Glazer. Jonathan Glazer directed some of the absolute best music videos of the 1990’s including Karma Police for Radiohead and Virtual Insanity for Jamiroquai. He made his debut feature in 2000 (Sexy Beast)- certainly a fertile time for burgeoning auteurs. I think Ben Kinglsey’s flashy, spectacular performance largely stole though show though and Birth had mixed reviews in 2004 (took me years after to discover it). Then there were nine years between Birth and Under the Skin in 2013 and that is finally when the narrative shifted on Glazer. Looking back now, despite the infrequent output, Glazer is recognized as one of the most compelling auteurs to debut in the 21st century. I do, however, find myself somewhat angry with him and how long we have to wait for his next film- haha. I guess that’s a sign we have a great auteur on our hands if we’re complaining about the lack of output. For the purposes of this list, the one top 100 film of its respective decade is a bit misleading, both Sexy Beast and Birth would be fine alternatives to the last few slots on the top 100 of the 2000’s list.
Best film: Under the Skin. Equal parts hypnotic and perplexing. Like Birth, it is almost a silent (score + visuals) film. It seems clear now that Glazer will never equal Kubrick—but this modern sci-fi film has already been canonized and Cronenberg and Roeg (this is absolutely the spiritual successor to The Man Who Fell to Earth) are within reach. You cannot not mention Mica Levi’s score either.
Under the Skin – equal parts hypnotic and perplexing
total archiveable films: 3
top 100 films: 0
top 500 films: 0
top 100 films of the decade: 1 (Under the Skin)
most overrated: It is tempting to put Under the Skin– it currently sits as the #1 film from 2013– and I don’t have it there. But I had it at #32 of the 2010’s the last time I updated my list– still feels like splitting hairs to call it overrated.
most underrated : Birth. It had mixed reviews when it came out—but after Under the Skin in 2013 I thought everyone would have gone back and revisited and reassessed this one and recognized it as the incredible film that it is. Apparently not—at least yet—it currently sits at #42 for the year 2004 on the TSPDT consensus list for the 21st century.
The meticulous nature of his work, the preference (and skill) for visual storytelling, and the long gestation periods between films have to make you think of Kubrick
gem I want to spotlight : Sexy Beast. The first time I saw it I only saw Kingsley’s (albeit masterful) performance. Closer inspection prove that Glazer’s calculated visual universes didn’t start with Birth or Under the Skin.
The first time I saw it I only saw Kingsley’s (albeit masterful) performance
stylistic innovations/traits:
- The meticulous nature of his work, the preference (and skill) for visual storytelling, and the long gestation periods between films have to make you think of Kubrick
Glazer is recognized as one of the most compelling auteurs to debut in the 21st century
- A cold otherness to his world—an opaque alien nature to his films (even the two not directly about an alien).
- Not surprised to see both 2001 and Persona listed as Glazer’s favorite films
- Short films –In 20 years- from his debut in 2000 to 2020 we have just under 5 hours of running time between the 3 films
- gorgeous dissolve edits in Under the Skin
top 10
- Under the Skin
- Birth
- Sexy Beast
By year and grades
| 2000- Sexy Beast | HR |
| 2004- Birth | HR |
| 2013- Under the Skin | MS |
*MP is Masterpiece- top 1-3 quality of the year film
MS is Must-see- top 5-6 quality of the year film
HR is Highly Recommend- top 10 quality of the year film
R is Recommend- outside the top 10 of the year quality film but still in the archives
Here are my notes from my first and only viewing of The Zone of Interest back in Januar:
“When I think of truly inventive films, it’s almost always films that are doing something different visually. But cinema is an audiovisual medium, or at least has been for awhile, and it’s not often that I come across a film that is truly inventive in the audio half of that term. The Zone of Interest marks one of the highest concept uses of sound I’ve ever seen in a film
The film starts with a blank black image, devoid of sound. Glazer is hyperfocusing us on the silence, formally upfront stating the thesis of this film to the viewer: listen. From here on out, Glazer, through the entire film makes a big-narrative choice to literally never show us the horror happening over the wall. We only hear it. At most we see black smoke being emitted from the chimneys (and it adds a painterly layer to some of the wide shots in the film)
The most genius moment in the film is the montage of Hoss’ garden. Glazer really cranks up the intensity of the aural horror as the camera goes into this visually beautiful montage of closeups of all of Hoss’ flowers and plants. It ends on a bright colored rose, which bleeds out into another blank screen (this time a red screen) to accentuate the horror playing out in the sound, before Glazer abruptly cuts out all of the sound once again, letting us sit in silence after that horrifying montage, abrasively contrasting the intense audio horror from the silence
Drake viewed the fade to red as a formal flaw. I don’t. Structurally, this moment is basically dead central in the film. If there were to be an anomalous feature in the form, it would be fitting that it chops the film in half (there does seem to be some sort of reset after this fade to red and silent-break, serving as some sort of brief interlude perhaps), but I don’t think it’s even anomalous because the film both starts and ends with a blank image accompanied by no sound. And while it fades to red and not black, well it fades into it from a red flower, and red signifies bloodshed and violence, which is what the blank fade into red was intentionally supposed to be accentuating
Drake also viewed the infrared thread as a flaw that subtracts from the greater whole, once again, I don’t. In a film that is exploring humanity at such a core level, it’s fascinating to strip down the outer shell of humans and showcase them on a more bare level through infrared. It’s also a choice from Glazer to only use infrared when showing the polish girl hiding food for the prisoners. The only moral character in the film has her outermost shell that conceals who she really is stripped away, and we see just her pure energy radiating. Another argument in favor of the genius of the infrared thread, is that these threads are consistently overlayed with Hoss’ nighttime story to his kids about Hansel and Gretel, which is very intentional. In the story, a white swan is described as rescuing those in need. We get this voice over of the story while the polish girl, who’s skin is in a radiating white infrared, is delivering fresh fruits to the Jewish prisoners
There is ‘throwing the witch in the oven’ in the text from the Hansel and Gretel tale as well. A very meta moment in the text. The story is formally tying into the surrounding story in more ways than one
While there has been some contentions to more of the bigger formal ideas in the film, in a compositional sense, the formal rigor from Glazer is as dogmatically rigid and disciplined as the Nazis themselves. The constant distance between the characters and the camera, the total lack of closeups, the consistent framing devices (doorways in the interior of the house and the plants in the garden) used, the constant symmetry and planimetric tracking shots, and the deep focus photography with loaded mis-en-scene (in the exteriors) create a ruthlessly cold, impersonal and oppressive environment.
There is a smaller moment of brilliance with the husband and wife in their bed having a conversation about a restaurant in Italy and goofily making pig impressions. It’s brilliant because of the character building and humanization at play, but it’s also brilliant because of the shot-reverse-shot bed-frame framing
Now, the ending. Hoss tells his wife through the phone that he was thinking about gassing everyone at the nazi party, which shows his discontent with the movement by the end of it all, he is then showed extremely somberly walking through the empty dark corridors, feeling extremely nauseous, we then cut to the same room in the modern day as janitors are cleaning up the once great nazi corridor, we then cut back to Hoss again who has what felt like a 4th wall breaking moment as he glances into the camera, now aware of the downward spiral that’s going to ensue to the nazis, before turning around, with almost a John Wayne type of defeated posture from the ending of The Searchers as he continues back down into the shadows of the corridors, to probably continue his downward spiral into evilness. Intercutting his lonely walk through the corridor, with the leap into the future, visually tells us what’s going through his mind, the premonitions he’s having about his future legacy. This is at lest the impression that I got, and I could certainly be misinterpreting it, but that’s what it felt like to me. It’s extremely bold, but I like it
I think it’s a triumphant film and one of the most formally avante garde films to come out this century, with its big swings landing in big ways. I think it’s a masterpiece”
Some similarities with another modern British auteur with Steve McQeen who also takes his time with his output but so far never misses. McQueen has Blitz at some point this year, very excited. This would be his 5th film in a 16 year career as far as feature films go. Glazer’s output is even slower with 4 films in 23 years career as far as feature films
Question for anyone:
Between Glazer and McQueen, which was the better potential for a top 100 all time film?
A couple of weeks ago I had never seen a Jonathan Glazer film
Under the Skin – MS/MP (1 viewing)
Zone of Interest – MS (2 viewings)
Sexy Beast – HR (1 viewing)
I still need to watch Birth, it is on Criterion so I’ll check it out soon
I am really impressed by his work
Under the Skin might be a MP
Has anyone else seen The Zone of Interest yet? I saw it and was pleased as a whole with Glazer’s art installation of camera framing and angles – the distancing from his previous films is still wholly present and a defining characteristic of this one – and I thought he mostly succeeded in exposing the psychologies and insecurities of the Nazi commandants; their lack of self-confidence resulting from their inability to turn away from their actions. But as a whole, on one viewing I have to turn the other cheeks to most critics and say it felt really truncated; I remember checking my phone at what felt structurally like maybe halfway through the film to find I was some 85 minutes into the 105-minute runtime and when we got to the actual ending it just came across as surprisingly unfinished given the fact that Glazer had been prepping this for the last 10 years. He had already done something exactly like that with Under the Skin, and comparatively that film feels very much complete.
One way I will throw myself in the film’s favor however is the acting. A lot of people have made the claim that the camera distance prevents the actors from being able to fully inhabit Nazism as another directing style would allow, but I don’t believe that to be the case here and there’s already proof from the superb performances of Glazer’s past work that that isn’t automatically the case with him. During the runtime, Friedel’s and Hüller’s characters do repeatedly come across as having feelings and thoughts of their own instead of being painted over with the broad “they’re evil Nazis” brush mainstream Hollywood films use so often. And for the record, their evil is enhanced greatly, not undercut by this characterization, the fact that through their performances they feel like real humans instead of being blank caricatures.
It’s not a bad film, don’t get me wrong, I certainly think it’s at least one of the stronger ones to have come out last year but I do think it undershoots the hype a little after one viewing.
I definitely agree on the strengths of Zone, I thought it was exceedingly successful on the whole and had immense dedication to its look and feel. Between Hueller’s performance and the exacting attention to detail, I was totally immersed.
I didn’t really feel a structural issue with the movie, if anything it felt tighter and more intentionally structured than Under The Skin to me. I felt pretty satisfied and also was happy it ended with something involving Friedel going into some form of dark place given the frequent recurrence of him turning off lights. I wasn’t entirely sure I grasped the significance of every moment (the big fade to red and the two infrared segments) but overall I admired the intentionality.
There have been a few 2023 movies where my thoughts were a little bit distanced from the general consensus view, but this fortunately wasn’t one of them.
The score for Under the Skin deserves about 5 more mentions on this page… maybe 50.