LOVING (TIFF 2016)

The best thing about Loving - Jeff Nichols' biopic about "Loving vs the State Of Virginia" (the case that changed the Supreme Court's ruling on interracial marriage) - is that it didn't get all "Mississippi Burning" on the audience. The story is set in 1960's Virginia so there's obviously plenty of racial intolerance, sneers, tension & slurs directed at our protagonists, but Loving is more about the (realistic) relationship/romance between Richard & Mildred Loving and less about burning crosses and ignorant sweaty racist supporting characters. In fact, the bulk of the racism is controlled within one character for the most part (the racist town sheriff).

It's easy to get caught up in the racism & legal red tape concerning the marriage between Richard & Mildred Loving but seldom do we hear about their love for each other. Sure, they're one of the earliest (legal) symbols for interracial unions but they're also actual human beings who went through hell for each other and brought three children in to this world.
I know this sounds corny & cliche but this image (recreated in the film) really does speak volumes...

Loving succeeds in my eyes because of its subtlety. Jeff Nichols takes his time and isn't afraid of showing boring & banal moments like extended scenes of Richard Loving (Joel Edgerton) fixing random things around the house, Mildred Loving sitting on the couch looking at her children as they play, and plenty of light physical affection without any dialogue (that's key). Jeff Nichols didn't try to romanticize his protagonists either. Richard Loving, although brave and with conviction, is a typical father of that era - he's grumpy, frowns a lot and seems to work more than anything else. And even though Jeff Nichols is heavily influenced by Terrence Malick, he doesn't make Mildred, "the mother", out to be this unrealistic/paper thin angel like Malick does with a lot of his mother characters.

I have to admit that before I saw this film I always wondered if Richard & Mildred were happy together. Like...did they like each other's company? I guess they had to in order to go through what hey did in order to be together (Richard commuted from DC to Richmond Virginia every day in order to work because he and his family weren't allowed to live south of DC at the time). This film shows all of that for the most part.
Sure Loving has its share of sappy moments and the score does dictate how you're supposed to feel from time to time (something I hate) but do you really expect a movie like this to not have stuff like that? What's most important is that Loving isn't drowned in snappiness & melodrama.

Loving is a special movie for me not only because I'm in an interracial relationship with the women of my dreams (no seriously when I saw my fiancée for the first time I did a double take), but Jeff Nichols is a director that I've wanted to like so badly for so long but I just couldn't. I recognize his talent and I honestly can't even argue that he is one of the best American filmmakers working today (he's not on my personal list, but still...). But for me, on a personal level, his films have flaws, holes or other elements that force me to nitpick (besides Shotgun Stories I haven't been able to get in to his other movies like other people). Jeff Nichols is post-Malick in that he's obviously influenced by the films of Terrence Malick & borrows a few things in terms of style, but Nichols is still his own filmmaker and tells the kinds of stories that Terrence Malick wouldn't necessarily tell. Loving is the first movie of his where I've had little to no criticisms. Sure I would have liked for the movie to be even longer so we could get more in to the legality behind the ACLU's involvement in the case (and I already mentioned my annoyance with the heavily dictating score) but that's my own personal preference. No one besides me really wants to sit through scenes of boring court cases (Nick Kroll does a great job as Richard & Mildred's lawyer and leaves behind any & all remnants of the comedic persona he's known for). So any criticism I have about this movie can be easily shot down.

This is a (true) story concerning race that needed to be told on a major platform (for those that don't remember, there was a movie in the mid-90's with Timothy Hutton & Lela Rochon that Mildred Loving herself wanted nothing to do with).
And while Jeff Nichols & Michael Shannon (who does make a brief appearance) will probably always be synonymous with one another, I like the idea of he & Joel Edgerton becoming regular collaborators (Edgerton stood out the most to me in Nichols' Midnight Special).

It's easy to call Loving "Oscar bait" based off the trailer (and it will more than likely get some kind of major recognition/nomination from the Academy or the Golden Globes) but I assure you Loving has depth and is more than a movie made to win awards.

MIDNIGHT SPECIAL

For the last five years leading up to Midnight Special Jeff Nichols has toyed with science fiction (Take Shelter), tall tales & fairytales (Mud) and just all around ambiguity (Take Shelter), so it was just a matter of time before he went all in and made a full-on science fiction drama (southern-based/Terrence Malick-ian Christianity & spirituality has also played the background in every one of Nichols' films so it wasn't a surprise that those elements showed up in Midnight Special as well). What's funny is that Midnight Special kind of picks up where Take Shelter left off in an abstract/slightly reworked way. It's like Michael Shannon's paranoid opinions in Take Shelter came to be true and now he has to act on them in the next film.

Midnight Special is the story of a "gifted" little boy (Alton) with magical powers that has to get to a special/significant place (with the help of his parents, played by Michael Shannon & Kirsten Dunst) before the FBI and/or a religious "organization" get to him first (of course the FBI wants to use him as a weapon, while the religious cult, led by Sam Sheppard, believes he's the messiah reincarnated in the form of a seven year old boy come to take all believers up to heaven).

What's frustrating about Midnight Special is that it gives off this vibe that it's not going to be like all those other science fiction movies where a special alien kid with magical powers has to escape the government that wants to use it/him/her as a weapon and/or test subject. But not only did Jeff Nichols end up making a modern/revamped version of E.T. or Mac & Me or The Boy Who Could Fly or any other movie that generation X & generation Y grew up on, but at times it felt like a feature length back-story for one of the X-Men...

(*SPOILER* the final climactic scene where Alton makes contact with other worldly beings is literally right out of the ending of Close Encounters and/or The Abyss *SPOILER*)

Look...I’m not the biggest Jeff Nichols fan but I do appreciate that a filmmaker of his ilk got the opportunity (and budget) to make Midnight Special rather than someone like Brett Ratner, Zack Snyder or Bryan Singer, but still - this film forces me to use cliché critic terms & keywords like "hack", "retreaded material", "slightly unoriginal", etc (it even forces me to do the cliché critic thing by taking shots at obvious targets like Zack Snyder, Brett Ratner & Bryan Singer). 

But perhaps it wasn't Jeff Nichols' goal to make an "original" film. There's only so much you can do with the basic source material that is Midnight Special. What this film does have going for it is that it is a true family film in the sense that it can be enjoyed by most ages. With the exception of two isolated moments of quick gun violence (with minimal bloodshed) there isn't any nudity, harsh language or inappropriate subject matter for little kids. As for the adults, Midnight Special isn't fluffy or made for 5-13 year olds. The dramatic aspect in Midnight Special is enough to keep the attention of any adult. Imagine elements of early David Gordon Green, Goonies, Badlands, live action Disney films, all the other aforementioned movies in this review thus far mixed together in a giant pot. While that may not sound appealing to some of you, to others I imagine the combination of all those things sounds pretty intriguing.

And maybe it was Nichols’ intention to tip his hat to all those classic movies in the same obvious way Refn, Jarmusch & Tarantino pay homage to films & filmmakers in their respective works.

Midnight Special / Starman

Along with the dark-ish/bottom heavy synthesized score (courtesy of David Wingo) Joel Edgerton’s performance as Shannon’s best friend “Lucas” is the only aspect of Midnight Special that I enjoyed without any criticism. Lucas is an interesting supporting character in that we didn't get his entire story, but we’re given enough information about him to know he’s an incredibly loyal person. It’s not so much that Lucas aids Dunst & Shannon on their mission to save their son by putting himself in danger numerous times, but it’s the fact that he puts his life on hold at the drop of a hat to help his best friend (Shannon) without any reservation. There’s no question that once the credits rolled on Midnight Special that Lucas has essentially ruined his life just to help people he has no obligation to (he broke quite a few laws; one of them being the possible murder of a state trooper) but that’s the kind of loyalty & friendship that I appreciate on a personal level as fucked up as that sounds (at no point in the film does Lucas expect anything in return for his services either). Some people might find Lucas’ motivation to be a little weak and I totally understand that. However, in the unlikely situation that my best friend showed up at my door unexpected with his young daughter (my goddaughter) and needed my help in the same way Shannon needed Lucas’ help, I’d probably drop what I was doing to help my friend. So no matter how many negative things I have to say about Midnight Special (and there are plenty), it obviously touched me on a personal level if it got me to think about people like my best friend and my goddaughter, so this isn’t a total “failure”. Edgerton’s role is easy to overlook in a film like Midnight Special with all the grandiose moments of glowing eyeballs & craters falling from the sky, but if you haven’t seen this movie yet I urge you to try and pay attention to the Lucas character.

I guess Midnight Special is the best thing Nichols has done so far but that doesn’t mean much coming from me (I’m not that crazy about his movies). I will say that there is a progression with each of his films. He dips his foot in the water deeper & deeper with each movie, and there are multiple continuous/consistent elements that start with Shotgun Stories all the way through Midnight Special (the presence of Michael Shannon, the exploration of spirituality, sanity, the south, etc). I just have yet to be completely sold on him.

TIFF HIGHLIGHT #14: TAKE SHELTER - ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! This movie is NOT "deep" (its not even good)

I love Michael Shannon just as much as the next person. He makes Oscar bait movies like Revolutionary Road tolerable, he brings intensity to silly movies like The Runaways and has been one of the FEW positive elements to Werner Herzog's recently disappointing work (with the exception of the misunderstood masterpiece; Bad Lieutenant). He's like a new breed of character actor that follows in the footsteps of old school odd, creepy, menacing and versatile character actors like Ted Levine, Tom Noonan and even Christopher Walken (actually all those scenes where Michael Shannon would spazz out and have post-apocalyptic visions in Take Shelter kinda reminded me of Walken in The Dead Zone). Shannon has become one of those actors that people will watch in anything no matter what it is. The only problem with that is people are starting to love his menacing & intense presence so much that they’ll overhype anything he's in and not question if the movie is actually good or not. Case in point: Take Shelter. A movie so bad, that I didn’t feel like watching anything else for the rest of the night at the Toronto Film Fest last year. And you know what, Take Shelter isn’t even overhyped. That’s the wrong term. Something that’s overhyped or overrated is at least "ok". No, Take Shelter is just bad. The only good thing I got out of that movie was the constant ongoing jokes myself, John & Chris had about it throughout the duration of our Toronto trip last year. Take Shelter is so bad that not ONCE have I thought about giving it another chance. You know how you see a movie for the first time, think it’s bad but sometimes, depending on the movie, you think in the back of your head that maybe in the future it'll grow on you or you'll give it a second chance in about a year? Yeah, Take Shelter won’t be one of those movies for me. A lot of my defiance in not giving Take Shelter another chance also has to do with all the undue praise it’s been getting from everyone. Like...everyone. I seriously think besides myself and John & Chris at the pink smoke, every person in the world that saw Take Shelter loved it. And I’m sure some of you reading this are thinking: well, if so many people liked it maybe that should tell you something. No, that tells me this is one of those rare times when I'm the only person in the world that’s right about something. As I'm sure you've read many times on here before, I absolutely HATE when an "ok" or "good" movie is blown up, put on a pedestal or mislabeled as a classic. There's this unexplained thing inside me that makes me dislike movies like Donnie Darko, Fight Club or The Matrix more than I really should just to add balance to all the unnecessary praise those movies get. Looks like Take Shelter is the newest edition to that list. Take Shelter is the story of a family man/construction worker ("Curtis") with a history of mental illness in his family that starts randomly having intense visions of the end of the world. In these visions, where he just randomly starts looking off in to nowhere, Curtis sees things like thick oily yellow rain, tornadoes, earthquakes, hurricanes, crows, and a mysterious grim reaper-like figure. He's so sure that the end of the world is coming in the form of a storm he uses all his money (which was supposed to be used for an ear operation for his deaf daughter) to build a storm shelter to hide him and his family from the oncoming storm. Naturally no one else has these visions and thinks that Curtis is cracking up (especially due to the fact that his mother is clinically insane). By the end of the movie we're left hanging (not in a good way) as to whether or not Curtis' visions are legit or if he's really just going crazy. I don’t need shit spelled out for me, but I also don’t like the rug to keep being pulled out from under me every 10 minutes. That gets annoying after a while.

I'm all about plot twists, open endings, psychological thrillers and movies on mental illness (these are all aspects of Take Shelter), but sometimes when you throw a bunch of shit in to a pot it turns in to a big mess. And that’s what happened with Take Shelter. By the middle of the movie I had given up hope and knew the movie wouldn’t pick up in the 2nd half and just figured I'd ride it out because Michael Shannon's performance was ok. But not even he could save the constant flip flopping of the story that kept annoying the shit outta me. Is he crazy or is there really a storm? Is his wife the one that’s crazy? Are they both crazy and just don’t realize it? Is the world around him just oblivious and he's the only one that can see the oncoming apocalypse? I haven’t been this annoyed from a pointlessly plot twisted movie since Kill List (another overrated movie I may rip in to in the near future). Here's what I don’t get; why does M. Night Shayamalan (who IS an awful director) catch so much hate these days and get shitted on for his empty plot twists, but Take Shelter gets a pass? What’s the difference between the stuff that pisses you off in an M. Night movie versus Take Shelter? Seriously, think about that one. Take Shelter also has this forced vibe as if it’s saying; "Hey, us southern & midwest folk got depth to us too!" Just like Winter’s Bone, Take Shelter is another movie that took the trailer park, poor/working class white southern family drama and tried to mix it with the psychological thriller genre. But at least Winter's Bone was "ok" (overrated, but ok). Take Shelter was like "Country fried Polanski" (no that’s not a good thing). Jeff Nichols was trying to mix worlds that didn’t really go together in my opinion. Another thing that annoyed me about Take Shelter was Curtis' daughter. For some reason filmmakers today think that the presence of a quiet, cute yet creepy little kid ads some kind of symbolism to the film. You're not Stanley Kubrick and this isn’t The Shining. WHY do so many people like this movie? How does it have an 80-something% rating on rotten tomatoes while other great genre bending films on mental illness like Trouble Every Day have a 17%? Normally in these kinda rants I ask; "What am I not seeing? Help me out." But I’m not doing that this time. I’m seriously not kidding when I say this, but it’s almost like Jeff Nichols was poking fun and making light of mental illness like it’s something someone can go in & out of or turn on & off like a switch (obviously I know that’s not what he was trying to do but that’s what it felt like). In Take Shelter it felt like he's going "CURTIS IS CRAZY! oh, wait no he's not. JUST KIDDING, HE'S CRAZY. Nah, he's fine...OH, NEVER MIND, HE'S CRAZY AGAIN!" Take Shelter makes you crazy just watching it.

BAD LIEUTENANT: PORT OF CALL NEW ORLEANS (WERNER HERZOG'S MISUNDERSTOOD MASTERPIECE)

Shoot him again...his soul is still dancing - Nicholas Cage

By now you should all get the general idea of what a "Misunderstood Masterpiece" is by the movies I've covered so far. They're movies with ridiculous sounding plots like; Trouble Everyday (a horror/drama/psychological thriller about an unnamed disease that gives people killer libidos) & Demonlover (an erotic espionage thriller about the deadly, backstabbing underworld of animated pornography), or remakes/loose adaptations of classic films like Solaris and Ghost Dog (a loose remake of Le Samourai) that all received undeserved amounts of hate upon their initial release but are slowly starting to get the recognition they deserve for being strangely brilliant. These are the kinda films that follow in the footsteps of Maverick filmmakers like Donald Cammell and Nicolas Roeg. The kinda of movies where some type of a drug (strong marijuana at the very least) played a role in the development of the script or at least the basic concept. The kinda movies where you have to say; "ACTUALLY, I liked that movie a lot." Those movies that get 20% ratings on Rotten Tomatoes and bad reviews, but 10-20 years later they're in some kind of a retrospective at the Moma, Lincoln Center or Film Forum.
I can’t think of any other recent film that fits the above criteria more than Werner Herzog's Bad Lieutenant: Port Of Call New Orleans...

Werner Herzog's Bad Lieutenant: Port Of Call New Orleans (a loose remake of Abel Ferrara's 1992 indie masterpiece) has become that movie where people have to start defending it before they even finish saying how much they liked it. It’s that movie where you have to start talking about it with a preface like; "I know you're not gonna believe me when I say I like this, but just hear me out..." What’s also interesting is that in the last decade or so Bad Lieutenant has been one of the FEW great (yes, great) films that Herzog has put out along with The Wild Blue Yonder and Grizzly Man. Rescue Dawn teetered between being bad and pointless (I don’t care how dedicated or how much weight Christian Bale lost for his role), Into The Abyss was a disappointing and almost disrespectful documentary that showed Herzog acting all buddy-buddy with sociopathic murderers and not even Michael Shannon's presence could save My Son, My Son What Have Ye Done (probably one of Herzog's worst films ever, which is sad because it had an amazing ensemble cast). It goes without saying that Nicolas Cage and remakes aren’t a good combination. And I'm not just saying this because making fun of Cage's recent cocaine & pills-fueled performances have become the "in" thing to do these days. I'm actually a fan of Nicolas Cage from time to time when he delivers performances like he did in Adaptation, Red Rock West or Wild At Heart. But with remakes like City Of Angels (a remake of Wim Wenders' Wings Of Desire), The Wicker Man (a remake of the cult classic), Kiss Of Death and Bangkok Dangerous (a remake of a famous Thai action film), history has clearly shown that Cage is poison to a remake. Just doing a remake alone is an uphill battle from the start since 10 time outta 10 you're gonna get naysayers and diehard fans of the original hating on it before it even comes out. I went in to Bad Lieutenant expecting to see an epic disaster so bad that it would be entertaining but to my surprise it turned out to be one of my favorites of 2009. And I knew I wasn’t crazy because by the end of the year I saw Bad Lieutenant on the top 10 & 20 lists of everyone from Roger Ebert to various writers & contributors to magazines like Film Comment and Cahier Du Cinema (I know that just because some highly decorated film critics like something doesn’t automatically make a movie great, but it still means something). Most people who end up seeing Herzog's remake are usually in disbelief at how good it was and the few people that hated it still end up talking about it. Next to Bad Lieutenant I can’t think of too many other films in the last 5 years that have gotten me into heated debates/arguments/conversations about everything from the current state of cinema to racism and police brutality.

Werner Herzog doesn’t strike me as someone who needs to take drugs to make something that’s strange and far out. He's just a naturally unique and quietly quirky human being where "strange" just comes naturally to him. But I’m sorry, he must have taken some peyote or mysterious herbal drug while coming up with the idea to remake Bad Lieutenant, which he claims he never actually saw (sounds like bullshit to me, but whatever). And the more I think about it no other actor could portray the role Nicolas Cage played because when you think about it, his real life kinda runs parallel to the character he plays in Bad Lieutenant. In the film detective Terrence Mcdonagh was a once promising police officer but years of drug abuse, gambling, corruption and a crippling back injury are catching up to him while he's working on a gruesome murder case (an immigrant family has been murdered by a local drug kingpin). In real life, Nicolas Cage was an A-list actor (I guess he still kinda is) but years of bad movie choices and bankruptcy have forced him to act in just about any movie that comes his way so he can make money to get himself outta debt. The basic plot of Herzog's Bad Lieutenant is pretty similar to the original: both films are about a corrupt, out of control, drug & gambling addicted police officer who's life is spiraling out of control. But at the same time Herzog takes a few liberties and changes some stuff around. In this version our main character has a partner (Val Kilmer), its set in New Orleans during the aftermath of Katrina (the original is set in New York City), there’s no outright religious symbolism (a staple in Ferrara’s work) and we get more of a glimpse in to the main characters' love life (Eva Mendes). And even though Keitel’s performance is WAY better than Cage's, Cage seems more likeable (even when he points a gun at the head of an old lady). Throughout the film Cage's character is suffering from a permanent back injury and he does an amazing job at making it believable. You grunt and squint along with Cage as he hobbles through the film or strains to stand up. He's the kinda antihero you don’t actually want to be or emulate. You just wanna watch him from a distance. He's like a fascinating train wreck. And no matter how corrupt and fucked up Cage is at no point in the film did I laugh WITH him or think he was cool. Throughout the entire film I’m laughing at him as Bad Lieutenant is essentially about someone who thinks their above the law but in reality they're on a downward destructive path that’s so unbelievable all you can do is laugh in disbelief as we watch him accidentally snort heroine instead of cocaine just before he has to go to work, steal police evidence, blackmail college athletes to throw games he's betting on or wear his gun inside his belt instead of a holster because he thinks he's some kind of a cowboy. Bad Lieutenant is pure insanity. Herzog once again captures the egomaniac, alpha white male who goes too far when trying to abuse power reminiscent of so many roles that Klaus Kinski played under his direction (Cobra Verde, Fitzcaraldo and Aguirre: The Wrath of God). Herzog even puts a little of himself into Cage’s character. Some of the lines in the film like “Do fish have dreams?” and “his soul is still dancing” are quotes and questions from the book “Herzog on Herzog”.



Bad Lieutenant has what seems like intentionally over the top moments that kinda come out of a comic book (the dramatic music, the reactions of some of the actors to certain situations and pretty much the last ten minutes). On the surface this seemed like an odd choice for Herzog that doesn’t really fit in with the rest of his filmography. As far as the cinematography goes this may be his most polished-looking work to date. In fact, after the release of Bad Lieutenant there was a great book of stills taken by Herzog's wife that got published. But at the same time there's many Herzog-like elements to Bad Lieutenant outside of Cage's insane Kinski-inspired lead performance like randomly beautiful scenes involving iguanas and crocodiles (as we all know Herzog loves animals and nature), odd musical choices reminiscent of the dancing chicken scene from Stroszek and Herzog's fascination with people from the continent of Africa. Bad Lieutenant also features an eclectic supporting cast of actors like Brad Douriff, Michael Shannon, actor/director Vondie Curtis Hall, Xzibit, Faruza Baulk and Shea Whingham who has probably my favorite scene in the movie (see below). Don’t judge this until you've actually seen it because chance are you'll be pleasantly surprised.

IN MY SKIN

Out of all the modern french filmmakers, Marina De Van is one of the most interesting figures. I've been fascinated by her for some time. I first saw her as the dominatrix sister in the dysfunctional black family comedy; 'Sitcom', and have been a fan ever since (*thanks Sarah Landset*). She's an equally talented actress (frequently appearing in Francois Ozon's films) and director (I wasn't crazy about her latest film 'Dont Look Back', but her early-pre 'In My Skin' short films are all excellent). Both her acting and directing are feminine, without being "girly", shallow or weak. Her movies have a strength and masculinity to them that can't be found in a lot of films directed by women (or even men for that matter). And the best thing is that she's only made 2 feature films so far, so i can only imagine how much she's gonna grow as a filmmaker as the years go on. There haven't been too many directors that have been able to share the stage with Cronenberg when it comes to the "Body Horror" genre. 'Bug' and 'Trouble Everyday' are the only two semi-recent films to come somewhat close . But as far as I'm concerned, Marina De Van's 'In My Skin' not only beats the 2 previously mentioned movies (in terms of "body horror" only), but actually gives Cronenberg a run for his money. Even her latest film; 'Don't Look Back' and her early short; 'Alias' deal with body transformation and/or modification in some way.

In the film De Van plays a woman who injures her leg (she accidentally cuts it pretty badly at a party and develops a really bad scar/gash that she keeps a secret). She slowly starts to grow an unhealthy fascination with not only the gash on her leg but body mutilation as a whole. De Van's acting along with the atmosphere of the film almost makes the scar on her leg seem like an actual character of its own (if that makes any sense). She wont let the scar heal as she keeps cutting it open with whatever she can find (pieces of metal, shards of glass and even a rusty knife). What starts with her cutting open the existing scar, turns in to her cutting (and sometimes biting) new scars all over her body. This starts to alienate her from her friends, co-workers and her boyfriend who are all (understandably) freaked out be her new found love of body mutilation (well...her boyfriend, played by Bertrand Bonello Lucas Laurant, is a bit of a moody little bitch). The film's most famous (and difficult to watch) scene involves the lead character locking herself in a room, cutting herself and smearing the blood all over her face in front of a mirror. This scene almost echoes the famous "you talkin' to me" part in 'Taxi Driver', which makes sense, because both films deal with isolation, potential mental illness and loneliness.

Like plenty of other extreme modern french films (Humanite, Trouble Every Day, The Pornographer, etc), 'In My Skin' doesnt have the same amount of dialogue that you'd expect from a film. The film convey's its messages through imagery and the un-spoken (the images from the film below truly capture the vibe of 'In My Skin')

Michael Shannon in William Friedken's 'Bug'

This movie fascinates me the most because it shows a female in a role that would typically be played by a male. Subconsciously we associate blood & violence with men. When we think of women & blood, its either women being murdered or their squeamish reaction. 'In My Skin' totally turns all of that onit's ass. Like i mentioned earlier, Marina De Van utilizes her feminine qualities by accentuating her (very nice) slender body, while giving a strong and commanding performance that many people don't usually associate with female roles. Not many actresses could pull off this performance convincingly. In fact, the only woman to come close is Beatrice Dalle's performance in 'Trouble Everyday', which is probably a film i imagine De Van drew a lot of inspiration from (the intensity in both of those performances is not only uncanny but damn near identical). 'In My Skin', 'Trouble Every Day', 'Bug', 'The Fly', 'Dead Ringers' and 'Videodrome' all share a lot of the same themes like Isolation, Loneliness, Sickness, Sanity (or lack of) and self mutilation. Even non-violent films like Lynne Ramsay's 'Morvern Callar' shares a bond with 'In My Skin'. In fact, even more so than stuff like 'Bug' or Cronenberg's films, because both; Morvern Callar and In My Skin focus on female characters. 'In My Skin' is also on obvious comment on the pressure and insecurities that some women face when it comes their bodies. So yeah, needless to say i highly recommend this. It may not sit so well with squeamish people though...