Under The Skin

[popcorn]

Christ, yes, the last thing we'd want is for art to communicate something, eh? What a hassle.

[QDRPHNC]

Erm.

[great_badir]

I guess I have viewed and walked away from it the same way I would your stereotypical piece of "modern art".  I.e. the art in and of itself means absolutely nothing, although is quite striking.  Some come away having read all sorts of things into it, others walk away thinking "what a load of bollocks"[NB]although, just to reiterate, I don't think Under the Skin IS necessarily bollocks, I just think it's an okay low-key sci-fi[/NB].

To this day I don't see how anyone can honestly claim that Mark Rothko's work has any meaning to it whatsoever, other than what it typically presents itself as - a colour or two/three on a canvas.  I mean, Blue (I forget which number it is, but the one that is just a single uniform shade of blue) IS just a shade of blue on a canvas.  It only means something cos Rothko said it does.  But it doesn't.  It's just blue.  On canvas.

[Blinder Data]

There is something to be taken from every scene. Whether its character development, atmosphere, or narrative. At points they feel like vignettes, at others you can feel the story progressing quite quickly. All however are individual works of art. The experience was like visiting an art gallery- contemplative but so much more immersive. Other than piping in the smells I can't imagine anything bringing me into the scenes as well as this film.

If you watched the scenes where Scarlett is doing nothing but staring into space and just found them a bit dull you probably weren't on the rhythm of the film or bothered about the artistic merit.

I'm fine with people who didn't enjoy it but any critic who rates the film below fantastic is pretty much dead to me. So that's quite a lot of them. Maybe they can fuck off back to being paid to say how great Avengers films are.

I'm quite sure I had this exact same argument with you when it came out[nb]so why the fuck I'm deciding to open this old wound I don't know[/nb] but I find this view a little bit snobby and dogmatic. 'Found it a bit boring at times? You're not on the same level, mate. Need to think about the artistic merit.'

FWIW I believe it's a special film, it stayed with me and I need to rewatch it, but like great_badir I found myself clock-watching, especially towards the end (and I watched it in a darkened cinema). Finding it occasionally a bit dull or overlong ≠ 'not getting it'

[popcorn]

I've seen the film five times now (twice in cinema, once with live orchestra!!!!) and I've come to the conclusion that the bit where Scarlett stares at her reflection for ages is pointlessly long. It is the film's only flaw. Use this information how you wish.

[Lisa Jesusandmarychain]

If I looked like Scarlett Johansenn, I'd stare at meself for a long time, too. And have a right good mash on me norks. I doubt I'd ever leave the house, to be honest with you.

[popcorn]

Specifically I'm talking about the bit where she's looking at the mirror in her weird crap house. (Am I remembering it right?)

The bit where she looks at her naked body in the mirror is acceptable in length - a bit like my penis when I watch that scene! BIG LOLS!

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

I agree with the comparison to Lost in Translation.

Under the Skin was daring and well-made, in my opinion, but nothing more. What those who are reading layers upon layers of meaning into this movie are "bringing to the table" is their willingness to do just that.

That is exactly what interaction with any art involves. Some is only capable of hitting the easy major keys- when done well that's fine, very entertaining even, which is why we're making a special commendation for this film which takes you down numerous labyrinthine introspections while also being uncontestably a visually arresting work of art.

I agree that it does come across snobbish but I hardly ever feel that way about films and it isn't something I'm prone to unless something really deserves it.

[QDRPHNC]

That is exactly what interaction with any art involves. Some is only capable of hitting the easy major keys- when done well that's fine, very entertaining even, which is why we're making a special commendation for this film which takes you down numerous labyrinthine introspections while also being uncontestably a visually arresting work of art.

I agree that it does come across snobbish but I hardly ever feel that way about films and it isn't something I'm prone to unless something really deserves it.

I agree with you, and I like art and I like meaning and I like fillums, but I don't like this kind of "you don't get it / you weren't in the films rhythm / you need to bring something to the table" type of response to great_badir, who I think has made several very good points.

I place A Serious Man on the same kind of pedestal you place Under the Skin, so I understand that kind of awe at what a film is capable of achieving. But that sort of response to perfectly reasonable and measured critcism is snobbish, and also unnecessary.

Anyway sorry, I don't mean to lecture you or whatever, and you're self-aware enough to know what I'm saying.

[Brundle-Fly]

Bump!

As there are a few big fans of the movie on CAB and its soundtrack, this maybe of interest?

Film and live score!

https://www.everymancinema.com/muswell-hill/film-info/under-the-skin-live-score#scroll

[Wet Blanket]

I saw this with a live score directed by Mica Levi herself last year. Hearing the music live was dead good, but the lights the musicians were using reflected back on the screen, which was annoying.

[greenman]

Has there been any further rumour on Glazers next film? there was talk of pre production starting about a year ago wasn't there but not much since.

Watched Under the Skin again a few weeks ago and honestly I don't really see the comparisons to highly abstract art many are making in this thread. I mean yes its an often very subtle bit of arthouse sci fi but the vast majority of it does I think clearly deliver both emotional content and story. Most obviously I think the nature of the story itself suits this style rather than having it forced onto it with the character taking on human emotion in a very gradual fashion.

Has definitely grown in my estimation with more viewings to the point it would me close to my favourite this decade.