Talk:Under the Skin (2013 film)

Rave reviews in Telegraph and Guardian, respected UK newspapers

How can we reference the reviews which received 5 stars?

Justblowharder (talk) 21:42, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Release date?

Will this film be released to theaters beyond the film festival circuit? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:10, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Names of characters

Where are the characters' names derived from? Are they named (eg Laura, the Bad Man) in the credits? Popcornduff (talk) 23:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Upon searching "Under the Skin cast" on Google, they are listed as such, along with their respective actors. Johansson's character has been named Laura in promotional material from A24 Films (see their Facebook) and by Johansson herself at press junkets and interviews. Also, Laura calls a man Spencer while they are in her van together (and upon researching, the person who played him is Joe Szula), and the film's score has a track titled "Andrew Void" which is played while Paul Brannigan's character is harvested, so therefore, his character is named Andrew.BKMastah (talk) 21:06, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, and your research.

Some of your sources seem like original research: "the film's score has a track titled "Andrew Void" which is played while Paul Brannigan's character is harvested, so therefore, his character is named Andrew" - you're making an assumption there.

(Edit) Additionally, I think the name "Laura" actually comes from the novel the film is adapted from, so it makes sense that the cast and crew would refer to the character by that name outside the film. (Edit 2) - Checking the novel, that doesn't seem to be the case, so kill that idea.

But moreover... this is a bit philosophical, but I'm not sure that what the cast say in interviews counts as being truly part of the film's plot. They exist outside the story of the film. It's not important to the film or the plot that the characters have names; to all real intents and purposes, and really to anyone who watches the film, they are nameless. In fact, I think naming them in the Plot section is actually misleading, because the film doesn't make any clear reference to the characters having names at all. It's a truer representation of the story of this film to not specify names. On this basis I'm removing them again, sorry! Popcornduff (talk) 09:46, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The name of Laura is not from the book; the character's name in the book is actually Isserley.

Yes, I already said that. Popcornduff (talk) 10:23, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

And could I at least add a cast list, without character names? They are in fact credited in the credits.BKMastah (talk) 19:29, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Cast list is fine with me, though I'd prefer to use the cast list as it appears in the credits, using whatever names they use. Popcornduff (talk) 10:23, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the cast list from the credits (it's also a peculiarity of the movie), but I think the information of who the major actors are playing should be conveyed by mentioning their names when their characters appear in the plot section, as it's done in many other cases. Kumagoro-42 20:32, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Box Office

In the infobox, the gross is listed as $2,824,615. However, the citation currently lists the lifetime gross as $1,086,000 as of April 20, 2014. Am I reading this incorrectly? My change was reverted by User:Status, so perhaps I'm looking at the wrong thing. I did do a 'find on page', though, and couldn't find the other number listed. Where on that citation does it list $2,824,615? Happy to discuss this, but if nobody objects, I'll just change it back sometime tomorrow. --Yamla (talk) 22:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

$1,086,000 is the domestic gross, if you click on the foreign tab, you can see $1,789,813 for the UK. That number is an addition of both. — Status (talk · contribs) 22:53, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Great! Thanks, Status! Much appreciated. --Yamla (talk) 23:34, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Of course! Usually the site provides a total gross, but for some reason, it hasn't for this film. — Status (talk · contribs) 17:44, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Administrator continually removing poster art?

Anyone care to chime in on this? I've uploaded it once or twice now and it keeps getting deleted for reasons that are unclear. The majority of film entries on Wikipedia contain images of the posters, yet an administrator by the name of Yamla keeps deleting the image. This is getting ridiculous. Scottdoesntknow (talk) 06:45, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure why it's being deleted either. It's not immediately obvious. Popcornduff (talk) 10:27, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

The image requires an appropriate detailed fair-use rationale. The license that has been chosen the last three or four times specifically and explicitly prohibited its use solely for illustration, while the uploader indicated it was only being used for illustration. There's certainly no reason why a fair-use image with an appropriate license and rationale could remain up, but copyright violations must be removed. --Yamla (talk) 19:51, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

And to be clear, I see it has been uploaded again, this time with an appropriate detailed fair-use rationale. Thanks, everyone! --Yamla (talk) 19:52, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Kristy Puchko paragraph in "Critical Response"

I've deleted the paragraph regarding Kristy Puchko's interpretation in the "Critical Response" section of "Reception." The paragraph made no mention of Puchko's criticism/praise of the film and instead focused on the writer's interpretation of the film. Seeing as the rest of the section (and nearly every section like it on Wikipedia) is focused on scores and criticism/praise from notable reviewers it seemed like a fair edit.

If someone disagrees then they should perhaps consider creating a "Meaning" or "Interpretations" tab for the film. But bear in mind that the writings of writers other than Kristy Puchko will need to be represented. And if one would like to keep the review of Kristy Puchko in the "Critical Response" tab please refrain from just re-posting the deleted paragraph. It would be more fitting to instead find a sentence or passage that sums up the writer's overall opinion of the film and then adding it to the paragraph that already has quotes like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jugthug (talk • contribs) 03:14, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Plot summary assumes way to much.

Should be rewritten. --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:12, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

changes I've made. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:06, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I've reverted your changes, sorry.

"The film opens with shots of what appears to be space, with stars forming circles and ellipses and eclipses, eventually becoming a human eye. In the soundtrack we hear a woman forming sounds and reading alphabetical lists of words, as though learning a language." None of this sort of thing describes the plot of the film; instead you're describing what it's like to see the film ("in the soundtrack" ... "the film opens with shots").

Considering you complain that the current plot assumes too much, constructions such as "as though learning a language" or "bodies seem to dissolve and perhaps be harvested" assume just as much, but with lots of weasel words. Popcornduff (talk) 17:49, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Weasal words? What are you talking about? "Their bodies seem to dissolve and perhaps be harvested" they "seem" and "perhaps" because the film gives no explanation. Barely any dialogue. We have to guess.

"In Scotland, an alien takes the body of an attractive young woman", that doesn't assume a lot??? I will rewrite some of what I've written to address your complaints. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:50, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't see what's better about your version at all, so I've reverted it again.

You have ignored my point about how you are describing the technical composition of the film and the experience of seeing the film rather than the plot. Look again at ""The film opens with shots"... "In the soundtrack we hear". The audience hearing the soundtrack is not part of the film's plot. Moreover, I don't think the opening sequence, which is highly abstract, is significant enough to mention in the plot section. From Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film#Plot: "The plot summary is an overview of the film's main events, so avoid minutiae like dialogue, scene-by-scene breakdowns, individual jokes, and technical detail."

I don't understand what you think "assumes a lot" about the sentence "In Scotland, an alien takes the body of an attractive young woman". Perhaps you think "attractive" is subjective? I think it's clear from the events of the film that the character's body is considered attractive by the male characters, and that from the film's perspective she is attractive, regardless of the audience's personal interpretation, but if you wanted, you could just remove "attractive" from the sentence.

You seem to have generally rewritten much of the rest of the plot to solve no problem I can identify. It's harder to read and adds no valuable extra information. For example, why do you think it is important to the plot summary to note that the biker carries her "to a brightly lit room"? Popcornduff (talk) 20:16, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

"In Scotland, an alien takes the body of an attractive young woman".

No one disputes Scotland. No one disputes "attractive young woman". What's disputed is "Alien".

Yes, the book the movie is based on is about an alien who is luring men to be used as food. Yes, it is a plausible explanation for what happens. But it is not explained. In fact one of the major features of the film is that it, and many other things, are not explained.

Who is the guy on the motorcycle? An alien? A human hired hand? An alien friend, helping? Another alien checking up on her?

The viewer is left guessing.

And so too Alien. Why not some version of a vampire? A supernatural not extraterrestrial? It's not like we see her flying saucer or hear her talking to the motorcycle guy in an alien language.

""The film opens with shots"... "In the soundtrack we hear". The audience hearing the soundtrack is not part of the film's plot.

why do you think it is important to the plot summary to note that the biker carries her "to a brightly lit room"

You have a point there. But what we sees suggests the woman doesn't know the language we later hear her speaking. The sphere, the stars, the blackness. It's background in a movie with hardly any background.

What you are doing -- it seems to me -- is not so much giving the plot but telling the reader what you think is happening, making some plausible ("an alien takes the body of an attractive young woman") and more far fetched ("She is monitored by another alien, who has the body of a male motorcyclist.") guesses.

I put it to you that in a film such this, the director is not so much interested in developing a clear plot but in atmosphere and feeling. With no clear plot, providing (normally extraneous) "technical composition" details is the next best thing. BoogaLouie (talk) 21:08, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I understand your objection better now, thank you. You specifically think that stating the characters are aliens assumes too much.

Personally I don't think it's an unreasonable assumption; all the reviews of the film make the assumption. Nonetheless, you could easily rewrite the existing plot summary to avoid pressing the assumption to strongly, so I've done that.

By the way, I agree that the film is more of a mood piece (for want of a better phrase) than a more conventional plot-driven film. But the plot summary section should describe the film's plot and nothing else. Popcornduff (talk) 21:48, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Let me put it this way. In the absence of clear-cut plot indication that the woman is an alien, I think the article is better served by describing the reasons why she might be, even if it moves away from strictly plot description. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:02, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I understand, but I don't think it's necessary, or appropriate. There is a plot. Wikipedia has had to describe far more left-field movies than this one. Popcornduff (talk) 22:15, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Before I read the wikipedia article I read a bunch of reviews, many of which also note the mysteriousness of the film. Here an excerpt from one that makes no mention of alien

Visually stunning but virtually indecipherable, “Under the Skin” was directed by Jonathan Glazer, whose last feature film was the brilliant but unjustly overlooked “Birth” (2004). That film, which flirted with the supernatural, had at its center an exceptional performance from Nicole Kidman. Glazer’s latest, which flirts with science fiction, functions in much the same way as a showcase for Johansson. http://www.stltoday.com/entertainment/movies/reviews/johansson-gets-behind-the-wheel-of-under-the-skin/article_3595990a-92de-5d10-9e31-378d90a7e8fa.html

Another. It mentions alien but again complaining or puzzling about the unclearness.

... The suggestion is that she wants to have sex with them. Instead, she takes them to an unknown place, and as they follow her step by step, removing items of clothing one at a time, they become submerged into a tar dark world that is...

What? A nest? A web? A dimension? Another planet? Perhaps they do have sex, and this is what it looks or feels like to her or them. (These characters are non-actors, including Adam Pearson, a man suffering from neurofibromatosis, causing tumors on his face.)

It appears she has assumed this identity to absorb and process information about us, as an alien intelligence might. And in the process of doing so, she develops an identity crisis that causes her to spin out of control like a broken machine. http://www.jsonline.com/entertainment/movies/under-the-skin-with-scarlett-johansson-confounding-captivating-b99269582z1-259400161.html#axzz31nxhxUfk --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:09, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I've no disagreement that the film's story is mysterious. I believe the current plot summary accommodates that. By the way, it seems to me that both the excerpts you cite here suggest extraterrestrials as the critic's best guess: " Glazer’s latest ... flirts with science fiction" and "[Johansson's character acts] as an alien intelligence might". Popcornduff (talk) 22:15, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I can't spend any more time on this. I will leave by saying the current plot summary is an improvement but "She is monitored by a motorcyclist" is not really supported by what we see in the movie. It's just as likely he is helping her and following her. It is too bad there is not some WP guidelines for describing movies without clear plots. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:07, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

"Monitored" includes the possible meanings "followed and helped". Popcornduff (talk) 22:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Corpse at the beginning

Without implying anything plot-wise, I think it should be mentioned that the corpse the motorcyclist retrieves at the beginning looks the same as the woman who then takes her clothes. It's an important and self-evident plot element left to the viewer to ponder. Kumagoro-42 20:38, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean she looks like Scarlett Johansson's character? Because the "corpse" is played by a different actor, I believe. What are you getting at? Popcornduff (talk) 20:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

It's not even a corpse, as the "corpse" cries a tear. --2003:56:6D1B:C648:9DA0:A947:D57C:D4C7 (talk) 01:23, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Audience reception

Actually, it seems you're just dismissing audience reception. I'm sorry, but that isn't being fair to the audiences. 6.2 on IMDB is an incredibly mediocre score to receive. Look at the stats:

• 10/10 - 3307
• 9/10 - 3905
• 8/10 - 6888
• 7/10 - 7533
• 6/10 - 5979
• 5/10 - 4363
• 4/10 - 2833
• 3/10 - 2237
• 2/10 - 1830
• 1/10 - 3482

The highest amount of scores for the film given are 7, 8, 6, 5 and 1. That to me doesn't seem like a film that's fully positive. Dismissing the polarizing statement is incorrect and I must insist you read it. Rusted AutoParts 16:34, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

The word "polarizing" suggests an extreme separation of opinion. An average audience rating of 6.2 from IMDB vs the Metacritic score of 78 and the Rotten Tomatoes score of 86% doesn't indicate "polarized reviews".

Moreover, we can't use the IMDB score anyway. To MOS:FILM: "Do not include user ratings submitted to websites such as the Internet Movie Database or Rotten Tomatoes, as they are vulnerable to vote stacking and demographic skew."

The film did receive a mixed response when it was played at festivals, or possibly just one festival. I think that's probably worth mentioning, but we mustn't lend it undue weight. That means it isn't important enough to rewrite the lead and the first sentence of the review to accommodate it. The past year of professional critical reviews are far more indicative of the overall reception. The most important thing to describe, first, is that the film received generally positive reviews. Popcornduff (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2014 (UTC)