One of the sickest movies I ever saw...

Go back and watch a Michael Bay flick.

It's not supposed to be a "teaching" movie. It's more an analysis of how far/dark a person's obsession with another person can take them.

I have a message for Germany...

Cinema should not have boundaries and cinema lovers should be very open minded to all subjects, no matter how unusual they are. Artists of every kind should be allowed to spend time producing whatever the hell they want. And the great thing about you or I or any other 'audience member' is we can pick and choose what we want to watch/see due to personal taste. So if you know you don't enjoy films like this and the other two films you mentioned, why waste your time watching them?

If you know Almodovar, you'll know that he likes to create intricate, melodramatic and unsettling story lines. This is why he is one of the greatest auteur film directors ever...he's fearless.

Like the above poster said, the film wasn't intended to "teach" children (or anyone for that matter), anything. Isn't it rated 'R' and '16'? So....what children would see this film? Are all films supposed to teach people something?


I have seen far more disturbing films than this and quite frankly, this film was simply fascinating and very thought provoking aside from it being unnerving. Now, Everyone is entitled to their opinion but it really bothers me when I sense someone has a close-minded opinion about film or art. It's just a film.

Wow...talk about a lightweight

Just how is this film "disturbing" beyond the premise? It never showed anything. If you think this is disturbing, stay away from "A Serbian Film" as you would likely jump off a bridge afterwards.

"Is this what we are supposed to teach our children?"

If you perform an unwanted sex change operation, then don't leave your gun unattended afterwards.

A good movie is supossed to tell a good story, and that's what happens here. Movies are not supossed to teach anything, honey, just as literature. No moral intended.

I have to say your lack of insight and what art does to society is quite profound and it perplexes me when people fail to see the greater role art plays in society. You may think the movie was sick, but it actually raises several pivotal and very important questions that are all extremely relevant in today's political climate:

1. Gender
2. Sex
3. Identity
4. Rape
5. Love

And the list could go on. Not every piece of art is going to be politically correct or always have a pleasing form of content and I dare say a large reason why art exists is that it creates an arena where we can actually discuss what is politically correct or not and create worlds that allow us to imagine what happens when we are no longer restrained by our current morals, such as in Roberto's case. What happens when a plastic surgeon with access to extremely advanced technology goes too far?

What we get is a movie that is capable of raising many questions of what it means to be a man or a woman, what it means to have a penis or a vagina, what means we ascribe to the words man and woman, what it means to love and what love is, what classifies rape or not and what is rape and so on.

The Skin I Live In is ultimately a movie that is meant to make you think. It is meant to make you question things we take for fundamentally granted, e.g. every preson is born with a penis or a vagina and this shapes their entire identity and how they see themselves.

A notable example is the subtle scene in the dress store where Vicente asks Cristina why she doesn't wear the dress with flowers because it'd suit her at which point she retorts, "Why don't you wear it yourself if you like it so much?" and he doesn't respond. People may think these scenes aren't significant but they very much are in a movie that raises questions about sex and gender and the meaning we ascribe to them when shaping our own identities. The reason why Vicente of course doesn't wear the dress with flowers is because he's a man and he's a man because he has a penis and men do not wear dresses because dresses are clothes that are meant for women and women do not have penises, they have vaginas.

Now, we fastforward to the scene where we actually see Vera (or perhaps we should say Vicente since he seems to identify himself as Vicente again, the fact we can't even deal with this properly in the English language just shows how problematic this is) referring to this very scene and that she's wearing that very dress and you understand the irony behind it all. Suddenly it is legitimate for Vicente to wear a dress because he has a woman's body and is identified as a woman.

It would not be possible to raise these questions if Almódar had chosen to tell a story that is less "shocking" in nature, but truth is that people are tired of seeing the whole "boy grows up to like girl's dresses". Those stories are a bit overly politically correct and don't really fundamentally touch the issue as I think Almódar does, because whereas those kind of films deal with how society see gender and sex, Almódar ultimately wants to question the viewer how YOU see gender and sex. He wants to show how sex and gender are actually very fluid constructs and that man and woman do not end by simply having a penis or a vagina. This is apparent because Vicente starts to remember his old identity and see himelf as Vicente towards the end, as expressed in how he rejects Roberto. The moral of the story is that Vicente is still a man even though he has had every single piece of what is masculine about his body removed.

When it comes to difficult subjects such as gender, sex and identity, you can't always tell stories in a politically correct way like boy grows up to like dresses so he should be able to wear them. THat's made to fit the political climate but doesn't really add anything profound to the debate since those that think it is right that a boy should wear dresses will see the movie, those that disagree will probably not. Such stories therefore only help to reinforce an already existing view but it doesn't raise any new questions even if well told.

Almódar movie does because it speaks to a much larger audience and makes no claims about its political leanings. There is no right or wrong, only shades of grey. There are probably those people will insist that Vicente is a woman bceause he now has a vagina but it makes us think - is Vicente a woman or is he a man? What does it mean to be a woman or a man? Is my gender identity only so superficial that it's entirely based off my genitalia only? Why do we even attach meaning to genitalia to define who we are to begin with? Or our bodies?

And I could go on but to say that The Skin I Live In does not have anything to teach or to say entirely misses the point of the film. It has a lot to say about many things. There is no moral of the story, there is no right or wrong. I think many are perhaps a little spoiled watching those kind of movies where the answer is delivered on a silver platter - racism is wrong, murder is wrong. This is missing the point. It's not about right or wrong, it's about shades or grey.

I agree with leatelamon's remarks. The film, which is beautifully shot and musically scored, raises lots of interesting questions about gender and identity and how a person feels if either are altered. Especially against their will. It is sexually subversive too, which can be challenging and witty. At the end did you not wonder if Cristina would get it together with Vicente as Vera where she would not when he was Vicente? If she did then what would have changed for her but his body? Is that what determines attraction - the body rather than the core person (which Vicente had practised through yoga to hold onto)? I love that the film raises these questions.

Fatima had a fetish for a wiggle in her scoot