This
is the only film on my list that I had already seen, it was
Katharine's pick. But, after re-watching it, I realised just how
much I really do like it. And, despite its minimalism, it felt just
as fresh and unnerving as it did the first time round (in fact, maybe
even more so). The plot is simple; Scarlett Johansson plays an alien
driving around Glasgow in a white van, picking up men and then
harvesting them. The simplicity and obscurity of certain elements of
the plot (i.e. why is she harvesting men? Who is the motorcyclist
that seems to be stalking her?) creates a rorshach effect where much
of the meaning is in the hands of the viewer.
Yet
its not so obscure as to be completely without subtext, the film is,
plainly speaking, presenting humankind to the viewer as alien.
Everyday and familiar things; football fans leaving a stadium, trees
bending in the wind, a Tommy Cooper routine on television, streets
glowing and glistening on a wet night, are presented as otherworldly
and bizarre, sometimes beautiful and sometimes threatening. This
creates an uncanny atmosphere that gets, as the title suggests, under
the skin. It achieves this is several ways; the juxtaposition of the
natural and urban scenes (both beautiful albeit in a rough, savage
way), Johansson's detached performance (which reminds one of the lead
from Repulsion) and the sheer lack of exposition.
There
is an uncanniness in Johansson's character which works as a reverse
of the human characters and environments. We are drawn to her at the
same time as being detached through her blank stare. A moment of
doubt occurs for her as she releases one of her victims, a man with a
deformed face. Up until then, she approaches her mission as routine,
having the upper hand in all her encounters. But at this moment, as
she stares at herself in a mirror and then notices a fly trying to
escape, its as if its all suddenly clicked, and the terrifying
expanse of humanity has actually made an impact upon her, triggering
an identity crisis. From then on, her detachment has a meaning and
we, the viewer, can truly empathise with her (because she can
empathise with us). This culminates in a sublime and horrific final
scene which questions the nature of humanity.
I
would describe 'Under the Skin' as horror, similarly to 'The Act of
Killing'. I feel as if the true job of horror is not to scare but to
unsettle, and the terrors should always be human. Humanity is the
only thing to really be scared of. This isn't absolute though, there
can be good paranormal or monster films. But I feel the truly
effective ones are those that affect the viewer outside of the
screen. I've compared both 'Under the Skin' and 'The Act of Killing'
to 'Repulsion' as a film I am really fond of. To me 'Repulsion' is
truly effective as horror because the threat is real. Though I cannot
yet tell if I prefer 'Under the Skin' to 'Repulsion'. As I have
previously stated, I don't find film to be something that can be put
in an ultimate order, but I noticed that I reacted more to 'Under the
Skin'. I think this is primarily because of the style of the film,
the savage beauty which is lacking in 'Repulsion'. I find the film,
in its glacial pace, to be sublime in every aspect, even down to the
soundtrack which suits the pictures almost perfectly.
(Another
observation I couldn't link into the post: The strangeness of
humanity as seen through the eyes of an alien set-up echoes 'Borat',
which yields similar results to a completely different effect. I
think one can see the absolute difference between genres in these two
films and the expectations/reaction of the audience.)
No comments:
Post a Comment