Under The Skin (Jonathan Glazer)

The film is all about the mood Glazer has pretty explicitly slashed away at the story (in a good way!) and reduced it to its most basic elements. It's less about the specifics of the plot, and more how scenes, images, shots, sounds, edits etc... communicate the film's themes and emotions. I loved how abstract and almost primal the film's storytelling was - it allowed the atmosphere to sink its claws in without excess exposition or explanation getting in the way, really capturing a fresh and 'alien' perspective in the process. The mystery and oddness was so rich and potent. Sci-fi isn't a genre that often enjoys a minimalist approach, so here it was very welcome indeed.

Penn wrote: »

If a film is more about mood than story, it's not a good film imo.

Well that's dismissing a whole lot of the greatest films ever made right off the bat! Certainly best avoiding Norte, The End of History at the moment

To me there's a bit of a distinction to be drawn between 'story' and 'plot'. IMO every scene in Under the Skin serves a general narrative - and by that I mean the character arc of the creature, the themes of the film and even the atmosphere (which is so tightly integrated with everything else I'm loath to separate it!). The only thing it's relatively light on are the literal specifics of the 'plot', the A -> B. It's not something like, say, The Dark Knight Rises, which is stuffed to the gills with forward momentum and dramatic events (to its detriment, even, given much of it plays out like a rapid montage). Under the Skin is 'freer' than that, and allows the scenes to play out at a more leisurely pace to allow real nuances and depths to emerge. Yes, the barebones events of the film could probably be covered in thirty minutes - but that wouldn't allow any time for the unnerving atmosphere or subtly told character arc to pack as much of a punch.

All that said, I wouldn't even say it's all that fair to say Under the Skin has much empty space - compared to the likes of Bela Tarr, it's positively hyperactive. But when you keep something in the frame longer than is - speaking in purely plot terms - necessary, a director can achieve far deeper insights. It allows a performance to sing (and Johannson is exemplary here in the quieter moments) and the viewer to immerse themselves far more intimately in the film's world. Under the Skin, for me, succeeds in that sense and then some. It's a film where I felt I worked for the film's many pleasures, as opposed to being given them - which sounds like a negative, but actually I was far more immersed and engaged than I would have been had it been more focused on the simple plot.

All strictly IMO of course

God, don't waste the film watching it on a tablet! Its visuals demand a bigger screen than that.

pixelburp wrote: »

If I'm doubly truthful, I felt a tad irritated about the idea of sticking Johansson in a minvan and calling it cinema, art or what-have-you. I grew up with Mike Murphy or Jeremy Beadle pulling that stunt on TV but because it featured a Hollywood starlet doing her best 'alien' impression and flirting with some Glaswegians, it seemed to earn praise (yeah I appreciate it was more complicated than that)

I'd suggest the hidden camera sections are but a small factor in Under the Skin's success, considering they represent a minority of the content in the film. I can't imagine they represent more than 10-20% of the film's running altogether, if even. They are, IMO, effective in their intentions - they capture naturalistic reactions to the situation that few actors would manage if handed a script. The creature's methods are so blunt and unusual that it's a powerful (and funny) choice to film some genuine responses to them.

Still, though, for the most part Under the Skin is written and directed like any other film. The style may be unusual, but there's a whole lot more to the film than simply Alien Candid Camera. In fact, most of the striking and potent images and moments that come to mind when reflecting back on Under the Skin are the definitively artificial ones - the beach setpiece and the lair sequences, for example. I loved the way it cut from the grimy, lo-fi 'streets of Glasgow' aesthetic to the hyperstylised weirdness of the alien interiors. Without that stark contrast, the alien scenes wouldn't feel quite so... alien, I guess!

I'd also put forward that far from meandering off following the scenes with the deformed passenger, the film actually opts to focus in on a more traditional narrative. Perhaps even to its detriment - it loses the rambling oddness that is so captivating in the film's first half. But it does go to great efforts from that point onwards to introduce and explore the nameless character's journey. That's when Johannson's performance goes from curious (but effective - her ability to shift from brutal, inhuman efficiency to sultry flirt in the blink of an eye is captivating) to excellent. I go back to that scene where she examines herself in the mirror - the sheer curiosity she displays as she gazes at her unfamiliar body is a wonderful bit of silent acting, and she really manages to express someone fascinated by a brave new world they've discovered. Her role is first and foremost is to be truly alien - that often dead-eyed stare captures the essence of a predator, an explorer, a monster, a creature coming to terms with their own consciousness and being. Her job is to be emotionless and otherworldly, but to me there's a lot more going on than just a good impression of a robot.