Under The Skin (Jonathan Glazer)

e_e

pixelburp wrote: »

there was very, very little to grasp in the shape of a narrative or substance.

Could not disagree more. If anything I found a lot to grasp and it was among the more thought-provoking films of the year for me. So much that I just had to go back to see it a second time before it left cinemas.

e_e

Just to add a counterpoint to that list of negatives you had there: Found it rich, moving, intense, exciting, beautiful, strange, haunting, disturbing and so much more above all that. Contrary to it being criticized as a boring and repetitive experience this film was just an amazing ride for me, never anything less than fascinating.

pixelburp

And never the twain shall meet I guess, but then that's half the fun of this forum so I wouldn't change it for the world.
Getting back to my first point, I think I've bemoaned the use of 'pretentious' as a descriptor myself so defending it too much would be hypocritical on my part; in the case of something like Under the Skin though, its use is forgiveable enough when grasping for a summary of something so deliberately intangible. But given you disagree strongly in the first place, I doubt we'll find common ground!

e_e

I'll just add that because it's so intangible is exactly why it isn't pretentious to me. If Glazer really felt like hectoring the audience and appearing to be enlightened he would have made something that insulted the intelligence of the viewer and hit them over the head with the same points imo

Tipsy McSwagger

Any film good or bad which makes you seriously think what it was all about a few days after you have seen it, is better than unoriginal garbage like The Conjuring or Spiderman.

johnny_ultimate

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.

S.M.B.

pixelburp wrote: »

Well to be honest, with a film this abstract and hard to grasp, I'd argue that a puzzle is as good a description as anything else. Get, got or getting, I ultimately didn't make much of Under the Skin as any kind of experience, except for one of tedium.

If I did want to use a pat phrase, 'emperor's new clothes' seems more apt than others because beyond what were very rich visuals - and I'll definitely agree with most there, the film had a great eye at times - there was very, very little to grasp in the shape of a narrative or substance.

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) Yes, I'm being a little simplistic, but my palette isn't completely incompatible with more abstract cinema and I just found Under the Skin pretent... goddamnit. Uhm, I dunno. Vaporous. Insubstantial. Frustrating. Ponderous. Unnecessary. Padded. Clinical. Bereft of thought to be honest; the little vignette featuring the man with the deformed face seemed the closest the film got to any kind of emotional substance, then lost it as quickly as it came.

Is this an actual failing though? Is emotional substance essential to the movie? That absence seems very intentional to me and if anything it re-enforces its primary theme.

The movie pivots on that single sliver of empathy and the drastic consequences that slowly come about as a result of it.

A Greedy Algorithm

One of the worst movies i have ever seen. Not much else to say really.

Fysh

A Greedy Algorithm wrote: »

One of the worst movies i have ever seen. Not much else to say really.

If it really was that bad an experience, could you at least articulate why you think that is? Was it the style of narrative, the acting, the sound design, the visual design? You're far from the only person to dislike the film, but as fodder for discussion goes "it was awful, end of" doesn't really go anywhere...

OldeCinemaSoz

Film of the year for me. Mindsearing stuff the legendary Nic Roeg would be proud of.

Makes me want to stick DONT LOOK NOW on.

Unearthly

I learned a lesson here. Never judge a book by its cover. I dismissed this last year as a species rip off, a film I did not like anyway.

However this was brilliant. Really atmospheric, authentic, captivating. A late contender for me for film of 2014

johnny_ultimate

Two videos that I reckon are worth a quick bump of the thread (and possibly reignite some discussion about one of the most fascinating films of recent years ).

First, some peculiar shorts/ads/whatever Glazer put together for Channel 4. Some very potent images and mood building in very short spaces of time, almost like visual haikus:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWvUJATjJDE

And I'm not sure why exactly Rian Johnson ended up introducing the film at the BFI, but he did, and his thoughts on the film are articulate and intriguing. It's nice to hear a director talking about somebody else's work in such a passionate way - and an interesting contrast since I first saw the film with Glazer in attendance and he was very soft-spoken and uncomfortable (not a bad thing, TBH, I feel the whole Q&A business is rather unnatural).

Anyway, more evidence of why I'm hoping Johnson goes and does his own thing again once he's finished slumming it in a galaxy far, far away

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZMLNTzZfAw

alex.middleton

fairly "art house" film which that requires some interpretation of imagery by the viewer to fully grasp the plot of the film