid dances and the deformed man says "It's a dream." So what? That doesn't tell us anything we don't already know.

Regardless of how much we disagree that a film should only impart narrative information, we clearly do learn something different with each iteration of the routine. We see what she does to them the first time, we see what happens to them the second time, and with the deformed guy, we see someone reacting differently to her act because of the skin they inhabit, which prompts her to act on her newfound feelings of curiosity, in a way that the others couldn't have.

[Irish]

Regardless of how much we disagree that a film should only impart narrative information, we clearly do learn something different with each iteration of the routine.

Well, that's a different discussion. I didn't mean to imply there's an inherent issue with a scarcity of narrative information at the scene level. But this movie takes that sort of idea to an absurd level. If someone stumbled across this thing on late night cable, would they be able to suss out what the hell was going on?

I'm not sure they would.

We see what she does to them the first time, we see what happens to them the second time, and with the deformed guy, we see someone reacting differently to her act because of the skin they inhabit, which prompts her to act on her newfound feelings of curiosity, in a way that the others couldn't have.

Good point. I mostly meant the characters. We don't learn anything about them as people (glancing at the credits, most don't even have names). We don't learn anything about what this alien creature feels about her work, or whether she's capable of feeling at all. We don't know what she wants, if anything, beyond her job. We don't learn anything about our world, and these moments don't provide any perspective or insight into much of anything, as good science fiction usually does.

I went into the film knowing only the star, the director, and the very basic premise (that she's a murderous alien). I almost wish I hadn't known any of that, because then the film might have struck me as something fantastic and weird and a little bit scary.

Instead, I kept trying to interpret it as a story and a piece of science fiction, and on both those levels it fails badly.

[Pop Trash]

Well, that's a different discussion. I didn't mean to imply there's an inherent issue with a scarcity of narrative information at the scene level. But this movie takes that sort of idea to an absurd level. If someone stumbled across this thing on late night cable, would they be able to suss out what the hell was going on?

I'm not sure they would.

Who gives a shit? I doubt people would be able to 'suss out' Eraserhead or Persona if they caught them on some awesome late night cable channel (a good night at TCM?). It doesn't make them less than singular works of cinematic art.

That being said, I don't think this film is as 'difficult' as some are making it out to be. It's oft compared to The Man Who Fell to Earth, but I actually a) think this is a better film overall and b) think this narrative is easier to follow if you really pay attention from start to finish. I still don't really get the 'evil corporation' subplot of TMWFTE.

[Irish]

Who gives a shit? I doubt people would be able to 'suss out' Eraserhead or Persona if they caught them on some awesome late night cable channel (a good night at TCM?). It doesn't make them less than singular works of cinematic art.

The purpose of the cable analogy was to highlight that the film isn't self contained, and the experience of it changes wildly depending of viewer's prior knowledge. Since I don't think that was part of the artistic intent, I view it as a weakness.

That's also the difference between this film and something like Eraserhead, where surrealistic images and a jumbled narrative are intentional and part of the whole.

To answer your first question last: I give a shit. That's why I wrote what I wrote.

[Boner M]

The purpose of the cable analogy was to highlight that the film isn't self contained, and the experience of it changes wildly depending of viewer's prior knowledge.

Oh no, a film that allows for different experiences.

That's also the difference between this film and something like Eraserhead, where surrealistic images and a jumbled narrative are intentional and part of the whole.

You think the narrative of UtS is jumbled? And that its images are unintentionally surreal? Seriously?

[Irish]

Oh no, a film that allows for different experiences.

You misunderstand my criticism.

It only allows for a different experience if the viewer is completely ignorant of the film's content. That's not a positive trait, and I doubt it's intentional.

You can take any number of movies with ambiguous elements, from 2001 to Blade Runner to Total Recall to Inception, and form an interpretation of them based on the film itself, based on what the film has shown and told you.

That's not quite possible with Under the Skin because the film tells you little to nothing. It's nearly impossible to interpret it without consulting an outside source; a review, essay, or the original novel.

That's the part of it that bugs me, that I think is a major weakness.

You think the narrative of UtS is jumbled? And that its images are unintentionally surreal? Seriously?

No. Also, not what I said.

[Boner M]

That's not quite possible with Under the Skin because the film tells you little to nothing. It's nearly impossible to interpret it without consulting an outside source; a review, essay, or the original novel.

How so? We learn that she's not of this world, and is harvesting men for some nefarious purpose, and that's all we need to know for what the film's trying to do, ie an experiential portrayal of humanity from an alien's POV. Apart from that, I don't see why you would think the elliptical nature of the story is unintentional. Do you think Glazer & co. had the film ready to be premiered and then remembered "whoops, we forgot the elaborate backstory!".

No. Also, not what I said.

"That's also the difference between this film and something like Eraserhead, where surrealistic images and a jumbled narrative are intentional and part of the whole." Here, you imply that the surreal imagery of UtS and its allegedly jumbled narrative are unintentional, no? Now who's being impossible to interpret?

[Irish]

How so? We learn that she's not of this world, and is harvesting men for some nefarious purpose

Ah, but you're cheating a little bit. The film never clearly indicates that she's alien, and it barely communicates that she's harvesting human meat. We know she's seducing guys and presumably killing them, but we don't really know how, why or to what end.

Imagine going into this film totally blind. How would you interpret it? What's it about? Go back and watch it through those eyes. Now contrast that experience with the one of someone who had read that Slant review first and benefits from Ed Gonzalez explaining everything the movie does not.

See the problem? The "blind" viewer has no way to interpret the event of this movie on his own. It not only lacks basic narrative information, but it also never hints about what any character thinks about the events they experience. How is that possible? If you believe in the auteur theory, this movie leaves you empty handed. Glazer never tips his hand, he never delivers a point of view, and it's pretty much impossible to know what he thinks about his own characters.

I don't see why you would think the elliptical nature of the story is unintentional.

I don't think that. I'm saying the lack of narrative information in this film, its deliberate obtuseness, creates a weird side effect. Your experience of this film chances completely depending on how much you know about it before going in. It's not self contained. That's the part that's unintentional.

[Boner M]

Ah, but you're cheating a little bit. The film never clearly indicates that she's alien, and it barely communicates that she's harvesting human meat.

It doesn't indicate that she's an alien from outer space, but it does indicate that she's not of this world. In the first five minutes we see her in a space that's clearly not in any Earthly realm. We see and (especially) hear the world around her differently. That her true nature isn't imparted to us is because what she does and who she is isn't unusual or notable to her. We're dropped, in media res, into someone's POV. This is clearly a conscious choice. And something I find exciting in cinema, when executed well.

Additionally, we see the men sucked into a black abyss, implode, and then a mass of gore sliding down a chute, then through a kind of cosmic funnelling system. In any case, I found the film's mysteries engaging as I let it wash over me. I felt in the hands of someone who knows what he's doing.

All I'm getting here is that you're faulting the film for not fitting your idea of what a film should be.

[Irish]

It doesn't indicate that she's an alien from outer space, but it does indicate that she's not of this world. In the first five minutes we see her in a space that's clearly not in any Earthly realm.

You assume those events are a literal representation of reality. Without any kind of point of reference, those scenes could easily be viewed as metaphoric.

Additionally, we see the men sucked into a black abyss, implode, and then a mass of gore sliding down a chute, then through a kind of cosmic funnelling system.

You're cheating again, and leaning on the crutch of foreknowledge. What you're describing is a lot more opaque than you make it out to be. We see a guy implode, a chute filled with blood and some kind of bio matter, and some brightly colored, red, machinery (there isn't anything "cosmic" about it).

Okay, she's killing people and in a weird way. But do we ever learn why? Nope. Does she ever have any kind of reaction to repeatedly doing this? Nope. Do we ever know why she let the deformed guy run off? Nope. Is she developing empathy and seeking out human behavior and company after spending time on this planet? Wait, what? If she is, does that cause any kind if internal conflict for her? Who the fuck knows! Look, bright colors! Cool lighting! Harsh sounds!

I'm being overly facetious -- the movie is a helluva audio and visual experience, but I also think that only gets you so far. I don't think it deserves to be praised for that alone, especially as it's lacking in a lot of other areas.

All I'm getting here is that you're faulting the film for not fitting your idea of what a film should be.

:lol: Why didn't you just shorthand it and say I "didn't get it"? I got it; there isn't much to get. The film succeeds on its production design and its audio track. You like that it takes an unconventional approach. So be it. I need more.

[Boner M]

You're cheating again, and leaning on the crutch of foreknowledge. What you're describing is a lot more opaque than you make it out to be. We see a guy implode, a chute filled with blood and some kind of bio matter, and some brightly colored, red, machinery (there isn't anything "cosmic" about it).

What foreknowledge? The processing that the mens' innards go through in that brief montage sequence becomes increasingly abstract, as if matter is being distended across time and space; I'm confident that I would see the sequence the same way without any prior knowledge of the premise. There's only so much that a human mind can envisage about 'alienness'; I like that the film acknowledges those limitations.

[number8]

Every movie should make the audience do most of the heavy lifting, I say.

[Izzy Black]

That's bullshit, because it means the movie isn't self contained. I've got to do all the heavy lifting on it's behalf. I've got to know going in that Scarlett is an intergalactic hunter-gatherer and I've got to be empathetic as hell towards her for this movie to register at all. Otherwise, none of it makes any sense. It's a music video, catchy visuals and a helluva score and not much else.

I didn't know the movie was about an alien when I went into see it. I had zero prior knowledge of the film before I saw it. This made for an extremely engaging cerebral experience, something akin to a Kubrick experience, so I think the comparison is apt. I was completely locked in. It's one of my all time great theater experiences. I'm really glad I resisted reading anything about it before I saw it. It's a thematically rich film. It's less strictly about alienation than it is about embodiment and a crisis of identity, but of course, these ideas aren't mutually exclusive with the problem of otherness (cf. Denis Beau Travail). It's an art film though that speaks with its images and not with words. I had to do a lot of the intellectual work, but it was the film's job to challenge me to do so. I had no trouble extrapolating its ideas. I came home and read the Slant review and found that it was right at home with everything I thought, which is surprising, because Slant's has become increasingly more unreadable over the past year.

[Izzy Black]

I should point out I wasn't totally sure she was, in fact, an alien, until the end, but that's OK! It was actually a brilliant, emotionally powerful reveal for me (even though I was all but sure), whereas for everyone else who had even read the plot I imagine it was a foregone conclusion. The sense I had of her as an "alien" was a deeply abstract conception of it, I was riffing on her otherness, a sociopath, an organized criminal. Who is she? Some intergalactic species harvesting humans? Perhaps. She was certainly foreign. She's uncomfortable in her own skin, but also, almost somewhat indifferent to that fact. I was drawn to the mystery, her mystery, and her own callous bemusement. The film exploited my uncertainty brilliantly, constantly forcing me to engage the theme rather than passively accept its obvious thematic touchstones.