4 out of 5

Directed by: Jonathan Glazer

‘Under the Skin’ is why film is still a valid medium.  With the expanded storylines and budgets allotted to television, sometimes the average flick doesn’t seem to offer much beyond more explosions on a bigger screen, or a set runtime versus ongoing seasons.  That’s not to suggest that only “art” films should be made; however it’s best to tell your story, tell your story.  But there’s still a lot of wiggle room, where nudging things in one direction or another could make it effective as a serial, or effective in a theater.  And then there are those exceptions, where it can be no other way.  ‘Under the Skin’ can only be a film.  The Kubrick comparisons to the flick – beyond the long, 2001-esque opening shot, or the sexual themes – are apt, especially because Glazer has entered into that “other” realm of film with ‘Skin,’ where we’re treated to an experience, with the burden on us whether or not to be affected, or bored, or disgusted, or etc.  Certainly movies of this nature can still be criticized for overreaching, for pacing, for style – and the movie’s cloudy narrative admittedly, to me, doesn’t really offer too much to consider – but there’s not a moment of this particular “experience” that doesn’t feel considered and purposeful on behalf of the director, and that force of presentation makes it mesmerizing.  On the surface, ‘Skin’ is about an alien race that’s harvesting something from humans via sex.  Scarlett Johansson is our alien, wearing her convincing human skin, cruising ’round Glasgow and picking up average dudes to lure back to her sex den.  But Glazer abstracts this as much as possible.  Showing us the events through the filter of being from the alien’s viewpoint, all of the violence and eroticism is sucked out, for void backgrounds of flat black, for quiet shots of an emotionless Scarlett staring at these curious humans buzzing about, while Mica Levi’s amazingly disquieting soundtrack buzzes and beats in the background.  Most of the first half of the movie is us watching the alien watch others, until a unique interaction causes the alien to break from her programming, and with open-eyed naivete, to connect with her own version of ‘humanity…’

While there are possible considerations of gender, of the female / male gaze and objectification and what makes us tick and etc., I don’t feel like the movie quite goes there.  This is a particular journey on which we’re taken, and the genius of the movie lies in Glazer’s dedication to finding the most minimal but direct way of guiding us through that.  But the same abstraction is what prevents it from turning back on us and making us complicit in the objectification.  This is the one aspect that keeps it (in my eyes) from being a perfect experience: at film’s end, I wasn’t left with any questions.  Yes, I hit the message boards to see if my “read” of the film was consistent with others, and it was.  Which is absolutely a positive – that all of the signs are clear enough that we can gobble up all the visual symbolism without having to scratch our heads – but, of course, that means it’s lacking that edge of interaction that can make our favorite films stay with us.

Overall, though, when something as carefully measured as ‘Under the Skin’ comes along, my direct connection to the messages being communicated (which can obviously be said to just be opinion or a bias regarding the themes) is secondary to the power of the presentation, and Glazer proves masterful in his domination of his chosen medium.  I would never have said I’d felt film was dead, but it’d been a long while since I’d seen a true visual work of art.  It’s reaffirming to find out that when you do see one, you know it right away.