When Jonathan Glazer’s sci-fi masterpiece Under the Skin debuted in 2013, it polarized audiences. Some viewers found its minimalist plot and agonizingly slow pacing frustrating, while others were instantly spellbound by its eerie atmosphere.
Glazer and his cinematographer, Daniel Landin, concealed eight hidden cameras inside a rigged surveillance van. Johansson then drove through the real streets of Glasgow, interacting with ordinary citizens who had no idea they were being filmed for a Hollywood movie. under the skin film better
The film does not just hold up; it actually gets better the more you watch it. The Evolution of the Alien Protagonist When Jonathan Glazer’s sci-fi masterpiece Under the Skin
Watching Under the Skin for the first time can feel like a disorienting, almost hostile experience. Its slow pace, minimal dialogue, and grindingly abstract score intentionally push the viewer away. Yet for those who let it in , the film operates less like traditional narrative cinema and more like a direct injection of pure atmosphere—a rare piece of cinema that bypasses logical analysis and lodges directly under your skin, where it stays, hypnotic and strangely beautiful. It is not a film for everyone, but for those open to the abstract and the cerebral, it is unforgettable. Johansson then drove through the real streets of
Under the Skin proudly sits within a new wave of "art-horror," a subgenre that uses familiar genre tropes to explore complex themes. It is science fiction, but "in name only". Unlike the sleek blockbusters and dystopian action films that dominate the genre, Under the Skin is slow, abstract, and discordant. It rejects the conventional story beats of a "first contact" or "alien invasion" narrative in favor of hazy atmosphere and abstract ideas. Scarlett Johansson herself described it as not a science-fiction film, but rather "a film that asks existential questions and [is] much more complex than the logline".