4 stars out of 5
In Her, Scarlett Johannson was just a voice; in Under the Skin, she’s just a body. But what a body, am I right, fellas?!?
And I will readily admit, they had me at “Scarlett Johannson is an alien seductress.” But ogling certainly isn’t the point here. Under the Skin is a sci-fi art film (think Solaris, Melancholia, maybe Duncan Jones’s Moon). It’s a short story, and a tone poem.
The credits say this is based on a novel and that surprised me because not very much happens plot-wise and there is minimal dialogue. I was actually very pleased with the lack of talking, because from the get-go, some of the accents are excruciatingly Scottish.
As for that plot: Alien Scarlett comes to Earth, drives around Scotland, picks up lonely dudes, and bad things happen. My main gripe is that Plot Point II (in Syd Field-speak) is pretty weak and predictable. I won’t tell you what it is, because then you’d know the entire movie.
And anyway, what happens in the film doesn’t really seem to be the point either. It’s more about how it looks (excellent and moody and grey), sounds (raw and unnerving), and feels (desperately lonely and woefully sad). This is a movie about solitude and desire; about surface pleasures and deeper impulses. Sure, Johannson is gorgeous but here there’s also a layer of fatigue, and of discomfort in her physical self. Her character is on a focused mission and it’s thrilling to watch her subtly react when things go a bit off-course.
So kudos to Johannson and to director/co-writer Jonathan Glazer for making—if not a totally fantastic film—at least one that will resonate with me for a while. OK fine, do you want me to say it got under my skin? There, I said it!
Jack Silbert, curator