sexy beast (d. jonathan glazer, w. louis mellis, david scinto)

Glazer’s sophomore film is another that has lived in the memory, primarily for Kingsley’s psychotic performance. With the casting of James Fox and the scenes of the gangland bosses’ faces in close up, drinking grotesquely, there’s a nod to Performance in the direction. The dialogue is theatrical, expertly edited, and full of memorable lines. The actors were clearly having a ball. Glazer’s flair is obvious, even if the sum of the parts don’t quite add up to a whole. The jagged underwater sequence, the opening boulder device, H’s sense of humour, it’s a jigsaw puzzle which doesn’t quite fit together. But I did love Winstone’s final scene, being dropped off on the Harrow Road, next to Royal Oak station, a few hundred yards from where I used to live, a spot I’d walk past on a daily basis. 

 

zone of interest (w&d jonathan glazer)

We watched this film in Montevideo at the exact same time it was being garlanded on the west coast of the United States. When I got home I watched Glazer’s honourable speech, the only one with the courage to mention Gaza, something that watching his film at this moment in history inevitably calls to mind.

There have been so many films that have used the Holocaust as a dramatic trope. Some with more justification than others. The issue with the events is how to present them. To seek to show or communicate the reality of a reality that will always be beyond representation. As such the Holocaust represents an artistic and philosophical conundrum and one that is particular to cinema, that most ‘realistic’ of the arts. Glazer is more aware than many of the fact. His film deliberately veers beyond realism from the very opening shot of blackness, which is held for long enough to make the audience question if all is right in the cinema, the world. Another sequence involves a flower dissolving, a la Jarman, to a red screen, which is again held. There are white out moments too. At other points a girl is seen in infra-red, leaving fruit to be discovered - a storyline which only became clear after the film had finished.

However, the majority of the film occurs in naturalistic colour, as the Hoss family go about the daily lives in the shadow of atrocity. All of which brings to the fore one of the key problematics of Glazer’s film. Rather than pondering the realism of what is seen, we end up pondering the aesthetics. The shots of flowers are beautiful. Is there room for beauty in the world he depicts? Is it appropriate? The issue isn’t a moral one: it’s that the question itself leads towards a contemplation of aesthetics rather than the subject matter which the film is dancing around. A similar thing occurs with the award winning sound mix, which seeks to represent the off-stage atrocities. In the end, it felt to this viewer as though this tool was used to hammer home the film’s point. Zone of Interest seeks to be a subtle film, but it utilises cinematic recourses which are profoundly unsubtle. It’s a film about the holocaust which ends up as a film about cinema and its limits. Every visual or auditory nuance seems to throw into question the project as a whole.

Having said all of this, and having returned to see Glazer’s brief discourse, it needs to be acknowledged that the filmmaker is only raising these questions because he is pushing the limits of the medium, in all sorts of ways, some of them the he could never have anticipated as he was making the film. Just as the bricks and mortar of the concentration camp overshadow the Hoss’s home, so the barbarity of the unbridled attack on Gaza’s civilians will always be destined to overshadow the walls of Glazer’s Zone of Interest. 

under the skin (w&d jonathan glazer, w. walter campbell)

Some points referring to Under The Skin:

Confused Narratives

Films don't have to make sense. They’re often more enjoyable if they don’t. As long as they’re not trying to make sense. The enigmatic can be the best cinema game in town. (cf Kubrick; Resnais; Antonioni) Albeit something that the British are rarely aware of. (Honourable exception Roeg, whose The Man Who Fell to Earth might be the godfather of UTS.)

Is this the most expensive low budget movie ever made?

One of the various clever things Glazer does in his film is appropriate a low-budget sensibility. By which it is meant: low budget filmmaking uses little-known actors or even non-actors. Low budget filmmaking doesn’t have the budget to try and “create” an ‘alternative’ world. So it focuses on the actual world. Which is what frequently gives low-budget filmmaking a sense of immediacy and relevance which a more, arch, “created” world does not. The first half of Under the Skin has the feel of an ob-doc about Glasgow street life. Which a glamorous alien/ hollywood star happens to be passing through. This juxtaposition sets off all kinds of sparks and gives the film a freshness which a more honed product lacks. Kudos to director and star for having the nerve to go down this route.

A little bit of humour goes a long way.

This is a film that’s laced with a mischievous sense of humour. Which helps to buy it space for the more esoteric angles it adopts. Humour gets the audience on board; the moments of humour are like way-stations on the film’s cryptic path. This is what Malick’s po-faced Tree of Life patently lacked, for example.

Is this a feminist movie?

Version 1: Men try to pick up chick thinking (correctly) she looks like a Hollywood star only to find she’s an alien luring them to their oily fate. Moral: men are fools who cannot see under the skin.

Version 2: Men try to pick up chick but in the process reveal their fundamental decency, to such an extent that the alien ends up taking pity on her victims and trying to discover her own humanity. She (it) only meets a truly malicious soul at the very end of the movie whose misguided attempt at rape preempts the finale. 

Whilst Glazer’s film clearly pokes fun at the masculine, there’s a warmth to its tone which belies the probable reading which the film will receive on Cinema & Gender courses in the 2020s.