For abstract art, it is futile to use words to discuss its quality. If the paleness of language can explain the origin of beauty, then all the painters should have lost their jobs. It is precisely because "beauty" cannot be quantified and cannot be discussed, and different people have different opinions, and each has its own eyes. Therefore, since such a film labeled "visual pioneer", people who like it have a reason to point 10,000 likes, and those who don't like it. People also have the right to score low.
For me, those seductive scenes with weird music are novel, but they haven't had an impact on me. The pictures of the towering phalluses and the ketone body of Scarlett's plump breasts have abstract forms but no abstract beauty. This is my most intuitive feeling. You can despise my taste, but you can't criticize my confession.
Of course, this is just a family statement, after all, there is no specific standard for art. But if one cannot accept the "beauty" created by this form-just like me, then this movie has no selling point except for the naked Scarlett. The lengthy narrative and the pale plot make people feel dull. But the director never wanted to make a "Indiana Jones" or "Alien", he was just creating what he wanted to create, he was just expressing what he wanted to express. Therefore, if you can't appreciate it, let's take a look at the naked goddess and walk away quietly.
View more about Under the Skin reviews
