Talk:Under the Skin (2013 film)/Archive 1

Archive 1

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)

A big problem with the article as it stands is that it doesn't actually tell the reader which actors played which characters (apart from the woman, motorcyclist and disfigured man). Since we don't really have official names for any of the characters, and have no convenient way to refer to them without describing their role in the plot again, I thought we might just condense the plot and cast sections into one, as in Eraserhead (a featured article on a similarly abstract film). A "Casting" subsection under "Production" will be a good supplement to this if we can track down sources. Any suggestions/better ideas?

Incidentally, it turns out that it's not Johannson but Antonia Campbell-Hughes who plays the woman's black, featureless form - she's apparently notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, but she's uncredited, so I'm not sure how she should be integrated. —Flax5 18:24, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Hang on, who does Jessica Mance play exactly? I thought she was the body at the beginning, but I've found an interview confirming that was Lynsey Taylor Mackay. The end credits say they're in order of appearance, and list Mance last, so she must play the creature at the end. But this interview with Campbell-Hughes describes her role in a way that could only refer to that creature. I'm lost. —Flax5 18:42, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I think combining the cast and plot section was a good move for the reasons you cite. No idea how to resolve the confusing cast questions, though. I guess maybe we could just report both and let the reader decide who to believe. Popcornduff (talk) 21:33, 10 August 2015 (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)

Two months ago I made substantial but partly illegitimate edits, and they were reverted. I have now read through this thread, wikipedia policy guides on plot, and wikipedia discussions on plot problems, and am planning on doing a good rewrite of the plot this time, taking out the details that aren't needed, and adding plot substance about the larger transformation that the woman is undergoing. I believe that most of the people who will come to the page do so because they have just seen the movie, are confused by it, and want clarity. Because of this my rewrite will explain some things about the movie, but within the policy guidelines. There will be interpretation, but this is NOT a bad thing; the plot IS about certain things, and all modesty aside, I will tell what it is about (the women and motorcyclists ARE extraterrestrials; the woman IS questioning her identity and role; the woman IS terrified at the end; the disfigured man IS let go by the woman; the ETs ARE harvesting people for their skins). And I’ll rewrite it more in the narrative form suggested by wikipedia policy (like the Little Red Riding Hood example).

Wikipedia is ultimately for serving people's needs rather than slavishly following rules, so I’ll include a very small amount of analysis, because a handful of words will go a very long way in helping the reader. I will include a little bit about the opening scene, because it is 100% part of the plot, and I will write it as plot narrative. I will go into more depth on climax scene because it is so useful in understanding the whole plot.

I was thinking about using the word "apparently" or "seemingly" at times, in order to succinctly communicate to the reader that while the movie does not overtly communicate something, it does implicitly (e.g. “An extraterrestrial apparently learns English pronunciation,” “the woman appropriates the clothes from her apparent predecessor who sheds a tear” ). Should the plot summary include that three motorcyclists ride off in search of the woman, is this important, and if so, should it say that they are "apparently searching" for her? While the movie doesn't overtly communicate that they are searching, that is exactly what the viewer is supposed to understand them to be doing. I think I will briefly include this 3 motorcyclist scene, because in every scene after this one, the viewer is thinking, will she get caught, will she get away? Capuchinpilates (talk) 16:25, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

"I believe that most of the people who will come to the page do so because they have just seen the movie, are confused by it, and want clarity."

If this is your main motivation for rewriting the plot... I urge you to use caution!

The purpose of Wikipedia plot summaries isn't to help readers understand confusing plots. Under the Skin is a mysterious, confusing film, and it's not the job of our plot summary to clarify or "solve" it. Instead, we have to summarise the plot as conveyed in the film from an encyclopaedic perspective. That means avoiding speculation, interpretation, and analysis.

I always delete words like "apparently" and "seemingly" - and if you have to use them, it means you're making an interpretation. Popcornduff (talk) 16:49, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, a better idea might be to create a separate section where we cover critics' interpretations of the film's plot and themes. —Flax5 17:30, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, I’ve rewritten the plot, I think it’s a good product, although the first sentence is awkward. I’ve tried to thread the needle between pure description and interpretation, leaving only the details that are in the service of illuminating the major plot lines. Some might object to the addition of, “terrified, she is no longer the hunter but the hunted,” as analysis, but this addition is factual, concise, and highly relevant. I’ve even left out a spoiler or two that are not crucial to the plot. And I didn’t say that the limp body at the beginning was the alien woman’s predecessor, even though I think she was. And I didn’t claim that the aliens are abducting men to use their skins as a disguise for other aliens. And I kind of would have liked to include the scene where the motorcyclist examines the woman to see if she hasn't started losing focus. Capuchinpilates (talk) 03:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but I've reverted this.

It's full of unnecessary detail. It isn't important that the motorcyclist doesn't speak, or that the protagonist drives the van "impassively". At the same time, you summarise scenes in a weird way: "a series of increasingly unsettling experiences that leave her confused, curious and afraid." If this is important, you need to describe the scenes. If it isn't, then don't include the summary.

Language like "completes her masquerade" and "she is no longer the hunter but the hunted" is purple prose - unnecessary detail written in flowery language. You also have some constructions that are frankly weird: "Victimized and kneeling in the dirt". What?

I'm still not sure what problem you're trying to solve. If you want to get better at writing plot summaries, I recommend you read read How to streamline a plot summary by NinjaRobotPirate. Popcornduff (talk) 12:02, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Popcornduff, I sincerely believe that my version is superior to the previous ones, that you and I are never going to agree on this, and that you are assuming too much authority over this page. I'm not very familiar with the Wikipedia process, but assuming there's a higher power to take this dispute to, I'll be doing that.Capuchinpilates (talk) 13:37, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry you feel that way. If you'd like to get opinions from more editors, you could ask on the Talk page at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film. Popcornduff (talk) 14:26, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a few forms of dispute resolution, including the dispute resolution noticeboard. I haven't seen this film yet, so I can't really comment directly on the plot summary. But I will say that it's difficult to write a proper plot summary for artsy, experimental films, especially when they depend highly on subjective interpretation. Rewriting the plot summary to help readers understand it better is a noble goal, but to do so through personal interpretation violates our policy on original research. There's no actual policy against flowery language, so I'm quite a bit more ambivalent about that, but I think it's generally a poor idea to stray from simple, clear, and concise business writing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I've asked for a third opinion. Capuchinpilates (talk) 02:45, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

And I removed said entry because there are several editors already involved here (in addition, 3O requests a brief description; what you wrote was really a paragraph). I would use NinjaRobotPirate's suggestion and open a thread at WP:DRN. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 04:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I should point out that the discussion I had with BoogaLouie above - back in 2014 - was about a completely different issue. I disagreed with some of BoogaLouie's additions, but he/she rightly pointed out that the plot summary (at the time) assumed too much - specifically, for example, that the protagonist is an alien. The plot summary was then rewritten to make fewer assumptions and just stick to what the movie shows us. Capuchinpilates now seems to be arguing for the opposite - to explain things more. Popcornduff (talk) 11:59, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with what Popcornduff just said. Also, I will respond more specifically to critiques of my rewrite, and also take the advice of others and open a WP:DRN thread.Capuchinpilates (talk) 12:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

What if my rewrite was un-reverted, and adapted in ways others thought necessary? The re-write was criticized by Popcornduff as full of unnecessary detail. I tried to take out many details that were not pertinent to the overall plot, and put in ones that were. For example, with the beach scene, I took out that 1) the couple drowned, 2) the swimmer was hit in the head with a rock, 3) the woman dragged him to a van, 4) the baby was left, and 5) the motorcyclist took away the belongings. It was too much detail for one scene. What was important was that the woman observed the swimmer trying to save the couple, because this is directly related to the largest plot arc, the transformation of the woman.

I also took out these unnecessary details 6) lady was put in the back of a van, 7) the women went to a nightclub, 8) the swimmer touches another man, 9) the lonely man gets bundled into a car, 10) the van in abandoned in the fog, 11) the woman walks to a restaurant, 12) she retches and spits out cake, 13) she goes to a bus stop, 14) a man offers to help her, 15) the man brings her home, 16) they eat and other stuff, 17) she’s alone in a room, 18) she goes to a castle, 19) she kisses the man, 20) she examines her vagina, 21) she goes to a bothy, and 22) that the logger is of the “commercial” variety. However, if anyone thinks any of these scenes are important and should be included, please add it back in.

My rewrite was also criticized for summarising scenes in a weird way, such as, "a series of increasingly unsettling experiences that leave her confused, curious and afraid." But I think that this sentence serves various purposes. It is the topic sentence of the paragraph, rather than the topic sentence being “The woman visits a nightclub and picks up another man.” The weird sentence also serves to concisely describe what happens after the beginning part of the movie. And the scenes that are then briefly described in this paragraph, are in the service of this topic sentence, and in relating the important influences upon the main character. For example, the plot summary of the movie Melancholia has this topic sentence: “Over the course of the evening, Justine is frustrated by various personal and professional difficulties.” But if someone thinks that my weird sentence should be rewritten to be clearer, or include a different set of scenes to punctuate it, that fine with me.

Another criticism was that it isn’t important that the word “mute” is used to describe the motorcyclist. That’s right I think, it isn’t important, but I think that they character with the second most scenes in the move deserves some description. On the Wikipedia page on How To Write a Plot Summary, it gives this good example: “The girl, Little Red Riding Hood, is described as 'a dear little girl who was loved by everyone who looked at her.” If she can have a whole sentence about her, why can’t the motorcyclist have one word? To me mute seemed good because it’s pretty shocking that a common character never speaks a single word, and mute is not just a glaring fact, but also seems to capture his ethos. But if others think another adjective better fits, replace it.

Another criticism was using “impassively” to describe how the protagonist drives. She spends a lot of time driving in the movie, and does it in a very particular way. I think an adverb is proper to evoke the very strange way she both interacts with the world, and looks.

These following two phrases were critiqued as purple prose and flower: "completes her masquerade" and "she is no longer the hunter but the hunted.” Completing her masquerade, is a simple description of what she was up to in a number of sequential scenes, and the phrase contains not a single adjective or adverb. Purple prose would be: “In superfluously completing the over-wrought, and grotesque masquerade-like maneuver …” For the line about the hunted, I explained earlier in talk that it was factual, concise, and relevant to the larger plot. These kinds of descriptions may have a taint of interpretation, but are not original research, and are factual. Neither of the 2 phrases are flowery. But both are also not crucial to the section, so take em out if anyone wants. That goes more so for the line about being in the dirt; the reason I wrote it is because being in the dirt is purposely shot this way, as it is evocative of what is happening to the character.

Plus, I don’t think we need to be zealots in keeping any whiff of interpretation out of the plot section. For most movies a simple description of the scenes will do, but for a movie like this with almost no dialogue and the movie itself providing no overt explanation of anything, I think a small amount of explanation of the plot is needed. Like for Fight Club: “When the narrator has believed himself to be asleep, Tyler has in fact been controlling his body.”

Popcornduff wondered what problem I was trying to solve by writing it; the problem was that the summary wasn't very useful. For the Wikipedia reader who hasn’t seen the movie but wants to know what it is about, the summary offered little of the actual plot. For the reader coming to the site because they saw the movie and were confused by it, it offered little more than an arbitrary series of some of the scenes that they had just watched. Capuchinpilates (talk) 02:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

If there are no objections then, I will revert the plot summary to the 03:22, 28 July 2015‎ version, and then anyone can make the changes they wish.

Also, I realize now I ran roughshod over BougaLouie's objections to calling the characters aliens. I think it should say the woman is an alien, because the movie uses many widely understood tropes of alien-ness. The opening scene is clearly evocative of space; in the building that the limp lady is brought to, lights evocative of a spaceship rise straight up into the sky; the black body at the end has the smooth, featureless characteristics that are often used for aliens in movies in TV. I think that if any reasonable viewer would assume that the woman is an alien, that this information should not be denied to the wikipedia reader who has not seen the movie. It would be disingenuous to totally avoid this obvious part of the plot. So if words like "seemingly," alien, cannot be used, then the plot should say it outright. I'm wondering what problem is being avoided by not saying "alien," I dont' think it compromises the artfullness of the film or anything like that. The movie clearly wants us to believe that they are aliens. But if the consensus is to leave out alien, I can do that. Capuchinpilates (talk) 22:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't think calling her an "alien" is appropriate, as the film pointedly leaves her nature open to interpretation. The words "alien" or "extraterrestrial" are never mentioned. Certainly many viewers will take it that way, but she could just as easily be a supernatural succubus, a genetically engineered experiment, some kind of posthuman time traveller, or any number of other things. The ambiguity is part of the film, and the summary should reflect it. Ideas about the woman's nature should be kept to the "Themes and analysis" section. —Flax5 22:41, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Flax5 is totally right. Popcornduff (talk) 00:53, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

3 to 1 against alien references. Having heard no objections to changing it back to the older version, I'll do that, along with minor improvements and no aliens. Capuchinpilates (talk) 15:33, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I did the edit I was talking about above, it was reverted by Popcornduff, and I just opened up a dispute on the Dispute Resolution Board. You can follow the proceedings there. Capuchinpilates (talk) 01:00, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment, I got to this article via the DRN discussion, I didn't think I could add anything useful there. Reading the article, I have to say that the 'minimalist' plot summary works extremely well for this film. However, there are factual elements which could be added, the repeated 'oily death' of the men takes place while they are following a backward-walking/looking over her shoulder, near naked, SJ, they are removing the last of their clothes. To interpret the meaning of these sequences would be both difficult and wrong, however, merely recording the state of increasing undress would verbally take one into the same enigmatic territory as the film. There are other areas where factual details might be included, but my general feeling (feeling not framed by policy), was that erring on the side of understatement was a good thing. Pincrete (talk) 20:51, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, here we go again.

There are a few extra details Capuchinpilates has added I don't object to including, like her listening to the radio. I don't think these are critical but we have spare words so what the hell. But look, as we have already discussed here and on dispute resolution several times, we should keep the plot summary simple. "a sleek, totally black, hairless body" - unnecessary detail. "Who never speaks" - not important to the plot. "The woman begins showing emotion not just in the service of seduction" - interpretation and overwritten. "a logger (Dave Acton) who learns that she is alone" - not important to the plot. etc. etc. Popcornduff (talk) 17:32, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Motorcyclist – as the character with the second most scenes in the movie, I think it is striking that he never speaks. I don’t think it’s a problem to use only a couple words in the plot summary describing this character.

Concern – The plot is largely about the transformation of the woman into someone who cares, and since I don’t think you’d like the plot summary to explicitly say what her transformation is, it is necessary to include the factual details that lead to this transformation. These influences include seeing a man risking his own life to save his wife, seeing the swimmer trying to save a stranger, hearing about people putting a lot of effort into finding these people, being helped up by people who show concern for her by asking if she is all right, having a man offer to carry her across a puddle, and having a man help her down stairs when she is frightened. I guess it's not crucial to have all these things in the summary, but some are needed.

They don’t kiss at the castle, they kiss at his home right before they attempt intercourse.

Since you don't want the summary to say she is an alien or anything like that, I think it's important to factually represent what her body is, so that the summary represents her alien-ness. Particularly since this type of body is so iconic in movies for aliens from outer space.

Emotion - the woman never says what she is feeling, so instead the summary could factually state what is on her face. "The woman begins showing emotion not just in the service of seduction" is not interpretation, it's what actually happens in the movie. But I don't mind if this sentence is changed to something else, or moved to part of something else, but the summary should impart this important change.

Logger learning she is alone - this is a direct reflection of exactly what she has been asking the men she has been hunting. She asks men if they are by themselves so that when she captures them, no one will come looking for them. This is why the logger asks her if she is alone, so that when he attacks her, there will be no witnesses. Since you didn't like the sentence about her changing from the hunter of men to the hunter of men, I figured this was a good, factual way to show what's going on in the overall plot.

After my additions to the plot summary, the word count was still under 600. I think more detail is necessary in this movie than most, since the movie is so abstract, ambiguous, and so little is explicitly explained in the movie itself. Capuchinpilates (talk) 18:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I want to PRAISE the plot summary. It is exactly what is needed. It is minimalistic and distanced from interpretation. It is very tricky to summarize a film such as this, but I think the OP did a terrific job! I actually read the last paragraph and thought "yeah, but, doesn't this mean that ...." and I think that is a good thing! Jackbox1971 (talk) 08:48, 14 August 2017 (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)

The implication is that the limp lady is actually the predecessor of the Johansson character. Her tear represents the human emotions she has developed, and has befallen the empathic fate that the Johansson character soon also will, that's why the motorcyclist examines her later, to see if she's going human. The "skin" outer layer is something that the aliens would have manufactured, and just use the same model for both aliens. Maybe the predecessor really is dead, but it's just the "skin" that cries, just like the human face at the end of the movie still functions even after the alien takes it off. Capuchinpilates (talk) 00:10, 31 July 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)

Top ten lists

The sentence 'Under the Skin was chosen by 20 critics and publications as the best film of 2014 from 122 top-ten lists' is not actually what the cited source states. The source gives the film 122 'points' based on a scoring system, being (20 x 3) + (7 x 2) + (48 x 1) = 122. The actual number of lists referred to is 20 + 7 + 48 = 75. The total number of lists drawn from is 201. Hence the film appeared on 75 of a possible 201 lists, of which it was chosen as the best on 20.

ENKC (talk) 04:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. Numbers aren't my strong point. If you think you understand the source, could you make the change to the article yourself? Popcornduff (talk) 06:59, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

References

Plot section should be encyclopedic

I just read the plot section - it was very hard to follow (and that's coming from someone who's seen the film). If anything I would say it tries to imitate the artsy feel of the movie: mysterious, truncated and inexplicable.

But. What makes for a strong cinematic experience makes for a confusing trainwreck of an encyclopedic article. While our articles should not assume things that aren't in the film, we must be comprehensible. The plot section must be written for a reader who haven't seen the film, and should be clear and concise.

If the story does not make sense, fine: but then we need to make sure that's what happens in the film, and not on paper. A reader certainly does not need to walk away understanding everything if a movie watcher doesn't. But the reader should not feel the article is strangely failing to clearly depict events.

Feel free to edit further, but if you remove something that you feel is an assumption that isn't supported by the events of the film, make sure you don't leave our plot summary hanging. There's being terse, and then there's being incomprehensible. CapnZapp (talk) 09:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I can't find I agree personally. I think the plot summary does a stellar job of summarizing the plot, especially for such a surreal film. It does have some extraneous details (like her examining herself in mirrors) but it elucidates what happens on screen pretty clearly without any personal interpretation. I agree that it can use some slight cutting down but that can be difficult because there really isn't an overarching plot, but rather the viewer is just shown things on screen; you can't really simplify that or make it clearer. If the source material is already confusing we can't make our own personal interpretations of whats going on because that would be original research, but you can find some analysis in its own section at the bottom. Can you give specific examples of what you find confusing so we can try addressing them? Opencooper (talk) 10:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

This has been debated to death before and was even taken to a dispute resolution forum. The consensus was as Opencooper says: we can't really "explain" the movie any further without crossing into personal interpretation. The plot summary, IMO, does not "try to imitate the artsy feel" of the film, but in trying as neutrally as possible to report its events without original research and interpretation, it might inevitably end up feeling a bit surreal. Which, IMO, means we've probably done our jobs correctly in painting a reliable description of the film. Popcornduff (talk) 12:14, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

We've got a sourced section on "themes and analysis". That could possibly be moved up a few places so that it directly follows the plot summary. Maybe that would help? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:30, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

At several places in the plot summary, I stumbled over the language. How terse it was. The way any attempt at elaborating which personal pronoun refers back to what subject had been scrubbed away. (See my edits for "specific examples" - such as how to me a small word like "also" in ignoring the baby goes a long way to help the reader see it's the same baby ignored twice. It might technically be unnecessary... but I see it as good copyediting).

And in that context, the previous version simply didn't cut it. Take the sequence with the swimming husband for example. Who rescues who, and what happens next, and exactly who drowned (or at least got missing)? A non-native reader with no prior knowledge of the article subject would simply not understand what is being said. These are not issues the film leaves up to "interpretation". This is an issue of poorly written prose - or, at the very least, too abbreviated prose. As a reader, I won't assume the film does what the text says - I'll simply assume something got lost or that an edit was garbled. It's our job to write complete and free-flowing prose as to avoid this. In short, writing an encyclopedic article.

I furthermore don't want to add "personal interpretation", I want to make clear to the reader that if something is confusing, it's because of the source material rather than a poor article. Do note: I am in no way complaining about "extraneous details" or section length, that's all things you brought up that I don't want to discuss.

This doesn't mean I'm singling out any individual editor for doing a poor job. I am fully aware each sentence can be a patchwork of a dozen editors. But when I come to the article fresh, with no baggage, I stumbled at several places at how strangely stunted and ill-flowing the prose was. The film might be strange, but our prose should not be. If our article is sureal because the source material is, that scores as a complete failure to me. But I now realize this is one of those infected boils with self-appointed wikiguardians lying in wait to shoot down outside edits on your personal territories, so I'll leave you and your poor prose to yourselves. See you somewhere else, CapnZapp (talk) 15:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I was interested in what you were saying until the last part. Then things turned nasty. Popcornduff (talk) 15:39, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

OK, my curiosity got the better of me. I'm confused about what you find confusing. Take the baby example. You said:

"The way any attempt at elaborating which personal pronoun refers back to what subject had been scrubbed away. (See my edits for "specific examples" - such as how to me a small word like "also" in ignoring the baby goes a long way to help the reader see it's the same baby ignored twice."

I simply don't understand how there's any confusion here. Without "also", the text reads:

"The woman strikes the swimmer's head with a rock, drags him to the van, and drives away, ignoring the couple's distraught baby. Later that night, the motorcyclist retrieves the swimmer's belongings, ignoring the baby, who is still on the beach."

How is there any ambiguity about which baby it's referring to? Are you saying that without "also", readers might believe there are two babies? Huh? Popcornduff (talk) 15:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

The prose is just fine and reflects the film accurately; I had read it right after watching the film and found it made what I watched clearer and wasn't confusing. Summaries are meant to be terse and not as substitutes for watching the film itself. Maybe you were expecting a different kind of plot summary, but this one correctly follows WikiProject Film's Manual of Style. Your uncivil response is unbecoming of someone editing for eight years, especially since the editors here tried to engage you and Popcornduff clearly explained their modifications. You shouldn't use bogeymen as a substitutes for an inability to discuss and reach a consensus; I've never even edited the article once (though that probably means I'm a sockpuppet or part of the cabal). @NinjaRobotPirate: I feel that moving the section would interrupt the general reading order where things go from factual (plot, production. release) to more opinion-based (reception and themes) so it would feel out of place. Regardless, that's what the table of contents is for :). Opencooper (talk) 19:54, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Does she eat?

The plot section says that she and the man from the bus watch tv and eat. There was definitely food prepared, but did she eat any? 2602:306:3A29:7740:C51D:BA0D:439F:F5F9 (talk) 16:16, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Maybe not. Removed. Popcornduff (talk) 18:01, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Structural changes to improve the page

Hello everybody, I'm part of a research group of undergrads trying to improve the quality of this WP page. Looking at Featured and A Class film articles, what stands out is an overall better structure for the page, and better formatting for the different sections of the article. May I suggest beginning by adding a [Cast] section after the plot? If no one objects I'll add it myself. All the best 95.144.243.60 (talk) 17:15, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to log in, the previous comment is mine Christian Dametto (talk) 17:16, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Yo, Christian Dametto. Sorry I had to revert you already. As a heads-up, this page has already gone through quite a bit of revision from experienced editors and is in pretty good shape. (Not perfect, but not bad.) For newbie editors, there might not be a lot of obvious improvements to make.

I would gently suggest finding other film articles to work on that have more low-hanging fruit. Many film articles have overlong plot sections, for example - under the WP:FILMPLOT guidelines, summaries should be no more than 700 words. Also many articles have poorly written critical reception sections, are missing citations, etc. If you need ideas, if you go to the WikiProject Film page, and look under "Task force requests", you'll find a giant list of tasks that need doing. Popcornduff (talk) 17:46, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

But on the other hand, if you truly want to work on this article and believe you can improve it, don't let me dissuade you.

Yeah, it's generally considered redundant to have the actors' names in the plot summary and include a cast list. However, there's still a few obvious ways to improve this article. In my opinion, the most obvious issue is having two images squishing the text in the center of the article. There's a guideline somewhere that says not to do that, but I forget where it is. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:44, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

addendum: it looks like it's at MOS:SANDWICHING. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:54, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback, guidance from experienced editors is exactly what we need. With regards to the sandwiching, would it be ok if we restructured the now confused development/production paragraphs into a clearer 'Production' section with subsections for 'pre-production', 'filming' and 'post-production' like in featured articles such as the one for Eraserhead? Right now the paragraphs in that section of the article seem quite disjointed. Christian Dametto (talk) 14:52, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure anything you come up with will be better than what we currently have, but that sounds fine to me. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:19, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I'm also part of the research group of undergrads trying to improve the quality of this WP page. If nobody objects I am interested in including some research regarding the exploration of gender politics in the film, as i have noticed there are is some research connected to this theme, however i have found some articles which might provide some more scholarly value. http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.library.qmul.ac.uk/stable/10.1525/fq.2014.67.4.44?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents Niamh- -murphy (talk) 14:58, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Sure, sounds good. If there are issues, they can be fixed easily enough. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:27, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello everyone, I thought I'd write a summary update of the research project we've been conducting at QMUL. We would like to edit no more than 500 words into the article over the weekend, after which we will refrain from intruding this page any longer. The changes can be summed up briefly as:

- Structural reorganisation of some of the paragraphs ('production' and sub-headers 'pre-production', 'filming' and 'post-production') - Repositioning of images to avoid sandwiching - Additional info about dash-cams hidden in the van used for filming (under 'filming') - Added track list for the soundtrack - Added scholarly comments for the 'themes' section concerning female representation - Added GBP figures in the summary table at the top of the article. I think that should cover it. We endeavored to find valuable secondary and tertiary sources to support every change. Feel free to revert any changes that don't improve the quality of the page or contravene WP guidelines. Thank you again for bearing with us these past few weeks! Christian Dametto (talk) 13:16, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I'm also part of the research group aiming to improve the quality of this page. I've gone through the references and removed a few that were linked to articles that were either not available or had been taken down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sulymaan Hameed (talk • contribs) 12:25, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts to improve Wikipedia. But instead of removing dead sources, it's better to try to find alternatives. For example, you can use the Wayback Machine to find archived copies of dead links. For more information, see WP:WAYBACK. Thanks. Popcornduff (talk) 12:47, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Isn't this just a UK version of the 1995 film "Species?"

I just got done watching this movie, and during the attempts to pick up men while driving a van I was able to predict the rest of the movie based on what I remembered about the 1995 film "Species." That film was a concept of Dennis Feldman in 1987 that he developed into a script for the film. I may not understand the intricacies of crediting in film making, but it seems the spirit of giving credit should not be suspended just because an immensely similar story is made into a film and released in a different market. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Kamchak (talk) 01:09, 2 August 2018 (UTC)