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