Under the Skin (Jonathan Glazer, 2014)

Discussions of specific films and franchises.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
Black Hat
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 5:34 pm
Location: NYC

Re: Under the Skin (Jonathan Glazer, 2014)

#51 Post by Black Hat » Mon Apr 14, 2014 7:27 pm

matrixschmatrix wrote:Well, I think the point is that actually addressing the film is somewhat more productive than attacking the people who liked it- and where you do address the film, it's in such hyperbolic terms that it's difficult to take seriously.
The film was dumb to the point that it made me angry. To your point tho, this is the kind of film, where context, with regard to who likes it, (critics, people who fancy themselves as pseudo intellectuals falling over themselves), matters. Again, goes back to the Kael quote I referenced. It's the kind of film that seems smart so a bunch of people say it's smart even tho it's really not. In this case it's quite obviously really dumb. Consequently I feel like this attitude, this reverence for something of such poor quality should be pointed out and mocked. The elephant man scene I described was not hyperbolic, that is what really happened. Nothing I said in my description of the film was actually hyperbolic, it's all accurate. The film is not smart, nor original in any way. Glazer is an incompetent filmmaker.

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

Re: Under the Skin (Jonathan Glazer, 2014)

#52 Post by domino harvey » Mon Apr 14, 2014 7:40 pm

I can think of several films where I feel like audiences and critics are dumb for falling for a movie and its alleged greatness, so I understand the thought process behind all this. However, saying something like that "out-loud" never ever ever ever turns out well. It's best to just let everyone else have their fun, as you will never ever ever ever come out of such a "debate" looking good. I'm not telling you to pretend to like the film or even stay completely quiet on its quality, but weigh the pros (none) of publicly coming out with such a position against the cons (a total lack of respect returned, for starters) of saying your take. Replace "critics" or "audiences" with "sheeple" to help illustrate how bad this makes you look if you still have doubts

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

Re: Under the Skin (Jonathan Glazer, 2014)

#53 Post by The Narrator Returns » Mon Apr 14, 2014 7:42 pm

The film was dumb to the point that it made me angry. To your point tho, this is the kind of film, where context, with regard to who likes it, (critics, people who fancy themselves as pseudo intellectuals falling over themselves), matters. Again, goes back to the Kael quote I referenced. It's the kind of film that seems smart so a bunch of people say it's smart even tho it's really not. In this case it's quite obviously really dumb. Consequently I feel like this attitude, this reverence for something of such poor quality should be pointed out and mocked. The elephant man scene I described was not hyperbolic, that is what really happened. Nothing I said in my description of the film was actually hyperbolic, it's all accurate. The film is not smart, nor original in any way. Glazer is an incompetent filmmaker.
There you go again making sweeping generalizations about the intelligence about people who like this movie. I have not seen it yet, but I very much doubt people only like it because it makes them look smart (I find that line of reasoning to border on anti-intellectualism). And nothing says a reasonable response like calling the director incompetent and going after people who dare enjoy his film.

User avatar
Black Hat
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 5:34 pm
Location: NYC

Re: Under the Skin (Jonathan Glazer, 2014)

#54 Post by Black Hat » Mon Apr 14, 2014 7:56 pm

domino harvey wrote:It's best to just let everyone else have their fun, as you will never ever ever ever come out of such a "debate" looking good.
I disagree with this completely. I'm of the belief that if you feel something is dumb or in this case incredibly, I mean incomprehensibly stupid you say it. I'm not someone who is looking to be validated one way or another but I hope my contributions in other areas whether in real life or a discussion forum such as this gives whatever I say the credit of being genuine. That is all I think you can ever ask of someone, regardless of how they feel or how much you disagree. Having said that until more people who have seen the film chime in with their thoughts, it's best to let my words speak for themselves.
The Narrator Returns wrote:There you go again making sweeping generalizations about the intelligence about people who like this movie. I have not seen it yet, but I very much doubt people only like it because it makes them look smart (I find that line of reasoning to border on anti-intellectualism). And nothing says a reasonable response like calling the director incompetent and going after people who dare enjoy his film.
You're not wrong about any of this and I understand this reaction to what I wrote however, until proven otherwise I stand by it. Glazer is a hack.

User avatar
FerdinandGriffon
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2008 11:16 am

Re: Under the Skin (Jonathan Glazer, 2014)

#55 Post by FerdinandGriffon » Mon Apr 14, 2014 8:03 pm

Black Hat wrote:I'm of the belief that if you feel something is dumb or in this case incredibly, I mean incomprehensibly stupid you say it.
But that's not all you're saying. You're also saying that everyone who likes the film is dumb or playing dumb. I agree that the film is dumb, it seems to me self-evidently so, but as Domino says, there's no point in being crudely and unreasonably dismissive of everyone who likes the movie. And if you do think that there is some kind of conspiracy behind the acclaim for it, at least have a more interesting theory about why the mass culture is accepting the film and what it might mean about our society than just that people are pretentious.
Black Hat wrote:until proven otherwise I stand by it. Glazer is a hack.
Again, I agree with your position, but not the way in which you state it. He's innocent (of both hackery and genius) until proven otherwise by intelligent and impassioned argument.

User avatar
matrixschmatrix
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 11:26 pm

Re: Under the Skin (Jonathan Glazer, 2014)

#56 Post by matrixschmatrix » Mon Apr 14, 2014 9:27 pm

I haven't seen this, but I really enjoyed Glazer's Sexy Beast, which is a reasonably tight, unpretentious genre movie, so this idea that he's a hack who trades on betting that people won't see through his charade of being smart doesn't seem like it holds.

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

Re: Under the Skin (Jonathan Glazer, 2014)

#57 Post by Mr Sausage » Mon Apr 14, 2014 9:43 pm

matrixschmatrix wrote:I haven't seen this, but I really enjoyed Glazer's Sexy Beast, which is a reasonably tight, unpretentious genre movie, so this idea that he's a hack who trades on betting that people won't see through his charade of being smart doesn't seem like it holds.
Agreed. I also thought his Birth was an intelligent and mature film, very far from the work of a hack.

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

Re: Under the Skin (Jonathan Glazer, 2014)

#58 Post by The Narrator Returns » Mon Apr 14, 2014 9:47 pm

Mr Sausage wrote:
matrixschmatrix wrote:I haven't seen this, but I really enjoyed Glazer's Sexy Beast, which is a reasonably tight, unpretentious genre movie, so this idea that he's a hack who trades on betting that people won't see through his charade of being smart doesn't seem like it holds.
Agreed. I also thought his Birth was an intelligent and mature film, very far from the work of a hack.
I'll second that (Birth was one of my favorite films of the 2000s). I would also like to throw in a good word for his video for "Rabbit in Your Headlights".

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

Re: Under the Skin (Jonathan Glazer, 2014)

#59 Post by domino harvey » Mon Apr 14, 2014 10:32 pm

I disliked Birth but none of my problems with it are due to its director exhibiting hackery (I think? Not sure what the parameters of hackdom are! The guy made a good looking failure, which is a step above what some generic for-hire visionless no-name would deliver, right?)

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

Re: Under the Skin (Jonathan Glazer, 2014)

#60 Post by mfunk9786 » Mon Apr 14, 2014 11:42 pm

I would understand if there were a lot of jokes about airline peanuts in the movie

User avatar
YnEoS
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2010 10:30 am

Re: Under the Skin (Jonathan Glazer, 2014)

#61 Post by YnEoS » Tue Apr 15, 2014 1:27 am

I think the marketing is causing a lot of people to feel like this is some arthouse puzzle film that needs interpreted. I've watched it twice now and to me it seems like a completely coherent and straight forward piece of genre cinema, that seamlessly and effectively blends a lot of my favorites aesthetic strategies.

The one arthouse game it plays, is that the key piece of information to understanding the majority of the plot is given at the end of the film. So the viewer gets 2 viewing experiences, the first one being in the dark and trying to piece together what's going on, the second time being involved in the narrative in a much more straight-forward way. Not that "you need to see it twice to get it cause it's so deep", my friends and I were somewhat baffled leaving the theater but on discussing it were able to pretty much piece together the plot through our collective recollections. When I saw it a second time I filled in a few gaps I had missed and had a totally different and equally enjoyable experience while watching the film, and it seemed to move quite briskly and logically from scene to scene.

Maybe it's just a cheap trick to get people to buy two tickets, but I didn't regret either purchase.

User avatar
warren oates
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 12:16 pm

Re: Under the Skin (Jonathan Glazer, 2014)

#62 Post by warren oates » Tue Apr 15, 2014 1:52 am

Well, then, please do lay it on those of us less observant folks who won't be seeing it twice. Give us the spoiler-tagged key to the movie.

User avatar
YnEoS
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2010 10:30 am

Re: Under the Skin (Jonathan Glazer, 2014)

#63 Post by YnEoS » Tue Apr 15, 2014 2:16 am

SpoilerShow
She is some sort of non-human being that is hunting down men and collecting their skin.

At first she observes people for practical information. She sees women putting on makeup and then applies it to herself. She asks men about their lives to find out if they live alone and are easy targets.

First few kills are informational, we learn more about the process each time, the man on the motorcycle seems to clean up after her and help keep their presence hidden.

Gradually she seems to be more curious about humans and there's a scene where the man on the motorcycle seems to inspect her as if for defects.

When she picks up the man with the deformed face she seems to be asking questions beyond her mission, she's curious about humans and their sexual desires.

She seems to let him go free after he sinks into the black abyss, the man on the motorcycle finds him and kills him anyways, is seen doing it, and knows he is seen. We see 4 men on motorcycles disperse to find her.

She goes off from her mission in search of human experiences, first eating cake only to realize she can't. Then into a romantic and then sexual relationship only to realize hey she can't enjoy sex either she is only built to lure men.

She walks into the forest where a man tries to rape her and accidentally tears off her human suit. She realizes what she actually is and then is burned to death.


Some things are unanswered like who are they and why they need human skin, but these things are non-essential to the emotional arc of the film.
That's my terrible blunt over-simplified summary, please correct me if I'm misinterpreting anything anywhere.

User avatar
warren oates
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 12:16 pm

Re: Under the Skin (Jonathan Glazer, 2014)

#64 Post by warren oates » Tue Apr 15, 2014 2:24 am

Ah, okay, the key as you seem to see it really boils down to your reading of her reaction to her
SpoilerShow
assault-induced unmasking. You think she doesn't even know she's an alien herself until that moment. Which is an interesting take. I just wonder if there's any evidence for this at all. Or is it just your interpretation of the shocked despair in her eyes?

And, of course, baring any evidence that she doesn't really know who/what she is, then the entire idea that we're supposed to care about her just because she starts acting out human-like curiosity about humanity seems ridiculous. Especially in light of the insistence of the film's first half on the absolutely, inscrutably alien nature of her origin and actions.

User avatar
YnEoS
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2010 10:30 am

Re: Under the Skin (Jonathan Glazer, 2014)

#65 Post by YnEoS » Tue Apr 15, 2014 2:37 am

SpoilerShow
mostly reading from the scene where she attempts to have sex and then must immediately grab that nearest lamp to inspect herself. I would say she is aware she isn't human but doesn't know specifically what she is and what human acts she's incapable of performing

User avatar
feihong
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 12:20 pm

Re: Under the Skin (Jonathan Glazer, 2014)

#66 Post by feihong » Tue Apr 15, 2014 3:48 am

I think that in the scene you refer to, she...
SpoilerShow
...is merely worried that her human skin is damaged. She always seems to know her part in the mission the aliens are trying to carry out. She's clearly conning the humans into her scheme. She knows what she's doing to them. She seems to communicate with the bikers in a nonverbal way (the scene where the biker stalks around her staring into her eyes and saying nothing).

And the main scene I think of in regards to this is the initial scene where she looks at the previous alien that looks as she did, and takes her clothes so that she can go out into the world and take that previous alien's place. It must be clear to her the difference between herself and her victims.
For me the film seemed rather abstract in its bent while I was watching it, but once I had time to think about the movie, all of its potentially abstract scenes and imagery turned out to be depressingly literal. It was disappointing to me that it turned out to be pretty much hard sci-fi. And in retrospect, it ended up feeling a very cold picture, uncertain what kind of movie it really wanted to be.

Orton
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2014 3:58 am

Re: Under the Skin (Jonathan Glazer, 2014)

#67 Post by Orton » Tue Apr 15, 2014 4:56 am

YnEoS wrote:That's my terrible blunt over-simplified summary, please correct me if I'm misinterpreting anything anywhere.
SpoilerShow
I believe they're collecting the skin to use as disguises, while the innards are harvesting for... god knows, but the fact that we see goopy red sliding down some sort of a chute & conveyor belt seems to suggest it's for food.
I haven't read the source novel, but I gather it's more explicit about the aliens' intentions on Earth. Ed Gonzalez's review of the film sheds some light on the differences:

http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/review/under-the-skin

The one thing I'm puzzled about is...
SpoilerShow
The woman's corpse at the beginning: is it a random dead woman that SJ's alien just needs the clothes of temporarily, or a somehow dead/malfunctioned prior model of the SJ alien? I'm leaning more toward the latter, since the woman's very similar but obviously not identical in appearance to SJ in the film, suggesting the skin of each body wasn't synthetic but perhaps taken from a real human - the opening shot shows the making of a synthetic eye, but not a whole body.
Other than that, I agree with the two prior posts that the film's a pretty straightforward narrative/genre film, though that didn't detract for me from the film; the sensory dimension of the film was rich in creating the sense of being unmoored from the world & human activity, and the narrative itself is malleable to different interpretations.

*******
Black Hat wrote:As for the 'really cool' score, has anybody actually heard Miccachu's music? Based on that how can any intelligent person conclude, "You know who'd be great at scoring a film? Micachu."
I don't know how this is supposed to be a knock against the film, but Mica Levi is a classical-trained composer first and foremost, even if she's better know for her work under Micachu and The Shapes. Glazer said he hired her based on her recordings she did with the London Sinfonietta. Even without that background, it's puzzling that you're criticising the music score (and everyone who enjoyed it, apparently) based on anything other than what we hear in the film.
Black Hat wrote:There was not one single intelligent or funny line uttered in this film. I challenge anyone who has seen this horrendous pile of crap to give me one.
I though "I just want to go to Tesco's" was pretty good darkly funny throwaway line, though I'm not sure the film really needed it, outside of a bit of levity. But assuming 'funny or intelligent dialogue' is a pre-requisite for great cinema and (according to you) one has to be a pretentious lemming to think otherwise... can you name, off the top of your head, "one funny or intelligent line" in a Bresson film, considering you cite him as a counterexample filmmaker?

User avatar
tenia
Ask Me About My Bassoon
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:13 am

Re: Under the Skin (Jonathan Glazer, 2014)

#68 Post by tenia » Tue Apr 15, 2014 7:28 am

I have about the same reading of the movie than YnEoS.
SpoilerShow
However, I do believe she knows that she's not human, but she might be testing her disguise, and see what she can and can't do, and if she can, what it is. As Feihong said, for the scene following the sex scene with her "carer", either she's looking to see if the skin is torn which could thus unveil her disguise, or she's curious about something we don't see (blood ? semen ?).

As a whole, though, I read the 2nd part of the moviet from a pure curiosity point of view : she's looking around, testing, discovering.

User avatar
TMDaines
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:01 pm
Location: Stretford, Manchester

Re: Under the Skin (Jonathan Glazer, 2014)

#69 Post by TMDaines » Tue Apr 15, 2014 9:33 am

Black Hat wrote:There was not one single intelligent or funny line uttered in this film.
"This isn't Tesco's."

I doubt there was a screening in Britain where that line didn't get a shared, hearty laugh from the audience.

User avatar
John Cope
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2005 5:40 pm
Location: where the simulacrum is true

Re: Under the Skin (Jonathan Glazer, 2014)

#70 Post by John Cope » Tue Apr 15, 2014 11:53 am

I haven't seen this yet and probably won't till video (so I'm avoiding the spoiler tagged conversation) but I did read the book last year in preparation and can tell you that it is very explicit, far too much so for my taste, about the intentions of the ostensible protag and the rest of her crew back at the farm. For what it's worth it became a whole lot less interesting to me once that Big Reveal occurs. There is an argument to be made that the book is attempting an exercise in how far our sympathies can extend to an alien other, especially when that alien other is treating humanity with both profound indifference and outright contempt (she detests what was done to her body in order to make her "fit in" and it makes sense that she would as her original body is quite literally disfigured in the effort). Frankly though the exercise failed for me, or I failed the exercise and if so I'm not troubled by that. I felt like rather than making things more complex the author actually made them too simple, obvious and easy. I get the message all too well as it's as explicit finally as the mystery revealed. Though I am sympathetic to its overt themes of class alienation or exploitation (positioned within an alien society so it's not a particularly challenging metaphor) and its seemingly vegetarian inspired hatred for meat production and consumption it all actually becomes almost too heavy handed to tolerate.

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

Re: Under the Skin (Jonathan Glazer, 2014)

#71 Post by thirtyframesasecond » Wed Apr 16, 2014 4:25 am

My issue, as I alluded to, was that Glazer has basically gutted the original novel and removed its really strong themes of
SpoilerShow
class, consumerism and farming
and replaced it with something more self consciously empty. In Faber's novel, Isserley is a smart character who has real issues with the purpose of her mission and in a sense, rebels against it. And you know why she rebels against it. The novel is very much allegorical of the world we live in, but Glazer has no interest in this, and that's a mistake in my opinion. I think Glazer makes Johanssen's 'alientation' pretty and arty, but it's missing something of depth in my opinion.

criterion10

Re: Under the Skin (Jonathan Glazer, 2014)

#72 Post by criterion10 » Wed Apr 16, 2014 10:54 pm

The Narrator Returns wrote:
Mr Sausage wrote:Agreed. I also thought his Birth was an intelligent and mature film, very far from the work of a hack.
I'll second that (Birth was one of my favorite films of the 2000s). I would also like to throw in a good word for his video for "Rabbit in Your Headlights".
And I'll third it. I actually just watched it for the first time the other day after having a great experience with Under the Skin. Minus some issues in its final act, it's a very interesting film, with a great performance by Nicole Kidman, stunning cinematography by the late Harris Savides, and a magical score by Alexandre Desplat.
YnEoS wrote:I've watched it twice now and to me it seems like a completely coherent and straight forward piece of genre cinema, that seamlessly and effectively blends a lot of my favorites aesthetic strategies.
I addressed this briefly in my review. While there is obviously a lot to dig into the film, on the surface is a pretty basic narrative, which is one of the reasons that I feel it actually works rather well.
warren oates wrote:Why not write to A24 at info@a24films.com.
Just did. I'll post back if they send me a reply. Lionsgate better stop with this fucking bullshit. First Enemy, and now this. Two great films so early in the year, and it looks like I'll have to import them.

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

Re: Under the Skin (Jonathan Glazer, 2014)

#73 Post by swo17 » Thu Apr 17, 2014 6:41 pm

Discussion of this not getting a Blu-ray release in R1 moved here.

Clodius
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2011 7:05 pm

Re: Under the Skin (Jonathan Glazer, 2014)

#74 Post by Clodius » Sun Apr 20, 2014 3:09 am

I would say I'm surprised by the hate for this movie on here, but honestly I'm not. It seems like every new movie thread has at least 1 or 2 people violently objecting to the subject.

Just got back from seeing this and I absolutely adored it. Hearing about the film, I was mildly concerned it would be too "arty" for my taste (I do enjoy actual narratives in my movies) but it hit a perfect spot between comprehensible and unique. Just from reading about the film coming out I knew that ScarJo was an alien of some kind, plus it used a lot of non-actor scenes (and I didn't have to do extensive research to find that out either Black Hat!) The cinematography was gorgeous and I especially loved the tracking shot following the motorcycle toward the end of the film. Guess I'll defend the movie in the spoiler tag below...
SpoilerShow
@ Warren Oates- I understand your problems with the film, but I think you're digging too deep for answers. Explaining the exact hierarchy between ScarJo and the Motorcycle guy is exposition that I feel would have dragged the movie down. At the end of the movie (and very briefly during one of the goo scenes) we do see what is presumably her actual form. Again, having to explain whether she's part of a hive mind, part android etc. would simply drag the movie down into clunky exposition which it has absolutely none of. The film to me was amazingly coherent for the lack of actual backstory and felt refreshing. From what it sounds like on here, you'd prefer the novel this was loosely based on, which actually fleshes out that kind of backstory. To me, the mystery hit exactly the right notes. But to each his own.

@ Black Hat

Dunno why I'm going to bother feeding the troll but here goes.

1. The movie literally has two characters total, both of which are meant to be ciphers. Just because their motivation isn't spelled out for us, doesn't mean they don't have it or that they're boring. You simply have to think and consider things, rather than having them explained to you.

2. There is practically no prewritten dialogue in the whole film. Kind of hard to have witty lines when you don't actually have lines. Does this mean documentaries are stupid because witty repartee isn't present?

3. I already mentioned my favorite visual (the motorcycle tracking shot). I've never scene that exact shot before, even if it did owe some homage to the Shining (think the Torrance's car heading to the Overlook). Film is a derivative medium to some extent. Simply because someone has filmed the Scottish Highlands before doesn't mean that filming in the Highlands is totally pointless.

4. The score was fine. I'm not a big score guy so I don't have tons to argue on this point.

5. The Elephant Man scene is one of the most important in the film, as she has to modify her normal methods and begins to feel sympathy. The Elephant Man specifically states why he's shopping at night (people are assholes to him because he's, well, the Elephant Man. She begins to do her normal spiel but realizes it won't work because he's different. Having to adapt her script awakens in her new feelings. Also, it really does show how much effort you put into watching the movie and your post, because she clearly doesn't have sex with him and nor does she develop a "conscious". I believe you meant conscience.

6. Haven't seen The Man Who Fell to Earth so I can't really compare there.

7. Try to not have an apoplexy from rage after reading my comments. Ta!

User avatar
warren oates
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 12:16 pm

Re: Under the Skin (Jonathan Glazer, 2014)

#75 Post by warren oates » Sun Apr 20, 2014 4:20 am

Clodius wrote:
SpoilerShow
@ Warren Oates- I understand your problems with the film, but I think you're digging too deep for answers. Explaining the exact hierarchy between ScarJo and the Motorcycle guy is exposition that I feel would have dragged the movie down. At the end of the movie (and very briefly during one of the goo scenes) we do see what is presumably her actual form. Again, having to explain whether she's part of a hive mind, part android etc. would simply drag the movie down into clunky exposition which it has absolutely none of. The film to me was amazingly coherent for the lack of actual backstory and felt refreshing. From what it sounds like on here, you'd prefer the novel this was loosely based on, which actually fleshes out that kind of backstory. To me, the mystery hit exactly the right notes. But to each his own.
Not really. If you'd read what I wrote more carefully, you'd see that I explicitly said I didn't think more exposition would help, especially not what I gathered the novel offered. What would help, if the second half of the film wants to work at all, is some minimalist modicum of set-up and pay-off with regard to just what it is the protagonist is trying to do and, even more crucially, just how it is she views herself -- so that, when her attitude seems to change, we can track that and understand how and why it matters to her.

By the way, somebody above quoted the director as saying we never see her true form.
Clodius wrote:Just because their motivation isn't spelled out for us, doesn't mean they don't have it or that they're boring. You simply have to think and consider things, rather than having them explained to you.
But, in a film that asserts for its entire first hour that they are utterly and unknowably alien -- if, indeed, we take that claim seriously -- we can't possibly "consider" our way into understanding them at all without taking wild guesses. That's where the film collapses under its own weight. Either she's inscrutably alien (as the first half of the film asserts) or she's suddenly magically, facilely anthropomorphic (as the second half of the film seems to need her to be).
Clodius wrote: Having to adapt her script awakens in her new feelings.
This is almost certainly the assumption the film wants you to make. Yet in making it, the film erases any credibility it has by retroactively embracing a set of assumptions about her relative "humanity" that nullifies its prior construction of her alien otherness.
SpoilerShow
Try this thought experiment: Picture the solid jet black form underneath her SarJo disguise -- perhaps not her true form, but truer to her alien nature than her human costume -- and see if you can make any of those same assertions again with a straight face. The director is literally telling you his character is a blank. And yet in the very next breath, once she frees elephant man, he's trying to manipulate you into feeling for her as if she were remotely human or even like any Earthly lifeform we could understand, because... Because if you don't then there's either nothing to watch for the next 45 minutes, or what you're watching is in serious danger of meaning absolutely nothing.

You really can't even pretend to have a theory of the protagonist's mind unless you blindly and unquestioningly accept the silly fudging the film is playing with its own rules.

Post Reply