Shop now Shop now Shop now  Up to 70% Off Fashion  Shop all Amazon Fashion Cloud Drive Photos Shop now Learn More Shop now Shop now Shop Fire Shop Kindle Shop now Shop now Shop now
Customer Review

3 of 8 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars An Opaque Adaptation: High-Quality SF Film That Perhaps Tells Too Little...., 19 July 2014
Verified Purchase(What is this?)
This review is from: Under The Skin [DVD] [2014] (DVD)
Please note that this review may contain spoilers and is primarily aimed at SF readers and amazon customers confused about the genre status of the film.

'Under the Skin' is an adaptation of the eponymous novel by Michel Faber. Despite always having been marketed and packaged as a work of mainstream/general fiction, 'Under the Skin' is definitively SF, using ideas commonplace in genre SF (i.e. the science fiction that arose in the US pulp magazines) - it owes huge debts to "Shambleau" (a short story by C L Moore circa 1933) and Damon Knights' "To Serve Man", published in the mid 1950s, later adapted into an episode of the TV series 'The Twilight Zone'. The aliens in the book reminded me of a story by Molly Gloss published in the 1990s - for the record, Gloss has a literary prose style, as does Faber. Despite the fact that Faber is a superb writer, readers unversed in written SF should be aware that high-quality prose is not uncommon in genre circles, despite what the sunday supplements might have you believe.

I mention all this as the novel was received as being staggeringly original by critics unfamiliar with SF - which is a little embarrassing, as it is even possible to compare the book to shlock gore SF films such as Norman J. Warren's 'Prey' and the Harry Davenport's 'Xtro'. Had 'Under the Skin' been adapted very faithfully from the novel, it would not have enjoyed the critical attention it has from mainstream cineastes.

For those who have read the book, you'll enjoy this version up to a point, but the key subtext of the novel - a strong message around the issues of vivisection, vegetarianism and animal rights - is pretty much missing from the film. The altered physicality of the central character, her co-farmers and the elite son of the company employing the aliens on Earth are missing...except by implication, when the farmers are replaced in the film by a mysterious motorcyclist.

The film is visually stunning, beautifully made throughout, with an excellent score and some very inventive adaptive uses of the basic scenario of the novel. However, it is very light on dialogue, has no spoken or title card exposition, so it very much shows rather than tells the audience what is going on. As laudable as this is, this does make the film difficult to read for audiences unfamiliar with the book and with SF in general. In fact, my personal opinion is that without the blurb on the BD/DVD case and the publicity around the film in the form of reviews etc, many people who have 'understood' the film would not have understood it if exposed to it spontaneously i.e. if the film was shown to them without warning.

In other words, there is no -or very little - infodump here. The audience is told nothing, but shown imagery, which it then has to interpret. This is healthy and quietly challenging, but it does render the film a little opaque. In fact, I'm wondering if the director wanted to avoid the potential embarrassment that he was making an SF film in the fear that an 'intelligent' audience would be put off before watching it. Sadly, this kind of snobbery still exists in relation to SF in the minds of many of the chattering classes.

There is clearly a huge fear of incisive, conceptual dialogue in many arthouse SF/slipstream films these days, which results in opaque movies that can come across as being hugely pretentious. For all their positive aspects, this bedevils films like 'A Field in England' and 'Berberian Sound Studio', which begin well and then seem merely self-indulgent as time goes on. Even Brandon Cronenberg's 'Antiviral' suffers a little from this. Looking at arthouse SF by Tarkovsky, Cronenberg and Roeg, you'll find they had no issue with inserting some expository dialogue into their films. Of course, they had human protagonists and Cronenberg in particular is arguably the finest SF writer/director ever to work in cinema. but comparisons between 'Under the Skin' and Roeg's 'The Man Who Fell to Earth' are valid here, as the former has been cited numerous times by those reviewing 'Under the skin' positively.

So the film of 'Under the Skin' perhaps aims to make the same point 'The Man Who Fell to Earth' does, but of course Thomas Jerome Newton (David Bowie) does come clean with Nathan Bryce (Rip Torn) about what is really going on. I'm not saying that 'Under the skin' doesn't work without such infodump, but it is more inaccessible and alienating (no pun intended) to many viewers. I'm also not convinced that all those viewers who enjoyed the film have picked up on all the ideas implied and shown in the feature, which are of course explicit in the novel.

Having said all this, admirers of serious SF will absolutely love this film: I know I did. But other comments here referring to late, derivative works like 'Species' are spot on in their identification of concepts, if off in failing to cite more seminal works.

My worry is that screenwriters/directors with serious intentions are perhaps too afraid to come clean and admit that what they are producing is SF. Until more intelligent SF that combines showing and telling (both valid ways of telling stories rich with metaphor and message), there is the danger that we'll have a lot more emperors' new clothes and not enough bold conceptualising. My won feeling is that if it ever gets a theatrical/disc release in the UK, the film of Philip K. Dick's 'Radio Free Albemuth' will raise the bar for SF cinema far above even 'Under the Skin', which, despite my misgivings, I thoroughly enjoyed.

Stephen E Andrews, author, '100 Must Read Science Fiction Novels'
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No

[Add comment]
Post a comment
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Amazon will display this name with all your submissions, including reviews and discussion posts. (Learn more)
This badge will be assigned to you and will appear along with your name.
There was an error. Please try again.
Please see the full guidelines ">here.

Official Comment

As a representative of this product you can post one Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.   Learn more
The following name and badge will be shown with this comment:
 (edit name)
After clicking on the Post button you will be asked to create your public name, which will be shown with all your contributions.

Is this your product?

If you are the author, artist, manufacturer or an official representative of this product, you can post an Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.  Learn more
Otherwise, you can still post a regular comment on this review.

Is this your product?

If you are the author, artist, manufacturer or an official representative of this product, you can post an Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.   Learn more
System timed out

We were unable to verify whether you represent the product. Please try again later, or retry now. Otherwise you can post a regular comment.

Since you previously posted an Official Comment, this comment will appear in the comment section below. You also have the option to edit your Official Comment.   Learn more
The maximum number of Official Comments have been posted. This comment will appear in the comment section below.   Learn more
Prompts for sign-in


Track comments by e-mail

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-1 of 1 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 2 Sep 2015 20:06:50 BDT
a burlinson says:
Excellent, well informed and well delivered review. A welcome antidote to the one star tribe (and one or two particularly self-important myopes in the 'my opinion or the wrong opinion' pulpit). As I emphasised in my own review, 'U-T-S' was surprisingly hard work and although I adore it, I honestly couldn't (a) expect anyone else to share that opinion, (b) sneer down my nose at them if they disagree, nor (c) watch it every day!
Thank you.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›

Review Details