As some of you may be aware, Scarlett Johansson was recently in my part of the world, sunny Scotland, filming scenes for her new movie, ‘Under the Skin.’ The movie is an adaptation of the Michel Faber novel of the same name, one which I just happen to really love. Faber also wrote ‘The Crimson Petal and The White‘ which recently had a fantastic adaptation on BBC One. It’s not unusual for fans of books that are being made into movies to be less than thrilled with the inevitable changes made to their beloved story. But in this case, I’m particularly unimpressed because all of the information about the movie I’ve read gives away a major plot point which was hinted at and slowly revealed in the novel’s first act.
‘Under the Skin’ is, for all intents and purposes, a thriller, yet it’s less than conventional plot development means that it is often classed as sci-fi. The central character, the one Johansson will be playing, is Isserley (although she appears to be renamed Laura in the movie), who is at first glance very sexually attractive, but at the same time is noticeably odd-looking. We are introduced to her as she drives around the Scottish highlands, abducting male hitchhikers for what first appear to be sexual reasons, and which could easily be the starting point for any number of gruesome crime fiction these days. However, the bulk of the novel’s creepy and unsettling effect comes from the way it allows the reader to come to a gradual, horrific realisation, which is all the more potent for not being deliberately spelled out until much later on. If you’ve read anything about the movie, you’ll no doubt be aware of what I’m referring to, but if not, you should most definitely take the time to read the novel before seeing the film. Once you’ve read the book, you know what to expect, so the absence of this shocking reveal won’t be noticed. However, reading a book and knowing exactly what to expect ruins the careful effect the author has painstakingly created through countless rewrites, particularly Faber’s use of misdirection in the opening chapters, and I think it’s just polite to approach a book as it was meant to be enjoyed.
Not only does any discussion of this movie ruin the source material’s power, and the joy of being genuinely surprised by the twists of a plot, but the casting choice seems a little short-sighted. Simply put, Johansson is too beautiful to play Isserley (or Laura) who, for very good reason, is an approximation of female sexuality juxtaposed with incongruous images like her ‘knobbly elbows’ and hands that look like ‘chicken feet.’ One of her hitchhikers describes her as ‘half Baywatch babe, half little old lady.’ Without some kind of computer wizardry, the photos from the set don’t look as though this will be the case with the movie version of Isserley, and more’s the pity. Set within a morally complex tale that poses big questions about humanity and heart-breaking ones about mercy, Isserley’s initial introduction is crucially important. And her strange, yet alluring appearance is part of that. In fact, one of the story’s key themes is the very personal issue of sexual identity and how appearance effects that – the title alone makes that much obvious. So perhaps my qualms aren’t simply nit-picking but genuine concerns.
Despite my misgivings, I genuinely hope that this film is well realised, and does the story justice. ‘Under the Skin’ is bleak and chilling, but also achingly poignant, and without all the moral issues contained within, it would simply be yet more bland genre fare. Just like one of Johansson’s previous movies, ‘The Island’, it would be too easy for this ambitious yet subtly told story to get swallowed up in banal theatrics if handled badly. Only time will tell if the movie does the book justice, but in the meantime, why not resist the urge to read anything about the movie and read the book first. Honestly, you’ll be glad you did.
