Under the Skin (the film) - It was just not my cup of tea (Was it anybody's?)

I know I am a philistine when it comes to anything cultural including films, but I have just finished watching the movie “Under the Skin”, and, I have to admit that it was an absolute waste of my life!  I could not understand the plot at all.  Luckily wikipedia came to my help and outlined that the story reflected an aliens eye view of the world.  The alien in question was played by the actress Scarlett Johansson, who appeared to go around Glasgow picking up innocent strangers with the lure of sex, and, then plunge them in to a dark liquid, presumably to provide fuel for herself but this never became evident to me during the film.

I cannot understand the modern phenomenon of filming scenes in the dark.  I presume it is supposed to represent some kind of moody atmosphere, but what is the point if you cannot see what is happening? In “Under the Skin”, although it is only my estimation, 80% of the film felt like it was filmed in the dark.  At some points it appeared that the screen was just pitch black, without any sound.  I mean what was the point of that?  It has crossed my mind whether in this day and age you could get away with a 90 minute film of blackness!  I wonder if anyone would rave about this?

The dialogue of the film also left a lot to be desired.  There did not seem to be any relevant conversation; in fact the wikipedia entry states that a lot of the scenes were unscripted and filmed using hidden cameras.

The only saving grace for me is that because there appeared to be no storyline, limited conversation, and, most of the production filmed in the dark, I was able to fast forward it, and, make it to the end in half of the normal running time.  Amazingly (to me anyway) the film apparently received multiple accolades, and, was named as one of the best films of 2014.

My final comment relates to the budget figures (again from the mighty wikipedia).  The production cost was $13.3 million (£8 million), while the box office taking were $5.7 million, which by my limited mathematical skills I believe equates to a loss of $7.6 million (£4.6 million).  Why on earth would you produce a film that would incur losses to such an extent?  Who was it that actually funded this deficit?  I have read about tax avoidance schemes that use the film industry, perhaps it was deliberately produced for this purpose, and, in the end the UK treasury ended up footing the bill?