Under The Skin and the Lobster - The Art of All Show No Tell

I don't know if I could read the book this film is based on and still be as interested as I was with the film. This was another I'd had on my watch list that I dismissed since I was working on a similar concept at the time that was terrible by comparison. I have also seen Species, albeit years ago. Under the Skin is very much its superior.

I didn't remain fully engaged in this film; its pacing is off, but it's a slow burn of a movie that still has shocking, unpredictable moments. For an independent film, it's stunning as all hell. But its genius lies in all what is unseen and unsaid. You're relying almost entirely on visuals which makes it so much harder to look away. You know the fate of our alien's victims is gruesome but we're kept from the details for half the film. I was disappointed there wasn't a moment in the first abduction scene where we were let in on this ritual. But the payoff later is worth it. We see the consequences of our alien failing to score. We see the consequences of her considering assimilation and sympathy. She's very much beholden to her needs (and the needs of her species - it's implied she's gathering food for herself and the mystery motorcyclist). The subtleties of Johansson's performance leave you longing for the day you found her captivating and natural, and not a product of the Hollywood Machine. I can see she's trying to break back into the indie scene but with the massive shifts in culture and perception, it's no longer commendable to tackle a marginalised role. Where we were dishing out Oscars to cisgender actors portraying gay and trans characters, and dismissing terrible racial stereotypes perpetuated by white actors as all in good fun, the general public now want authenticity. So suffering the backlash from Ghost in the Shell, Johansson's now dropping controversial roles, but in favour of what, I have no idea. (I was disappointed she later retracted her apology and complained she should be able to do any role out there, but her argument opens doors we're still struggling to close).

Her role in Under The Skin is completely underrated and this film went largely unnoticed by mainstream audiences. It wouldn't have captivated that type of moviegoer. The chances it took in production in using men off the street interacting with an unfamiliar actress, Johansson not being a widely recognised actor in 2014 in the further reaches of Scotland, are noteworthy. The distinct lack of design in the white and black rooms and the use of space and water to differentiate the alien's environment from Earth itself were perfect. We're not bombarded with intricate, overly detailed foregrounds and backgrounds designed to impress and astonish. There's nothing fantastic going in that regard on but it's fucking beautiful and astonishing all the same. I wouldn't call this film a commentary on feminism as it is a representation of humanism and humanity - the actual essence of being human. We're exploring longing, attraction, the ugliness and beauty of reality, compassion versus inhumanity. Our alien isn't given much pity or compassion. The one man who takes her in of course wants something in return, and by then the alien's confusion and repulsion toward the act of sex overrides her curiosity. We didn't see her really attack her victims, just lure them, and she's taken pity on one in particular by then, so her eventual comeuppance still feels unfair to a degree. She's become human enough even before the final compelling reveal, which I'm glad was never spoiled. I'd have to rewatch this to get more of a sense of the ancillary characters involved with the alien. But it's worse to think this was probably one of Johansson's last brilliant performances before she effectively sold out. She's not really the indie darling we came to love, being surpassed by the Fanning sisters and other ingenues drawing the eye of notable indie directors. So you would hope she'll move into future roles with the view of reminding us what she's capable of other than looking good in spandex.

I haven't brought up the Lobster, another film I got around to seeing. This suffered more from pacing and overdoing it with the over-all story concepts - there's very much a sense of, yeah we get it by the second act. I related to the concepts more than the characters, this being the most hilarious way of illustrating the painful measures people take to find someone to be with forever. It's discomforting and sardonic. In this world, being human is a crime, showing real emotions and affection isn't acceptable and if you can't find a suitable mate, the consequences are dire - worse than death itself. So then we're asked "would you rather...?"

This is still a beautiful film to watch that borrows from the mundane while depicting the fantastic, and again there's the lack of detail with the "transformation room" that lends to your inner fears. We don't know how it happens, it just happens, so all the relevant questions arise: will it hurt? What will become of me in the wild? How will I survive? If this is the end result of repressed emotions and stultifying conversations, we should be running screaming from this concept. And mentally, you do. You either end up appreciating the life you have now or lamenting letting go someone who wasn't entirely perfect for someone you thought more "compatible". The violence isn't too slapstick, the humour isn't tasteless. The use of narration isn't overbearing and becomes more intriguing once we're introduced to the narrator. The ambiguous ending works perfectly with the small sense of hope you feel degrading towards the end. But it's a bloated film that could have done with some careful edits. I don't see a reason why tension has to be built from drawn out scenes, other than it's intentional deriving of discomfort, which it certainly does but you do get annoyed occasionally with the amount of time we spend in certain situations. Inglorious Basterds did this so well to the point I was dying for the denouement to end. It stretched two minutes too long and was utterly unbearable, which is why I can't watch it again. I probably won't revisit Lobster unless I watch it with someone else. Colin Farrell's character is compelling and painfully relatable. You're on his side immediately because you're essentially rooting for a version of yourself, especially the angry part of you who's sick of conformity and just wants to be loved. John C Riley is perfect with his lisp and dogged determination not to end up transformed. Rachel Weisz has some overly wooden moments even where wooden is necessary, but we see her human side too after her particular betrayal at the hands of their supposed comrades. It's a clever film that doesn't revel in its own genius at the expense of any emotion or drama. Its bizarre premise doesn't make it less believable, and narration is a necessity given there's a lot more to unpack in the beginning in terms of backstory. Each primary and secondary character represents a greater whole. It's definitely going to be more fun for the awkward and maybe autistic crowd. It's probably a bleaker version of Punch Drunk Love, if you could draw any comparisons.

But effectively, even with Lobster's heavy narration or Under the Skin's occasional dialogue, both are remarkable examples of visual storytelling.

As a side note I'm finally reading Under the Skin, and I haven't even gotten past the first scene it's so involved. I'm feeling like the movie itself is taking a dig at the book for being overly descriptive and failing to build tension or curiosity early on. My investment is minimal right now given I know who and what the main character is, but without that knowledge she's not an entirely interesting character. Scarlet Johansson's portrayal seems to speak so much from so little, I'm sure they could've incorporated more dialogue than was used to build exposition but I'm sure it would make the movie drag and become too obnoxious. 

I'm now up to chapter six and I have to unload some thoughts that'll probably end up in my Goodreads review. In my head, as a movie, from what's described, all I can see is something out of a bad episode of Dr Who (I've seen more reviews than the show itself, including some for the "off brand" movies which looked real bad) I'm sure in the hands of someone skilled it would look interesting but the movie depicts nothing of the world the aliens know. The main character is reduced to "the female" in the movie (while the rest of the cast aren't given names, including the dead woman), and yet somehow, even with the book giving her a name and making it nearly all her POV, the author does more to objectify her. We have to hear about her nice tits from more than one passenger, and her as well. And her weird thick lens glasses. The author's also laid on really thick how he thinks a feminist would regard men, and how women do all the work, and he's kind of nailed a stereotype and not a genuine female character. I honestly don't like her, nor am I endeared to her or even that sympathetic.

The alien nature of the characters is also really hard to imagine. Isserley has a human body to cover her real one but the descriptions of her kind when presented are confusing. The descriptions go into great detail but again, recreating this for the movie would've made them look comical. I haven't learnt the name of the species, just what they call humans and how they capture human males for food, weakening them like you would with calves to make veal and pumping them full of chemicals. Of course it's all a commentary on the food industry and what livestock plays in that structure.

The locations are described well enough, but because aspects of the alien world are described how humans describe things - like The Estate where they come from - you don't get a sense of these beings as all that otherworldly to begin with. You know they use vessels to get there and they've commandeered a remote farm to complete their work, but the ships aren't presented with a lot of detail.

It's actually a very cynical, sarcastic book and I don't feel like it's offering much on the way of discourse regarding feminism and female objectification; it sort of falls into the trap some male authors encounter writing a female protagonist - she's hot and resourceful but a little flawed and vulnerable. If you're meant to feel sorry for her, you can't as easily as you do for the female in the movie. Her transition into sympathising for humans is handled delicately and through huge amount of visual narrative. It doesn't treat her sexual experiences as good; she barely understands the body she's in. That she can't enjoy a piece of cake, you're meant to take pity on her at that point. She's running from her duties out of a sense of wrongness for what she's been doing, and it's all painted so eloquently, while in the book, it's taking a sledgehammer approach. I don't know if Isserley will make a bid for freedom but because I care less for her, I'll care less about her escape. I think I did read the plot outline on Wikipedia but I don't remember it. I'm tempted to again and just to DNR the rest of the book since I'm not enjoying it

This movie needs should get the award of "Least Faithful Adaptation of a Book Ever". The more I read of the book with its pretentiousness and verbosity and over-describing, the more I love and appreciate the minimalist nature of the film. It's another one of those books you have to pause to look up certain words that seem so uncommon and inappropriate.

Now if anyone ever accuses me of not being detailed enough with my prose, I'll point to this movie and book as examples of how sometimes a little goes a fuck of a long way.

I feel like I need to come back here and make further notes for my review. The repetitive nature of the narrative by way of Isserley going out to collect a man (I get this is her job and it's monotonous but each attempt becomes padding) is really grating. And I have a funny suspicion the internal monologues of the men are there for the author to wax non-sequitur about his own opinions on whatever (apparently this was his first novel off the back of some shorts. Honestly, this actually would have worked as a short or novella, I can do without so many of these moments). These passages are brief and kind of give the reader a break from Isserley's complaining, but by the fifth or sixth time it happens, it starts to pull you away from the narrative. There's been an exciting enough moment of Isserley chasing escaped captives that kept me reading but it's all ground to a halt again.

I'm really struggling to get through this. Isserley is actually a put-upon woman in a man's world and we see eventually she's been subjected to heavy body modification by way of shortening her spine. But she complains about being sore and tired more than anything else. She can also eat human food, where as the Female simply cannot and basically should not. Isserley just seems far too human, probably even more human, than the men she picks up, even with her moments of innocence. It's hard to see her alien nature in this. She has opportunities to run many times, it's become tedious and I'm not even halfway through the book, with no real sense of where this is actually going. You can argue the movie presents the same problem. Without much dialogue you don't really know which direction it'll take but that adds so much more to the intrigue, where as the book is just intent on really boring you with too much detail and not enough actual story. It's so much less engaging and conceptually it's not even that interesting. The movie sort of presents itself as an interesting commentary on humanism and objectification. The book oversells this - it's still harping on about Isserley's breasts by way of the hitchhikers, either to praise them or complain of their overexposure. I can see this would have been duller without these snippets of insight into the travelers, but they become just as repetitive. Each male bitches internally about their lives and how they've gotten stranded, sizes up Isserley as a potential mate or dismisses her as one, and complains about her driving in some regard. Then she either takes them or leaves them. She hasn't met any gay men, or disabled men. She's had to pick up perfect specimens; none of them have been horribly disfigured by congenital defects, so I'm going to assume the scene relating to this in the movie isn't present in the book unless Isserley grows so desperate she has to pick them up.

Either way, I'm not really into this book at all. I saw a review that suggested it wasn't handling certain issues like feminism that well. I just skimmed one that echos the same sentiment that it meanders so it's not just me. It's incredibly prosaic; I envy some of his descriptions then become frustrated by them detracting from the story. I'd happily watch the movie multiple times, (heck, I'll get a copy of it to avoid watching online) but I already know I'll never read this thing again.

I went to read a spoiler review and the spoiler is (fuck you) she's an alien - which if you've seen the movie you automatically know. And she blows herself up in the end apparently. So her being immolated  at the end of the movie is way more interesting considering who does this. And the author wrongly attributes a quote to Shakespeare when it was from a Scottish poem and the book is set in Scotland... That's pretty much given me reason not to continue, even if the author fucked that bit up wouldn't a reasonable editor correct it? (Editors aren't there to actually check your facts, by the way, if you're an author and the book is dependent on research, you're responsible for getting facts right and this has blown up in one person's face) But for an editor to miss it too meant they both assumed the same thing. Actually, to be fair I might have said it was Shakespeare had someone asked me as it's actually number one on a list of quotes wrongly attributed to Shakespeare, even a quote from Corinthians can't even get a fair break, nor can Emily Browning. But some of them on this list I knew wouldn't be from him, the hilarious part is most of them occurred 200 years after his death, and the first line of A Tale of Two Cities is far too obvious I'm amazed people have done this. I don't want to be a shithead American basher but it wouldn't surprise me if Americans had been guilty of more of these given they seem to think all literature was created by one or two notable sources, that history isn't replete with writers who were actually better than Shakespeare, in and outside of his time.

I digress. I think I'm going to  have to just not finish this fucking book. It's only going to aggravate me and I feel like I've been stuck on 48% finished for too long. Especially now we've swung back to Issererly hanging out watching TV and describing shit on it. I thought my other book was boring and repetitive. I've ended up going the Wiki-Spoiler  route, I'm sure I did this originally but I forgot the plot. I've gone and picked up Firestarter by Stephen King and I barely remember the movie so now I'm going to get annoyed at another male author who doesn't believe in a backspace key.