By Jake Howell jake.howell@utoronto.ca

The Torontonian Reviews UNDER THE SKIN

UTS

Jonathan Glazer’s Under the Skin is a film that knows very much what it wants to be, and through making the film such a profoundly evocative and stylistic experience, Glazer succeeds—perhaps not as an adaptation of Michel Faber’s 2000 novel of the same name, but certainly as its own piece of work entirely. Rooting itself exactly where the title threatens to go, the film features a quiet Scarlett Johansson as an alien seductress consuming her victims in the process.

Glazer’s filmography includes a variety of music videos (at the helm for tracks like Radiohead’s “Karma Police”) and this background is undeniably drawn from here. Peppered throughout the film are “seduction sequences” that feature Scarlett Johansson’s character undressing in front of various men in a black void of space, and as she removes more and more articles of clothing, her victim follows with erect intention towards their fate. As they approach her, they walk deeper and deeper into a pool of ethereal water, and we can only watch these men become completely submerged in the midnight darkness; their floating bodies reduced to ghostly hulls of skin.

These scenes don’t have any dialogue, but accompanying the visuals is music by English singer and composer Micachu (born Mica Levi), whose experimental score uses stark and piercing string instruments above a one-two beat to establish an overwhelming sense of trance. The music is so intense and the images are so arresting that I can only describe the result as remarkable, and Glazer’s representation of seduction is so abstractly manifested that screening the film feels akin to attending an exhibition of video art than it does experiencing an adaptation of Faber’s text. So be it. This is creepy stuff, but horror and beauty share more in common than we’d like to think.

For the most part, the film lives or dies depending on how these seduction sequences play to you. There is a distinct tediousness to Under the Skin that is largely due to Glazer shooting long and taking his time between each seduction scene, and we’re stuck waiting for what feels like the next music video to take the screen. Cruising in a van around Scotland, the dialogue between Johansson’s alien and the men she meets is more or less one-sided, with potential suitors babbling mindlessly as she works her wiles. There is one particular seduction, however, with a disfigured “elephant” man, and the loneliness from his face and words makes it that much harder to watch the alien take advantage. The writing here is poignant and difficult to forget, as it underlines just how terrifyingly deceptive this alien can be.

Despite the general wandering of Under the Skin’s plot, there is still much to pore over in the frame. For example, Glazer’s decision to light the film with heavy chiaroscuro makes getting lost in the ambiguity sexy and mysterious, and it’s rare that you see the fullness of a character’s face. There is almost always something obscuring the skin or hiding the face of both prey and predator, which makes the shadows and confusion a bewitching result. There is plenty of nudity here—both male and female—but it is both implied and expressive, capturing the physicality of our species in an extraordinary way.

I should also mention that the film’s ending is potentially a frustrating one, but given how artistic the rest of the film treats the subject, the speechless conclusion should come as no surprise. The payoff here is bizarre, anti-climactic, and just as visually striking as the seduction scenes are—so, in other words, things are par for the avant-garde course. This shouldn’t be an issue, though, because the film works on the strength of Glazer’s previous influences alone. Meaning that even if the “story” puts you to sleep, I can’t help but think Under the Skin wanted to hypnotize you anyway.

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments are closed.

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon