Under The Skin (Jonathan Glazer)

Amalgam

Starring Scarlett Johansson. Trailers out just a few hours now.

Looks interesting. Suitably sinister.

Based on a novel by Michel Faber.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rVZrbPmvwA

e_e

Looks great, kinda regret choosing another film over it at JDIFF. Still it's not like there's long to wait anyway.

pixelburp

That's an extremely effective trailer if nothing else; really sets a creepy & mysterious tone that lures the viewer in, and all without giving the game away. Manys a Hollywood marketing department could learn a thing or two from trailers like this. I'm only aware of the book in passing & repute, but it seems like the promotions for this are keeping the cards close to their chest.

JP Liz V1

I got a David Lynch vibe from the trailer and seems like a remake of Xtro or Species

johnny_ultimate

Well.

I'm at something of a loss to describe how creepy, mysterious and effective the first half of this film is. I've barely seen anything like it, although there are hints of Kubrick (of all the compliments!) about it. From the slickly abstract prologue, it's an aesthetic treat and then some. The sound design grabs you, the visuals truly hypnotise. From the uncomfortably intimate flirting sequences to a scene that resembles a cinematic kaleidoscope, it's a remarkable sensory experience. There's a deeply dark and captivating sequence on a beach, that serves as a brilliant way of further introducing us to our odd protagonist. But then there's a couple of scenes... I actually don't even want to mention them in any detail, because they're just so spectacular. There's one SFX heavy sequence that is pretty much unforgettable (and that ****ing sound design): scene of the year candidate already, and it scared the absolute **** out of me.

The narrative is fairly straightforward here (although both the visuals and the events themselves intriguingly albeit ambiguously explore aspects of sexuality and gender in society) but it's magnificently crafted. It reminded me of Upstream Colour in a very good way - not in terms of specifics, but in the way they use the tools of cinema so elegantly to tell their story. I believe the adaptation significantly cuts down the stuff from the book: I haven't read it, but at the Q&A afterwards Glazer said he only used the book as a starting point. So it's that rare but wholly admirable sort of smart adaptation that aggressively distills or even strips a literary source down to its most cinematic elements, adapting ideas, themes and characters rather than just lazily recycling the plot itself. There's very little in the way of exposition or extraneous dialogue, and having the meaning and specifics of key aspects left very vague is one of the film's strongest assets in building its surreal and deeply mysterious tone. Johannson in a very often speechless role - the polar opposite of her Her performance, indeed - is fantastic: managing to convey an alien figuring out the rules of Earth, with an intense stare that's a key part of the film's narrative and visual signature. Indeed, it's a film about 'looking' more often than not - at others and at ourselves, albeit in this case through an extraterrestrial perspective. One of the opening shots is an eye, and many of the turning points of the film revolve around the alien having her perspective altered by simply looking or examining something.

The second half is, well, different. It's a rather different sort of tone, as the 'action' shifts from Glasgow to the countryside. Our alien begins to empathise or at least becomes increasingly curious about humanity and herself. The change is a tad jarring at first, TBH. I wondered where this was going for a while, but I felt Glazer nailed the landing. In many ways the film further explores the ideas and themes articulated in the first half, leading to a powerful conclusion. There's some fascinating scenes (including a seemingly tender sexual encounter with a blackly comic punchline), although it's not until the final minutes we get haunting imagery on par with the best from the first hour.

Above all, Under the Skin is a film about mood, and Glazer is brave enough to supplement a stripped down, ambiguous narrative with evocative and sometimes provocative delivery. It's going to be divisive, no doubt. But IMO it's one of the most captivating and distinctive pieces of cinema I've seen in recent times.

Sad Professor

I’m raging that I missed this, but thankfully it’s out in a few weeks anyway.

Amalgam

Cheers johnny_ultimate, I'm happy you focused on the audio. Happy too that your review doesn't spoil.

I'm intrigued by the styling, it is sort of 'Omni Magazine', via the BBC Radiophonic Workshop, heavy seventies UK vibe to it, quite an earthy flat palette to the colours as well. Looking forward to this.

Going into snail mode for this one, no more video or reviews until it starts showing..

tunguska

Saw them reviewing this on film 2014 the other night and they seemed to be blown away by it. Scarlett Johansson as an alien preying on hitchhikers in scotland.......sounds like Species which isnt such a good thing. Although its meant to be Species as directed by Stanley Kubrick so it could be amazing. Plus Scarlett looks smokin' as a Brunette.......

http://cdn.bloody-disgusting.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/under-the-skin-scarlett-johansson-movie-2013-jonathan-glazer.jpg

Has anybody seen it yet?

fluke

Cannot. Wait. For. This.

johnny_ultimate

Merged with existing thread!

Amalgam

I couldn't wait, curious, so.. read the book.

The film trailer seems a lot more sensual than the book. 'Pathetic' and 'grimey' would be words that spring to mind, after reading it, you feel like you've had chip grease smeared on your mind. Not a jolly experience. There's also a 'plurality' to the set scene, in the sense that, it is a group of 'humans', stuck, for various reasons, doing something very peculiar.

Some interesting issues set up in the book. I wonder how on Earth they'll handle all that in a film that looks quite stylised.

Ho hum, not long to wait..

Decuc500

It's one of the most unsettling and disturbing films I've seen in a long time.
I wouldn't say I enjoyed the experience but it was a very impressive and unusual film.

Noise Annoys

Saw it in the film festival. It was good. Not a masterpiece in my opinion but very interesting, slow paced, atmospheric, artistic - and it stays with you for a few days after.

Amalgam

Just a quick nudge, this is coming out a bit sooner than expected. Released tomorrow, Friday, 14th March, 2014, in various cinemas around Dublin.

I'm not aware of listings outside of the Dublin area, apologies.

Cineworld Dublin, IFI Irish Film Institute, Light House Cinema, Dublin.

http://entertainment.ie/cinema/film-times/movie/Under-The-Skin/10.htm

SuperGrover

Saw this yesterday.

Some of the most unforgettable scenes I've ever seen.

Amazing stuff.

Amalgam

Noise Annoys wrote: »

Saw it in the film festival. It was good. Not a masterpiece in my opinion but very interesting, slow paced, atmospheric, artistic - and it stays with you for a few days after.

I liked this more than I'd care to admit.. If you've read the book, don't go expecting anything close to it in mood or scenario, about the only thing in common, are the words, 'alien' and 'Scotland'.

Sad to see reviewers deciding to have a dig a Scarlett Johansson, '[snide]..oh, she does blank-face so well..[/snide]'

She carries off the role asked of her eerily well. Delighted it was her.

I don't get the Kubrick name dropping, I would go with Tarkovsky hanging out with Chris Cunningham and Mike Leigh.. it is abstract, slow paced, but with a sharpness to the scenery and style that you would expect from a music video.

Enjoyable, not something you'd care to watch over and over. I went to the IFI, bit of a barn.. despite meeting people there for years and years, first time as a film viewing customer. Screen 2. ..with the gift of hindsight, I would have opted for the other cinema choices in Dublin.

Chelon

Saw it last night. Still trying to decide if I like it; may have to repeat view.

One question though - the reviews summarise the plot, yet as far as I can see these plot summaries are based on elements of the book rather than the movie. Glazer has said that the book was a mere starting point for his movie.

I guees what I'm trying to say is that anyone who hasn't read the book or a review would be completely lost by this movie; not because of plot complexity, but just the opposite - so very little happens or is revealed throughout.

I only had half a clue what was happening because I'd read a few reviews before, but if you went in cold, I really think you'd be completely lost.

Anyone seen it cold and "got" everything?

tunguska

Saw it at the weekend and I loved it. Definitely a film that you'll either love, hate or just be baffled by. Seriously atmospheric and that score was like something Kubrick would use. Scarlett Johansson was brilliant, I cant think of one other hollywood actress who would've even gone near something as unglamorous as this. Theres a fair few scenes with scarlett in the buff but its not gratuitous. She has a great body, sure enough, but its a real body not a body honed by hours and hours in the gym everyday or obsessing over the carbohydrate content of bread. And that makes her even more attractive in my view.
Anyway great movie, gonna have to see it a few times before Im really able to absorb everything.

johnny_ultimate

Chelon wrote: »

Anyone seen it cold and "got" everything?

I technically saw it 'cold', just knew the rough concept (Scarlett Johannson plays alien ensnaring men in Scotland). I thought that was the best way to watch, as there's a mysteriousness and ambiguity to the film I wouldn't have gotten if I'd have read the book beforehand and was more aware of the sci-fi specifics behind the concept. I'm even reluctant to do so now as I feel it would maybe even undermine my response to the film :pac: Kind of like the way I regretted reading Let the Right One In after the fact, as that was the antithesis to the pared back, tightly focused film based on it.

There's an abstract quality to the film that's IMO it's biggest asset, and I'm always glad to see a film that understands the key to an interesting adaptation is to take a unique slant on the source material.

tunguska

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

There's an abstract quality to the film that's IMO it's biggest asset, and I'm always glad to see a film that understands the key to an interesting adaptation is to take a unique slant on the source material.

Yeah I'd agree with that. The other film that comes to mind is 2001. The book just doesnt even come close to matching the atmosphere and sense of mystery that Kubrick created on screen. Although having said that the book might've been written after the movie???

Chelon

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I technically saw it 'cold', just knew the rough concept (Scarlett Johannson plays alien ensnaring men in Scotland). I thought that was the best way to watch, as there's a mysteriousness and ambiguity to the film I wouldn't have gotten if I'd have read the book beforehand and was more aware of the sci-fi specifics behind the concept. I'm even reluctant to do so now as I feel it would maybe even undermine my response to the film :pac: Kind of like the way I regretted reading Let the Right One In after the fact, as that was the antithesis to the pared back, tightly focused film based on it.

There's an abstract quality to the film that's IMO it's biggest asset, and I'm always glad to see a film that understands the key to an interesting adaptation is to take a unique slant on the source material.

Very similar to myself, I'd just read a few reviews. At what point in the movie could you figure out:-

1. She's an alien

2. She's harvesting bodies as they are a delicacy on her home planet.

Possibly would have been more intriguing if you'd known absolutely nothing beforehand - and as for the guy on the motorcycle, does anyone know exactly who he is?

Planning on seeing it again and taking a friend who knows absolutely nothing about the plot - I'll ber very interested to see what she makes of it.

johnny_ultimate

Chelon wrote: »

Very similar to myself, I'd just read a few reviews. At what point in the movie could you figure out:-

1. She's an alien

2. She's harvesting bodies as they are a delicacy on her home planet.

Hard to see when any given viewer would figure out 1. The clues are in the prologue and plenty of hints to piece it together. I think by the end you'd be in little doubt :pac:

The latter point is IMO pretty much irrelevant to the film, and I had no idea what the purpose of the mission was while watching. That's what helped create that sense of surrealism and alien 'otherness' - it's a film about atmosphere, tone and the alien's bizarre personal journey far above the specifics of the sci-fi plot. Glazer has in fact basically stripped that aspect out of it entirely, and for me the result is a richer film for it. It's kind of appropriate IMO that we're watching these strange events without a traditional 'guide' as they are by their very nature otherworldly happenings - I think most tools Glazer could have used to make the specifics more transparent could have seriously undermined what's a very carefully crafted film. The lack of exposition or explanation is what I loved about it.

e_e

Saw it yesterday and walking out of the cinema into Dublin city it felt like I was still in the film. Pretty powerful, love how it makes the everyday seem so strange.

Noise Annoys

Chelon wrote: »

and as for the guy on the motorcycle, does anyone know exactly who he is?

My take was that

Scarlett's character was actually ensnaring the men for HIM (I don't know why), and that when she began to feel some sort of self awareness, she tried to escape and he followed her

I haven't read the book though.

Fysh

I really enjoyed this; very odd and moody, in a good way. Reminded me of 70s sci-fi films like the '78 Invasion Of The Body Snatchers; very strong at atmosphere and a properly unsettling suggestion of just how incomprehensible an alien species and its motivations might be to us.

Amalgam

The soundtrack by Mica Levi has been available on qobuz.com for a few days now. Not music to listen to if you're feeling a little maudlin'.. very primitive and stark. All formats supplied after purchase, .flac, ALAC, etc..

http://www.qobuz.com/album/under-the-skin-jonathan-glazers-original-motion-picture-soundtrack-mica-levi/3299039954324

Warper

The trailer for this has to be one of the best i have seen in ages, love the beh,beh,beh,beh , bah thing going on.

Saw this and found it very good. I kinda wish that i didnt know she was an alien but really that was impossible to avoid as it was everywhere. Thought Johannson was perfectly cast. Couple of great scenes in this film. Loved the waiting for the bus scene, so simple.

mikhail

I thought it was quite good for its budget, very eerie in places (bordering on really unsettling). That said, it's a bit insubstantial. As someone said, not one that'll cry out for a rewatch.

Amalgam wrote: »

Enjoyable, not something you'd care to watch over and over. I went to the IFI, bit of a barn.. despite meeting people there for years and years, first time as a film viewing customer. Screen 2. ..with the gift of hindsight, I would have opted for the other cinema choices in Dublin.

In its defence, the other two screens are nicer.

e_e

Yeah screen 2 is laid out pretty horribly. Especially uncomfortable when the screening is crowded.

Scotty P

Seen it at the festival and went again Friday night.

I enjoyed watching it but found it quite tedious in parts.

Was hoping it had more to offer on second viewing but it really hadn't for me.

Many were walking out and there was sporadic laughing at scenes but I had anticipated that to be fair.

I struggle with certain scenes as I'm not sure what the motive behind them was.

An alien harvesting humans doesn't explain all aspects of the film.

I was at the Q&A and these points were raised by some members of the audience and I didn't feel they were adequately addressed tbh.

Maybe Glazer doesn't know himself, which is fair enough I suppose, not everything has to have an answer.

Seen it cold myself, as I see most films and so hadn't a notion what was happening the first time I seen it, which I think is the best way to see it, but then I think that's the best way to see all films, so nothing new there.

Enjoyable film. Just.. strange.

Good strange.

LuckyLloyd

The first half of this is incredible imo. Wonderful sense of mystery and unease and the lack of any exposition allied to very sparse dialogue works really well. The soundtrack is magnificent. A real 70's feel to proceedings, edgy ballsy cinema. The beach scene and aftermath is particularly chilling and the angular look at the locations used was well executed throughout

I knew nothing of the book or plot going in, and that worked really well. What I could figure was that

the lead and her motorcycle accomplise were not human and were repatriating bodily fluids for whatever reason. The lack of a why works just fine as far as that goes.

The problem for me is the latter half. It kicks off with possibly the most effective scene of the movie

(the biker picking up the last of Johannson's victims, soundtrack is deeply unsettling here)

but gradually unravels from there on in. The problem I had is that the actions of Johansson are too certain and efficient for the first hour to make the latter half work. Clicking on a 'self discovery' switch is one thing, but the sudden confusion of place and inability to cogently interact just seemed contrived to me. Whereas the first half pulled me in closer, closer the second half loosened that grip fully. The conclusion just seems like a box ticking exercise.

Overall though, glad I saw this. Lots of striking imagery and sections that work really, really well. This film will be the butt of comedian sets for decades to come of course, given the nature of the lead and her performance. Cult status to eventually follow.