Under the Skin (Jonathan Glazer, 2014)

Discussions of specific films and franchises.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: Under the Skin (Jonathan Glazer, 2014)

#126 Post by knives » Mon Jun 22, 2020 7:49 pm

And of course I thought the film was about immigration. It's a wonderfully complex piece.

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Under the Skin (Jonathan Glazer, 2014)

#127 Post by Mr Sausage » Mon Jun 22, 2020 7:51 pm

Would love to hear your analysis of it as an immigration story.

User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Under the Skin (Jonathan Glazer, 2014)

#128 Post by knives » Mon Jun 22, 2020 8:02 pm


User avatar
Mr Sausage
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

Under the Skin (Jonathan Glazer, 2014)

#129 Post by Mr Sausage » Mon Jun 22, 2020 8:14 pm

knives wrote:Sure
Huh. Looks like I’d already written my post five years earlier, and using pretty much the same language. Plainly my thinking on the film has gone nowhere in the last half-decade.

User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: Under the Skin (Jonathan Glazer, 2014)

#130 Post by knives » Mon Jun 22, 2020 8:21 pm

It's a surprisingly solid film so that makes sense.

User avatar
The Curious Sofa
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2019 6:18 am

Re: Under the Skin (Jonathan Glazer, 2014)

#131 Post by The Curious Sofa » Mon Jun 22, 2020 8:24 pm

Mr Sausage wrote:
Mon Jun 22, 2020 7:28 pm
I thought the film was openly playing two female archetypes off each other: woman as man-eater, black widow, essence stealer, ect., and woman as sexual naif, vulnerable, easily victimized, an object of near constant violent desire. Despite involving an alien, the movie seems to be about what its like to live in a female skin, told through some of the most prevalent narratives attached to femininity.
This is not the first time I've read that interpretation, which moves it closer to the schlocky 90s scifi horror flick Species, to which the plot bears a superficial resemblance. Probably because my viewing if the film was informed by the book, that's not the main theme of Under the Skin which I took away. The problem with that interpretation is that I find it less interesting than an alien looking at our world through alien eyes, unable to empathise with humans, which I think is something Glazer achieved. The alien's female form is just a tool to snare its prey, but I don't think the film says anything about what it means to be a woman, it's about what it means to be human. I suppose it says more about the men who so easily get caught. The most shocking scene in the film doesn't involve a seduction, but the aliens' indifference to the death of a family and that's the core of the film for me. While that scene isn't in the book, it's the closest the film comes to the themes of the novel.

The equivalent character to Scarlett Johansson's alien in the novel is a surgically altered, scarred, formerly quadruped alien creature who only manages to convince as an seductive woman at night, hidden in the darkness of her car. The entire book is from her point of view and her alienated state both with being on earth but also with her new body. When I read that Johansson got cast, I was disappointed that they went down the more obvious sexy seductress route, but I was impressed with her performance. The film de-glamourises her rather than upping her sex symbol status and she managed to be impressively inhuman.

User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: Under the Skin (Jonathan Glazer, 2014)

#132 Post by knives » Mon Jun 22, 2020 8:35 pm

That may be the book, but that reading is refuted by the film itself in the Jeanne Dielman scene of her empathizing with the human near the end.

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

Under the Skin (Jonathan Glazer, 2014)

#133 Post by Mr Sausage » Mon Jun 22, 2020 8:42 pm

Nothing in my interpretation is meant to negate yours. Although I do think the film contains so many female specific tropes that it’s hard not to read it as more specific than about what it’s like to be human.

Also, for clarity, I should say: I don’t think the movie is about what it’s like to be a woman so much as what it’s like to have the outward form of a woman, both in a literal and a sociological sense, but also more broadly in terms of what it means to have narrative signifiers attached to one’s outward form that dictate the meaning of that form irrespective of what lies underneath (ie. dividing the film into two contradictory and mutually exclusive feminine archetypes).

Certainly the alien’s outward form seems to trap her in typical feminine narratives, one of which she escapes only to find herself caught in another, to her undoing. Internal identity can be overruled by larger cultural narratives, perhaps, although that seems an inadequate and reductionist generalization.

User avatar
The Narrator Returns
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 6:35 pm

Re: Under the Skin (Jonathan Glazer, 2014)

#134 Post by The Narrator Returns » Mon Jun 22, 2020 9:14 pm

Going along with Sausage's interpretation, I've seen Skin gain traction as an allegory for trans women trying to navigate the spaces between their own identity and the images foisted on them by society.

User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: Under the Skin (Jonathan Glazer, 2014)

#135 Post by knives » Mon Jun 22, 2020 9:15 pm

Oh, I like that interpretation. I can image how a large number of scenes would have a tremendous effect of MtFs.

User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: Under the Skin (Jonathan Glazer, 2014)

#136 Post by mfunk9786 » Tue Jun 23, 2020 12:55 am

Funny that The Shining was brought up, because that film can have a number of interpretations of its subtext (alcoholism, domestic violence, molestation, the long and shameful history of Native American slaughter by American settlers, etc etc) thanks to the paring down that Kubrick did from a more plot-driven source. Seems like Under the Skin, despite my still not having accessed my own way in, benefits from the same kind of deliberate thematic open-endedness.

User avatar
The Curious Sofa
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2019 6:18 am

Re: Under the Skin (Jonathan Glazer, 2014)

#137 Post by The Curious Sofa » Tue Jun 23, 2020 3:14 am

knives wrote:
Mon Jun 22, 2020 8:35 pm
That may be the book, but that reading is refuted by the film itself in the Jeanne Dielman scene of her empathizing with the human near the end.
It's not refuted, I just didn't spell out he character arc she goes through, which I thought is self-explanatory.
Mr Sausage wrote:
Mon Jun 22, 2020 8:42 pm
Nothing in my interpretation is meant to negate yours. Although I do think the film contains so many female specific tropes that it’s hard not to read it as more specific than about what it’s like to be human.

Also, for clarity, I should say: I don’t think the movie is about what it’s like to be a woman so much as what it’s like to have the outward form of a woman, both in a literal and a sociological sense, but also more broadly in terms of what it means to have narrative signifiers attached to one’s outward form that dictate the meaning of that form irrespective of what lies underneath (ie. dividing the film into two contradictory and mutually exclusive feminine archetypes).

Certainly the alien’s outward form seems to trap her in typical feminine narratives, one of which she escapes only to find herself caught in another, to her undoing. Internal identity can be overruled by larger cultural narratives, perhaps, although that seems an inadequate and reductionist generalization.
I find that clarification more interesting than a more generalised reading about a outdated, female stereotypes I thought you referred to earlier. And not that the film is the book, an equivalent of that reading is supported by the book.

I agree that by making the plot a lot more vague the film opens itself up for various interpretations but in the end I prefer not to read too much into the film at all. For me it's closer to a David Lynch film which, which becomes diminished if one interprets it too precisely.

I only started down that path because mfunk9786 implied the novel was easy to dismiss on behalf of a brief summation by a friend. I'm not sure that's a fair way to assess novels.
Last edited by The Curious Sofa on Tue Jun 23, 2020 4:13 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: Under the Skin (Jonathan Glazer, 2014)

#138 Post by mfunk9786 » Tue Jun 23, 2020 4:09 am

I didn't say the novel was bad, just that it didn't sound like it was for me. If my wife likes it as much as she seemed to have, I'm sure it's very good.

User avatar
swo17
Bloodthirsty Butcher
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
Location: SLC, UT

Re: Under the Skin (Jonathan Glazer, 2014)

#139 Post by swo17 » Tue Jun 23, 2020 4:14 am

But the best things in life are the things that don't sound like they're for you!

User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: Under the Skin (Jonathan Glazer, 2014)

#140 Post by knives » Tue Jun 23, 2020 7:05 am

So I should take the arsenic?

User avatar
swo17
Bloodthirsty Butcher
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
Location: SLC, UT

Re: Under the Skin (Jonathan Glazer, 2014)

#141 Post by swo17 » Tue Jun 23, 2020 7:57 am

Maybe! I haven't really thought this through!

moreorless
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2018 5:34 am

Re: Under the Skin (Jonathan Glazer, 2014)

#142 Post by moreorless » Tue Jun 23, 2020 6:26 pm

The Curious Sofa wrote:
Mon Jun 22, 2020 8:24 pm
This is not the first time I've read that interpretation, which moves it closer to the schlocky 90s scifi horror flick Species, to which the plot bears a superficial resemblance.
Films like Species or Lifeforce though I would say male victims of the female "monster" tend to be view as often deserving their fate, potential rapists or otherwise immoral who are punished by the creature. In Glazer's film I don't think that's the case and instead Johansson's character is cast as more of a serial killer like role(at least from the victims perspective, there doesn't seem to be a judgement of her character due to her impersonal nature), one in which men are stalked and manipulated to their deaths with no blame other that being attracted to her. I think you could argue perhaps the intension there is to give a window into the female position of potential rape/murder victim, swapping the genders to highlight to a male audience that simple sexual desire isn't in anyway "deserving" of such outcomes. You then have the character shift from being more distant towards someone we start to identify with who makes an active choice to be a woman, she defines herself by her sexual attraction and by an expectation of a "prince charming" like romance which ultimately fails and then we see her become the rape/murder victim, again blamelessly.

Not that I think that invalidates the reading of the story as also a drive for general humanisation, indeed I think its the films strength that its able to juggle those aspects. I would add as well that I think theres some comment on the environments featured as well, the urban ones are shown in the most down to earth way possible, very human and easy to relate to everyday life. The natural environments on the other hand seem shown to be much more powerful, harsh places of death like the beach and the pine forrest or places of personal awakening like the mist.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Under the Skin (Jonathan Glazer, 2014)

#143 Post by domino harvey » Tue Jun 23, 2020 6:33 pm

Spoiler for Species, though I can't imagine anyone cares
SpoilerShow
Alfred Molina didn't do anything wrong in Species, he just had the same reaction most men would have to Natasha Henstridge wanting to have sex with you for no reason. If that's a fate deserving death, we're doomed as a people!

moreorless
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2018 5:34 am

Re: Under the Skin (Jonathan Glazer, 2014)

#144 Post by moreorless » Tue Jun 23, 2020 6:45 pm

Its been years since I'v seen it but doesn't the creature in Species kill at least one would be rapist? It seems like less a film about showing rape punished or fear of female sexual power than it does about reversing the genders in this situation to highlight the blamelessness of the vicitim.

User avatar
colinr0380
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK

Re: Under the Skin (Jonathan Glazer, 2014)

#145 Post by colinr0380 » Wed Jun 24, 2020 3:44 am

Though that all twists around with Species II with the infected male character impregnating (fatally) the two women he shares a bed simultaneously with. One of the things that both the Species films play around with though is how conscious the 'human side' of these hybrid alien-human DNA'd characters are of their murderous actions, and how much responsibility they bear for it (especially in Species II where the main character blows his head off with a shotgun due to his guilt, but then it reconstructs itself). Is it just a facade or true innocence that never asked for their hybridisation? Is the alien side naturally evil and deadly and overwhelming the otherwise gentle human side of the character? Or are the experiences that the human character has and would normally just have to live with without deadly lashing out being given full reign by having an alien side to 'blame' for their actions - or in other words has the alien side been 'corrupted' by human vices of sexuality?

Apologies for piling on because I think you are making a good point, but in LifeForce whilst the main vampire does use her body and piercing gaze to mesmerise her victims (including the leading man), none of the victims particularly deserves their fate there. It is one of the way the film works as an STD transmission analogy in that it is rather indiscriminate in its victims (especially once the zombie plague and second wave of infection starts in earnest!) and there is a suggestion that the vampires are not particularly intending (or caring either way) about leaving zombified creatures in their wake to spread the disease even further, rather they are just compelled by wanting to feed. It is why I would bracket LifeForce in with something like Rabid as much as the vampire genre and the Quatermass films that it is obviously indebted to as well.

Also the 'patient zero' first victim of the lifeforce sucking vampire on escaping the facility in LifeForce is a woman, there would have been two male vampires along with the female one if they had not been shot to bits with heavy weaponry first ("Collect the pieces and watch them!") and our main vampire does also possess Patrick Stewart to make him same-sex kiss the leading man!
Last edited by colinr0380 on Wed Jun 30, 2021 2:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
The Curious Sofa
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2019 6:18 am

Re: Under the Skin (Jonathan Glazer, 2014)

#146 Post by The Curious Sofa » Wed Jun 24, 2020 6:04 am

Species struck me as a science fiction twist on the erotic thriller of the 90s with Sil a blonde, ruthless, extraterrestrial femme fatale in the Sharon Stone mould.

For me the difference between Species and Under the Skin lies in their tone and style. Under the Skin is a slow, clammy nightmare of a film, not exactly ingratiating itself to an audience out for cheap thrills. Despite Scarlett Johansson being considered a sex symbol, the detached, matter of fact way her body is shot didn't strike me as being intended as sexy. The film conveys her human "suit" as a tool, which is alien to herself.

Species is a slick commercial package, mixing sci-fi, action and erotic thriller and while I don't think it exactly exploits Natasha Henstrige, a lot of its appeal relies on her beauty and sexual charge.
Last edited by The Curious Sofa on Wed Jun 24, 2020 8:02 am, edited 3 times in total.

moreorless
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2018 5:34 am

Re: Under the Skin (Jonathan Glazer, 2014)

#147 Post by moreorless » Wed Jun 24, 2020 6:12 am

Lifeforce does seem more of a mix but you get the infamous scene with the guards(I'm guessing maybe Under the Skin's nude pacing might owe something to this?) for example who are shown as leery before being dispatched. Whether we agree with the actual judgement there does seem to often be a trope in horror films that the villain is somehow punishing immorality, including of course promiscuous women in many films. if the situation were reversed here for example and a male alien were hunting women I think you could argue the latter trope could be inferred by some viewers were as having the victims be male and blameless beyond sexual desire arguably highlights that questionable perception. So a male audience really see what its like to be threatened with rape and murder from the perspective of their own gender and then they are asked to empathise with a character who takes on the female gender and is the victim of it too, arguably not just empathise with but identify with more so than a woman.

That's more from the male victims perspective though, I'd agree Johansson's character is shown originally as so distant from the human condition as to make moral judgement questionable anymore so than a human stepping on an ant such as the one she picks off the dead women/alien at the start.
Last edited by moreorless on Wed Jun 24, 2020 2:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
thirtyframesasecond
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 1:48 pm

Re: Under the Skin (Jonathan Glazer, 2014)

#148 Post by thirtyframesasecond » Wed Jun 24, 2020 1:02 pm

And then there's Vincenzo Natali's Splice, which was basically a more arthouse version of Species.

User avatar
The Curious Sofa
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2019 6:18 am

Re: Under the Skin (Jonathan Glazer, 2014)

#149 Post by The Curious Sofa » Wed Jun 24, 2020 3:23 pm

thirtyframesasecond wrote:
Wed Jun 24, 2020 1:02 pm
And then there's Vincenzo Natali's Splice, which was basically a more arthouse version of Species.
...or rather the Frankenstein version of Species.

flyonthewall2983
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
Contact:

Re: Under the Skin (Jonathan Glazer, 2014)

#150 Post by flyonthewall2983 » Fri Mar 19, 2021 7:34 pm

The Curious Sofa wrote:
Mon Jun 22, 2020 8:24 pm
When I read that Johansson got cast, I was disappointed that they went down the more obvious sexy seductress route, but I was impressed with her performance. The film de-glamourises her rather than upping her sex symbol status and she managed to be impressively inhuman.
The one performance that comes to mind in comparison is Robert Patrick in Terminator 2: Judgment Day, in terms of how seamlessly the characters can go from a human facade to their true nature.

Post Reply