 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I hated, HATED the film of 'Under the Skin', (more in a moment). It had one of the most striking images (the stuff of nightmares), ever: When the first 'piece of meat' the first victim is seen going into the black, oily, pool. Then, we see from HIS perspective of being somehow, engulfed and underneath the surface as we are looking up with 'Miss Scarlet' standing on the edge of the pool. How they did that was very briefly detailed in the supplements, but I still didn't understand completely how they filmed it. But that scene was genuinely imaginatively done.
Now then, probably the single most disturbing scene ever at least by me, in any film, is the scene involving the baby left on the beach. I realize it was only a film, but there was absolutely no reason for the filmmakers to include that horrible, sickening, scene of the drownings and then the baby left on the beach. I was SO UPSET at this scene, more upset than (I think) any other scene in any other film. We, the audience are left to feel totally helpless. There was no reason to include it, it didn't advance the film in any way. (actually, nothing advanced this film except when they ran out of film-stock or whatever they filmed this on.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Sep 19, 2014 - 4:36 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Thor
(Member)
|
I actually love films that play with conventions like that; that go against political correctness and challenge the viewer in their moral orientations. That doesn't resolve everything in rosy red colours. If you think THAT scene is difficult, I urge you to stay away from films like, say, Michael Haneke's FUNNY GAMES (or any of his other films, for that matter). This is very uncommon in mainstream American films, so I can see why it upset you. It also upset me, of course, but it was so crucial and essential to the film's project -- the protagonist's total carelessness in the beginning of the movie. Made her journey all the more powerful.
I loved this film, and I think it's great that there's so much debate about it; that people are so divided. I think one of the reasons is that it's a relatively traditional, "mainstream" movie on the one hand (and people go into it with the expectations that it is), yet on the other hand Glazer spices up the narrative with a few experimental tricks here and there; whether it's the oil sequence or the challenging baby sequence that you mention.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I hated, HATED the film of 'Under the Skin..
Bless you boy!
If only Roger Ebert had lived long enuf to inlcude this monstrosity in his next volume
brm
|
|
|
|
|
|
.... I think it's great that there's so much debate about it....
Thor, there has to be some balance to call it a debate.
NINETY NINE percent hating it and ONE PERCENT loving it is not a debate.
A better example is INSIDE LLEWELLYN DAVIS* where there truly was a split betwween love and hate.
bruce
*I hated, hated HATED IT!
have a nice day
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Sep 19, 2014 - 6:11 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
dogplant
(Member)
|
Bless him? Good grief.
Dave, I thought the baby scene was powerful because it showed how inhuman Scarlett's character was. I can't imagine how the child's guardian must have felt out of range of camera, or however they filmed it. The infant was clearly genuinely distressed, and that was truly horrifying, so I can see your point. Personally, I felt that the point of this scene was to show how that tiny squalling child was totally inconsequential to this creature, and that underlined how alien she was -- although her true nature is kept a mystery until the final scene. At least, that's how I viewed it.
Thor, again, I'm with you here. I think the movie makes some people angry because of expectations: what may have pulled in so many knuckle-dragging IMDb mouth-breathers is the promise of a hot Hollywood babe getting her kit off in an arty sci-fi flick; but it's more challenging than that. Or boring, annoying, tasteless, pretentious, take your pick.
Gesundheit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bless him? Good grief.
Dave, I thought the baby scene was powerful because it showed how inhuman Scarlett's character was. I can't imagine how the child's guardian must have felt out of range of camera, or however they filmed it. The infant was clearly genuinely distressed, and that was truly horrifying, so I can see your point. Personally, I felt that the point of this scene was to show how that tiny squalling child was totally inconsequential to this creature, and that underlined how alien she was -- although her true nature is kept a mystery until the final scene. At least, that's how I viewed it.
Thor, again, I'm with you here. I think the movie makes some people angry because of expectations: what may have pulled in so many knuckle-dragging IMDb mouth-breathers is the promise of a hot Hollywood babe getting her kit off in an arty sci-fi flick; but it's more challenging than that. Or boring, annoying, tasteless, pretentious, take your pick.
Gesundheit.
Well, you've found me out. I'm one of those (closeted) 'knuckle-dragging IMDb mouth breathers that was expecting the promise of a hot Hollywood Babe getting her kit off'. You're positively Psychic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.... I think it's great that there's so much debate about it....
Thor, there has to be some balance to call it a debate.
NINETY NINE percent hating it and ONE PERCENT loving it is not a debate.
I think that's your rather skewed perspective on things, Bruce.
In my circle of cineastes, it's pretty much unanimously appreciated. Also, if you go the film's entry on Wikipedia, you'll see that it has received mostly positive reviews, but that there's still some division.
The IMDB crowd seems to hate the film. So therefore in it must be horrible, right?
It's a brilliant film, but parts are quiet disturbing yes. The baby scene being one of them.
It didnt feel gratuitous though. Considering the nature of Scarlett's character and what she is, it actually makes perfect sense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
From several film podcasts I listen to I knew that scene on the beach was coming and was dreading it. When it came it was, indeed, disturbing, but Glazer was careful not to milk it with real closeups of the kid and the fact that the kid's crying seemed very obviously post-synced had a somewhat distancing effect for me.
Nevertheless, I know where you're coming from, Dave. I've always had a problem with films featuring a baby or toddler in harm's way, going back to the cabin massacre scene in 1964's RIO CONCHOS where Richard Boone finds the wounded baby. I found that so disturbing it literally took me out of the film for several minutes.
I've seen the film twice now and, while I admire it's visual qualities and it's courage in being utterly oblivious to a general audiences' needs for a plainly perceived throughline, I really can't say the film is a success at what it (seemingly) is trying to say about empathy, humanity, and the ultimate price paid for achieving a measure of humanity.
It makes THE TREE OF LIFE look like filmic comfort food.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From several film podcasts I listen to I knew that scene on the beach was coming and was dreading it. When it came it was, indeed, disturbing, but Glazer was careful not to milk it with real closeups of the kid and the fact that the kid's crying seemed very obviously post-synced had a somewhat distancing effect for me.
Nevertheless, I know where you're coming from, Dave. I've always had a problem with films featuring a baby or toddler in harm's way, going back to the cabin massacre scene in 1964's RIO CONCHOS where Richard Boone finds the wounded baby. I found that so disturbing it literally took me out of the film for several minutes.
I've seen the film twice now and, while I admire it's visual qualities and it's courage in being utterly oblivious to a general audiences' needs for a plainly perceived throughline, I really can't say the film is a success at what it (seemingly) is trying to say about empathy, humanity, and the ultimate price paid for achieving a measure of humanity.
It makes THE TREE OF LIFE look like filmic comfort food.
See, I went into The Tree of Life expecting to love it and I couldn't stand it. I went into Under the Skin expecting to hate it and I ended up liking it quite a lot. I found it odd, unsettling at times, but I was never bored and it held me right through to the end. Can't say why that is, but it is - I liked it better than The Man Who Fell to Earth, too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I guess I'm just trying to say (in my own halting way) that I am haunted by the film and can't quite put into words why. It's a film that risks (and maybe achieves) audience alienation at every step of the way, yet one which I would recommend to people I know well and know to have wildly adventurous tastes in film. But, it's certainly going to be the WTF movie-going experience of the year for a lot of viewers.
David, there is one other disturbing scene involving a child that dates back to 1950--the final shot of THE BREAKING POINT, the John Garfield version of TO HAVE AND HAVE NOT. After Garfield's friend Juano Hernandez is killed in the final confrontation with the villains and Garfield returns to shore, all the characters are shown reunited and going off to better lives, save for Hernandez's sweet-natured son who is left all alone on the pier wondering what happened to his dad--and this is the shot the film ends on. It's a pretty pitiless finale that leaves one with a helpless, sour taste in the mouth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
