Under the Skin (Jonathan Glazer)

[Izzy Black]

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.

BTW, this is true of most thrillers. Make no mistake, on a formal level, this film is a thriller (it obeys the conventions of the genre, while also inventively flouting some). It actively exploits a narrative mystery. The more you know about the plot going in the more your experience with the film will be affected. For some, knowledge of the specifics of its generic workings (sci-fi thriller) doesn't take away from its impact. For others, it might. The central point being, though, that in any case, it's perfectly possible to pick up all the ideas whether you know something about it or not.

[Grouchy]

I'm not sure what to make of this film. On one hand, it looks and sounds beautiful. On the other hand, it was hard to anchor myself to anything in it. I half-agree with Irish here - my previous knowledge of what the plot was about was the only thing that helped me make sense of some scenes.

[Pop Trash]

Rewatched this on DVD. One new thing I noticed is there is a brief shot of the sky over an apartment building with what appears to be some CGI enhanced lights or lightning or some alien crap happening up there. I'm wondering if this is where ScarJo's UFO is located or if I'm just over thinking things.

Also, how bonkers is that scene with the domino effect of drowning people on the coast? Plus the total disregard for the abandoned baby. I think every viewer's innate human empathy countered against the characters' total lack of empathy makes this scene really disturbing.

[Dukefrukem]

This was almost as bad as Spring Breakers, Leviathan and Only God Forgives combined.

[Dukefrukem]

Rewatched this on DVD. One new thing I noticed is there is a brief shot of the sky over an apartment building with what appears to be some CGI enhanced lights or lightning or some alien crap happening up there. I'm wondering if this is where ScarJo's UFO is located or if I'm just over thinking things.

I noticed this and that's absolutely what it is.

[Dukefrukem]

: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.

Yeh I need way more. You pretty much hit every nail on the head for me. Not going to deny the audio track was haunting and fit extremely well with the black void scenes, but there's just no rhyme or reason for this movie to exist. Not in the way it was presented.

I am however agreeing with the idea she's an alien based on the UFO sightings.

Again, not the least bit surprised half of MC gave this 5 stars.

[Dukefrukem]

This is gonna win like 6 Matchies...

[Ezee E]

This is gonna win like 6 Matchies...

Doubt it wins one.

Seems like a Nolan or PTA year.

[Spinal]

Doubt it wins one.

Best Original Score is a lock.

[Yxklyx]

Rewatched this on DVD. One new thing I noticed is there is a brief shot of the sky over an apartment building with what appears to be some CGI enhanced lights or lightning or some alien crap happening up there. I'm wondering if this is where ScarJo's UFO is located or if I'm just over thinking things.

Also, how bonkers is that scene with the domino effect of drowning people on the coast? Plus the total disregard for the abandoned baby. I think every viewer's innate human empathy countered against the characters' total lack of empathy makes this scene really disturbing.

Was that baby real, in which case it will be traumatized for life? ... or was the baby a CGI?

[Grouchy]

Was that baby real, in which case it will be traumatized for life? ... or was the baby a CGI?

Huh?

[Dukefrukem]

Yay I don't have the worst post in this thread!

[Grouchy]

I like this more and more as the days go by, by the way.

[dreamdead]

An exhilarating experience, one that grows stronger rather than recedes. The lack of narrative occasionally becomes taxing in the in-viewing experience, but with some remove the purely ostentatious visuals (sinking into liquid black, the shedding of the skin in the forest) become transcendent reminders of what quality visual design to remain haunting.

In terms of narrative, this is a fascinating experiment in adaptation studies. Apparently the novel is a metaphor for animal cruelty and urging reform; the film, however, sublimates all of that tension into how femininity can be a violent projection for the death drive but one that "she" realizes is predicated on her own submission into sexual objectification, and how little knowledge she has over "her" body, she is left behind by her peers. The whole sequence with the deformed man and his eventual fleeing is probably going to be one of the most haunting experiences.

Good stuff--I expect it to remain strong for the rest of the year. Didn't especially love the soundtrack except for the standout "Love" track; the rest is good, but I expected more like that track, I guess.

[Kirby Avondale]

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.

I just wonder where these reviews and essays come from. How did they manage to interpret the movie? Did Glazer tell them? Other reviews and essays? Essays all the way down.

[Irish]

I just wonder where these reviews and essays come from. How did they manage to interpret the movie? Did Glazer tell them? Other reviews and essays? Essays all the way down.

Press kits.

[Pop Trash]

Anybody that has seen the movie Starman (among other things) could figure it out. Come on.

[Kirby Avondale]

Press kits.

Oboy. How did Izzy manage without one? All I knew was the basic premise and the candid camera gimmick. All the same, I got the main character's arc and a workable grasp of the themes, nutshelled: the encounter of human and alien consciousness, of our affect and "hers" - "hers" not just because she isn't human or necessarily female, but because her consciousness proves porous. Her human performance sinks in, seduces her and creates a new, jumbled sense of self, sensitive to people, but vulnerable to everything. Gladly she acts this out instead of summarizing it for us, so this whole business of radical translation isn't watered down or papered over. Instead we get stuff like her leading dudes into void pools followed by a guy leading her delicately down a castle staircase. It's reaching right down into our animal guts and stirring up all the inexplicable shit that makes us, us.

[Irish]

All I knew was the basic premise and the candid camera gimmick.

It seems you missed the point I attempted to make.

Any movie nowadays has context around it. From press reports and advertising, and sometimes source material.

In watching this film, I wondered what it would be like and how one might interpret it if one went in well and truly blind. Would it make sense? Hold together? The movie itself relays so little narrative information.

That's it. That was the whole of my observation. I think there might be a weakness there, but *shrug* if you don't, hey, glad you enjoyed the picture.

[Kirby Avondale]

It seems you missed the point I attempted to make.

Any movie nowadays has context around it. From press reports and advertising, and sometimes source material.

In watching this film, I wondered what it would be like and how one might interpret it if one went in well and truly blind. Would it make sense? Hold together? The movie itself relays so little narrative information.

That's it. That was the whole of my observation. I think there might be a weakness there, but *shrug* if you don't, hey, glad you enjoyed the picture.

I find that weird, because Izzy already answered that. And what does knowing that she's some sort of alien being matter? That's hardly a great leap from early on, unless you know of some other being that floats around in unearthly voids and harvests humans. The rest of the content of my post is information gleaned directly from the movie and reasons given for why it's presented as it is. If that stuff doesn't bear on your point, then I don't see that your point is getting at anything interesting about the movie or movies generally.

[Spinal]

The ambiguity is one of my favorite things about this movie.

[Winston*]

I saw this movie and the Belle and Sebastian musical God Help the Girl on subsequent nights, which was kind of fascinating in showing how differently two films can show a city.

This movie's urban nightmare much closer reflects my experience of what Glasgow is like. In God Help the Girl, Glasgow is always sunny and contains no Scottish people.

[Pop Trash]

Did you like God Help the Girl? I'm a pretty big B&S fan so I imagine my opinion will be biased towards the positive.

[DavidSeven]

It's definitely a taxing piece and probably more at home in a museum than a movie theater. If we're forced to use labels, it doesn't work as a "thriller." There's no tension, because the film is devoid of characters so we have no reason to care beyond the wonderment of how it will unfold. Not to say that's an inherent flaw; I don't think it was within Glazer's intention to create something that was dramatically compelling. I'm not sure there's much use in rating this on the same scale we use for stuff like The Avengers. It's a different thing, and to the credit of the filmmakers, it at least makes no bones about it. I'm not even sure that it's of the same ilk of Persona, 2001 or Tree of Life. Those films play like Chinatown in comparison to this. It's not just a different genre, it's practically a different form -- like comparing a novel to a long poem.

Like everything, but perhaps more pointedly with this film, the viewer's response will depend on how willing they are to engage the material. The film does little for you in this regard, and I'd be lying if I said my mind didn't wander. The film certainly has more ideas than most narrative films, but maybe not enough to compensate entirely for its outright dismissal of convention. Once you make sense of what's happening, it's a pretty straight forward and penetrable piece. I found it interesting in spurts, but maybe not enough to justify its length or its repeated holding of shots.

Does it resonate and settle well on reflection? Yes. Would I recommend it to an average movie-goer? No. It's sort of a shame that it's marketed as a sci-fi thriller, because I think these types of films can discourage viewers who actually do seek sophisticated work and are consistently let down by critical consensus. With some films, the art and commerce factors just don't overlap. As mentioned, there is no use saying Under the Skin is a "good movie" and Marvel Film X is a "bad movie." Different ballgame, different sport. I have no rating for this film. There are many things of value in it, but nothing about it will be bring me back or get me to watch it again unless it's being projected on the wall of some museum or trendy self-serious coffee-house/bar.

[Pop Trash]

I'm kind of at a loss with people who think this is too outre. The narrative thread is really straight forward. The Man Who Fell to Earth is more confusing to me.