Julia Gfrörer’s “Phosphorous” opens with a crying young man arriving at a pond.  His first words, which appear before him are “fuck you, fuck you dad”.  And thus begins a short but dense unpacking and subversion of the traditional representations of masculinity in patriarchal society.  It is in this deconstruction where beautiful horror streams in, and Gfrörer is able to construct a piece of sublime weight.

Male tears are something of a rare bird in the dominant fiction of our culture, and so upon their materialization you do kind of have to lap them up with a particular fervent earnestness.  In Julia Gfrörer’s “Phosphorous”: our starting point is a man in the woods.  This stone chucking man, with his pack of things, cuts something of an archetype of the self-sufficient capable man under whose foot nature bends in hierarchical accordance.  But that image is mixed in with tears and volatile emotions.  His principle struggle between himself and his father, which he expresses through sexualized obscenities, is presented here as a kind of hysteria.  This is the son who cock in hand,  wishes to assert his virility over his father, and in so doing ascend into adult alpha-malehood.  It is a primordial struggle between father and son—and by mixing that with tears,  we are presented the image of masculinity as rooted in an emotional struggle and perhaps not entirely within control of its own faculties.  It is not without importance that he has left his father, to come to this pond to and meet his obscene repressed dark mother; and it is not without mirrored appropriateness that the interactions between the two will also be sexual in its nature.

What is interesting with the man’s relationship to the woman in the pond is that rather than following the mold of the dominant patriarchal cultural representations, wherein it is the woman who is regressed by sex—here we see the man turned into the cooing monosyllabic child face of ecstasy.  While the former is not a truth, but a cliche, Gfrörer has inverted it al the same—and even though the woman in the pond is constantly shown beneath the man, she is in complete control of him from that position.  She has him by the balls.  This is still a depiction of masculinity—but there is a recontextualization from father-daughter imagery to mother-son imagery.  We see this repeatedly in the comic as the woman cradles and comforts the man throughout the entire sexual experience, even going as far as to recreate the Pieta on the shores of the pond.  Which now is a beautiful blasphemy of the dead white Christ and the black Virgin Mother now post incestual coitus. The transformation of the woman in the swamp from monstrous other to woman to virgin death mother encompasses a cycle that recalls very easily the xenomorphs of the Alien films.

It wouldn’t be inappropriate to introduce Alien(1979) here into the conversation because a lot of the dramatic forces which made that one of the great works of horror of the 20th century, are also at play here.  In Alien it is the notion that men can be overpowered, violated, and impregnated by the monstrous feminine that baselines a lot of the squeamishness of both Giger’s designs and Scott’s atmosphere of overriding dread.  As well, we also deal with the irrationality of men in Alien; Over and over again, the men of the movie make emotionally charged and altogether disastrous decisions(the most prominent of which is to bring Kane into the ship against strict quarantine guidelines, and Ripley’s stern direction not to).  In this way there are two mothers at play in Alien, Ripley, and the xenomorph—and both are disregarded by men to the peril of all of those around them.  So there’s a resonance in terms of the forces at play between  Alien and “Phosphorous”, and while these themes are in more places than Alien—I think that’s probably the clearest, best example of what we’re talking about here—and I bring it up, because the monster at the bottom of the pond in “Phosphorous” is operationally very similar to Giger and Scott’s xenomorph.

There is a mirror here between the young man approaching the strange glow in the pond, and Kane in Alien approaching the egg which contains the facehugger.  In both instances, male bravado and curiosity has led it into the clutches of a female trap.  The other main comparison here is obviously that the xenomorph represents both sex and death.  The woman in the pond operates along a similar axis, and though she doesn’t kill the young man, she is as interested in his life’s breath as she is his semen.

Shifting focus onto the woman in the pond: we see that even though, as mentioned previously, she is shown below the man at almost all times (there are in fact, only three panels where she is compositionally drawn above the man), the way that she touches and talks to the man is never subservient.  I think one of the most interesting sequences in “Phosphorous” is when she grabs the man’s penis and begins manipulating it curiously.  Even though fundamentally we can recognize this as a hand job—the way that it has been contextualized is with the penis as a foreign object—the penis is objectified here; both by being the disembodied focus of the hands in the panel, but also in the way that it supersedes the man in terms of the importance it takes in their interaction.  She orders him to show her how it works, and he immediately complies to her authority, and begins, tears in eyes, to masturbate.


As she pulls him under water the imagery turns from that of purely sex, to also that of death as we see both semen and life breath being extracted from the boy.  This idea of the female extracting sex and then bringing death is all through nature (and for what it’s worth it is also how the xenomorph functions).  It is an intensely erotic idea because it plays with our ideas of sex as something of a life force that is done to reproduce ourselves continuously through time in opposition to the finality of death; so to present sex also as the cessation of one’s life, and rather instead, present it as a reminder of death creates taboo.  And through the transgression of the taboo, we get the energy of the obscenity from which we feel the push and pull of our gaze throughout this work.

There is something else happening here and that is sex as connection.  The young man in his disconnect from his father, is here, whether explicit to his knowledge or not, to connect with both his mother and his repressed childhood.  He is having this experience to break down the walls between his present identity, and these separated refractions of self spread throughout his subconsciousness.  By introducing death play into the sex, those barriers are even further eroded, as identity weakens alongside life’s waning assertion.  This gap allows for the identity of the other, in this case the dark mother, to flood in and fill—In doing so, the man becomes the boy becomes the fetus becomes the mother. This regression becomes complete once he has died.  Two circles rotating in opposite directions, meeting at a singular incestual point joined through the mirror.

It is the culmination of these densely layered motions and counter motions which give “Phosphorous” the mesmerizing strength that it has.  It is only a six page comic nestled at the back of Gfrörer’s Black Light collection, but it follows you away from the page in a way that few comics being made currently by anyone else can claim to.  I actually showed this comic to someone at my day job, and they were completely transfixed.  It happens quickly, but it happens powerfully, and the work as a whole is quintessentially what I mean when I talk about my own interests in the horrible beautiful.  For me Gfrörer’s work is absolutely at the forefront of comics being made today, and however poorly they translate into my ability to write about them, these are the kinds of comics and creators which should be struggled with, not the regressive toy shit that dominates the weekly controversies.  You can put Julia’s work up against other top works in other mediums happening right now, and it can absolutely trump them.  It’s extremely exciting for comics.

Taiyo Matsumoto is tough for me to write about in any kind of formal fashion.  Not sure why.  I think maybe some of it may be that he’s such an old influence for me—like I came into his work before Nihei or Daisuke Igarashi—maybe even before Inio Asano-though Asano hasn’t really influenced me artistically—but I think how I got there was I was reading Stray Toasters because when I was first sort of starting to figure out how to draw, I practiced by redrawing Frazetta and BWS, but I was looking at like Sienkiewicz and Ashley Wood—anyways so I was reading Stray Toasters, and my wife of the time saw one of the panels in it, and was like “oh wow, that’s Klimt”—so I went and looked up Klimt and was like “whoa” which led me to Schiele which was a life changing moment.  As soon as I saw Schiele I knew there was something in there that I just FELT, and I wanted to explore that feeling through my own work and find my own expression through it.

So in trying to figure out how to take Schiele into comics I ran into Taiyo Matsumoto’s work.  I think Tekkinkinkreet was the first work of his I read, then No. 5, then Gogo Monster, then Ping Pong, then Takemitsu Zamurai, and now Sunny.  Ping Pong and Takemitsu Zamurai are prolly my fave works by him, with Gogo Monster a close third.  But these works were huge to me, and I mean eventually I found Daisuke Igarashi—and I think Daisuke is even closer to my like platonic ideal of comics than even Taiyo is—but Taiyo was key.  Maybe THE key.  At least after Schiele.  So there’s a lot of emotional investment with Taiyo.

So I was really ready for Sunny when I first saw the scanulated pages and once I learned it was coming out officially in the US, I stopped reading those pages and just waited.  What excited me with Sunny was that in Takemitsu Zamurai Taiyo really found this incredible dynamic and expressive way to really sort of put his line in the forefront.  And he ditched a lot of the heavier rendering techniques that were kind of holding that line down, and just trusted his brush for textures and tones— and it was amazing.

So when I first saw Sunny, I was like—well this is the logical end point of this like 30 year progression of his style.  So I was crazy for this book.

But when I finally got it, that first volume was really brutal for me.  The dynamism that I expected, and the expressionism was really paired back, and I thought the first book really started to highlight for me Taiyo’s inadequacies as a writer compared to someone like Igarashi, or Inio Asano.

I thought that the over abundance of these water color inks with just a lot of heavy black—and less sort of body bending compared to previous works that it looked like a children’s book almost.  It had this “literary” stuffiness to it that really lacked the psychosis of Taiyo’s older work.  Which was a shame, because Sunny was meant to be such a painful personal story of Taiyo’s own upbringing—but it seemed even the story had a restraint—like the dark corners of what was really going on were very hemmed in and restrained—almost sanitized.  The whole thing had me really down on his work as a whole, and I was really considering how I thought about Taiyo’s work as a whole, and what role it would play for me going forward.

But out of trust I kept up with it, and…oof it was rough for awhile.  It took me four months to read the second volume just because it was so demoralizing to me how much  I didn’t like it—and I was just going to be done with the series there—but the last story of the second volume it finally hit me.  This is the story about Haruo visiting his mother in Tokyo.  And finally, FINALLY I had what I needed to hold on with the story.  Haruo is absolutely the star of this book, and it’s because he is in some ways the most unrestrained character in the book—even as he is the most kind of fucked up and emotional too.  He is a type of character that Taiyo has done really well in a lot of different books—he is kind of a combo of both black and white—because he has the coolness of black, even as he has the manic-ness of white.  And initially Junsuke is kind of set up as the white character of this book—but I don’t think it really works quite the same, and anyways—so this Haruo chapter largely works in the loud unsaid howl of Haruo’s whole way of being. And really after this chapter it feels like Taiyo has finally found his footing with these large cast of characters—because after that there’s the great Megumu chapter, the Makio chapter—he’s figured out that this book is kind of about this kind of emotional frailty of these children, even as they are intensely strong in their abilities to adapt—but that that adaptation has it’s cost, and for as much as the adults around the star kids do their best—the damage of being discarded by your parents is real.

I also think by the third volume the stylistic choices by Matsumoto are much more in balance.  After all of these styles he can approach a panel in any number of ways—and where the first volume I thought was quite rigid, and maybe it was just about nailing down the baseline style of for the book—there seems to be more of the sense by volume 3 of a master using his whole toolkit and knowing when to kick this kind of style in one panel vs. another.

I think fundamentally the strength of Taiyo’s work for his whole career is that he doesn’t just tell you here is a boy doing this thing—he gives you something more about the boy at that particular time just in the way his line jitters, or the way the shadow will cloud a face—and maybe the shadow will be these impressionistic brush strokes—or maybe it will be more traditional cross hatching techniques?  But the choice always was about communicating something beyond simply what is physically there in the scene.

The Makio chapter in vol. 3 is an excellent showcase for this versatility of skill, and the pointedness of Matsumoto’s choices.  We see this impressionistic jittering of styles that shift and change depending on the role that Makio is performing—so when he is more of an adult with his girlfriend at the restaurant—everything is very stable and adult, makio has his really heavily hatched sports coat which really restrains his form and constricts him.  But later when he is playing baseball with the star kids, the coat is gone, and his form is stretched and bending and has less weight.  That beautiful panel of Makio as a mountain climber.  His face rendered heavily, inside of just these really beautiful loose lines and brush strokes.  We don’t know exactly what he’s thinking in that moment—but it still is the climax of the chapter.  It is the most truthful expression of Makio as the man he has become.  It is his most honest portrayal so far in the book(though the earlier Makio chapter in Sunny is also pretty good).

It was interesting I started to watch the anime adaption of Ping Pong that Masaaki Yuasa is directing and while it is it’s own weird thing separate from the manga—it’s interesting to see other artists try to duplicate what Matsumoto does, and copy his lines—-and while I’m enjoying it all, and it is gorgeous—it isn’t Taiyo.  When you have a style so hinged on an almost signitory movement of the line—it is uncopyable in that way.  A line like that is so personal and so expressing and so singular.  And it’s different to see the comic where Taiyo is just expressing himself, vs. an anime where others are trying to express Taiyo to others—and the effect is really interesting and bizarre.  But it speaks to my own convictions about the line and how the line is everything.  To really get up close with an artist’s line, it’s like…a fingerprint.  And I love that with Taiyo that element is so up front.  These are stories and they come from a place inside of me and all of my experiences to this point.  That’s on the page.  You don’t need to bring anything outside to glean that.  You look at it and it tells you everything.  It’s the same thing I think that causes some people to not be able to look at Schiele’s work.  Because that line is so disturbing.  There’s a deep psychosis there that can make people really uncomfortable.  But it’s so beautiful to me.  So simple but so beautiful.  So yeah, I’ve come back around on Sunny.

Palm Ash is a comic by Julia Gfrörer set during the Diocletianic Persecutions, which were the most severe persecutions of the Christians by the Romans.  It is 20 pages long and can be had via her Etsy page for $5(though there are few copies left)

Julia Gfrörer is someone whose work I’ve wanted to write about for some time.  Her book, Black is the Color, put out last year through Fantagraphics was one of my favorite books from last year, and I think one of the strongest books by a contemporary artist that Fantagraphics has put out in a while. Gfrörer’s work is kind of intimidating critically though, because the space it creates for itself is so intelligent and considered, that there’s a real question of whether you really have anything to say to the book that doesn’t immediately demean your own words by comparison.

Palm Ash is more of the same in this respect.  There are beats in a Gfrörer comic that are so assured and naturalistic in their wit and brilliance that you have to double take that you are in fact reading a comic still.  The 9 panel grid that Black is the Color was cordoned off into is repeated here with much the same effect in that the restriction and repetition of form allow for the details of figure and gesture to become louder on the page, and the smaller character moments of the book become more noticeable.  Gfrörer’s comics often live in the space of subtle hand gestures and wry looks between characters.  As I mentioned when I wrote about Katie Skelly’s book Operation Margarine, the control and modulation between the wide shot and the close-up in Palm Ash, perhaps even moreso than Black is the Color, really go a long ways toward dictating mood and emotional tenor for the characters involved.  We zoom out at key moments to a character with their back turned to a conversation before coming into a tight sweaty closeup within the same scene and segment of panels.

The speed with which Gfrörer can set up the emotional playing field between her characters is nothing short of remarkable.  Most of these scenes that make up this book’s taut 20-pages are only two or three pages long, but you get a lot of character development just because of the assured sense of character at play here.

Let’s examine one of my favorite pages from the book to sort of see what I’m talking about with these elements:

So to contextualize this scene, this is a scene between Dia who is the lover of a Roman soldier named Drusus, who her friend is occupying while she meets with Simeon, who is a christian Martyr whose secret Martyr trick is that lions fall asleep next to him instead of eating him.  Dia has a son named Maioricus who she wants to bring to Simeon so he can baptize him.

One of the interesting things with early Christianity, and one of the reasons why the Romans were initially so aggressive against it was that it largely started with women and slaves in roman society, because the faith largely sold a liberation from the yoke of the traditional role of a woman in roman society.  And so a lot of the roman power structure was being undermined by this new religion which struck at a lot of the exploited labor on which the society was nestled, and what’s more, it glorified martyrdom, so it wasn’t like you could really threaten these people with death and that would be that.

So what’s interesting here is that even though Dia knows the tremendous costs associated with getting her son baptized, she still wants to because she believes in the power of Simeon’s God.

So that first panel, is after Simeon has told Dia that they will meet again in the next life, and we get this wonderful reaction where Gfrörer has whited out her eyes and there’s these heavy lines around the nose—we can see the cloudiness of her soul in that moment, her uncertainty, and there’s a certain thought process conveyed there in that simple look that is underscored by the panel after it where she looks gloomily at a smiling optimistic Simeon, and this is where she makes the decision to risk her son’s life so that he may have a better afterlife.  And again we get little gestures, notice how Simeon’s hand is on top of Dia’s, he’s the certain one, Dia’s hand is pulling back, her soul is clouded in that moment.  She is considering the totality of the risk, and it’s all just in this silent medium shot panel nestled between two almost repetitive close-up panels of Dia’s face.  Again you can see the mental state has changed for Dia between the first and third panel, and it’s all in the subtleties of how the eyes are shaded.  Again, this is accomplished because of the rigidity and repetition of the page layout, and the repetition of forms so you can register their differences.

When you get to the second row look at how much Dia’s disposition has changed from the 2nd panel in the first row and the 1st panel on the second row.  It is night and day, even though it is the same shot with the same characters.

Simeon’s performance on this page is similarly brilliant.  His expression in the middle panel of the page, his sad astonishment at what Dia is willing to risk.  The first panel on the bottom row is probably my favorite singular panel of the entire book, and in some ways it is the pivotal panel of the book because it is where Simeon takes on the weight not only of his own arc, but also that of Dia and her son—he is willing to shoulder the responsibility for the horror that is going to happen(and most certainly, in graphic detail, does happen).  His resoluteness in the final panel of the page is fully earned from the first panel to the last.

And it’s not all hyper emotional moments, there are a lot of really funny moments in Palm Ash of just black sarcastic gallows humor.  Gfrörer’s comic timing is largely built on a lot of the same precepts which allow her dramatic angles to work, in terms of repetition and gesture.  That she is able to easily shift between both is remarkable, and there are few writers who are as gifted in western comics at shouldering both elements so ably.

It’s interesting to think about Palm Ash in comparison with Black is the Color, because even though Black is the Color is the longer work, Palm Ash is the denser work.  There are more interweaving narratives at play here.  There’s several small bits like Geta’s ring—that weave through the background of the book, and create this interconnected narrative space that is extremely rich.  Even though the joy of Gfrörer’s work is still largely in the details, the totality of Palm Ash is quite substantive.  There is a fairly clever and brave story at work here about motherhood and the role of women within these sort of Roman Coliseum stories that have largely been taken over as male narratives.  While also powerfully illustrating the both the role women played in early Christendom, and the threat they posed to the empire through that behavior.

It is horrific when Drusus charges in and yells at Dia “everything about you belongs to me”, but she has already subverted this statement, and even as everything in her life is taken from her, that defiance and her agency in the choices that precipitate the final actions of her life have already given her back a measure of humanity that previously had been closed off from her.

I have certainly said it in places before, but Palm Ash is nothing if not more evidence to it’s testament, Julia Gfrörer is absolutely one of the most gifted storytellers in comics, and anytime you get to read one of these books, it’s really quite wonderful.

 

This week’s horror movies that I watched were;

#77: Baba Yaga (Dir Corrado Farina)

#78: Amer (Dir. Hélène Cattet and Bruno Forzani)

#79: The Living and the Dead (Dir. Simon Rumley)

#80: The Hunger (Dir. Tony Scott)
#81: Witchfinder General (Dir. Michael Reeves)

#82: Vinyan (Dir. Fabrice Du Welz)

#83: They Live (Dir. John Carpenter)
#84: Cat People (1982) (Dir. Paul Schrader)

I only wrote about The Living and the Dead(follow the link), but I could have written on Cat People, The Hunger, Baba Yaga, and Witchfinder General really easily(humble brag).  But I did other things with my time.

Here’s what I’ve got to date;

#1: Humanoids from the Deep (Dir. Barbara Peeters)

#2: Shock (Dir. Mario Bava)

#3: Don’t Torture a Duckling (Dir. Lucio Fulci)

#4: Female Vampire (Dir. Jess Franco)

#5 The Iron Rose (Dir. Jean Rollin)

#6: Alucarda (Dir. Juan López Moctezuma)

#7: Wake In Fright (Dir. Tedd Kotcheff)

#8: American Mary (Dir. Jen & Sylvia Soska)

#9: American Mary (Dir. Jen & Sylvia Soska) and Gore

#10: Lisa and the Devil (Dir. Mario Bava)

#11: Critters (Dir. Stephen Herek)

#12: Szamanka (Dir. Andrzej Zulawski)

#13: The Whip and the Body (Dir. Mario Bava)

#14: City of the Living Dead (Dir. Lucio Fulci)

#15: White Zombie (Dir. Victor Halperin)

#16: Hardware (Dir. Richard Stanley)

#17: The New York Ripper (Dir. Lucio Fulci)

# 18: The Bird With The Crystal Plumage (Dir. Dario Argento)

#19: Black Christmas (Dir. Bob Clark)

#20: The Beyond (Lucio Fulci)

#21: Dressed to Kill (Brian De Palma)

#22: A Nightmare on Elm Street 2 (Dir. Jack Sholder)

#23: Candyman (Dir. Bernard Rose)

#24: Rosemary’s Baby (Dir. Roman Polanski)

#25: The Innocents (Dir. Jack Clayton)

#26: Phantasm (Dir Don Coscarelli)

#27: Nadja (Dir. Michael Almereyda)

#28: Baby Blood (Dir. Alain Robak)

#29: Trouble Every Day (Dir. Claire Denis)

#30: Bay of Blood (Dir. Mario Bava)

#31: In My Skin (Dir Marina de Van)

#32: Halloween III (Dir. Tommy Lee Wallace)

#33: Halloween 2(Zombie) (Dir. Rob Zombie)

#34: Dark Touch (Dir. Marina De Van)

#35: Lizard in a Woman’s Skin (Dir. Lucio Fulci)

#36: The Vanishing (Dir. George Sluizer)
#37: Living Dead Girl (Dir. Jean Rollin)
#38: Zombie (Dir. Lucio Fulci)

#39: Maniac (Dir. Franck Khalfoun)
#40: Dr. Jekyll and Sister Hyde (Dir. Roy Ward Baker)
#41: Let’s Scare Jessica To Death (Dir. John D. Hancock)

#42: Kill List (Dir. Ben Wheatley)

#43: Don’t Look Back (Dir. Marina De Van)

#44: Alligator (Dir. Lewis Teague)

#45: Ganja and Hess (Dir. Bill Gunn)

#46: The Burning (Dir. Tony Maylam)

#47: The ABCs of Death (Dir. Various)

#48: Byzantium (Dir. Neil Jordan)

#49: Cat People (Dir. Jacques Tourneur)

#50: The Curse of the Cat People (Dir. Gunther von Fritsch and Robert Wise)

#51: Little Deaths (Dir. Sean Hogan, Andrew Parkinson, Simon Rumley)

#52: Marebito (Dir. Takashi Shimizu)

#53: A Horrible Way to Die (Dir. Adam Wingard)

#54: 5 Dolls for An August Moon (Dir. Mario Bava)

#55: I walked with a Zombie (Dir. Jacques Tourneur)

#56: The Legend of Hell House (Dir. John Hough)

#57: Psychomania (Dir. Don Sharp)
#58: Inside (Dir. Julien Maury and Alexandre Bustillo)

#59: Under the Skin (Dir. Jonathan Glazer)

#60: Left Bank (Dir. Peiter Van Hees)
#61: Simon King of the Witches (Dir. Bruce Kessler)

#62: Blood and Black Lace (Dir. Mario Bava)

#63: Nightmare City (Dir. Umberto Lenzi)

#64: Rogue (Dir. Greg McLean)

#65: Snowtown (Dir. Justin Kurzel)

#66: Livid (Dir. Julien Maury and Alexandre Bustillo)

#67: Horror of Dracula (Dir. Terence Fischer)
#68: Christine (Dir. John Carpenter)

#69: Demons (Dir. Lamberto Bava)
#70: God Told Me To (Dir. Larry Cohen)

#71: Hellbound: Hellraiser 2 (Dir. Tony Randel)

#72: The Addiction (Dir. Abel Ferrara)

#73: Lips of Blood (Dir. Jean Rollin)
#74: A Blade in the Dark (Dir. Lamberto Bava)

#75: Demons 2 (Dir. Lamberto Bava)

#76: Bram Stoker’s Dracula (Dir. Francis Ford Coppola)

#77: Baba Yaga (Dir Corrado Farina)

#78: Amer (Dir. Hélène Cattet and Bruno Forzani)

#79: The Living and the Dead (Dir. Simon Rumley)

#80: The Hunger (Dir. Tony Scott)
#81: Witchfinder General (Dir. Michael Reeves)

#82: Vinyan (Dir. Fabrice Du Welz)

#83: They Live (Dir. John Carpenter)
#84: Cat People (1982) (Dir. Paul Schrader)

Re-reading Blutch’s masterful So Long Silver Screen, which I have previously written about.  It’s actually one of the few times I’ve ever concluded a piece of comic writing telling people to buy something.  Which proves both that I am first everything I hate, before anyone else is.  And secondly, just how huge of an experience So Long, Silver Screen was for me.

I have been thinking about Blutch a lot lately because for my own art, I’m trying to get into these very visceral ugly dramatic spaces—I’m trying to carve geography out of the side of Bergman, Zulawski, and Ferrara and steal it away for my comics.  But the corralary of trying to work with those beats, is needing to figure out how to get them to pop off in comics properly—but unfortunately there are very few comics that have this kind of dangerous dramatic intensity.  I would say the end of Oyasumi Punpun comes to this space—and someday I will write about that—I think Blutch is an artist who also carries this off.  Of course So Long, Silver Screen is one long love letter to the best cinema has to offer.  But beyond it’s essayistic qualities, and deconstructive connections to film, the interior dramatic segments also have some of the most primal stuff I’ve seen.  

I’m thinking mostly of the ugly passionate arguments between Blutch’s stand-in and the women of the comic.  His sort of violent psycho-sexual interactions with them are really incredible.  The book actually opens with a woman in a darkened room looking for her lover, who suddenly attacks her with a pillow from behind, suffocating her, before preparing to have sex with her, while opining about cinema.  The woman suddenly wakes up to correct him about Paul Newman before another woman, a much older woman appears and begins to chastise the male character, before the two of them also get into a violent fight.

Now Blutch isn’t the first artist ever to depict these sorts of things, but he is one of the few who captures a certain kind of hatred that you really only see in films like Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf, and Scenes from A Marriege—it isn’t totally just hatred, because that would be boring.  But rather we’re talking about the hatred of people who have felt deep emotional history between one another, and lack the emotional tools to communicate their pain verbally and so have to resort to violence—it’s like in that scene in Possession in the kitchen where Isabelle Adjani and Sam Neil are fighting, but they have their backs to one another, and you can see their bodies almost ripping apart from one another—it’s something about body language and framing—which Blutch has.

I think Blutch’s style lends itself to the kind of malleability needed to pull off these kinds of emotions.  The deep shadows that can suddenly come from nowhere and obscure and cloud faces, which allow us to imagine their emotion—Blutch has a working symbology for the deeper psychological motivations of his characters as they interact with one another.  And then past that, he understands the push and pull of characters who have emotional ties to one another.  He knows that the body has it’s own sight, and can see with it’s back turned, certain feelings and individuals.  He shows us the sinewy hate filled contortions of this male character, who the woman can’t see because her back is turned, which puts us as a reader on edge.

And when Blutch’s characters physically fight, it’s not really punches, so much as grappling.  Limbs and fingers interlocked, characters lose their balance together and fall over—it gives his fights the sexual energy which underlies the hateful things his characters are doing and saying to one another.  And the figures move with desperation when they are pinned down.  They clutch, rip, and knee whatever they can.  

And what’s more, this violence and hate, quickly can turn into sex and love.  He blurs the lines between the two, and it allows for these orgasmic epiphanies like the one he ends the book on.

So Long, Silver Screen is about fighting.  It’s men and women fighting and not understanding one another, but trying to understand one another.  It is about women’s place in film history, and agency in the world—the penultimate page is one last violent fight where Blutch’s protaganist is fighting another lover, interrogating her bullishly the whole time: “Who grabs your legs? Who spreads em wide? Huh?  Who sticks his nose in your cunt?  Who lives and breathes you?”

The woman  stops him and says to him: “me too, Paul”.  You don’t get the emotion of that moment without all of the horror in front of it.  Blutch earns that moment with every inch of the page.  Truly masterful.

image

This week’s Horror Movie of the Day movies were:

#71: Hellbound: Hellraiser 2 (Dir. Tony Randel)

#72: The Addiction (Dir. Abel Ferrara)

#73: Lips of Blood (Dir. Jean Rollin)
#74: A Blade in the Dark (Dir. Lamberto Bava)

#75: Demons 2 (Dir. Lamberto Bava)

#76: Bram Stoker’s Dracula (Dir. Francis Ford Coppola)

The links lead to articles I wrote about said movies.  Vampired it up a bit this week.

Here’s the updated list so far(as above, links lead to writing on particular movies):

#1: Humanoids from the Deep (Dir. Barbara Peeters)

#2: Shock (Dir. Mario Bava)

#3: Don’t Torture a Duckling (Dir. Lucio Fulci)

#4: Female Vampire (Dir. Jess Franco)

#5 The Iron Rose (Dir. Jean Rollin)

#6: Alucarda (Dir. Juan López Moctezuma)

#7: Wake In Fright (Dir. Tedd Kotcheff)

#8: American Mary (Dir. Jen & Sylvia Soska)

#9: American Mary (Dir. Jen & Sylvia Soska) and Gore

#10: Lisa and the Devil (Dir. Mario Bava)

#11: Critters (Dir. Stephen Herek)

#12: Szamanka (Dir. Andrzej Zulawski)

#13: The Whip and the Body (Dir. Mario Bava)

#14: City of the Living Dead (Dir. Lucio Fulci)

#15: White Zombie (Dir. Victor Halperin)

#16: Hardware (Dir. Richard Stanley)

#17: The New York Ripper (Dir. Lucio Fulci)

# 18: The Bird With The Crystal Plumage (Dir. Dario Argento)

#19: Black Christmas (Dir. Bob Clark)

#20: The Beyond (Lucio Fulci)

#21: Dressed to Kill (Brian De Palma)

#22: A Nightmare on Elm Street 2 (Dir. Jack Sholder)

#23: Candyman (Dir. Bernard Rose)

#24: Rosemary’s Baby (Dir. Roman Polanski)

#25: The Innocents (Dir. Jack Clayton)

#26: Phantasm (Dir Don Coscarelli)

#27: Nadja (Dir. Michael Almereyda)

#28: Baby Blood (Dir. Alain Robak)

#29: Trouble Every Day (Dir. Claire Denis)

#30: Bay of Blood (Dir. Mario Bava)

#31: In My Skin (Dir Marina de Van)

#32: Halloween III (Dir. Tommy Lee Wallace)

#33: Halloween 2(Zombie) (Dir. Rob Zombie)

#34: Dark Touch (Dir. Marina De Van)

#35: Lizard in a Woman’s Skin (Dir. Lucio Fulci)

#36: The Vanishing (Dir. George Sluizer)
#37: Living Dead Girl (Dir. Jean Rollin)
#38: Zombie (Dir. Lucio Fulci)

#39: Maniac (Dir. Franck Khalfoun)
#40: Dr. Jekyll and Sister Hyde (Dir. Roy Ward Baker)
#41: Let’s Scare Jessica To Death (Dir. John D. Hancock)

#42: Kill List (Dir. Ben Wheatley)

#43: Don’t Look Back (Dir. Marina De Van)

#44: Alligator (Dir. Lewis Teague)

#45: Ganja and Hess (Dir. Bill Gunn)

#46: The Burning (Dir. Tony Maylam)

#47: The ABCs of Death (Dir. Various)

#48: Byzantium (Dir. Neil Jordan)

#49: Cat People (Dir. Jacques Tourneur)

#50: The Curse of the Cat People (Dir. Gunther von Fritsch and Robert Wise)

#51: Little Deaths (Dir. Sean Hogan, Andrew Parkinson, Simon Rumley)

#52: Marebito (Dir. Takashi Shimizu)

#53: A Horrible Way to Die (Dir. Adam Wingard)

#54: 5 Dolls for An August Moon (Dir. Mario Bava)

#55: I walked with a Zombie (Dir. Jacques Tourneur)

#56: The Legend of Hell House (Dir. John Hough)

#57: Psychomania (Dir. Don Sharp)
#58: Inside (Dir. Julien Maury and Alexandre Bustillo)

#59: Under the Skin (Dir. Jonathan Glazer)

#60: Left Bank (Dir. Peiter Van Hees)
#61: Simon King of the Witches (Dir. Bruce Kessler)

#62: Blood and Black Lace (Dir. Mario Bava)

#63: Nightmare City (Dir. Umberto Lenzi)

#64: Rogue (Dir. Greg McLean)

#65: Snowtown (Dir. Justin Kurzel)

#66: Livid (Dir. Julien Maury and Alexandre Bustillo)

#67: Horror of Dracula (Dir. Terence Fischer)
#68: Christine (Dir. John Carpenter)

#69: Demons (Dir. Lamberto Bava)
#70: God Told Me To (Dir. Larry Cohen)

#71: Hellbound: Hellraiser 2 (Dir. Tony Randel)

#72: The Addiction (Dir. Abel Ferrara)

#73: Lips of Blood (Dir. Jean Rollin)
#74: A Blade in the Dark (Dir. Lamberto Bava)

#75: Demons 2 (Dir. Lamberto Bava)

#76: Bram Stoker’s Dracula (Dir. Francis Ford Coppola)

Up to 70 days in a row now.  This week was kind of uneven, in large part thanks to Netflix fucking with my hustle.  But still.  Finally saw Demons, which was pretty terrific.  Livide which was cool, and I wrote about.  Christine which was good, but not per se in my wheelhouse.  Snowtown was pretty.  Anyways.  Below is the list of what I watched this week.  The links lead to articles I’ve written on the movies;

#65: Snowtown (Dir. Justin Kurzel)

#66: Livid (Dir. Julien Maury and Alexandre Bustillo)

#67: Horror of Dracula (Dir. Terence Fischer)
#68: Christine (Dir. John Carpenter)

#69: Demons (Dir. Lamberto Bava)
#70: God Told Me To (Dir. Larry Cohen)

Here’s the master list of the films I’ve watched to day:

#1: Humanoids from the Deep (Dir. Barbara Peeters)

#2: Shock (Dir. Mario Bava)

#3: Don’t Torture a Duckling (Dir. Lucio Fulci)

#4: Female Vampire (Dir. Jess Franco)

#5 The Iron Rose (Dir. Jean Rollin)

#6: Alucarda (Dir. Juan López Moctezuma)

#7: Wake In Fright (Dir. Tedd Kotcheff)

#8: American Mary (Dir. Jen & Sylvia Soska)

#9: American Mary (Dir. Jen & Sylvia Soska) and Gore

#10: Lisa and the Devil (Dir. Mario Bava)

#11: Critters (Dir. Stephen Herek)

#12: Szamanka (Dir. Andrzej Zulawski)

#13: The Whip and the Body (Dir. Mario Bava)

#14: City of the Living Dead (Dir. Lucio Fulci)

#15: White Zombie (Dir. Victor Halperin)

#16: Hardware (Dir. Richard Stanley)

#17: The New York Ripper (Dir. Lucio Fulci)

# 18: The Bird With The Crystal Plumage (Dir. Dario Argento)

#19: Black Christmas (Dir. Bob Clark)

#20: The Beyond (Lucio Fulci)

#21: Dressed to Kill (Brian De Palma)

#22: A Nightmare on Elm Street 2 (Dir. Jack Sholder)

#23: Candyman (Dir. Bernard Rose)

#24: Rosemary’s Baby (Dir. Roman Polanski)

#25: The Innocents (Dir. Jack Clayton)

#26: Phantasm (Dir Don Coscarelli)

#27: Nadja (Dir. Michael Almereyda)

#28: Baby Blood (Dir. Alain Robak)

#29: Trouble Every Day (Dir. Claire Denis)

#30: Bay of Blood (Dir. Mario Bava)

#31: In My Skin (Dir Marina de Van)

#32: Halloween III (Dir. Tommy Lee Wallace)

#33: Halloween 2(Zombie) (Dir. Rob Zombie)

#34: Dark Touch (Dir. Marina De Van)

#35: Lizard in a Woman’s Skin (Dir. Lucio Fulci)

#36: The Vanishing (Dir. George Sluizer)
#37: Living Dead Girl (Dir. Jean Rollin)
#38: Zombie (Dir. Lucio Fulci)

#39: Maniac (Dir. Franck Khalfoun)
#40: Dr. Jekyll and Sister Hyde (Dir. Roy Ward Baker)
#41: Let’s Scare Jessica To Death (Dir. John D. Hancock)

#42: Kill List (Dir. Ben Wheatley)

#43: Don’t Look Back (Dir. Marina De Van)

#44: Alligator (Dir. Lewis Teague)

#45: Ganja and Hess (Dir. Bill Gunn)

#46: The Burning (Dir. Tony Maylam)

#47: The ABCs of Death (Dir. Various)

#48: Byzantium (Dir. Neil Jordan)

#49: Cat People (Dir. Jacques Tourneur)

#50: The Curse of the Cat People (Dir. Gunther von Fritsch and Robert Wise)

#51: Little Deaths (Dir. Sean Hogan, Andrew Parkinson, Simon Rumley)

#52: Marebito (Dir. Takashi Shimizu)

#53: A Horrible Way to Die (Dir. Adam Wingard)

#54: 5 Dolls for An August Moon (Dir. Mario Bava)

#55: I walked with a Zombie (Dir. Jacques Tourneur)

#56: The Legend of Hell House (Dir. John Hough)

#57: Psychomania (Dir. Don Sharp)
#58: Inside (Dir. Julien Maury and Alexandre Bustillo)

#59: Under the Skin (Dir. Jonathan Glazer)

#60: Left Bank (Dir. Peiter Van Hees)
#61: Simon King of the Witches (Dir. Bruce Kessler)

#62: Blood and Black Lace (Dir. Mario Bava)

#63: Nightmare City (Dir. Umberto Lenzi)

#64: Rogue (Dir. Greg McLean)

#65: Snowtown (Dir. Justin Kurzel)

#66: Livid (Dir. Julien Maury and Alexandre Bustillo)

#67: Horror of Dracula (Dir. Terence Fischer)
#68: Christine (Dir. John Carpenter)

#69: Demons (Dir. Lamberto Bava)
#70: God Told Me To (Dir. Larry Cohen)

I have a comic available for Pre-order.  It is called Bruise.  It is a 16 page mini-comic being put out as a part of the Sacred Prism series that includes other such luminaries as Lala Albert, Frank Santoro, and Benjamin Marra.

Bruise is like what you get if Speed and Ghost in the Shell had a very gay Fassbinder baby.  It is the only comic you’ll read this year that has cum-activated nano-spiders.  It is probably the only comic you’ll read this year that makes reference to Marlene Dietrich’s singing career.

If you watched Scorpio Rising and your principal complaint was that motorcycles are too slow, there’s not enough computers, and where are the blowjobs–then Bruise is the comic for you.

It’s only 5 dollars.  I know, I know–usually you have to pay top dollar for your overt homoerotic action thrill-ride, but I dunno, Ian Harker is crazy, he’s practically giving it away.

Here’s two rando interior pages:

The book is coming out in August.  Pre-order now.

Another week down.  I’m now 64 days straight of horror movies, and I have to say, I’m even more excited about it than I was even on day 1.  There are so many great films I haven’t seen, and it seems like I’m finding something that I get something really good out of ever two or three days tops.  Netflix is killing me though, I’ve had five particular movies for like a month just camping at the top of my queue under the “short/long” wait game.  Oh well.

The above is fan art I drew and colored for the movie Under the Skin, which I also wrote a great deal about this week.  You should definitely check that out even if you hated the movie.

Anyways, below is the list of films I saw this week, with the links going to writing I did on particular ones(or one in this case):

#59: Under the Skin (Dir. Jonathan Glazer)

#60: Left Bank (Dir. Peiter Van Hees)
#61: Simon King of the Witches (Dir. Bruce Kessler)

#62: Blood and Black Lace (Dir. Mario Bava)

#63: Nightmare City (Dir. Umberto Lenzi)

#64: Rogue (Dir. Greg McLean)

This is the updated masterlist, for those scoring at home:

#1: Humanoids from the Deep (Dir. Barbara Peeters)

#2: Shock (Dir. Mario Bava)

#3: Don’t Torture a Duckling (Dir. Lucio Fulci)

#4: Female Vampire (Dir. Jess Franco)

#5 The Iron Rose (Dir. Jean Rollin)

#6: Alucarda (Dir. Juan López Moctezuma)

#7: Wake In Fright (Dir. Tedd Kotcheff)

#8: American Mary (Dir. Jen & Sylvia Soska)

#9: American Mary (Dir. Jen & Sylvia Soska) and Gore

#10: Lisa and the Devil (Dir. Mario Bava)

#11: Critters (Dir. Stephen Herek)

#12: Szamanka (Dir. Andrzej Zulawski)

#13: The Whip and the Body (Dir. Mario Bava)

#14: City of the Living Dead (Dir. Lucio Fulci)

#15: White Zombie (Dir. Victor Halperin)

#16: Hardware (Dir. Richard Stanley)

#17: The New York Ripper (Dir. Lucio Fulci)

# 18: The Bird With The Crystal Plumage (Dir. Dario Argento)

#19: Black Christmas (Dir. Bob Clark)

#20: The Beyond (Lucio Fulci)

#21: Dressed to Kill (Brian De Palma)

#22: A Nightmare on Elm Street 2 (Dir. Jack Sholder)

#23: Candyman (Dir. Bernard Rose)

#24: Rosemary’s Baby (Dir. Roman Polanski)

#25: The Innocents (Dir. Jack Clayton)

#26: Phantasm (Dir Don Coscarelli)

#27: Nadja (Dir. Michael Almereyda)

#28: Baby Blood (Dir. Alain Robak)

#29: Trouble Every Day (Dir. Claire Denis)

#30: Bay of Blood (Dir. Mario Bava)

#31: In My Skin (Dir Marina de Van)

#32: Halloween III (Dir. Tommy Lee Wallace)

#33: Halloween 2(Zombie) (Dir. Rob Zombie)

#34: Dark Touch (Dir. Marina De Van)

#35: Lizard in a Woman’s Skin (Dir. Lucio Fulci)

#36: The Vanishing (Dir. George Sluizer)
#37: Living Dead Girl (Dir. Jean Rollin)
#38: Zombie (Dir. Lucio Fulci)

#39: Maniac (Dir. Franck Khalfoun)
#40: Dr. Jekyll and Sister Hyde (Dir. Roy Ward Baker)
#41: Let’s Scare Jessica To Death (Dir. John D. Hancock)

#42: Kill List (Dir. Ben Wheatley)

#43: Don’t Look Back (Dir. Marina De Van)

#44: Alligator (Dir. Lewis Teague)

#45: Ganja and Hess (Dir. Bill Gunn)

#46: The Burning (Dir. Tony Maylam)

#47: The ABCs of Death (Dir. Various)

#48: Byzantium (Dir. Neil Jordan)

#49: Cat People (Dir. Jacques Tourneur)

#50: The Curse of the Cat People (Dir. Gunther von Fritsch and Robert Wise)

#51: Little Deaths (Dir. Sean Hogan, Andrew Parkinson, Simon Rumley)

#52: Marebito (Dir. Takashi Shimizu)

#53: A Horrible Way to Die (Dir. Adam Wingard)

#54: 5 Dolls for An August Moon (Dir. Mario Bava)

#55: I walked with a Zombie (Dir. Jacques Tourneur)

#56: The Legend of Hell House (Dir. John Hough)

#57: Psychomania (Dir. Don Sharp)
#58: Inside (Dir. Julien Maury and Alexandre Bustillo)

#59: Under the Skin (Dir. Jonathan Glazer)

#60: Left Bank (Dir. Peiter Van Hees)
#61: Simon King of the Witches (Dir. Bruce Kessler)

#62: Blood and Black Lace (Dir. Mario Bava)

#63: Nightmare City (Dir. Umberto Lenzi)

#64: Rogue (Dir. Greg McLean)

 

I finally got to see Under the Skin, the Jonathan Glazer direct, Scarlett Johansson  starring, film from last year.  Which as a summation is basically about Scarjo cruising Scotland in a van picking up men to harvest for her Alien buddies.  But through this simple structure, themes of beauty, body horror, race, transgender, gender, sex-death, and celebrity build themselves through the fabric of the film.  Fwiw, I’m going to write about the film in totality here, so there will be spoilers–though I don’t personally believe this a movie that can be spoiled–it doesn’t really hinge upon any kind of surprises.  But some are very sensitive to that sort of thing.

One of the interesting things in reading about Under the Skin afterwards was that part of how they filmed it was really just putting Scarjo in this van with hidden cameras and just have her roll around Scotland picking up men.  That process in and of itself is really interesting, because the selections were kind of directed by men who were behind Scarlett, but she had sort of final say–and there’s an interesting element overall to the film in terms of how her character invites men into dangerous proximity to herself, and so even though her character largely sees these men as a kind of prey, the actor herself, has to be cognizant of who she is picking up, and herself as a potential victim.  Couple this with Scarlett’s celebrity–and there is the added tension, particularly in the scenes when she is outside of the van, that her celebrity will be uncovered, and then the situation will become unmanageable.  And there is definitely I think a way that you can parse this film as very much engaging the dis-humanism of fame.  And the isolation of becoming a pop-culture icon.  There is a compound threat in that existence, even as there is a kind of dissociation–because you know that love or hate–neither of those things are really based upon who you are, but upon who people think you are, and the extremity of their reactions to you are going to vacillate wildly based upon an artifice that you live inside of.

This separation of image and interior person is explicitly manifested in Under the Skin, because these Aliens wander around our world wearing our skins–but they are not per se our skins–and in fact they are their skins.  But I think that the disjunction between skin/outward appearance, and the interior identity I think fundamentally make one of the reads of Scarlett’s character to be that of a transgender story.  Fundamentally with Under the Skin you are talking about a film that is about the disjunction between one’s identity and their gender expression.  In this case, Johansson’s identity is that of an alien which may or may not identify it’s existence in terms of gender–but through the skin the alien lives under, the alien experiences life as a kind of heteronormative, cisgender, female bodied human.  And what’s more, you see the threat posed in the alien’s existence, were it to ever appear outside of that norm within cisgender society.  In fact, the moment that Johansson reveals herself as anything but a white cisgender female, she is instantly burned to death.  

This violent tightrope of identity politics extends itself further when we start talking about notions of beauty, and body that the film also directly engages.  One of the more famous and memorable scenes in the movie is when Johansson picks up a character played by Adam Pearson, who suffers from neurofibromatosis, and because of this has a non-normative body that forces him to go grocery shopping at night, with his face covered up by a hood and in general live a very isolated and solitary life.  But Johansson’s character because she is an alien, doesn’t see beauty in such strict terms, and instead sees Pearson as beautiful.  So much of our conceptions that a person like Pearson isn’t beautiful, are based upon the coded language of “freak” that has been beaten into our brains culturally as something shameful and to be avoided in our associations.  We are taught to see non-normative bodies as ugly, or disturbing.  But fundamentally, there is no difference between Pearson’s large lips, or Kim Kardashian’s booty.  Both are just extra-normal expressions of the human body, and beauty fundamentally is the extension of our parameters of about the possibilities of the normal.   Beauty is by it’s nature non-normative.  True beauty horrifies us and challenges our perceptions of time.  In this way, aesthetic ugliness and beauty are the same thing.  In fact, when we unpact ugliness as an idea, we see that largely it is the attachment of evil to external bodied factors.  The supposition that the crone is a threat to us because her wrinkled pock marked face must portend a core evilness that separates her from us.  We do the same thing with beauty, in that there is a supposed goodness behind beauty.  But the truth of the matter is that if what we are really talking about is goodness vs. evil–then the raised awareness of our post-information times should easily allows us to surmise that goodness and evilness do not in fact express themselves in the body, and that because of this what we have traditionally seen as “ugly” is not in fact ugly–but simply part of the spectrum of non-normative human features on which the things we also consider to be “beauty” also rest.

The beauty in the scene between Pearson and Johansson is that for the first time Pearson is allowed to be seen.  So much of his experience that he relates involves people looking away–but Johansson does not look away.  She examines every inch of his skin.  To her, he is as human and as interesting as any other human.  Perhaps more so because she decides that he has beautiful hands.

 

This theme of allowing oneself to be seen–or the theme of being seen, also applies to Johansson, who even though men look at her constantly–it is only through the lens of their desire, and they never really truly see her, or make her feel seen.  It isn’t until after dropping Pearson off at the skinning factory, that she sees herself in a mirror, and in that moment allows herself to be seen by herself in the same way she looked at Pearson.  Her subsequent exploration of her body, and skin is really transfiguring to watch.  She twists and turns her body in front of the mirror examining it’s folds and textures.  She tries to eat dessert.  She is fundamentally exploring what it means to live inside of this alien skin, and the way that this skin is a part of her in some way because it is the vessel through which she is transversing experience.  Rather than reject the skin she lives in, she goes on something of a journey to understand the skin, and herself, and to try and see herself outside of the way that human society forces her to.

Remember  she looks how she looks fundamentally because she knows it’s pleasing to the prey she wishes to attract.  Initially I think it is impossible for her to see herself outside of the objectification patriarchal culture imposes upon her, and her journey is her realization of a world outside of that gaze.  If the rules of herself in terms of men, no longer apply, then what to make of this body, it’s curves, marks, and hair?

 

The heartbreaking thing is that this journey is interrupted and obstructed by a man who tries to rape her.  Her loss of awareness of herself in terms of male gaze, only resulted in her becoming vulnerable to male rape culture.  This man actually rips her skin, and as her skin falls off of her, she is able to look back up at herself, and what is inside of herself–she is able at that moment to both see herself and herself inside herself–and whatever illumination she discovers in that moment is dashed by the rapist, now in the sci-fi role of male “kill it with fire” hero, as he throws gasoline on her and then lights her on fire.

 

As she stumbles on fire out into a clearing and disintegrates into a black cloud that dissipates into the snow dripped clouds above it brings up another theme of the film and that is humans and the world around them.  Under the Skin is shot after shot of humanoids made small against the backdrop of the swirling nature around them.  Whether it is rolling hills blotting out the horizon, huge crashing waves, snow, or fog–the landscapes which of course recall romantic landscape paintings of John Martin.  These are life-death plays through landscape that is beyond the scale of mortal perception, of which we are just ants on the tip of a finger.  And there is an implication that along with Johansson’s journey to understand her skin, there is a parallel journey where she comes to see her place in nature–she sees her body as a part of nature, not as a barrier creating it’s alienation.  This is interesting because there is a ton of art and witch burnings situated around the relationship between women and nature.  A recent prominent example which shares with Under the Skin the visual lineage of the woman fading into nature is Antichrist.  

 

This of course introduces a third vantage point on the ending, which ties into the other two–which is that Johansson isn’t being burned as an alien, she’s being burned as a witch.  Which is to say, the embodiment of the female threat which exists too close to nature for men’s comfort, and because of that may possess powers beyond men’s control, and therefore must be “killed with fire”.  The intermingling of Johansson’s form with nature, and the subsequent immolation she suffers because of that consciousness.  It’s interesting to think about this because it is ostensibly pairing up our fears of Aliens post-Xenomorph, with our history of witch burnings.  Of course in Alien, the xenomorph and it’s subsequent horror offshoots is terrifying to men because it introduces the threat of their own rape and impregnation.  Their fear of loss of control over the traditional gender tropes over which they have controlled the world for thousands of years.  And with witches, as I said, the fear is that by being more in accordance with nature, they might be tapped into a power beyond male understand, and again threaten patriarchal structure.  Under the Skin marries these two ideas as part of the same canon of literature and gives us an Alien-Witch.  Which is quite exciting, even if the end result is really just the heart breaking continued violence against women.

 

The last theme that really struck me with Under the Skin is that of black skin.  For the whole movie, you are really only talking about a world of white skin.  I don’t know what the racial demographics in Scotland are, but by shooting there and shooting who they shot–Under the Skin really doesn’t depict or show people of color at all.  Until the end, when the black skin of Johansson’s alien hits the air.  And almost immediately, a white dude rushes over to set it on fire.  Even though it’s not a major major theme of the film, I do think ONE of the themes of the film is the suppression of blackness, fear of blackness.  It’s not without noting that when dudes pass on to the skin losing spot at Johansson’s house, it is a room of infinite blackness which seems to devour their whiteness.  What is at play here is that ostensibly what you are looking at is a race of black aliens hunting down white people because they prize that white skin–because it makes it easier for them to operate within human, white dominated, culture.  Which is loaded as hell in a movie that again, has no actual black people in it.

I could go on for days even past all of this.  I haven’t even really intellectually explored this in terms of life-death, apocalypse, myth–so on and so forth.  Beyond all of these themes, the raw aesthetics of Under the Skin are more than enough for me.  As I talked about above, the huge John Martin-ish landscapes, the sharp contrasting color values, the floating folding skin bags, the red light at the end of the tunnel, the iris.  The film is an exercise in the sort of slow motion surreality of third wave music videos fed through a coherent 2 hour film world.  The iconic styling of Johansson as well with her mop of feathered black hair, red lipstick, the animal skin jacket she wears over her human skin, the tight acid wash high waisted jeans, and heeled boots.  To say nothing of the sort of very basic red sweater–there’s more to be said about the clothes under the clothes above the skin, and the role the clothes play as she is constantly removing them and then putting them back on.  It s a performance of dressing and undressing.  Undressing both while being watched, and not being watched.  Dressing alone.  Putting on makeup.  All of these things are part of their own theme.  

 

And then there is the music itself which is done by Mica Levi, and is this drone of sort of sex-death drums and metallic screeches.   It weirdly drug me into a huge William Basinski listening binge, I think just for the merits of looped dirge music.  It’s interesting because the music sort of lays across several different genres.  The alien-sci-fi space music, the sort of sexy strip club get low music, and then a kind of more pastoral overtone to blend it coherently together into the film’s greater aesthetic, which allows it to sort of slink in and out while never overpowering the film’s visuals.  It helps that the film’s visuals themselves are very musical, and rhythmic.  It’s a part of this modern kind of score you are seeing on the kind of outskirts of the major Hollywood pop music fueled film thing–in that these soundtracks are kind of about the fractured disconnect to the traditional movie score.  They’re all sort of broken, fragmentary, and post-apocalyptic in nature.  They’re also fragile and mumbled in nature.  None of the testicular bravado of a Morricone score.  And none of the sort of anthemic moments of like Liv Tyler’s navel and Aerosmith.  It’s weird to separate out Levi’s score, and have it at the bottom here, because in a film as spare as this in terms of sound and dialogue, it really is the best supporting actor to Johansson’s performance.

 

Johansson herself, I’ve always liked as an actor.  I think she has an ability on the screen to project an unrevealed knowledge.  You have to kind of lean forward a little bit whenever she speaks because it’s rarely above a low tone.  I also find her performances, even in blockbuster films, to have a certain sophistication that I think is rarely appreciated.  I think for instance her performance in Michael Bay’s The Island absolutely makes that one of my favorite Michael Bay films.  She editoralizes that whole film through these parodied expressions of the archetype of the dumb blonde side care in the hollywood picture.  It’s pretty hilarious and pointed stuff.  And though she does a lot with just her delivery, a lot of the power of her delivery comes from her body language, which is what makes her more of a serious actor than a comedian like say Aubrey Plaza–who I love and think is hilarious–but I think that Johansson in all of her films gives a total kind of performance that goes beyond just being able to deadpan lines like Daria.  Under the Skin is an extremely physical role, and much of what happens in the film isn’t said, so it relies on how Johansson looks at others, how she looks at herself, how she touches herself–and her core strength as an actor in terms of holding untold knowledge–is a huge strength in a film like this, because the knowledge her character holds is literally unknowable and un-understandable for us.  And what’s more, her character is performing a lot of the time for her victims–so she is performing a performance for us as well, and I thought she did perfectly for this role.