Under The Skin (Jonathan Glazer)

God, nope, I found this film to be intangible to the point of being vaporous; there were slim pickings and the merest hint of narrative, surrounded by (admittedly) atmospheric padding. 'Candid Camera with Scarlett Johansson' would be a more apt description in my view. I had heard people talk highly about Johansson's performance in this, but honestly I struggled to spot one; certainly not an emotive performance. She alternated between two states: a blank, mildly bored expression as she drove through the duller parts of Scotland (been there, done that, her ennui couldn't have been that hard to channel) and idle chitchat with unwitting members of the public. As Arnold Schwarzenegger proved, anyone can play an emotionless robot; I think the work was being done behind the lens tbh, not in front of it. I wonder had the lead been played by someone less famous as Johansson, would the plaudits have come so readily? Is part of the trick that the public didn't realise they were talking to a star?

I have to agree with those who found it boring though; I didn't find the endless long takes particularly effective at highlighting any sense of 'alienness' either. Urban suburbia is like another planet? Yeah, I'm fairly sure that tale has been told many times before, just perhaps with a little less tedium and navel-gazing. To be fair, some of the visuals could be mesmerising, but too often it felt a bit like those failed comic punchlines where the gag kept going for a few critical seconds too many, the camera lingering after the laughter had died. And it wasn't simply that I yearned for more 'plot' - plenty of film I've enjoyed have had an ad-hoc or abstract structure - I just didn't think what was on-screen to be that compelling. All surface, no depth, as they say.

The scene at the beach was quite powerful, I'll give it that and was probably the only scene deserving of its length, but I suspect that was simply down to the primordial reaction of genuine discomfort at .

e_e wrote: »

The problem with terms like "pretentious" and also "emperor's new clothes" is that it silences the discussion in an attempt to belittle others who see more in the film than they do. [...]

To be fair, the terms, however overused, are no more belitting than claiming those who use them simply 'don't get it'. In its defence, it's probably a handily glib reduction for when when people might want to express a discomfort over the abstract or intangible, but can't quite home in on the why. Don't like the phrase myself, wish it wasn't used so much, but I'd try not to use it as a rod to beat those who do use it.

As it happens, I did get Under The Skin, but that's because there wasn't that much to 'get' in the first place imo; it didn't strike as anything more than the thinnest of narratives held together by cinematic navel-gazing, and some admittedly striking, if overlong shots. Scar-Jo driving around the duller parts of Glasgow, talking to the public candid-camera style, isn't all that riveting; her blank, bored expression can't have been hard to achieve.

Sure, I got a little voyeuristic enjoyment out of wondering if those talking to her even realised who she really was, but then that asks the question if the concept would have even worked with any other actor.