JD, you talk about how “critics” will celebrate this while taking shots at mainstream film but you have to take into account that they are not, and should not, be judged by the same rubric. I think an important distinction you have to make is in what I would call art versus product. Something like Captain America 2 is a product. It is literally designed to fulfill certain psychological needs for its audience. Action, action, comedy beat, conflict resolution, action, action, blatant sociopolitical subtext, action, action dangling mystery. Every once in a while that product will overlap with art (as I would say it largely did with Nolan’s Batman series), but 99% of the time, that’s not the case. What Glazer is doing here is decidedly more niche and, yes, artistic.

I don’t know about you but I’m a big fan of modern art. I would much rather see some strange painting of bright red streaks over 1940s newspaper or something that I can’t quite put my finger on than a Victorian-era portrait of some snooty old lady or even a painting of some realist farmscape. For me, art is something that lends itself to challenging its audience. That particular brand of realism doesn’t challenge me as an audience member.

So am I thinking of Glazer’s Under the Skin as more of an art installation than a product? Absolutely. But, like Enemy, it leaves me with something to think about, process, dissect, and actually try to wrap my brain around rather than just watching robots punch each other for two hours. But to each their own.