A sci-fi film with Scarlett J as an alien! Cool! Uh..no. It is science fiction film from the branch of the genre that produced 2001, Stalker, Solaris, Alphaville rather than the branch that produced Star Wars, Transformers etc. I’m not dismissing Star Wars, I love pure genre . But I also love obscure, “wanky” arthouse. How does one diminish the other? For me, it’s a tragedy that arthouse cinemas (the Valhalla’s etc) no longer exist. It was those decrepit palaces that allowed filmmakers like David Lynch, John Waters, Jodoworsky etc. to have careers. Where would you see fantastic “wanky rubbish” like Eraserhead, El Topo, Female Trouble today? Maybe you don’t want to? Consider that maybe reason the 70s produced such great cinema is because there was an audience with more an adventurous eye?

I understand this style of film is not for everybody. But as I filmmaker, I try to feed my brain the most diverse diet possible.

Back on track, sorry!

“Under The Skin” mines two recurring themes of science fiction – what it means to be human, and the return to Eden.
The opening “birth” sequence lets you know what you’re in for – it’s a reverse of the “trippy” light sequence at the end of 2001. In fact, the whole film is almost the inverse of 2001 – from light (Star Child) to barbarity.

The majority of the film examines what it means to human, or more specifically (and terrifyingly for the alien) , what it means to be female. This is the same theme tackled by Ex-Machina. But where that film provides a standard “genre” answer, the conclusion “Under The Skin” reaches is far more intellgent and unnerving. After her encounter with the disfigured man, Scarlett starts to become human (under the skin). She is unable to continue with her task and attempts to return to Eden – she retreats into nature. And what does find there? The horrifying, true nature of man.

There is a lot more going on in the film – such as the beach scene, the sequence where she has a brief respite in a kind strangers house etc. All these sequences have meaning, they all support and enrich the film’s central themes.

Everything you need to understand is there. And you most definitly have to be in the right mood! I would also add that it is one of those films that is best seen in the cinema. Not because of the big screen, but because there are no distractions, no pausing when you’re bored. You are forced to look and find meaning.

If you liked Under The Skin, I recommend you check out Hard To Be A God.

Wow – What a story. Fabulous. Minus the ending.

Tomorrow I’m talking to a class of 11-year olds about the Fermi Paradox.

I am now wondering if I should tell them your story. :-P

I went to 2001 on a date and during the dinner beforehand decided to end it. Then at the end of the movie, which she was seeing for the first time, she gave me the best and clearest theory for what was going on at the end that I’d ever heard. [When Hal is being shut down they take a little piece of his brain at a time. He shows almost exactly the same signs as Dave, including regression to a natal state. The aliens are doing to Dave what he did to Hal. Because he i.e. humans are dangerous? There was more detail.] It was like she’d opened up and showed me this wonderful mind she’d been hiding and I couldn’t take my eyes off it. A week later she dumped me.

I suspect what it’s trying to achieve is no story to speak of but stick around for the visuals. The same way people will watch the Tour de France for the lovely mountain scenery and quaint villages even though there’s four hours between tactical events. I think for me the biggest problem is that the alien’s objective (seduce man, store man) is so easy she may as well be ordering a burger – no opposition, no real conflict, passive helpless characters. There might be an interesting comparison here with Species, where the alien has no trouble seducing men but has a lot of trouble finding one with the specific genes she wants.

Indeed –

2001 is a great example of what you allude to! I for one don’t mind being left with some mystery in a story. Thinking for oneself is also part of the dynamic of a story I believe.

I think the subtext of what you are saying confirms that we expect a certain amount of story for our money in a feature, and in this one it simply wasn’t there.

Like.

I used to love most of the work of Antonioni, Bergman, Godard and Fellini.

I got the “Dottore”s autograph and that of his wife in 1993, shortly before they died. I carried it with me for years. That’s how much I adored his cinema.

The times have changed though, and to me much of what these guys created is now dated. Not everything, though. And you will know which masterpieces have survived the times.

Also, note that some of the great arthouse filmmakers of the past started their careers with successful mainstream cinema. Ever seen Fellini’s Lo Sceicco Bianco?

So I would never in a million years put the name of Glazer (how made three relatively poorly received movies) on par with the four names above, who together are responsible for dozens of movies that defined the European cinema of their time.

Dr W, I think there is a big difference in provoking a viewer to think and wonder about what the theme or message might be versus being wanky-obscure for the alleged sake of “art”. I have much more respect for a writer or filmmaker who tackles a complexed issue with clear ideas that are not black and white than I do with a self-indulgent artist with pretentions of philosophical insight that makes a work deliberately obscure to cover up lack of substantive thematic content. Off the top of my head, the best immediate examples I can think of are “The Reluctant Fundamentalist” for case type 1, versus “9 Songs” for type 2. [It would take me too long to recall clearer examples.]

In fact, Kubrick’s “Full Metal Jacket” and even ‘2001’ could be argued to be (mostly) cases of type 2. As both films are rather long for what little underlying real content or message they have.