Many people just interpret the meaning of the picture, but do not think deeply. Which human being does not rely on the flesh and blood (animals and plants) of others to live? Which one is not alive with all kinds of skins (except those who live alone in the mountains and make others think they are crazy)? In the end, how can people who have lost their skins resist being violated by others (consciously or not). What about the skin, or the person playing the role begins to have his own ideas, just like a person has played another role for a long time, even if he is not such a person, he will naturally blend in. This role refers either to an employee, or to a boss, or to a tenant, or to a landlord, or to a relative, or to a lover. The behavior of the skin is naturally for the boss (survival? Life?) When the skin is finally taken off, why aren't the others who died of injury? But just this skin and the truth beneath it? Or just hang up the role of one self, there are many other roles after all, and in this way, it will inevitably destroy the purest (not necessarily good) self at the beginning.
Maybe it's a movie that accuses reality, or maybe it's a movie that is whimsical but poorly expressed, I can't tell the difference, after all, niche movies, rhythm and pictures are not what most people like.
View more about Under the Skin reviews
