Jonathan Glazer
Under the Skin

This is the adjective I heard most frequently in comments about the film right after watching it in the cinema. "What's the point?" also seemed to be quite quoted. Jonathan Glazer returns with a third film, destroyed in 2013 in Venice, moderately praised by international critics and less by the Italian ones, which centers on an unusually styled Scarlett Johansson portraying an alien in human form intent on deceitfully seducing unaware men into her deadly trap. It’s natural to believe that the criticism is mainly due to the avant-garde nature of the work, which is indeed rather unusual from various viewpoints. What remains to be understood is why a type of avant-garde in my opinion well-managed and interesting is being crucified in this way, but it’s not the time to ask that right now.

Under the Skin presents itself as a science fiction film. After all, the main elements are there: the protagonist is an alien, she has a specific mission on Earth, rather sci-fi things happen. However, in the end, I don't feel like I watched a science fiction film. I don't even know what I think I saw, to be honest. Certainly something quite unusual, globally cold, confusing, aesthetically interesting, structurally irregular. Some accused the film of being "monotonous" or "repetitive." Well, I too feared it would end up that way, upon reaching the third repetition of the same scene, but then things change. On monotony, we can instead discuss, in that there is something with a flat evolution that permeates the film, and it is emotion. This is clearly a deliberate and drastically applied choice, but the film leaves almost no room for compassion, no deviation from the oppressive reality. Even in the first part, there is almost no evolution of the main character, no course change in the story, nothing of the sort. It is a dark film, which remains such throughout its duration, and offers no concessions to anyone. Therefore, one can talk about a "cold" film, which will certainly have difficulty moving a viewer, but it won’t fail to strike or involve them. The plot, after all, is somewhat simple, at times perilously close to banal, but ultimately maintains its own intact identity. Eroticism is often present, but it is again absolutely distant from sentiment, purely instrumental... except in one case, where, as luck would have it, things end badly. The evolution of the plot, if it can be called a plot, can be summarized in a few lines (in this sense, it is also quite a "slow" film) and seems not to want to lead anywhere. Some complained that the film doesn’t make sense. Then they need to explain to me what the point of art is, if not simply to exist.

Formally speaking, the film stands out mainly for two aspects: a very interesting direction, meticulous, with excellently crafted elements and a devastating soundtrack, perfectly matching most scenes and greatly contributing to the overall atmosphere. As for the direction, the movie starts with a sequence of considerable depth, right away evoking undeniably (also due to the musical accompaniment) a certain masterpiece of Kubrick. It won’t be the last reference. Throughout the film, Glazer took care to sprinkle small and large pearls that strike especially for aesthetic richness. You often notice the influence of his past as a music video director, with the presence of aseptic dreamlike scenarios, the insistence of the soundtrack, certain nonlinearity in editing, the scarcity of dialogues, and such adjustments. The music is, secondly, another major factor pointing to 2001, featuring rather prominent dissonances, though not on Ligeti's level, still maintaining some melodiousness. Hearing this kind of music in a film already makes it clear that it's not a work created for the masses, but, more or less, for quite an elitist circle, capable of being open-minded enough to appreciate the film and recognize something familiar in such music. A commendable mention also goes to the sound effects and generally the sound department, quite respectable!

It must be said that the screenplay has potential shortcomings in making the film somewhat difficult to understand. It's fine to be implicit, but by what criteria should we deduce that the alien sends the humans she entices to her world to be eaten, as explained in the source novel? Perhaps in the film, it's not even like that, but it isn’t clear. It's a film that heavily relies on non-verbal cues, and in that sense, the screenplay is perfectly written. However, at times the film's silences aren’t eloquent enough to explain certain things occurring but are either left unsaid or taken for granted. We see an alien in a human body who, besides very little that has been taught to her, knows nothing about herself, her capabilities, and human needs. Yet, we aren't told where she comes from, and we might accept that, but not even what her purpose is, why she acts as she does, who her companions are... very few words, which is interesting. But very few explanations?

Thus, to sum it up, with Under the Skin we are faced with a film that is simple and complex at the same time. Certainly, it’s not a film for everyone, and it is more of a visual experience than a film in the most conventional sense of the term. The direction, the sound department (music included and emphasized), the non-verbalism, and the courage of existing are to be praised. The acting isn’t out of place either, which truthfully only appears flat due to contextual reasons related to the work. However, by the end of the experience, it feels as if something is missing, as if something didn’t quite go right... once again the truth lies somewhere in between: it’s not an undisputed masterpiece, and Glazer isn’t exactly Kubrick’s heir (as someone has dared to say), but neither is it a pseudo-intellectual pretentious film lacking in form and senseless in substance. It’s rather a film that certainly deserves to be seen as an unusual, aesthetically interesting experience, purely cinematic more than many other films that forget what is the communicative potential of images and sounds, focusing solely on voice and explicitness.