Film Under the Skin

[Shamanism]

What movies do you like then, makes me curious..

 

[psood0nym]

Like the works of David Lynch, a film like Under the Skin is destined to appeal to a small fraction of viewers. I had put it on my back burner for the longest time, as honestly I thought for most its appeal was rooted in Johansson's nude scenes. I certainly didn't expect an actress with her profile in a role as an “interdimensional seductress” who coerces men into an excoriating black void, or whatever it is she appears to be doing here. Despite this, for me Under the Skin's artistic stabs in the dark found their target.

The film's broadly feminist message is only obliquely articulated, instead aiming primarily at aesthetic goals, which are largely achieved. Underlying the immersing otherworldly atmosphere is inspired sound design, a chillingly frenetic violin theme, and Glazer's eye for darkling Scottish locales. Reportedly many of the protagonist's victims are non-actors whose performances were at least partially captured with hidden cameras. One man whose face is disfigured by neurofibromatosis notably appears on screen as he truly is. It's these sorts of judiciously selective commitments to the real that lead viewers into the film's uncanny valleys like the glint of a lurer over an abyss.

 

[ForEverAfter]

I get the comparison to Lynch, in terms of tone and atmosphere, but nothing he made was anywhere near this rigidly episodic / formulaic.

NSFW:

She seduces one guy. He goes into the void.
Then she seduces another one. Void.
Then another one.
Then she rips her skin off.

Add to this that there's basically no dialogue and it makes for one boring mother fucker of a feature. (IMO)
Would have been better as a short (30 minute) film.

 

[Abject]

This was almost as slow and redundant as 2001 a space odyssey
I can't see how anyone could enjoy a movie full of filler
At least 40 seconds of someone doin some inane shit that adds nothing to the plot every 2 minutes
Fuck kubrick and fuck this movie

 

[ForEverAfter]

Wow, I don't think I've ever heard anyone say "Fuck Kubrick" before.
I respect your apparent lack of hesitation, voicing unpopular opinions.

(I agree, somewhat, about 2001... but I disagree about Kubrick.)

 

[queenbee1127]

All I could think while watching this movie was, "what the fuck?"

I couldn't turn it off but I didn't understand any part of it.

 

[Abject]

Wow, I don't think I've ever heard anyone say "Fuck Kubrick" before.
I respect your apparent lack of hesitation, voicing unpopular opinions.

(I agree, somewhat, about 2001... but I disagree about Kubrick.)

Yes it's quite an unpopular opinion. If he weren't praised the way he is, I wouldn't say "fuck kubrick"
Also because plebs call FMJ a good movie (and they haven't even seen PoG..)
I haven't seen all that much of his videography but I've seen more than I care to and I just don't see where the high esteem comes from.
Life is too short for most Kubrick films.

 

[ForEverAfter]

If he weren't praised the way he is, I wouldn't say "fuck kubrick"

Yeah, I totally get it.

Also because plebs call FMJ a good movie

The first half is good. The second half is completely forgettable.
The end of 2001 is fucking embarrassing.
The Shining is seriously over-rated.

Life is too short for most Kubrick films.

Yeah, I couldn't be fucked watching Barry Lyndon.
Lots of people have said that every shot is like a painting.
Makes it sound about as interesting as your average university lecture.

...

Having said all that, A Clockwork Orange and Dr. Strangelove are great.

 

[psood0nym]

I get the comparison to Lynch, in terms of tone and atmosphere, but nothing he made was anywhere near this rigidly episodic / formulaic.

She seduces one guy. He goes into the void.
Then she seduces another one. Void.
Then another one.
SPOILER

Add to this that there's basically no dialogue and it makes for one boring mother fucker of a feature. (IMO)
Would have been better as a short (30 minute) film.

You should probably put spoiler tags on that.

Yes, there's no question there is a formula and it is repetitive. I believe this approach was used so as to require a meditative viewing to catch the few differences between the episodes you mention, which has the effect of more fully immersing those already intrigued. I agree Glazer could have made a good short out of it. Apparently he's done a lot of music videos, like "Virtual Insanity" and "Street Spirit" (both great), so he's used to establishing a vibe in short order. Yet it took Glazer nine years to make this. Here's what he said in an interview:

The more expositional this film became, the less you felt it, the less I felt it. For instance, you needed to understand that they wanted us for something, (but) what that specific thing (was) didn’t need to be explained. Because actually the answer is less interesting than the question, so not knowing is terrifying and alien.

My reading of this is that he found he could only reveal so much before the heavy atmosphere started to lift, thereby seeming to necessitate prolonging the processes of revelation in order to maintain the feel he was going for. In any case, if a viewer doesn't happen to be the type that's really into atmospheric films (more felt than analytically understood) to begin with techniques like this will just drag out what's already been established.

 

[ForEverAfter]

You should probably put spoiler tags on that.

I did, but I noticed you quoted most of it... so you should probably edit what you quoted and replace the spoiler bits with an ellipsis or something.
(Given the simplicity of the plot, though I'm not sure how I could possibly spoil the movie... There is nothing to spoil.)

As for what Glazer said, I don't see why this - or any other film - needs to be either minimalist or expositional.
I like atmospheric films, but I expect them to not rely solely on atmosphere.
Similarly, I don't appreciate films that are CGI laden, with no plot/character.
For me, this was the art-house version of "Transformers".
(Glazer is prioritizing style over substance to such an extent that his film suffers IMO.)

it took Glazer nine years to make this

Wow.
I don't even know how that's possible.

 

[Abject]

I like atmospheric films, but I expect them to not rely solely on atmosphere.

(mood)

Wow.
I don't even know how that's possible.

qft

I will stop OT posting now
I'm genuinely glad some people can enjoy this and I don't want any of my posts to come off otherwise, this film seems like straight up masturbation to me.