Jonathan Glazer

[DarkImbecile]

Jonathan Glazer (1965 - )



"The first thing you’re trying to do is create a world, and the aesthetic is a component in how you do that, but I don’t think aesthetics should lead anything.... The aesthetics have to flower to form the essence of what you’re trying to do."

Filmography

Features
Sexy Beast (2000)
Birth (2004)
Under the Skin (2013)
The Zone of Interest (2020)

Shorts
"The Fall" (2019)
“Strasbourg 1518” (2020)

Music Videos
Blur — "The Universal" (1995)
Massive Attack — "Karmacoma" (1995)
Jamiroquai — "Virtual Insanity" (1996)
Radiohead — "Street Spirit (Fade Out)" (1996)
Jamiroquai — "Cosmic Girl" (1997)
Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds — "Into My Arms" (1997)
Radiohead — "Karma Police" (1997)
UNKLE ft. Thom Yorke — "Rabbit in Your Headlights" (1998)
Richard Ashcroft — "A Song for the Lovers (2000)
Massive Attack — "Live With Me" (2006)
The Dead Weather — "Treat Me Like Your Mother" (2009)

Web Resources
2001 interview with Anthony Kaufman, Indiewire
2004 video interview with Nicole Kidman and Charlie Rose, Charlie Rose
2004 interview with Dave Calhoun, The Guardian
2014 interview with Calum Marsh, Hazlitt
2014 interview with Hank Sartin, RogerEbert.com
2014 interview with Jonathan Romney, The Guardian
2014 interview with Larry Fitzmaurice and Mica Levi, Pitchfork
2014 interview with R. Kurt Osenlund, Slant
2014 interview with Scott Tobias, The Dissolve

Forum Discussion
Sexy Beast (Jonathan Glazer, 2000)
Birth (Jonathan Glazer, 2004)
Under the Skin (Jonathan Glazer, 2014)
The Zone of Interest (Jonathan Glazer, 2020)

[TMDaines]

A Jonathan Glazer short 'The Fall' popped up at 10pm tonight after Simon Reeve (BBC2) - it wasn't in the schedules. I didn't know it before, but by jeez, it was unsettling.

Heard about this and will watch later. Might lose some of the magic not bumping into it unexpectedly though.

[domino harvey]

I found this completely pointless. Touches of "Isn't this so weird, man?" and some sound design interplay that have been done better in service of actual movies, and that's about it. No arc, no sketch, not even a complete idea. Why masks? (preemptive: "Why all the pearls? Why all the hair? Why anything?")

[jazzo]

Just curious how anyone outside of Britain has seen this. I haven't been able to find a pathway, legally or illegally, so far.

[jazzo]

Never mind. I just found one.

[mfunk9786]

You're something else, DI. Nice lead post, assembled in what feels like zero time whatsoever.

I should use this opportunity to ask: I've never seen Sexy Beast. Should I? I would consider Birth on the level of a masterpiece, and Under the Skin something that I don't particularly enjoy watching but think about a great deal as a cultural touchstone and likely a film that's much better than I give it credit for that I just don't vibe with. If that context helps.

[colinr0380]

I would also add to the list the Channel 4 idents that were made by Glazer in 2015.

You can really see the Kubrick influence early on in the music videos, with The Universal riffing on A Clockwork Orange. And I would argue that A Song For The Lovers is a satire on the hotel room ending of 2001: A Space Odyssey with its mundane reasons for food 'magically' appearing and the character wandering into the bathroom!

Karmacoma is the Barton Fink riff, it seems (with maybe a nod to The Shining)

[knives]

You're something else, DI. Nice lead post, assembled in what feels like zero time whatsoever.

I should use this opportunity to ask: I've never seen Sexy Beast. Should I? I would consider Birth on the level of a masterpiece, and Under the Skin something that I don't particularly enjoy watching but think about a great deal as a cultural touchstone and likely a film that's much better than I give it credit for that I just don't vibe with. If that context helps.

It's a fairly generic British crime film. Maybe a bit more small scale then most, but essentially you know what you're getting going in. The main reason to see it is Kingsley's performance. If you're willing to watch a movie just for a performance that's probably good enough reason to.

[Slaphappy]

Sexy Beast is excellent and within it’s genre definitely a Glazer movie with some very nice etheral, threatening and dissociated moods.

[therewillbeblus]

You're something else, DI. Nice lead post, assembled in what feels like zero time whatsoever.

I should use this opportunity to ask: I've never seen Sexy Beast. Should I? I would consider Birth on the level of a masterpiece, and Under the Skin something that I don't particularly enjoy watching but think about a great deal as a cultural touchstone and likely a film that's much better than I give it credit for that I just don't vibe with. If that context helps.

It's a fairly generic British crime film. Maybe a bit more small scale then most, but essentially you know what you're getting going in. The main reason to see it is Kingsley's performance. If you're willing to watch a movie just for a performance that's probably good enough reason to.

Kingsley’s performance is definitely the big draw but I’d say the tension that brews across the first half as characters cower in fear and wait for his sociopathic menace to explode is just as enticing as the performance itself. The last act isn’t particularly engrossing, nor is the broader caper plot in general, but the smaller interactions between characters all bestow a genuineness of emotion that breaks down the stereotype of the tough criminal. The exhibition of ‘dangerous’ men failing to fulfill their machismo talk when forced into the actual confrontations is not something new, but Glazer takes his time to elicit tension that makes it clear the rest of the plot is secondary to this interest and bests most crime entries in this dynamic. This is mostly an exercise in getting his feet wet in a full feature, and is a pretty straightforward demonstration of mixing style into a formulaic plot, albeit with more patience than expected from a first-timer. There’s some bizarre dream imagery that may not amount to much but still keeps this from becoming as stuck to the generic as its small-caper package appears when taken as sum of its parts (though the initially exciting surreal inclusion of the bolder incident at the start revealing itself to be the most obvious of metaphors certainly won’t surprise anyone that this is a debut feature). Fair warning, once you hear the opening Strangers track, it’s there to stay.

[Mr. Deltoid]

You're something else, DI. Nice lead post, assembled in what feels like zero time whatsoever.

I should use this opportunity to ask: I've never seen Sexy Beast. Should I? I would consider Birth on the level of a masterpiece, and Under the Skin something that I don't particularly enjoy watching but think about a great deal as a cultural touchstone and likely a film that's much better than I give it credit for that I just don't vibe with. If that context helps.

It's a fairly generic British crime film. Maybe a bit more small scale then most, but essentially you know what you're getting going in. The main reason to see it is Kingsley's performance. If you're willing to watch a movie just for a performance that's probably good enough reason to.

I find Sexy Beast to be far from a 'generic British crime film'! Yes, the plot of a 'retired' gangster, recruited for 'one last job' is fairly old-hat, but I think the film manages to fashion those tropes into something electrifying. For what it's worth, Glazer's direction here is more kinetic and 'pop-art' than his later, more austere style (the film's aesthetic look was influenced by David Hockney), but the real reason to watch it is the script by Louis Mellis and Davis Scinto, which is just a profane joy. The torrent of vulgar, often hilariously surreal dialogue ("Fucking Dr. White honkin', jam-rag fuckin' spunk-bubble!"), occasionally rises to sublime, Pinter-esque verbal-volleys, expertly delivered by both Kingsley and a never-better Winstone. Even just hearing the word 'perturbed' these days amuses me no end! Great support as well from Ian McShane, Amanda Redman and James Fox!

[knives]

You're something else, DI. Nice lead post, assembled in what feels like zero time whatsoever.

I should use this opportunity to ask: I've never seen Sexy Beast. Should I? I would consider Birth on the level of a masterpiece, and Under the Skin something that I don't particularly enjoy watching but think about a great deal as a cultural touchstone and likely a film that's much better than I give it credit for that I just don't vibe with. If that context helps.

It's a fairly generic British crime film. Maybe a bit more small scale then most, but essentially you know what you're getting going in. The main reason to see it is Kingsley's performance. If you're willing to watch a movie just for a performance that's probably good enough reason to.

Kingsley’s performance is definitely the big draw but I’d say the tension that brews across the first half as characters cower in fear and wait for his sociopathic menace to explode is just as enticing as the performance itself. The last act isn’t particularly engrossing, nor is the broader caper plot in general, but the smaller interactions between characters all bestow a genuineness of emotion that breaks down the stereotype of the tough criminal. The exhibition of ‘dangerous’ men failing to fulfill their machismo talk when forced into the actual confrontations is not something new, but Glazer takes his time to elicit tension that makes it clear the rest of the plot is secondary to this interest and bests most crime entries in this dynamic. This is mostly an exercise in getting his feet wet in a full feature, and is a pretty straightforward demonstration of mixing style into a formulaic plot, albeit with more patience than expected from a first-timer. There’s some bizarre dream imagery that may not amount to much but still keeps this from becoming as stuck to the generic as its small-caper package appears when taken as sum of its parts (though the initially exciting surreal inclusion of the bolder incident at the start revealing itself to be the most obvious of metaphors certainly won’t surprise anyone that this is a debut feature). Fair warning, once you hear the opening Strangers track, it’s there to stay.

I'd agree with this, but say the tension is able to brew as it does because everything is working in reaction to Kingsley. It's almost like a reversal to how The Third Man made Welles its star. Your comments also remind me of a comment I saw with regards to yakuza films wherein Americans are so inundated with satires on the norms of the genre that they become the norm we expect as if the straight yakuza films never existed. Likewise this take down on machismo while probably refreshing next to Ritchie's comedic straight takes is definitely in the norm of the most iconic Caine and Hoskins pictures.

[therewillbeblus]

It's a fairly generic British crime film. Maybe a bit more small scale then most, but essentially you know what you're getting going in. The main reason to see it is Kingsley's performance. If you're willing to watch a movie just for a performance that's probably good enough reason to.

Kingsley’s performance is definitely the big draw but I’d say the tension that brews across the first half as characters cower in fear and wait for his sociopathic menace to explode is just as enticing as the performance itself. The last act isn’t particularly engrossing, nor is the broader caper plot in general, but the smaller interactions between characters all bestow a genuineness of emotion that breaks down the stereotype of the tough criminal. The exhibition of ‘dangerous’ men failing to fulfill their machismo talk when forced into the actual confrontations is not something new, but Glazer takes his time to elicit tension that makes it clear the rest of the plot is secondary to this interest and bests most crime entries in this dynamic. This is mostly an exercise in getting his feet wet in a full feature, and is a pretty straightforward demonstration of mixing style into a formulaic plot, albeit with more patience than expected from a first-timer. There’s some bizarre dream imagery that may not amount to much but still keeps this from becoming as stuck to the generic as its small-caper package appears when taken as sum of its parts (though the initially exciting surreal inclusion of the bolder incident at the start revealing itself to be the most obvious of metaphors certainly won’t surprise anyone that this is a debut feature). Fair warning, once you hear the opening Strangers track, it’s there to stay.

I'd agree with this, but say the tension is able to brew as it does because everything is working in reaction to Kingsley. It's almost like a reversal to how The Third Man made Welles its star. Your comments also remind me of a comment I saw with regards to yakuza films wherein Americans are so inundated with satires on the norms of the genre that they become the norm we expect as if the straight yakuza films never existed. Likewise this take down on machismo while probably refreshing next to Ritchie's comedic straight takes is definitely in the norm of the most iconic Caine and Hoskins pictures.

The Third Man comparison is apt, and the success of the entire operation absolutely hinges on Kingsley not only matching the catharsis we expect but in subverting it for as long as he does with ironic softness and misleading gentle manipulation. Caine and Hoskins and many others worked to address this facade in the neo-crime films of the 70s but my point is that rarely does a film venture to confront this idea and stay there for as long as this one does, forsaking plot and making the torture of the masculine -materialized in its boldest stereotype of the rich gangster- the sole focus to minimize the peripheral detail that populates most of those other films. Now, that doesn’t make this one better per se (the rest of the film suffers because of this full throttle approach) but it digs a bit deeper in that dimension than expected even in a genre where that’s not a novel process itself.

[thirtyframesasecond]

I'll have to rewatch Sexy Beast. I really liked Birth, thought it was a superb film, but I was pretty lukewarm on Under the Skin. I really, really love the Faber novel and just felt Glazer shelved most of the interesting parts of the novel, to the film's detriment.

[mfunk9786]

When LQ described the plot of the novel to me, I thought it was a wise move on Glazer's part to keep things more vague, but I haven't read it so can't say for sure

[domino harvey]

The absurdly effusive praise the Fall is garnering on Letterboxd is like peak Letterboxd userbase overreach. Waiting for Vegan Lady to weigh in with her three star rave

[therewillbeblus]

I think people are just thrilled to see Glazer “back” considering the cult fanbase for his last feature, which was six years ago (and the only film he’s made in a span of 15) so it probably could have been a collage of personal photographs and gotten swooning praise on the ‘net.

I watched the short earlier and, as someone who at least ‘likes’ everything he’s done so far, found it disappointing. I can get behind cryptic abstract ideas without a clear arc, and even a bunch of strange faceless creeps doing lots of things in masks could be intriguing, but this starts strong only to result in a soft shrug because it’s just not interesting. I’ll admit I don’t “get” it, not that there’s anything to figure out (as Glazer has alluded to in interviews, it’s not based around an idea - though the inspiration for the opening scene being a picture of Trump’s sons hunting is pretty funny) but as opposed to the best of Lynch or surrealist works whose value is in the subjective analysis of images not explanation, I don’t care to interpret the images here. The rope effect was cool though, and the weird sound design on it prompted my partner to yell across the room at our cat, thinking he was up to no good, for a while before I could explain what was happening.

[Slaphappy]

I though The Fall was pointless but cool homage for Woman in the Dunes.

[colinr0380]

Copying this from the Upcoming Films on UK TV thread: another Jonathan Glazer directed short film (running 15 minutes) is showing on BBC2 at 10 p.m. on Monday 20th called Strasbourg 1518. Here's the brief write up from the Radio Times:

Jonathan Glazer's dance film inspired by an event in which an involuntary mania took hold of citizens in the city of Strasbourg just over 500 years ago.

[DarkImbecile]

“Strasbourg 1518”

[Never Cursed]

“Strasbourg 1518”

Well that was about as worthless as The Fall, although at least here there was the hint of a germ of an idea (though I can't fathom what the film's seemingly deliberate visual ugliness has to do with that). Even then, the lousiest of short-form works about quarantine made so far have had more things to say (or more interesting ways of saying them) than this

[therewillbeblus]

He should really stick to features

[Never Cursed]

I was wondering if that was the problem. I took a look at a couple of the music videos linked upthread and while I wouldn't call any of them particularly good (and one of them was a weirdly specific Clockwork Orange homage/ripoff without much of a reason for using that imagery), none of them exhibit the fatal problems that the more recent shorts have.

[domino harvey]

Jonathan Glazer’s subreddit probably should clued us in

[beamish14]

I took a look at a couple of the music videos linked upthread and while I wouldn't call any of them particularly good.

Really? "Street Spirit", "Rabbit in Your Headlight", and "Virtual Insanity" are pretty iconic. It's little wonder that he was able to segue into features