Відео

Thank you for this video. “Muriel’s Wedding” changed my life in many ways.

"Turnpike" goes way back to medieval times. In order to proceed on a toll road you'd have to pass gates and pay the tolls, the guards at the gates held pikes (long poles used for combat), and they'd turn the pike and let you through after you paid your toll. Saginaw is a city in Michigan. Sounds like it took him four days to hitchhike from Saginaw to somewhere in New Jersey.

Wow Rosalind your singing is so beautiful! Your voice is like a Disney princess and you’re talented in many ways 🫶 love this idea of interpreting songs in the context of the current affairs

Thanks for this video, I enjoyed it and it piqued my interest in Muriel’s Wedding! :)

Very nice playing on the piano and an amazing voice I hear, dear musicfriend. Now I support your channel with fun and send best wishes to you from Germany Leonora Lily

Why share this song now? "America" is ostensibly a song about two young lovers on a roadtrip across the United States. They are "looking for America". On the surface, the song sounds dreamy and romantic, but it's deeper than that, and more melancholic. "America" was written during a period of civil and international unrest in the 1960s; this means that when the song's narrator sings about "looking for America", he's likely referring to searching for a sense of hope, or a sense of American identity that feels coherent to him. He and his companion travel the roads and highways, itinerant and searching, like so many others just like them ("Counting the cars on the New Jersey turnpike/ They've all come to look for America"). They are isolated, yet persisting; "empty and aching", yet still optimistic and finding moments of joy in their existences. Professor of Music Theory James Bennighof notes in his 2007 book The Words and Music of Paul Simon that many other such "lost souls" are on the highway with them, each on their own journey alone even if they are physically accompanied by a friend or a family member. It's a bittersweet song about searching for hope, connection, and a more aspirational national identity in times of turmoil. How do you interpret it? More in the caption.

The movie was disgusting! I felt very uncomfortable watching it. Self discovery doesn’t have to turn around sex only! It was extremely disappointing.

really enjoy watching your video!

What a lovely video, well done! It's very well presented. I'll have to rewatch the Aussie classics after this x

I think Australian literary and by extension film protagonists are indebted to Patrick White, who was extremely sceptical of conformity. Satires and dark comedy, which both films are, don't focus on the majority. You can't poke fun at the status quo if you end up belonging to it in the end.

As a male watching this film, it came across to me as a 'male sex fantasy', albeit a perverse one, disguised as an 'intellectual' film, which it certainly wasn't. The film never rose above a comic book level of culture. I feel the same way about 'Dogtooth', and in fact, most modern pseudo-intellectual films. The Pre-Code film-makers were honest about their motives, for cramming as much titillation into a film as possible - to get back-sides on seats. Today's Pharisaical film-makers, have devised countless pretexts and mental contortions, to justify the same dubious practices as the Pre-Code filmmakers. Furthermore, if 'sex' is at the fulcrum of all their artistic endeavors, it hasn't occurred to them, that you can produce an arty piece of cinema about sex, without resorting to the exploitation of the feminine form. Hal Hartley's 'Surviving Desire' fulfils all the demands required of great and enduring art, for that very reason. Mick La Salle's piece on 'Poor Things' is worth reading, as he presents a watertight case against the film's preposterous smugness.

I just watched this movie - and was so impressed by the gorgeous sets, the creative period costumes and artistic videography. They went thru a LOT of effort to make a beautiful movie - and, IMHO, ruined it by turning into a "soft porn" movie. There wasn't even an explanation as to why Bella had such a huge sex drive; that would have at least made sense in the plot. But no, she just wanted sexual pleasure all the time and that was a big part of who she was and how the men in her life saw her. So limiting. So cliche.

I find it interesting that most of the praise videos (especially praising cinematography) on poor things is from men while negative criticism from woman. Of course, i am not saying this to bash on men, but I think that's because men tend not to understand what's considered empowering for women so no wonder a supposed feminist movie made by a men fails women. Reminds me the way i have been taught the "correct" way to be a strong feminist, which is either by neutralising your gender ( basically treating everyone and yourself the same which is impossible considering the physiology of AFAB persons, general dangers of being a women in a androcentric society, etc) or using your femininty for your advantage. Only later in life i noticed this definition of feminism also happens to be more convenient for men.

As a 45-year-old Brazilian, I saw a completely different film. To me, it's a kind of "The Mystery of Kaspar Hauser" story: the protagonist is kept isolated for a while and just by getting out he/she questions the morality of everyday life. However, it was an enriching experience to hear his/her thoughts.

6:00 Doesn't that rule apply to mostly white women? For example, non-white women have always been considered promiscuous and so on…..

Freelance journalism? This is not journalism. First, try to learn how to properly edit your videos. Now this is just some simple girl on youtube sharing her opinions, because probably no one gave her a real, demanding job in any respectable media where she could earn money writing or doing something valuable. Everyone has right to share their opinion of course and I respect that, but this is not professional. This "podcast author" seems to be raised in church, avoiding real life, especially topics about women and sexuality. Young cinemafiles, don't waste time on this pseudo-intellectual "unfortunate critic".

PG Wodehouse is mediocre.

Every review is about "Not what it is, but what it should be."

Why do we need to see your full body in every video? I think this is a tired trope.

It takes place in Scotland not London

Feminist but worst for me ... Main character has no fear .... I had to skipp it since it was so borring .... I looked twice ...there is not a single scene with fear in her eyes ...

I’ll admit the movie is beautiful, visually. But the content of the movie made me feel uneasy. I personally feel like the movie couldn’t possibly be feminist because Bella’s growth always involves men. When the movie goes from black and white to colour it’s after she has sex with a man. She discovers empathy when a man shows her poor people. Especially the end. She learns to stand up herself by escaping a man and her happy ending only happens because a man gives her his entire fortune. She spends the whole movie running from and to men. In the end, we don’t know anything about her as a person. Sure she wants to be a doctor and socialist, but why? The end was just a her turning into a girl boss through no merit of her own and the was actually kind of depressing.

I got the feeling the film was saying "It's not abuse if the victim doesn't realise it's abuse". I can't decide if I liked it or hated it.

That was super interesting, thank you for your insights!

I'm not glad Poor Things was made, and I'm not happy I saw it. It was disgusting trash that sends all the wrong messages. It was essentially pedophilia, and the messaging was basically it's empowering to make money through sex. Yeah, in the end she got over on her ex-husband/father, but even that was tacked on and pretty poorly handled, and still not really the right message. And on top of all that, it was aesthetically disgusting. Poor Things more like Poor Film Making

Idiotic. Frankenstein's monster meets Rochelle, Rochelle, with AI settings.

Thank you for your analysis and sharing your personal experience, I really enjoyed your videos :) you captured so well some of the knottiness of class in Britain, and validated the frustration I felt with this film - for its apparent lack of interest in really exploring these ideas!

Part 2 of this video essay can be found here: ua-cam.com/video/u6qXakImlv0/v-deo.html&lc=UgyEeIA7S6lyotnfDv54AaABAg&ab_channel=Ganymedia 💃

Part 1 of this video essay can be found here: ua-cam.com/video/ICc5IeSiyOc/v-deo.html&ab_channel=Ganymedia 🌱

Thanks for this insightful review!

I absolutely loved it. For me, it was the best film of the year. I've loved Emma since Easy A and I find Yorgos bafflingly fascinating. I truly don't get the outrage or the discomfort. It's quite tame really. But it's not a Marvel movie, that's for sure.

It's too long, too in love with itself, and everything that can be wrong with cinema.

Women ☕️

One film cannot possibly explore and correct all wrongs of patriarchy. It’s kind of an unfair critique to ask it to do so. From start to finish it is surreal with impossible mad science. We are already in and out of the real world watching this creation navigate the oddity of existence and processing that as a clean slate. The consent question is one of those that would have been tough to pull off in a couple hours. How far down the rabbit hole would we have to go to pull that thread given that we are already in a situation that is impossible. To that I think about my own sexual awakening as a child. I remember being a young boy who felt for the first time that it felt really good down there. In this most impossible of scenarios if I had, had an attractive adult male body that other people desired in a world clearly without stis I would have also probably engaged in vigorous bouncing as often as possible. Obviously there are moral questions in the real world about whether a child brain with an adult body can consent but the film is exploring what one might do if they were living this and I don’t see this as an unreasonable way one might process this. Would it be morally correct in the real world, of course not, but also this is clearly a surreal world with a different philosophical question being asked. The movie would have just been over as we left her locked up to protect her from herself, in a bit of time forced her to be married and rolled the credits. Through the sex in many scenarios she learns about herself and does begin to become aware of what boundaries she might like and formulates a framework for healthy relationships. As one would if in this situation. Like not wanting men to be smelly or to just put it in, or not be controlled or abused. I think that the film evokes a sense of discomfort in the viewer when watching a woman explore her sexuality. I when leaving the theater overheard a group of women talking about this discomfort. They had an almost love hate with the movie. The people I talked to seemed to think that it was inappropriate for this to be a theme where we in this society we do not approve of women being sexual. Yet everyone always concedes that women being sexual is not bad yet we are uncomfortable actually seeing it on screen. We still very much believe in the idea that women are best as non sexual beings or whores. They cannot be nuanced humans who have experiences and find their own way, it’s uncomfortable for us regardless of the reality that we all are just people and everyone has this experience with in themselves. Our culture tells us that being sexual is not moral. This film is asking if we didn’t have this framework would we behave the same? I think we would not and I empathize with the character. Like I said I could imagine if I was living this impossible scenario what I would do. They, as all of us really only think about the sex. There is also important moments of a blank slate going from stabbing a corpse mercilessly and being completely selfish to a being that sees unfairness in the world and feeling empathy. In the conclusion she is now using her abilities to help. This is not a film meant to solve everything in feminism but to think of an impossible situation where a being comes in to self awareness. The fact that she has sex as a big part of this journey is uncomfortable and intriguing for us in this culture. That is why they had so much of it. To have the viewer both uncomfortable and compelled so we the viewer are left thinking about our own weird surreal ride through our existence and culture.

The film is a somewhat direct adaptation. The basic plot and hyper-focus on her nymphomania are from it.

You failed to mention that it's a film based on a Glaswegian novel by Alisdair Gray published in 1992. So a lot of your comments and issues raised (very important) were not in the horizon then. And it's a period novel.

Regarding video title, whether Poor Things is feminist or degrading, it’s neither. Shocking for a neoliberal consciousness, thankfully there are some movies which are not trying to shove “the message” down our throats. This film is about development of human consciousness (not necessarily female one), taboo biological topics and critical social commentary. Maybe the title is just a clickbait geared towards general audiences heavily conditioned to think only in binary terms, but Poor Things definitely doesn’t fit that mold. - - - - Now that I listened to first 5 minutes of this puritanical, capitalist-feminist take, the title sadly wasn’t just a clickbait, but what this “poor thing” really thinks.

Yeesh, this uptight broad is killing my buzz!

I finally got around to watching "Poor Things" and also listened to your commentary on it. Reflecting on both the movie and your analysis, the take away for me , among other things, about how achieving one’s desires often hinges on leveraging what one possesses, be it talent, a platform, $$$ , or even the controversial topics that the director chose to explore.

Y'all do yourself a favor and skip this movie. Go watch The Anatomy of the Fall or The Zone of Interest if you want to see good film art.

I watched the movie just because I like Rosamund Pike. Mostly in the first part I felt stressed, the style, the tone/use of music and the camera-work , made my brain shut down a little bit. I was relieved after they entered Saltburn because then everything cooled down, until the scene with Oliver‘s parents and afterwards the party. I was so distracted by this „attack“ on my brain, I don’t think I really had the energy to think more critical about the most parts of the movie. It came over me like a stream. I can only remember the „events“ that disturbed me. Farley‘s part made me more critically think while watching. The rest was just there, no real plot twists just a reveal that makes my eyes roll while thinking about it. I also wanted Farley to be more present, like his struggles were overlooked, Oliver literally harassed him, this got treated like a throw away gag, with no reaction on Farley‘s side. The hypocrisy of his family members were barely acknowledged. Only one argument with Felix happens if I recall correctly . The moment he got send away, erased him from the narrative like he didn’t matter in it at all. Just here to make us believe that there was a deep exploration on the „traditional“ problems in the upperclass. As my final addition I put this shortened version of my opinion’s points „ A package that I could barely look at with nothing in it , because the only interesting thing was underused and then got thrown in the rubbish, before I could grab it“

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on the book where revelations towards the end seem to acknowledge the male fantasy that the main story was, and whether this salvages it for you (i tend to think it does). A lot of critics have said this was a major omission from the film.

I took it for entertainment value and found it....Very entertaining.

Were women in the 1960s and beyond conned by being convinced that empowerment equals promiscuity?

The movie was like the Green knight. Lots of praise, fake positive reviews, but the movie was garbage and quickly forgotten. Typical self indulgent bullshit coming out of Hollywood.

So interesting. I didn’t really feel like it focused on sex from the male perspective but rather through Bella’s lens and how she even grew out of the first primitive instinct of physical pleasure to wanting more and seeking other kinds of stimulation. I didn’t view it as her becoming a woman just because she had sex but rather a more primitive part of us as we develop and how children especially in puberty years experiment with their bodies and then exploring a more pragmatic approach to sex work and how it fit into what she wanted to experience.

This critic is an example of using an ideological lense (in this case feminism) and then be surprised that the film does not fit the lense. A wordy but hollow review that says absolutely nothing about the movie. There is no reason one should think that a movie needs to be feminist just because it has a woman as the main actor. There are so many topics of an almost philosophical nature that speak to the human nature, nature versus nurture, lust and sex, anarchical freedom versus cultural norms. Now the view on human beings is not exactly flattering, and one can agree or disagree. But please try at least to understand what the director has intended to say before you elaborate on what you expect the movie to be.

For the record, yes the director was to blame for the hypersexual content. It existed in the book, but it wasn’t so glorified.

Sex IS the best expression of true love but very few understand or know this because no one know whst love is let alone true love. A successful relationship requires a love ethic as bell hooks describes and defines it in her beautiful book, "all about love".

Emily Stone owns this film as a main producer. The sex is not "explicit". Go watch pornography for explicit sex@