Witnessing a major Hollywood celebrity like Scarlett Johansson casually strolling past a Primark store creates a sense of equality. Despite being a two-time Esquire’s “Sexiest Woman Alive”, a three-time muse for Woody Allen, and a Bafta winner, she manages to blend into the crowd while filming her latest movie in stonewashed jeans and a faux fur coat on the bustling streets of Glasgow. Even though she exudes an air of normality and simplicity when stripped of her Hollywood glamour and removed from her lavish Bel Air lifestyle, Scarlett Johansson remains unique. This distinctiveness is not only due to her role as an alien in the low-budget sci-fi film “Under the Skin”, but also because she is, well, Scarlett Johansson. As we see her haunting the outskirts of Glasgow, searching for unsuspecting prey, there is a surreal collision of different worlds. Scenes feature Scarlett Johansson riding a bus, asking for directions to Asda, and sitting in a modest council house by an electric heater watching Tommy Cooper on television.
Transplanting a well-known Hollywood star into a working-class neighborhood in Scotland is like witnessing an extraterrestrial being in our midst. While celebrities may not be a superior race, the contrast of seeing someone famous from glamorous red-carpet events blending in with the everyday folks on a regular street is quite surreal. During my encounter with her, Scarlett Johansson, 29, was the epitome of Hollywood glamour. Dressed in stylish attire and towering heels, her flawless appearance was complemented by meticulously done makeup and hair. Surrounded by a team of assistants and PR personnel, she exuded an aura of anything but ordinary. Having witnessed her enthusiastic praise for director Jonathan Glazer during a recent press conference, it was clear that Johansson found the film to be thought-provoking and engaging, unlike the typical shallow questions she often encounters. Despite the minimal dialogue in the movie, her character’s enigmatic nature as an emotionless alien must have intrigued her, especially considering the challenging filming conditions in Scotland. It is evident that Johansson was drawn to the project for reasons beyond just the script, as the film’s unique storyline and unconventional approach must have appealed to her artistic sensibilities. The controversial scenes involving her character have sparked intense discussions among her devoted fans.
So, why did she choose to take on this particular script out of all the ones she receives? Well, she had heard that Jonathan was working on a film that originally had a very different storyline. When she met him, it was clear that he was struggling to understand what drew him to the project. It wasn’t his passion project, but there was something about the idea of playing a character who was an alien that intrigued both of them. The thought of portraying a character free from judgment, entirely observant, was a challenge she found fascinating. At this point in her career, she finds it more captivating to take on roles that she knows she can play but isn’t sure how. She enjoys the uncertainty and the opportunity to explore new depths in her performances rather than simply tackling roles she knows she can easily do. Over the years, she worked closely with Glazer, a renowned director known for his work on iconic ads and films like “Sexy Beast” and “Birth.” She became deeply involved in the project, even as the story and script evolved. Interestingly, the dialogue she delivers in an English accent was mostly improvised, adding to the unique and challenging experience of bringing her character to life on screen.
It was definitely a bold move, that’s for sure. Unlike blockbuster movies like Captain America, where the lead actress wore a catsuit and made millions, Glazer isn’t exactly a household name. The critics’ opinions are all over the place. Some say the film is a “strange and sublime marvel,” while others call it a “laughably bad alien hitchhiker movie.” At the Venice film festival premiere, there was a mix of cheers and boos that left the actress feeling exposed and a bit shocked. When asked about the experience, she described it as very strange. It was her first time watching the film with an audience and seeing the finished product. The mixed reaction left her unsure of how to feel. While she was taken aback, the director was overjoyed by the response. The conflicting reactions left her feeling bewildered, but the director saw it as the best thing ever. It’s safe to say that the reviews for the film are incredibly polarized.
I prefer not to have any middle ground in my opinions. I would rather risk failure than be lukewarm about something. I vividly remember watching “Eyes Wide Shut” multiple times in the theater. The first time, I despised it so much that I had to see it again to understand why. Eventually, I ended up loving it because of the strong emotional reaction it evoked. Even if a film elicits strong negative feelings, there is still value in the passion behind it. One fascinating aspect of “Under the Skin” is that many individuals in the film are not professional actors. They are everyday people who were approached on the street and asked to be a part of the movie. This unconventional casting approach added a unique authenticity to the film. When Scarlett Johansson was informed that there were no other actors in the film and that they would be relying on real people found on the streets, she was initially uncertain about how it would all come together. They considered various options like prosthetics and makeup to alter her appearance, but ultimately realized that it was unnecessary. The film can be interpreted as a metaphor for the relationship between celebrities and non-celebrities, reflecting the power dynamics and parasitic nature of fame. Johansson’s character feeds off unsuspecting individuals, mirroring the Hollywood star system. However, the film also explores the vulnerability and isolation that celebrities experience in their interactions with the public. By the end, the roles of predator and prey are reversed, challenging viewers to reconsider their perceptions.
Glazer seems to make a deliberate point in his film casting choices. He initially wanted an unknown actor but decided to go for a Hollywood star in disguise instead, dropping them into real-world settings for an added alien-like effect. It’s interesting to see Scarlett Johansson in a role like this, far from her usual commercial films. However, it’s a shame that her strategic departure from mainstream roles led her to play a character that, despite her alien traits, feels somewhat familiar due to her previous roles. In contrast, Johansson’s role in “Her”, a recent Spike Jonze film, offers a much more nuanced performance despite her lack of physical presence on screen. Critics have praised her for creating a complex and fully realized character purely through her voice. This proves that Johansson is a talented actress, capable of much more than just being a siren that men find irresistible. Johansson’s breakout role in “Lost in Translation” showcased her ability to embody a similar character – the young, alluring woman who forms a connection with an older man. She has continued to portray such roles in films like “Girl With a Pearl Earring” and various Woody Allen movies. Allen himself has spoken highly of Johansson’s talent, emphasizing her overwhelming presence and acting abilities. In return, Johansson has expressed her admiration for Allen, showing willingness to support him in any way she can.
In the recent past, Dylan Farrow, who is estranged from Woody Allen, wrote an open letter accusing him of abusing her and criticized the film industry for staying silent on the issue. In the letter, she also called out actors who have collaborated with Allen, including Scarlett Johansson. When asked about being mentioned in the letter, Johansson expressed discomfort and stated that it was irresponsible to involve actors who may not have all the facts. Regarding the backlash against Allen, Johansson claimed to be unaware of it and emphasized that he has not been prosecuted or found guilty of any crimes. She also mentioned that she is not in a position to make any assumptions about their relationship or her feelings towards him based on the allegations.
She appears flustered, and as the publicist gives me the signal to move on, I broach an even more challenging topic: SodaStream. When I search for “Scarlett Johansson” on Google, the fizzy drink company pops up as the third predictive search suggestion, following “Scarlett Johansson Hot” and trumping “Scarlett Johansson bum.” A recent media storm engulfed Johansson when it was revealed that Oxfam had written to her about her decision to become a brand ambassador for SodaStream. The company, it turned out, operates a factory in a settlement on the West Bank, a fact that did not sit well with Oxfam due to its impact on Palestinian communities. Johansson responded by resigning from her Oxfam role. This move led many to speculate that she had received poor advice and had not done sufficient research before accepting the role, inadvertently embroiling herself in a complex geopolitical conflict. Yet, Johansson stands by her decision. She asserts that she was aware of the factory’s location before signing on and believes that shutting it down would only harm the workers employed there. When confronted with the argument that the settlements are considered illegal by the international community, Johansson maintains that this issue is open to debate. She acknowledges that this controversy has catapulted her into a much larger conversation, one that lacks a clear right or wrong perspective.
However, despite varying opinions on the settlements in the West Bank, there seems to be a general consensus on the issue. The UN Security Council, the UN General Assembly, the International Committee of the Red Cross, and the International Court of Justice all agree that the settlements are in violation of international law. It is commendable that Johansson stands by her beliefs, especially considering her personal connection to the Jewish community. Yet, some may see her stance as naive or influenced by poor advice. Placing oneself in the midst of such a complex conflict is fraught with challenges. The controversy surrounding Johansson’s involvement with both Oxfam, a poverty-alleviating charity, and a commercial product raises questions about ethics and conflicting interests. Some view her decision as a trade-off between charity and financial gain. Johansson, on the other hand, sees it as problematic for a non-governmental organization like Oxfam to support political causes. She points to Oxfam’s alleged past involvement with the BDS movement, a claim denied by the organization when contacted. Before the interview concludes abruptly, the topic of “Under the Skin” is left unresolved. The interaction serves as a metaphor for the complex dynamics between celebrities and the public, highlighting the power dynamics at play. As the interview ends, a figure in a mask, reminiscent of the film, escorts the interviewer out, emphasizing the disconnect between celebrities and ordinary individuals.
