Under the skin s&s april 2014

THE INTERNATIONAL FILM MAGAZINE

APRIL 2014 VOLUME 24 ISSUE 4

£4.5

004

9770037

480090

RICHARD AYOADE ON ‘THE DOUBLE’ DAVID MACKENZIE’S ‘STARRED UP’ ‘A STORY OF CHILDREN AND FILM’ THE S&S INTERVIEW: JEREMY THOMAS

UNEARTHLY STRANGER: SCARLETT JOHANSSON IN

UNDER THE SKINMADE IN BRITAIN SPECIAL

22 | Sight&Sound | April 2014

UNEARTHLYSTRANGER

Jonathan Glazer’s extraordinary adaptationof Michel Faber’s novel ‘Under the Skin’ is acollision between the surreal and the very real,as an extraterrestrial Scarlett Johansson toursthe Scottish countryside in search of preyBy Jonathan Romney

AMANOBSESSEDJonathan Glazer (below)spent nine years workingon Under the Skin, hisadaptation of the 2000 novelbyMichel Faber, starringScarlett Johansson, right

What would a truly alien cinema be like?Wecan all thinkoffilmmakerswhosestructuresof imaginationsofunda-mentally diverge from recognisable norms that theyseemvirtually extraterrestrial. And there have beennu-merous attempts to imaginehowanalienmight experi-ence ourworld,whether it’s literally an evocation of ex-traterrestrialexperience(TheManWhoFell toEarth, 1976;Liquid Sky, Slava Tsukerman’s 1982 essay in subculture-chic sci-fi) or depictions of radically alien, or alienated,worldviews pertaining to existence as, say, a vampire(Jarmusch’s recent Only Lovers Left Alive) or a schizo-phrenic (LodgeKerrigan’sClean, Shaven, 1993).Cinema’s latest attempt to imagine itself into

suchaviewpointisUndertheSkin, thethirdfeature

PHOTOGRAPH

YBY

FABRIZIO

MALT

ESE

April 2014 | Sight&Sound | 23


JONATHAN GLAZERUNDER THE SKIN

by British director Jonathan Glazer – and a leapintoseriouslyexperimentalterritoryfollowinghis

relativelyconventionalSexyBeast (2000)andBirth (2004).Thepremise:anextraterrestrialtakestheformofayoungwoman (Scarlett Johansson) anddrives round Scotland,exploringthemysteriesofexistenceonearthinbetweensessions of the work she’s here to do, which involvespickingupunsuspectingmen inhervan.The film is based on the 2000 novel byMichel Faber,

but it’sbynomeansastraightadaptation.Faber’sbookisblack comedy: its protagonist is a female extraterrestrialnamed Isserley, posted to earth to capturehumanmalesforconsumptiononherhomeworldasdeluxecharcute-rie. Born a furry quadruped, Isserley has been surgicallytransformed, to her enduring horror, into a two-legged,hairless thing that stands upright.Worse still, she hashadtwostrangebulb-likeappendagestransplantedontoher front – irresistible lures, apparently, for the malehitchhikers shepicksup.Amongother things, the bookis a Swiftian satire about the callousness of factory farm-ing, playingwithprovocativehumouron the categoriesof ‘human’ (applied to the aliens) and ‘animal’ (to theearthlings, or ‘vodsels’). It alsomuseswryly on solitude,howit is tobeawomanamongmen,notionsofuglinessand beauty, the problemof finding job satisfaction, andthebeautyof theScottish countryside.Glazer, whoworked onUnder the Skin for some nine

years, collaboratedwith three screenwriters in succes-sion, and says that thefirst draftwasmuch closer to thenovel. Thefinal version,writtenwithWalterCampbell,pares Faber’s story to its starkest essence: divesting Is-serley of her name; replacing the other aliens with amysterious associate on amotorbike; and replacing theelaborately grisly processing plantwith imagery that isconsiderablymore enigmatic anddreamlike. The resultis a spare, distinctly chilly, poetic vision.The film’s utter strangeness derives partly from its

audacious juxtaposition of two registers – the surrealand the very concrete real. In its nightmaremode, the

film creates some hauntingly mysterious and largelyunexplained images. The alien is sometimes seen inspaces of pure black orwhite, of indeterminate dimen-sion. One such space contains the film’smost startlingvisual conceit, a dark reflecting surface that behaves asa solid floor to the alien but as a viscous pool to unwit-tinghumans,who sink into it: beneath the surface,menhang suspendedas if in aspicuntil their bodies implode,their skins floating like discarded shrink wraps. Thenthere’s the eerily beautiful opening sequence, an almostabstract play of expanding circular shapes that evokeseither planets coming into alignment or the opening ofan alien eye (it’s hard to shake off the idea that the filmbeginsby staringatus).The film’s other register is everyday realism: much

of the time, we seem to be watching an attractive butaltogether unexceptional-seeming youngwomandriv-ing a van aroundScotland, pickingupmalehitchhikersandflirtingwith them.Whenshe’snot at thewheel, shevisits shoppingmalls, buys lipstick, strays into a night-club, explores the Scottish countryside. She’s barelynoticed by the crowds that she moves through – andcertainly not recognised as Scarlett Johanssonby any ofthemenshepicksup. For the alien’s prospectivevictimsare for themost part not actors but unsuspecting non-professionals whowere approached by Johansson andwho chatted with her without realising that she, andthey,wereactors inan improviseddramathatwasbeingsecretlyfilmedbyGlazer.All of this gives the film a vivid quasi-documentary

dimension, an element of surveillance cinema–or evenof ‘stunt’ cinema (Scott Foundas’s thumbs-downVarietyreviewcomparedit to“afeature-lengthCandidCamera”).Under theSkinmightbeconsideredadocumentaryaboutthemaking ofUnder the Skin, and about themechanicsofseduction. It’s fascinatingtoobservethedifferentreac-tionsof thesevariousworking-class Scottishmen to thisalluring woman with her exaggeratedly seduc-tive English ‘posh-bird’ accent and come-hither

It’s fascinatingto observe thedifferent reactionsof these working-class Scottishmento this alluringwomanwithher exaggerated‘posh-bird’ accent

CAPTAIN SCARLETTIn Under the Skin Johanssonwas secretly filmed chattingto unsuspecting non-professionals, who had noidea until later that theywere going to appear ina movie

AkeyelementofUnder the Skin isits scorebyyoungBritish composerMicaLevi. She’s createdanunnervingsoundscape that represents a strainofmoderncompositionalmost entirelyabsent inmainstreamcinema (a rarerecent exceptionbeingMartinScorsese’sShutter Island,with itsuseof Penderecki,Schnittke andCage, echoing the similarlymodernist soundtrackofTheShining).Levi isherself somethingof analien

interloper in theworldoffilmmusic. Trainedincompositionat theGuildhall SchoolofMusic, shemadehernamebothDJ-ingandwithher groupMicachuand theShapes, theirtwoalbums JewelleryandNevermixing theangularity andabrasivenessof late-70spost-punkwithanexuberantpopenergy. But itwas themodernclassical experimentationoftheirChoppedandScrewed, recorded livewiththeLondonSinfonietta, that offers a taster ofthe radical strangenessof Levi’sfilmscore.JonathanRomney:Why do you think

JonathanGlazerwas interested in

what you could bring to the film?

Mica Levi: I thinkhewantedanovice–someonewhodidn’t knowhowtowritefilmscores.Hedidn’twant the score tomanipulatetheaudienceunnecessarily. Iwas told towriteaway fromthepicture at thebeginning. Itwasgreatworkingwithsomeonewhoisn’t talkingtoyou specifically inmusical language– Jon is amazingatdescribing things.JR:The filmhas a very precise and

complex sound design.Howdid the

musicwork in tandemwith that?

ML: JohnnieBurn [the sounddesigner]wantedit tobe really cohesive andhomogeneous,the soundand themusic.Wewere sendingupdatedversionsofwherewewere at all thetimeand trying tokeepeachother in the loop,to allowspace for each thing.Therewasonebit thatwecouldn’t quite get, towards the end,and Johnnie raisedone thing in the sound– itwas a zip–and itmade suchadifference tothedramaof the shot. I couldn’t believe it.JR:Youmake verymaterial use of the

sound of instruments – for example, you

really highlight the scrape of the strings.

ML:That’s definitely true.A lot of it’smicrotonal – and I like that, it sounds like

unison. It soundsmoreuncontrolledbecauseit sounds like a lot ofpeopleplaying, insteadof just one. Insteadof the12 toneswe’reused to, it’swavering inbetween them,and [using] the clashes that theycreate–whichcan soundoutof tune, but canbemore expressivebecause it’s notpreciseandaccurate. Tome it sounds comforting.It’smeant to sounduncomfortable, but Ifind somethingquitehumanabout it.JR:There’s a very striking three-note theme

that recurs.At the start it sounds sexual

and slinky, like afilm noir femme fatale

theme–but by the end, it’s decaying and

suggests the character’s inner torment.

ML: Sheuses that theme– it’s her tool.At thebeginning, it’s like fake– it’s herperfume, it’s theway she reels in theseguyswitha tune.Then it deteriorates, itbecomes sadder.Wecalled it the ‘capture’melody.Then there’s thismajor triad, awarmchord, and that’sher ‘human’ or ‘love’feeling.And there’s this darkerminor triadof trilled strings that recurs throughout.JR:There’s also a strange‘beehive’effect – a

buzzing that suggests a hivemind.Hearing

it, youmake that science-fiction connection

– you think aboutwhatworld she’s from.

ML:Yeah, that’s exactly it.Weweretalkingabout thedarkat thebeginning,andcreationandhowthat allworks–and this alien language.JR:You seem to use quite a restricted

palette.Howmanymusicianswere there?

ML: Itwaswrittenelectronically, so itwaseasy to seewhat the soundworldwouldbe like. It uses a lot ofMIDI strings, fakesounds. I like the ‘foreverness’ of it – youcanhold this chordand it goesonuntil youlift yourhand. It’s somethingeternal andprogrammed. It’s amixtureof that and realstrings, flute andpercussion. Iworkedwithmaybe12musicians. If Iwas toperformit, I’dprobablydouble theamountof strings–andI’dprobablyhave synthplayingalongside it.JR: Howdoes the score relate to

your training in composition?

ML:Alotof the things in thisfilmrelatetowatchingDisneyfilmswhen Iwasyoung. Ihadaphaseofwriting fakeRomanticmusic just beforedoing this…[Studyingcomposition] Iwas exposed toa lot of 70smusic –Xenakis, Stockhausen,thenCage,Nono, Ligeti,Varèse…JR: Do you admire any film composers?

ML: I oftenfindfilmscores abit pandering– they sound like afilmscore. But Iwatched JamesBondwhile Iwasworkingon thefilmand I couldn’t getmyheadoutofwhat themusicwasdoing.

AWAYFROMTHE PICTUREInspired by her modern classicalexperiment ‘Chopped and Screwed’,it took Jonathan Glazer barely tenseconds to chooseMica Levi as thecomposer of ‘Under the Skin’By Jonathan Romney

Mica Levi: ‘A lot of the things in this film relate to watching Disney films when I was young’

GETTYIM

AGES(1)

Jonathanwanted a novice –someonewho didn’t know howtowrite film scores. He didn’twant the score to manipulatethe audience unnecessarily



JONATHAN GLAZERUNDER THE SKIN

conversation. Some seemready to rise to the bait,somedon’t seem tonotice the come-on, others re-

treat into their shell, but all in all, the real-lifemen areas oblivious to Johansson’s imposture as their fictionalcounterparts are to thepredatoryalien’s ploy.A curious lesson of the film is this: take aHollywood

star out of her conventional habitat, the artificial firma-mentofmoviesetsandredcarpets,andchancesare,she’llbeunrecognisable. Johanssonoftenprojectsacartoonishhyper-sexuality (seeDon Jon, or her recent Sodastreamad). But detached from all the elements that identifyher as ‘Scarlett Johansson’ themovie siren, she becomessimply a woman in a cheap-looking furry jacket andslightly scraggydarkhairwho, likeotherwomen,has todon amask if she’s to play the overt seductress. This ismade evidentwhen the alien tries on lipstick in a shop,butherbeing isallmake-up: she’swearingadisguise, theborrowedhumanbody sheoccupies.The theme of beauty and ugliness, inner and exter-

nal being, is pushed further when the alien picks up amanwith a disfigured face. She apparently recognisesthat he looks different fromother humans, and adjustsher come-on lines accordingly: “Whenwas the last timeyouhad a girlfriend?... Youhave verynicehands.” It’s anacutely uncomfortable scene to watch, partly becauseof theman’s discomfort, partly because thewoman is somanifestly unaware of the usual social responses to theway he looks. But it’s likely that viewers will alsomis-read the situation: manywill assume, as I did, that theman’s appearance was created through prosthetics orCGI,whereas in facthe isanactornamedAdamPearson,whose disfigurement is the result of a condition calledneurofibromatosis. He lends his own appearance to thefilm in away that invites us to reappraise our attitudesto surface appearance, especially sinceweknowby thispoint in the film about the true nature of the alien –aboutwhat’sunderherperfect skin.From the start,Under the Skin is a film about the eye

andperception.ToinvoketheBritishpoeticschoolofthe70s/80s, it’s an example of ‘Martianism’, allowing us toseea familiarworldasprofoundly strange:Glazer’s alienencountersseveralaspectsofearthculture thatshefindsinexplicable (aTVclipofTommyCooper) or literally in-digestible (Black Forest gateau). This is a film that looks,feels and sounds radically different – in which wordsplayadrastically restrictedpart, andwithaneerie sounddesign accompanyingMica Levi’s unnerving score. In-evitably,Under the Skinhasmetwithpolarised reactions:initial dismissals from critics in Telluride, then intense

enthusiasm fromBritish critics inVenice. That’s only tobeexpected:afilmsoaudacious, sodifferentdowntothemolecular level, leaves a lot to the viewer’s perception.WhatUnder the Skinfinally is is amatter ofwhatmeetsthe eye – and as the film shows from the very start, notall eyesworkalike.Jonathan Romney: Your adaptation radically pares down

the original book.Whatwas the logic of that?

Jonathan Glazer: Therewas something inside the bookthat Iwas very connected to. Thefirst draftsweremuchmorefaithfulandillustrative. Itwasagoodadaptation–Ijust realised Ididn’twant tomake thebookat thatpoint.I was looking for the thing in the book that Iwas inter-ested in, and it became clear with time that it was theperspective–her, the lens–thatspoketome. Itwasn’t tillIworkedwith the thirdwriter,WalterCampbell thatwefound thatpointof viewand that language.JR: There’s very little dialogue in the film, and when there

is dialogue, the woman’s language is part of her disguise.

You’re denying us everything we normally associate with

character – we don’t know who she is when she’s not per-

forming.She doesn’t even have a name.

JG:Thecloserwegottofindingawayofcrediblymakinga film about an alien, themore committed wewere tothat position. Why would you have a name? Who’sgoing to call her by that name?Once you’ve said you’regoing tomakeafilmaboutanalien, thenyou’regoing tomakeafilmabout analien.JR:You’reworking in twodifferentmodes inonefilm–elab-

orate dreamlike sequences and extremenaturalism.

JG: That clash seemed to be where it happened, thebuzz of it – putting that real world cheek by jowlwiththe surreal dream spaces. The dream space then takeson somuchmore of its own reality because of what’spreceded it.When pitching the film, the term ‘sciencefiction’ comes up. The artifice of all that stuff – space-ships and weapons and helmets and lights – is some-thing that I love towatch in films, but it didn’t feel likeit had a place here.JR: The opening sequence is very abstract, but it suggests

the idea of an eye coming into being – of an adjustment in

her vision, which is also inviting the viewer to adjust to a

differentway of seeing theworld.

JG:That’swhatit is. Inearlydrafts,wehadthecreationofherbodyandhertonguedockingintohermouth, imageswhereyousawmuchmoreofherconstruction,andevenher training. It became one scene – it became distilledinto themost important image, which is the construc-tionofhereye.Hereye is justawindow–it’samethodof

ONTHETILESScarlett Johanssonencounters Scottishclubbers in Under the Skin.Below: Nicole Kidman inBirth (2004); Ben Kingsleyand RayWinstone in SexyBeast (2000)

BFI

NATIO

NALARCHIVE(2)


looking, a telescope.When the thing comesup the tubeand it lights up, you realise that you’ve been looking atthe construction of an iris. But you’ve also beenprivy tothe fact that there’s nothing humanwhatsoever aboutit, that it’s amasquerade, and thatwhat’s inside it is theopposite ofus. It’s likemathsmeetingmeat.JR: Did you hesitate about whether to reveal her real body

at the end?

JG:Absolutely.Butthereasonwediditwas,Idon’tfeellikethat istherealbody.Itwasn’tlike,here’salizardinasuit.Tomeitwasthenext layer–Idon’t thinkyoufeel likeyou’veseenthealien,you’veseenthe inside.Wehada line in thescreenplaywhichwasadescriptionofthatmoment: “Theinside looking at the outside, the outside looking at theinside.” The closest you seeof the alien in thisfilm, as faras I’mconcerned, isanentirelyblackscreen.JR: One of the film’s themes is the human body and its

limitations, and what it is to be trapped – as she is on an

unfamiliarplanet,asweare inbeinghuman.Related to that

is themanwith the disfigured face.

JG: The body-soul thing, that paradox – the pleasure ofconsciousness and life andbeing inabody, andalsohowtroubling it is andmystifying – is key in the film. Thatman has an appearance that doesn’t trouble her; she’saware of it in that she can see it, but she has no judge-ment, because she’s not interested in him.Hemisreadsthat as warmth, I suppose, a different kind of lack ofjudgement. She’s interested inwhat’s inside the skin foradifferent reason–theskin, toher, isnothingmore thana plastic bag. It throws beauty into focus, as well – hisbeautyandher lackof it. It’s a turningpoint, that scene.JR:The ideaofshootingclandestinely–whendidthatcome

in andwhatwas the logic?

JG: I had a real reluctance to cast thefilmwith someonewell known, but I knew we had to. Scarlett and I hadchatted over the years about this project,wewere orbit-

ing each other for three or four years before we finallyagreed to do it. The idea of surveillance, of shooting indisguise, I think came from a kind of a joke – let’s putamask on her. Shooting the waywe did went hand inhandwith thenarrative.JR: There’s something appropriate about the idea of a Hol-

lywood star suddenly placed on Sauchiehall St and being

an alien.

JG:Completely.Thefirstcoupleofweeksofprep,Scarletthad to learn to speakwithanEnglishaccent.Well, that’san equivalent to the story right there – the same as driv-ingon the left-hand side, shehad to learn that too. In thescenewith the eye, youhear her voice, all the phoneticsshe’s going through – that’s because I sat in a roomandlistened to her doing her voice exercise. I realised thatwaspart of thefilmaswell.JR:Wherewere the cameras hidden?

JG: There were ten cameras. Sometimes we shot withtwo, but most of the van scenes were shot with eight.They were built specially for this film, because theydidn’t exist. Shoppingmalls, nightclubs, restaurant… Inthenightclub there’s a cameramanwith a camera stick-ingoutofhis sleeveon thefloor, followingher around.JR: Howdid you select the people you shot?

JG: Bybeing in the van and saying to Scarlett, “Turn lefthere, turn right, what about that guy?” I’m in the backwith amicrophone, she’s got an earpiece, all the wireslead from these eight hidden cameras into the back –eight littlemini-screens, I can seeall theangles. Thefilmiswriting itself at that point. She’d pull over and try andgetsomeone’sattention;you’dfilmtheperson,andafter-wardsaPAwouldgoandtell themwhatwe’dbeendoing,andcanwehavehis consent?JR: Howdid people react?

JG: Jaw on the floor, but most people gave their con-sent. Somedidn’t – therewere some fantastic sceneswecouldn’t use. That was another benefit of shooting inGlasgow. I don’t think you could have shot that film inLondon. First of all, you’dhaveSWATteams–you’dfindyourself with a laser light at your forehead in tenmin-utes, because we had guys walking aroundwith ruck-sackswithwires stickingoutof them.JR: Scarlett Johansson is normally very recognisable, and

heavily identified with sexuality, in a way that becomes

weird here.Thesemen don’t know that it’s Johansson flirt-

ingwith them.

JG: You see very different reactions. Some guys areflirtingwith her, meeting her gaze, and some are abso-lutely terrified by her. You seemen as they are in thosemoments.What I like about her sexuality in this film–particularly in themirror scene,where she’s completelynaked– is that she’s almostde-eroticisedherownimage.She’s reclaimedher image.JR: Howdid you chooseMica Levi towrite the score?

JG:Micaisanextraordinarytalent. I’dneverheardofher.Mymusic producer Peter Raeburn suggested her along-side someother composers, butmy instinct awhile agowas that it would be a newperson, someone unknowntous.Heplayedme[heralbum]ChoppedandScrewed, andabout ten, 15 seconds in, I’dmademymind up.What Iheard in themusic was another universe – a differentsoundscape…

iUnder the Skin is released in theUK

on 14March and is reviewedonpage89

Some guys areflirtingwithher, meeting hergaze, and someare absolutelyterrified by her.You seemenas they are inthosemoments

REVIEWS


ReviewedbySamWigley

PeoplewhosawBirth (2004),andsawbeyondasurfacefarfetchedness to its sublimeundertowof feeling,knewtobeexcitedabout thenext

JonathanGlazermovie.Thewait ends,nearlyadecade later,withanotherbirthof sorts: aKubrickianpre-title sequence thatbeginswithapinprickof light in themiddleofdarkness,thenstellardazzle, circular eclipses–andfinally thewarm-hued irisof aneyeball.

Thenwe’re suddenly rushing throughdepthand lights as if entering2001’s StarGate, but thelightsbegin to look like thoseofpassingcars andwerealisewe’rewithabiker speedingalongoneofplanetEarth’smotorways.MichelFaber’s 2000sourcenoveldelayed revealing its enigmaticprotagonist’s extraterrestrial originsbut–with thesecret alreadyout in theether– thisotherworldlyopeningmakes it apparent fromthestart. Besides,whatelsebutherperspectiveof totalothernesscouldexplainwhytheurbanScotlandof shoppingcentres,nightclubsandcarparksappearshere,even tous, so foreignand incomputable?

Thisunnamedpredator (called Isserley in thebookandplayedwithglassyallurebyScarlettJohansson) isnotanaïf like thealienvisitorsinTheManWhoFell toEarth (1976)or JohnCarpenter’swonderful, underratedStarman(1984),whosefirst small steps foralienkindaredefinedbychildlikewonderandbefuddlement.Under theSkin’s ‘heroine’knowshowtodriveacarand turna sentence, andseems to intuitthepotencyof red lipstickas shekerb-crawlstheScottishcitypickingupmento lure tostrange inky fates invastblack rooms.

Fromherdriving seat,weseeagritty, social-realistBritain: familiarhigh-street shops, ordinaryfaces, shabbyroadsides.Thefirst sectionofGlazer’sfilmplays likeanoneiricnorthern-climesrecastingofAbbasKiarostami’s10 (2002), inwhichan Iranianwomandriver’s conversationswithsuccessivepassengers cumulatively takethe temperatureof anation.Thechipper lad,thecocksurecharmer, thedeformed lonely-heart– inUnder theSkin, each takeshis turn inthepassenger seat, entrancedby this shockofScarlett inGlasgow,beguiledbyher ingratiatingsmile.Her tenderflirtationflattersoneaftertheother, so that longingclouds their abilityto spotaprayingmantis about to strike.

Nothing inourkitchen-sink traditionpreparesus for the formidable scenes inwhich theseunwittingpassers-by followthealien femmefatale intoher lair, feeling the siren’spull asthey shed their clothesbitbybit inaTardis-likecavernof endlessblackness.AstonishingmusicbyMicachu’sMicaLevi–ominousdeathdrumsandshriekingstrings– scores theseabstracteddancesof eroticdoom,as thevictimsobliviouslywade into lethal, liquiddepths like insectssuccumbing to thefinal stickinessof aVenusflytrapwhilehappilydrunkonthe sweet scent.

In thenovel, thesekillingsare carriedoutasakindof interplanetarymeat farming;here,Glazerandco-screenwriterWalterCampbellstripawayexplanation,keeping thevictims’exact fatesobscure.Wefeelonly thechill of thekiller’s remorselessness. It’s ahostilevantage

point fromwhich toviewthemill and throngof contemporaryGlasgow,and thenarrowgazeofUnder theSkin is taintedwithcynicism, evendisgust.Menaredefinedby their concupiscence;goodSamaritansaremotivatedbyself-interest;even thewilderness,where thefilmescapes for itsfinal act, concealsdepravity.WhileGravity (2013)wasahymntohumanendeavourandresilience,Under theSkin feels as coldandhardasonyx.

Yet for all its clinicaldetachment,Glazer’sfilmbecomes itsownoblique treatiseonwhat itmeans tobeand feelhuman.Thealienseductress’s encounterwith thedisfiguredmanpresentsherwithapeer intoanabyssof loneliness, triggeringconfusing feelingsof

empathyandmercy that sendher intoa tailspin.Here, for thefirst time, there is theglimmerof aghost in themachine: Johansson’sperformanceremainsopaque, all butunreadable, butwesense (or is it onlywishfulprojection?) theawakeningofaconsciousness–a realisationthatpeoplearemore than the skin they’re in.

Despite the schematismof this communionbetweenBeautyand ‘Beast’, the savagefinal scenesin theScottishHighlandsoffernosentimentalhosannas;Glazer retainshis austere rigour to thefinish.Withanending that’s asmatter-of-fact asit ismysteriousandprovocative,Under theSkinconfirmshim–three terrificfilmsdown–asoneofBritain’smost excitingfilmmakers.

Glasgow, the present.Amotorcyclist retrieves afemale body from a ditch, taking it into a vanwithan otherworldly interior,where its clothes are givento an unnamedwoman. In her new attire, the woman(latermore explicitly revealed as an alien) drivesaround the city picking up a succession ofmen.Herseduction ends with themen going back to a house,where they are killed wandering into quicksand-like black liquid. Failing to seduce a swimmer atthe beach, she bashes his head in with a rock.

Enticing a disfiguredman into her van, she talksto him about his loneliness.He too is lured to herlair, but is spared, though he is later tracked downby the alien’smotorcyclist accomplice.Apparentlyunsettled by this encounter, the woman travels outinto the countryside.Her trance-like daze attracts theattention of aman on the bus,who offers her shelter.Shocked by the act of sexwith theman, she leaves.

In a forest, a logger strikes up a conversationwith her. Later, hemolests her while she’s asleep ina bothy. She flees but he pursues her through thetrees. Catching upwith her, he attempts to rapeher but is disconcerted when her skin breaks toreveal that she’s not human.After he runs away, shepeels off her human flesh to reveal an alien bodybeneath.The logger returns and sets fire to thealien. It burns to nothing as snow begins to fall.

Under the SkinUnitedKingdom/USA/Switzerland 2013Director: JonathanGlazerCertificate 15 107m59s

Produced byJamesWilsonNickWechslerWritten byWalterCampbellJonathanGlazerBasedon thenovelbyMichel FaberDirector ofPhotographyDaniel LandinEditorPaulWattsProductionDesignerChrisOddyMusic Composed byMicaLeviProductionSoundMixerNigelAlbermanicheCostumeDesignerStevenNoble

©SeventhKingdomProductionsLimited,ChannelFourTelevisionCorporation andBritish Film InstituteProductionCompaniesFilm4andBFI present

in associationwithSilverReel,CreativeScotlandandFimNationEntertainment aNickWechsler/JWFilmsproductionAJonathanGlazer filmDevelopedwith theassistanceof Film4Supportedby theNational LotterythroughCreativeScotlandAco-productionwithSigmaFilmsMadewith thesupport of theBFI FilmFundExecutive ProducersTessaRossRenoAntoniadesWalterCampbellClaudiaBluemhuberIanHutchinsonFlorianDargel

CAST

Scarlett JohanssonLaura

JeremyMcWilliamsLynseyTaylorMackayDougieMcConnellKevinMcAlindenDMeadeAndrewGormanJoeSzulaKrystof HadekRoyArmstrongAlisonChandBenMills

DolbyDigitalIn Colour[1.85:1]

DistributorStudiocanal Limited

9,718 ft +8 frames

The woman who fell to Earth: Scarlett Johansson

Credits and Synopsis

See Featureon page 22

Under the skin s&s april 2014

Education

Transcript of Under the skin s&s april 2014