n
n
n
n
nUnder the Skin (2014)
n
n
n
nDirector: Jonathan Glazer
n
n
n
nStarring: Scarlett Johansson
n
n
n
nSo there are movies out there that divide audiences, Under the Skin is undoubtedly one of them. It will divide audiences who likento go see commercial films, from those who enjoy more artful fare. Films thatnbreak with the norm and try different things, different structures. Under thenSkin doesn’t subscribe to Hollywood formulas, we don’t have a hero trying tonsolve some problem, we don’t follow a clear three part structure, in fact, wendon’t know what the hell is going to happen next. Director Jonathan Glazer getsna rousing shout of approval from this Film Connoisseur.
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
nUnder the Skin is the story of a sexy voluptuous alien (Johansson)nwho goes around town looking for lonely guys she can feed on. That’s really allnI can say, you see, this isn’t exactly the kind of film that is overtlyncomplex, yet strangely enough, even though it’s simple in many ways, it alsoncomments on society and the world we live in. Most of all, it comments on how men will do just about anything to be with anwoman, to share that amazing moment of intimacy. It speaks about how that desire can blind us and drive us. But also, it speaks about the ugly side of sex, how anman is willing to step into the world of rape and violence to get it, sad but true. It’s a tragedy that we still live in a world where rape happens so often. So yeah,na “simple” movie in many ways, but if we look past its apparent simplicity, itnactually comments on some very important themes.
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
nThink about this film as an art house version of Lifeforce (1985),nbecause it really is the best way that I can describe it. I know it soundsnweird to compare a film like this one with Hooper’s Lifeforce, but both filmsnare extremely similar: female alien goes around picking up lonely dudes,nseducing them so she can suck the life force out of them. This is exactly whatnhappens in both movies! The difference between both films is that Hooper Lifeforce is anglorified b-movie, while Under the Skin takes a more experimental route. It’snmore artsy, for lack of a better word. But I loved how without realizing it, I suddenlynfelt like I was watching a movie about a space vampire! Want more similarities?nWell, how about the fact that Scarlett Johansson gets naked throughout thenentire film? Remind you of Lifeforce yet?
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
nWhen I say Under the Skin is ‘artsy’ by that I mean it’snthat kind of film that just hovers on a moment so you can really absorb it,nkind of the way that Werner Herzog or Terrence Malick. You know, where theynwill just linger on a vista, or stay on a moment so you’ll really get the feelnof being there. It also has these long moments without dialog, in fact,nScarlett Johansson’s character hardly speaks. She only talks when she’s goingnto pick up a guy from the street. The film also used experimental filmmaking techniquesnfor certain scenes, for example, there’s moments in which the alien walks intona mall, or a nightclub, and the filmmakers used hidden cameras to capture realnpeople going about their business, in this way, the film was successful inncapturing humanity in its natural habitat. You know how sometimes you wish youncould tape people on the street, because truth is sometimes stranger thannfiction? Well, they actually do that on this movie, the result is real, nonextras, just real people.
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
nThat the film is so different from anything out there makes perfect sense when we takenin consideration that the director is Jonathan Glazer, who also directed Birthn(2004), the film in which Nicole Kidman ends up kind of falling in love with a tennyear old kid who is apparently the reincarnation of her dead husband, or is he? Itnwas a controversial film when it was first released, I remember seeing it inntheaters and being perplexed by it, and slightly shocked, but I also remembernbeing wowed by the beautiful imagery. Undernthe Skin is not without those beautiful images, in fact, the filmmakers wentnout of their way to find these beautiful locations, again, Glazer did whatnWerner Herzog does. He finds these beautiful locations to shoot in, you’d swearnthey aren’t real. But they are, and they serve as a beautiful reminder of thenamazing planet we live in.
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
nWhile Under the Skin is a different kind of film, Glazer also shows he has many cinematic influences, displaying elements you could find in other directors works, for example you can find thensurrealism and symmetrical perfection of Stanley Kubrick in abstractnimages that seem to come right out of 2001: A Space Odyssey. You can also find thatnominous feeling you get from watching a David Lynch film, the beautiful locations from a Herzog film, in other words,nGlazer loves many amazing filmmakers and puts a lot of them into his own films, butnalso, of course, adding his own taste and flavor to the mix. That deadly seriousntone that all of his films have. This proves what I’ve always said about films, you canngive the script to ten different directors, and you’ll end up getting ten,ntotally different films. I mean, Hooper with the concept of a female spacenvampire did Lifeforce and look at what Glazer did with the same exactnidea, a refreshingly different film. Take it from me; if you like films thatnbreak with the norm, this is a film you should not miss. Highly recommended!
n
n
n
n
nRating: 5 out of 5
n
n
n
n
n
n
