Under The Skin (2014), The Film…

There are moments when I long for the experience of watching a film without any prior knowledge about it. Additionally, there are times when I regret not having read the source material before viewing the film. These two concepts are not mutually exclusive, despite their apparent differences.

Under the Skin (2014) is a fine example of a film in this singularly dubious category. Based on a novel by Michel Faber, the film follows the actions of a nameless, obviously awkward, timelessly beautiful woman (Scarlett Johansson, Lost In Translation) who seeks the company of lonely men in nighttime Glasgow, Scotland. What she does with them after seduction can only be described as vague—I’m not sure she even knows.

IMDB tells us that “events begin to lead her in a process of self-discovery.” What does this nameless, awkward, beautiful woman discover? Let’s just say it’s self-realization, and not of the usual identity-defining kind. Is she on a mission? Or just working to survive? With each man she seduces, we as viewers see more of what is going on, yet the concept remains quite vague. This is where that ignorance of the original premise would have really come in handy.

Also, there is a nameless man—whom I am unable to identify on IMDB because many of the characters herein are nameless—who travels the scenic streets of Scotland via motorcycle, and somehow enables the actions of the nameless woman. This is where reading the source material would have helped. From the eyes of a fresh film viewer, not much is revealed about this nameless man, so his role in the premise also remains vague.

The reveal at the end, that moment of self-discovery for our lovely protagonist, is as shocking as it is aberrant. This moment is telegraphed in the scene preceding this discovery. If I knew nothing about the film before I watched it, this moment would have been oddly satisfactory. If I had read the source material before I watched the film version, I would have gained much more insight and understanding; whether this would occur before or after viewing is anyone’s guess.

All of this is not to say that this is not an enjoyable film. I can see how it’s polarizing, for it includes few of the standard elements that filmgoers seek. But I’m also unsure of how to recommend this film. The genre list that IMDB provides for this film is quite lengthy, which leads me to wonder if some of these descriptions are off the mark.

So watch it, or not, read it or not. I have already added this title to my TBR list. I would like to discuss this film—or the original novel—with those who have already experienced it, either cinematically or literarily. I foresee a lively debate on an evening that can only include beer and pretzels, wine and cheese, or wings and ranch dip, or some other comestibles that help humans focus.