Were the bits in the black room a metaphor for what was happening or was she really subsuming them into her body?
It was all confusing, but I did like the bit with the body imploding.
In the book, I believe that the victims were butchered for their meat. In the film, it's more subtle but the message is that they are being preyed on by aliens and the bait was Scarlett in human form. What precisely happens to the victims is immaterial to the film, really. They obviously die.
In the book, I believe that the victims were butchered for their meat. In the film, it's more subtle but the message is that they are being preyed on by aliens and the bait was Scarlett in human form. What precisely happens to the victims is immaterial to the film, really. They obviously die.
I wouldn't say being submerged in black liquid and kept alive until your body imploded was 'immaterial'.
I finally got round to watching this last night. I'd heard that it was 'challenging' so for once I actually put the phone and laptop away and gave a film my full attention.
I can understand why it's got rave review amongst the critic world but I think my brain just isn't wired to appreciate this type of film making. After watching it I went online to read the plot summary and explanations and I realized that i'd missed almost all of the relevant plot points.
I understood that 'the alien' was picking up random men but I had no idea why. I assumed that the sequences back at hers were just some sort of dream and that we'd find out what happened at the end.
I had no idea who the guy on the motorbike was or what he was doing throughout the entire film.
I completely missed that in the second half of the film she was exploring humanity. I just thought it was more random stuff that would be explained at the end.
Basically for me the film was just a collection of random, if well shot, scenes that had little overall narrative. I just left me feeling annoyed.
Edit - I found this review that explains my feelings better than I can.
Edit - I found this review that explains my feelings better than I can.
Blimey, whoever wrote that 'review' for the Indie really should not be working as a film critic. I hadn't read the book before seeing the film and managed to pick up all the plot and character development points that this supposed professional critic apparently missed.
Good god. Is that really a review? Of a film? In a major UK broadsheet?
Horrendous.
I do wonder how I would've interpreted the film had I not already read the book. On the flip side, even though the film is so different, as a film lover I can appreciate what Glazer was doing. More about feeling and interpretation than spoon feeding, all with a tinge of realness, even with a major Hollywood actress in the lead.
I took the black gunk as being the alien 'collective' together, ingesting the humans directly. Hence her being a 'black gunk being', for want of a better term, and being able to walk directly on it. I guess this loosely parallels the book as they are using the humans for food. The motor bike guy was some kind of handler.
Good god. Is that really a review? Of a film? In a major UK broadsheet?
Horrendous.
I do wonder how I would've interpreted the film had I not already read the book. On the flip side, even though the film is so different, as a film lover I can appreciate what Glazer was doing. More about feeling and interpretation than spoon feeding, all with a tinge of realness, even with a major Hollywood actress in the lead.
I took the black gunk as being the alien 'collective' together, ingesting the humans directly. Hence her being a 'black gunk being', for want of a better term, and being able to walk directly on it. I guess this loosely parallels the book as they are using the humans for food. The motor bike guy was some kind of handler.
Well, quite. It's not as though aliens harvesting humans as food is a new idea within the sci-fi genre, is it? So it doesn't take much imagination to jump from seeing men repeatedly dissolved in gloop, to then seeing red gloop making its way down a conveyor belt before disappearing into a slot, to finally seeing a bright red light fill the screen to figure out that they might be ending up as some form of Soylent Green.
I watched this a few days ago and and absolutely loved it. I have been thinking about it on and off ever since, which for me is the sign of a great movie.
I can certainly understand how it wouldn't be to everyone's taste, but I am a little mystified why so many struggled to understand what was going on. It seemed a fairly straight forward tale at heart and I would by no means classify myself as high brow artsy-fartsy
I watched this a few days ago and and absolutely loved it. I have been thinking about it on and off ever since, which for me is the sign of a great movie.
I can certainly understand how it wouldn't be to everyone's taste, but I am a little mystified why so many struggled to understand what was going on. It seemed a fairly straight forward tale at heart and I would by no means classify myself as high brow artsy-fartsy
All I know is that I put a fair amount of effort into watching the film and I couldn't even work out if there was suppose to be a narrative. I had read beforehand that she was an alien but otherwise I would have just assumed that the whole thing was some sort of abstract metaphor. And I'm not too dumb, I went to a top ten uni and everything (though English Literature was the only GCSE that I didn't get at least a C in . . . . . . . .).
All I know is that I put a fair amount of effort into watching the film and I couldn't even work out if there was suppose to be a narrative. I had read beforehand that she was an alien but otherwise I would have just assumed that the whole thing was some sort of abstract metaphor. And I'm not too dumb, I went to a top ten uni and everything (though English Literature was the only GCSE that I didn't get at least a C in . . . . . . . .).
So you don't think that the following might have been clues to an other-wordliness then?
- Opening scene: space / eye; her learning patterns of speech.
- Soundtrack: surely that gave you a slight clue that something was alien and other worldly?
- She starts out in a van that is completely white inside; hardly of this world.
- She leads men into a completely black room inside a run-down house where they are led into a pool of black liquid and she then walks back over the liquid which is now solid.
- Her lack of reaction to Adam Pearson's face (initially at least) unaware there is anything different about him.
- Her lack of reaction to the beach scene or (at first) a crying baby?
- Her blank/confused/inquisitive reaction to events that most humans would take for granted? The shopping centre, make-up counters, the football match crowd, being grabbed in a nightclub by a group of rowdy girls etc.
- Her attempting to eat cake (for what appears to be the first time).
- Her noticing music (for what appears to be the first time).
- Her scrutinising her body (for what appears to be the first time) when she is at the flat belonging to the man on the bus.
- Her freaking out and checking herself when the man from the bus attempts to have sex with her.
Of course, it is highly unlikely that anyone would actually go to a film without knowing at least a synopsis of what it is about but there are plenty of clues for those rare individuals who enter the auditorium knowing nothing of the film they are about to see.
All I know is that I put a fair amount of effort into watching the film and I couldn't even work out if there was suppose to be a narrative. I had read beforehand that she was an alien but otherwise I would have just assumed that the whole thing was some sort of abstract metaphor. And I'm not too dumb, I went to a top ten uni and everything (though English Literature was the only GCSE that I didn't get at least a C in . . . . . . . .).
Funny, reading that review, I was telling a friend to watch it, describing it as "just as weird as Only God Forgives without making you want to turn it off" - He didn't make it all the way through OGF. I, too, would've used the term 'wilfully obstuse' if only I had that great a command of the Queens English.
beautiful, terrifying, mesmeric, subtle .....
a truly original sci fi movie!
career best acting from scarlett johanson, and that opening sequence is breathtaking!
even though a lot will find this slow and lubersome, it's the patient build up that literally get's you under the skin
and you simply don't know where it;s going either .....
but i could see, even after her second victim, you can see her thought process and the beginnings of her "questioning" herself!
and that certainly ISN'T a metaphor, it's a PULPING CHAMBER EEEEEEEEWWWWWW
and as the movie wen't on, she got more and more scared AND enthused about the help she was being offered beyond her normal seductiveness ..... a seductress being seduced!
and yes Trsvis_Bickle, the cinematography is wonderful, scotland always produces for the camera :cool:
and yes motorcycle man was probably the leader, since he had on call the OTHER motorcyclists, and it was original to not have them find her at the end .....
would LOVE to see more of these species, and how they'd react to any one of their's "changing"!
I took the black gunk as being the alien 'collective' together, ingesting the humans directly. Hence her being a 'black gunk being', for want of a better term, and being able to walk directly on it. I guess this loosely parallels the book as they are using the humans for food. The motor bike guy was some kind of handler.
That would make a lot of sense. I like the idea of the 'black gunk' being all the aliens and the reason why she could walk on them.
So you don't think that the following might have been clues to an other-wordliness then?
- Opening scene: space / eye; her learning patterns of speech.
- Soundtrack: surely that gave you a slight clue that something was alien and other worldly?
- She starts out in a van that is completely white inside; hardly of this world.
- She leads men into a completely black room inside a run-down house where they are led into a pool of black liquid and she then walks back over the liquid which is now solid.
- Her lack of reaction to Adam Pearson's face (initially at least) unaware there is anything different about him.
- Her lack of reaction to the beach scene or (at first) a crying baby?
- Her blank/confused/inquisitive reaction to events that most humans would take for granted? The shopping centre, make-up counters, the football match crowd, being grabbed in a nightclub by a group of rowdy girls etc.
- Her attempting to eat cake (for what appears to be the first time).
- Her noticing music (for what appears to be the first time).
- Her scrutinising her body (for what appears to be the first time) when she is at the flat belonging to the man on the bus.
- Her freaking out and checking herself when the man from the bus attempts to have sex with her.
Of course, it is highly unlikely that anyone would actually go to a film without knowing at least a synopsis of what it is about but there are plenty of clues for those rare individuals who enter the auditorium knowing nothing of the film they are about to see.
Well, yes there were a lot of clues. But how was I to know that she wasn't just suffering from some severe mental breakdown and that all of the 'other worldly' scenes were not her hallucinating. I honestly thought that might be the twist at the end.
Well, yes there were a lot of clues. But how was I to know that she wasn't just suffering from some severe mental breakdown and that all of the 'other worldly' scenes were not her hallucinating. I honestly thought that might be the twist at the end.
Ah, I'm not having a go at you.
My point was really that no-one goes to a film knowing absolutely nothing about it. Surely everyone at least reads the blurb on the poster, so would know the alien angle when they went in? It's a great film and I'm really pleased that more people are discovering it and talking about it. It's a nice change from the interminable threads where people posts lists of films and nothing else.;-)
I have conflicting feelings about this film. I've read the book and it's one of my favourites, but the film bears little relation to the book it's meant to be based on, bar on a very superficial level. In many ways this is understandable, because the book is, more or less, unfilmable, at least if not using copious amounts of CGI to show the true look of Isserley (the protagonist in the book; Scarlett's character in the film, but apparently renamed Laura), the aliens in the "farm" and the world they come from in order to tell the backstory. Another problem, though, is that the book relies a lot on the inner dialogue of the protagonist, which really adds a lot to the story. There are other things missing in the film that were important in the book, like the "farm" and its workers, Amlis Vess, "mercy", and her back story, all very important to the story. Another thing is that the book delves deeper than the issue about what it's meant to be human, going into cruelty, class exploitation, sexism, intensive farming, etc. On a book reader's level, I found this film a bit disappointing and strangely hollow (maybe odd to say, but I'm coming at this from my book reader's PoV). Still, as I said, the book is one of my favourites, so that probably clouds my judgement somewhat.
However, the film, if taken by itself and after some reflection, isn't bad and can be quite interesting in parts. It relies on mood to overcome some difficulties and limitations. It has some great cinematography and a good soundtrack to add to its mood. Sure, some will see it as slow and pointless at times, but under its skin, it has a haunting, disturbing and questioning quality to it. Still, even though it's not a masterpiece, IMO, it's an interesting film, and it might well cause some people to go and read the book it's loosely based on (at least the book can't be spoilt by this film ).
I must admit I do feel similar. Hence my comment about one reviewer stating that the producers had taken one line from the book, chopped it in half and made a film out of it. I had to see it.
I think the book, in this day and age, would be more than filmable. Someone like Gilliam could probably do it without too much CGI. There are parallels to the book, just in a slightly more abstract way. You could see the farms 'workers' as the bikers. The scene where the head biker looks at her from all angles could be seen as Amlis Vess. The 'mercy' side of things dealt with by letting the guy go. The struggles with her 'humanity', basically the third act. A certain yellow jacketed man. Going to see the water...and so on. It's there, just in a different way. - but I do agree about your strangely hollow comment, perhaps your judgement is slightly biased by it being one of your favourite books.
Definitely refreshing to see a genuinely moody sci fi piece though.
I must admit I do feel similar. Hence my comment about one reviewer stating that the producers had taken one line from the book, chopped it in half and made a film out of it. I had to see it.
I think the book, in this day and age, would be more than filmable. Someone like Gilliam could probably do it without too much CGI. There are parallels to the book, just in a slightly more abstract way. You could see the farms 'workers' as the bikers. The scene where the head biker looks at her from all angles could be seen as Amlis Vess. The 'mercy' side of things dealt with by letting the guy go. The struggles with her 'humanity', basically the third act. A certain yellow jacketed man. Going to see the water...and so on. It's there, just in a different way. - but I do agree about your strangely hollow comment, perhaps your judgement is slightly biased by it being one of your favourite books.
Definitely refreshing to see a genuinely moody sci fi piece though.
I suppose it could be filmable, but I still think a lot of CGI would need to be used to show the aliens, the proper production facility and what it does (far more disturbing and visceral in the book) and Isserley's back story. Also, the rating would need to be raised to 18 due to the graphic nature of what happens. Not a problem for me, but the distributors might have a problem with that.
Yes, the bikers were meant to be the workers. I can't see Amlis Vess as one of the bikers, though. It goes well against his character to be one of those (too menial a task for him to work, and, for whatever reason, he's not exactly happy with the, let's say, farming techniques and his father's line of business). However, I can see the biker that "communicates" with her (I took the staring to be them in discussion) as Eswiss, the supervisor of the production facility. The "mercy" thing I meant was the lack of communication between the two species, the wilful denial of sentience by Isserley of her victims when confronted by Amlis Vess, and the seeming lack of that word/concept in the alien's language (or at least in Isserley's inability/unwillingness to translate it), all things important to the story (I don't want to get too involved in bringing up these points, as I don't want to spoil the book for those who haven't read it). Still, yeah, in very abstract terms, there was something of the book in the film, but I felt not enough.
I do agree with your last point. The film didn't pander to the usual mainstream expectations for science fiction, which was refreshing. It did have something to say, maybe not enough for my expectations considering the book, but at least something to make you think.
Comments
It was all confusing, but I did like the bit with the body imploding.
In the book, I believe that the victims were butchered for their meat. In the film, it's more subtle but the message is that they are being preyed on by aliens and the bait was Scarlett in human form. What precisely happens to the victims is immaterial to the film, really. They obviously die.
I wouldn't say being submerged in black liquid and kept alive until your body imploded was 'immaterial'.
It is clear that the victims die. The precise means by which they perish is immaterial.
It might be immaterial to you but it isn't to me.
I liked the idea of them still being conscious while being consumed by the host like a fly in a venus fly trap.
And it does matter if the black room is a metaphor or not.
Well, it seems an odd thing to fantasise about but whatever floats your boat.
I can understand why it's got rave review amongst the critic world but I think my brain just isn't wired to appreciate this type of film making. After watching it I went online to read the plot summary and explanations and I realized that i'd missed almost all of the relevant plot points.
I had no idea who the guy on the motorbike was or what he was doing throughout the entire film.
I completely missed that in the second half of the film she was exploring humanity. I just thought it was more random stuff that would be explained at the end.
Basically for me the film was just a collection of random, if well shot, scenes that had little overall narrative. I just left me feeling annoyed.
Edit - I found this review that explains my feelings better than I can.
Blimey, whoever wrote that 'review' for the Indie really should not be working as a film critic. I hadn't read the book before seeing the film and managed to pick up all the plot and character development points that this supposed professional critic apparently missed.
Horrendous.
I do wonder how I would've interpreted the film had I not already read the book. On the flip side, even though the film is so different, as a film lover I can appreciate what Glazer was doing. More about feeling and interpretation than spoon feeding, all with a tinge of realness, even with a major Hollywood actress in the lead.
I took the black gunk as being the alien 'collective' together, ingesting the humans directly. Hence her being a 'black gunk being', for want of a better term, and being able to walk directly on it. I guess this loosely parallels the book as they are using the humans for food. The motor bike guy was some kind of handler.
Well, quite. It's not as though aliens harvesting humans as food is a new idea within the sci-fi genre, is it? So it doesn't take much imagination to jump from seeing men repeatedly dissolved in gloop, to then seeing red gloop making its way down a conveyor belt before disappearing into a slot, to finally seeing a bright red light fill the screen to figure out that they might be ending up as some form of Soylent Green.
I can certainly understand how it wouldn't be to everyone's taste, but I am a little mystified why so many struggled to understand what was going on. It seemed a fairly straight forward tale at heart and I would by no means classify myself as high brow artsy-fartsy
All I know is that I put a fair amount of effort into watching the film and I couldn't even work out if there was suppose to be a narrative. I had read beforehand that she was an alien but otherwise I would have just assumed that the whole thing was some sort of abstract metaphor. And I'm not too dumb, I went to a top ten uni and everything (though English Literature was the only GCSE that I didn't get at least a C in . . . . . . . .).
This is another interesting article about the film (from a fan this time). From the sounds of it i'm definitely in a minority, but maybe quite a large one.
So you don't think that the following might have been clues to an other-wordliness then?
- Opening scene: space / eye; her learning patterns of speech.
- Soundtrack: surely that gave you a slight clue that something was alien and other worldly?
- She starts out in a van that is completely white inside; hardly of this world.
- She leads men into a completely black room inside a run-down house where they are led into a pool of black liquid and she then walks back over the liquid which is now solid.
- Her lack of reaction to Adam Pearson's face (initially at least) unaware there is anything different about him.
- Her lack of reaction to the beach scene or (at first) a crying baby?
- Her blank/confused/inquisitive reaction to events that most humans would take for granted? The shopping centre, make-up counters, the football match crowd, being grabbed in a nightclub by a group of rowdy girls etc.
- Her attempting to eat cake (for what appears to be the first time).
- Her noticing music (for what appears to be the first time).
- Her scrutinising her body (for what appears to be the first time) when she is at the flat belonging to the man on the bus.
- Her freaking out and checking herself when the man from the bus attempts to have sex with her.
Of course, it is highly unlikely that anyone would actually go to a film without knowing at least a synopsis of what it is about but there are plenty of clues for those rare individuals who enter the auditorium knowing nothing of the film they are about to see.
Funny, reading that review, I was telling a friend to watch it, describing it as "just as weird as Only God Forgives without making you want to turn it off" - He didn't make it all the way through OGF. I, too, would've used the term 'wilfully obstuse' if only I had that great a command of the Queens English.
a truly original sci fi movie!
career best acting from scarlett johanson, and that opening sequence is breathtaking!
even though a lot will find this slow and lubersome, it's the patient build up that literally get's you under the skin
and you simply don't know where it;s going either .....
and that certainly ISN'T a metaphor, it's a PULPING CHAMBER
and as the movie wen't on, she got more and more scared AND enthused about the help she was being offered beyond her normal seductiveness ..... a seductress being seduced!
and yes Trsvis_Bickle, the cinematography is wonderful, scotland always produces for the camera :cool:
and yes motorcycle man was probably the leader, since he had on call the OTHER motorcyclists, and it was original to not have them find her at the end .....
would LOVE to see more of these species, and how they'd react to any one of their's "changing"!
That would make a lot of sense. I like the idea of the 'black gunk' being all the aliens and the reason why she could walk on them.
the red light represents DEATH
???
Well, yes there were a lot of clues. But how was I to know that she wasn't just suffering from some severe mental breakdown and that all of the 'other worldly' scenes were not her hallucinating. I honestly thought that might be the twist at the end.
Ah, I'm not having a go at you.
My point was really that no-one goes to a film knowing absolutely nothing about it. Surely everyone at least reads the blurb on the poster, so would know the alien angle when they went in? It's a great film and I'm really pleased that more people are discovering it and talking about it. It's a nice change from the interminable threads where people posts lists of films and nothing else.;-)
However, the film, if taken by itself and after some reflection, isn't bad and can be quite interesting in parts. It relies on mood to overcome some difficulties and limitations. It has some great cinematography and a good soundtrack to add to its mood. Sure, some will see it as slow and pointless at times, but under its skin, it has a haunting, disturbing and questioning quality to it. Still, even though it's not a masterpiece, IMO, it's an interesting film, and it might well cause some people to go and read the book it's loosely based on (at least the book can't be spoilt by this film
I think the book, in this day and age, would be more than filmable. Someone like Gilliam could probably do it without too much CGI. There are parallels to the book, just in a slightly more abstract way. You could see the farms 'workers' as the bikers. The scene where the head biker looks at her from all angles could be seen as Amlis Vess. The 'mercy' side of things dealt with by letting the guy go. The struggles with her 'humanity', basically the third act. A certain yellow jacketed man. Going to see the water...and so on. It's there, just in a different way. - but I do agree about your strangely hollow comment, perhaps your judgement is slightly biased by it being one of your favourite books.
Definitely refreshing to see a genuinely moody sci fi piece though.
I had the same with Never Let Me Go. The book stopped your heart, but the film was just...meh. Though some really love the film it seems.
Watching Under the Skin tonight, btw. Ooo.....
I suppose it could be filmable, but I still think a lot of CGI would need to be used to show the aliens, the proper production facility and what it does (far more disturbing and visceral in the book) and Isserley's back story. Also, the rating would need to be raised to 18 due to the graphic nature of what happens. Not a problem for me, but the distributors might have a problem with that.
Yes, the bikers were meant to be the workers. I can't see Amlis Vess as one of the bikers, though. It goes well against his character to be one of those (too menial a task for him to work, and, for whatever reason, he's not exactly happy with the, let's say, farming techniques and his father's line of business). However, I can see the biker that "communicates" with her (I took the staring to be them in discussion) as Eswiss, the supervisor of the production facility. The "mercy" thing I meant was the lack of communication between the two species, the wilful denial of sentience by Isserley of her victims when confronted by Amlis Vess, and the seeming lack of that word/concept in the alien's language (or at least in Isserley's inability/unwillingness to translate it), all things important to the story (I don't want to get too involved in bringing up these points, as I don't want to spoil the book for those who haven't read it). Still, yeah, in very abstract terms, there was something of the book in the film, but I felt not enough.
I do agree with your last point. The film didn't pander to the usual mainstream expectations for science fiction, which was refreshing. It did have something to say, maybe not enough for my expectations considering the book, but at least something to make you think.
I don't know what the bloody hell just happened but by god I enjoyed that film