Well yes. That is because Poor Things is not remotely surrealist. It is not trying to be. The set design, use of color and the camera work all work to signal the inner feelings of Bella. Even the acting, dialogue and staging are all there to signal her inner feelings and development. There is a word that describes this kind of style. It is not surrealism, it is expressionism. Surrealism is subconscious brought to view and in cinema it usually forms through edit and camera, then design and acting. It feels like I'm insane. For every movie with unconventional aesthetics people come out and throw around surrealism as if it doesn't have a definition and a clear cannon in cinema. Then there are smart people that know these movies are not surreal, but can't think of anything else so they use Absurdism. Absurdism in art is more a mode of art and story then a clear style. Conventional drama, family comedy, sci fi pulp, action and basically anything can have absurd as a mode, even if only for a brief moment in the story or its visuals. Absurd is not a style.
Categories like surrealism are merely a lens through which to see the art and try to pick up what it's laying down. The problem comes when discourse about the art becomes more preoccupied with the categories they've put the art into, and whether the art ticks all the boxes in the category, rather than taking the art for what it is. The same goes when the director's filmography, and where the film stands in it, becomes more important than the film as a discreet piece. Things like film genres and art movements are worthwhile when they help us understand and appreciate the work on more levels. But what often happens is that these things are used to dismiss or diminish the work. They become artificial hurdles that the work can then be criticized for failing to vault. To me, no matter how sophisticated the level of discourse becomes, all criticism comes back to two categories: "This could be better than it is," or "this should be different than it is." the first category begins with accepting the film you're watching for what it wants to be, and evaluates how well it accomplishes that. The second category begins with a notion of what the film ought to be, and measures it by that standard. Both can be useful ways of examining film. But the second way runs the risk of mistaking, say, a fantasy film like Poor Things for a surrealist film like, say, Mulholland Drive. So the critic falls into the trap of judging a fish by how well it climbs a tree. In the Documentary "I'm a Born Liar," the great surrealist filmmaker, Federico Fellini, complains that his producers always want to make his previous film. I think there's a comfort that all film fans seek out in trying to judge what they're seeing based on what they already know. But that's not where we experience what we love about movies. It's in the unexpected experience, the new ideas, that the real magic happens. But that magic comes with discomfort, the discomfort of not understanding what we're seeing, having to do the work of wrapping out head around it, thinking in new ways about new concepts. Struggling to piece together the chaos of images and ideas and try to understand what it all might mean. But when we slot it all into familiar categories in order to understand it, we begin with a confirmation bias, and distort or dismiss what doesn't fit. And we don't end up really understanding the whole. Which leads to everything being disappointing, because we're judging it all by what we think it should mean, rather than what it could mean. I think that's what's happening here.
@@rottensquid No, no. Surrealism, Impressionism, expressionism, suprematism are all distinct formalist and textual approaches to art which have a lot of historical value. They are not mere categories. But I do agree with you that we have stolen these terms and use them willy-nilly to mean anything nowadays. They are terms with distinct meaning and context, and we can't just slap Surrealist on a 21.st century film.
@@serugolino7867 I think you're still thinking like an academic and not an artist. Sure, it's important to know these movements historically, and even to understand them deeply if we're going to use them as an influence in a new creative work. But I think it's a mistake to categorize new media through these older movements. Movements are labeled only after they've emerged. The common pattern that emerges from the artistic community establishes the rules of the movement, not the other way around. If the art doesn't tick the boxes, that doesn't mean it has failed to be what it was intended to be, that just means it's not what you expected it to be. So to label some new piece of media as surrealist or absurdist, and then criticize its failure to live up to the formalities of the label you imposed, is making the criticism more about your expectations than anything the art is doing. The bottom line is, Yorgos Lanthimos isn't a surrealist as the title of the video suggests. But it's not because he's failing to be David Lynch. It's because he's succeeding at being Yorgos Lanthimos. And he most likely hasn't the faintest interest in what kind of director the public thinks he should be. He clearly made the exact movie he intended to make. Whatever else you can say about Poor Things, it seems obvious to me that it's everything it intends to be. My point is, it's up to the audience, and the critic, not to decide what it should have been and how it failed, but to work out what it actually is, and decide from there if we like it or not. And I see precious little of that in this video.
@@rottensquidOMG yes. Everyone’s overthinking. (Many disgustingly too much so, including this UA-camr. Ppl just sounding like self-absorbed snots.) This is a dark comedy with a wonderfully visually absurd “Po-Mo” take on Victorian costume and scenic design/scifi, meshed with ironically v cheap 60s Hollywood sets. Start with a base of 20s Frankenstein’s monster spookiness gone 70s New Wave cinematic cynicism/zoom-ins/outs. Add different lenses of ever width. Add current womens’ move for unbiased individual identities -(not just equal treatment and rights) plus campy 00s themes of self-actuations-via-lite-philosophy-of-life.) Sprinkle a little Harold&Maude, MontyPy., and Besson. Viola! It’s alive!!! Truly loved the movie though.
It's interesting looking at the imagery from Dogtooth and Alps. It is very Haneke in a more exotic, southern, sunny setting. I think that in films from anywhere but northern Europe and North America, there is, if not an expectation of, at least not much surprise when there's the inclusion of something like magic realism, Animism, the transmigration of souls, etc., or surrealism. The lush vegetation of the Athens suburb and the fall and colour of the light somehow evokes (among other things) Barcelona, Gaudi, Picasso, Dali, as well as world cinema such as that of Miguel Gomes (Portugal), Apichatpong Weerasethakul (Thailand), Kleber Mendonca Fihlo (Brazil), Albert Serra. That is, I would say, sometimes very challenging and slow paced cinema, but a kind of filmmaking that was extremely passionately championed by highbrow critics, right around the time of Dogtooth-through-Alps. The director Antonio Campos, whose first feature film, Afterschool, was very Haneke-inspired, has said that Dogtooth was "a turning point ... it was like Wes Anderson meets Bruno Dumont; when “European art house” became sort of an aesthetic." Campos was mentored in a Cannes workshop by Bruno Dumont. The style of Dumont's early films, with their widescreen tableaux and long takes, non-professional actors, real sex and certain absurd actions or juxtapositions, is something that edges the line between sincerity and satire so finely, that it is vulnerable to parody. Could the art house style that was prevalent and championed by highbrow critics in the 2000's persist as it was? I say all of this in the context of the theme of Yorgos Lanthimos coming closer to the mainstream centre, A24, and so on. Consider Joanna Hogg. The Souvenir films are great, I think. Archipelago (and I would guess Unrelated and Exhibition, which I haven't seen) is actively irritating to watch and was precisely the style of film being foisted on cinephiles by high critics between Dogtooth and Alps, and which critics can no longer bolster in the same way, if they would still want to. (Did you feel compelled to see The Eternal Daughter?) Consider Albert Serra's Pacifiction. I don't think young cinephiles are being made to feel less than if they don't subject themselves to this (and Serra's five previous major films for extra credit), but there would have been some of that a dozen years ago.
i agree but i would argue lanthimos may be softening some knives he’s also sharpening others at the same. the sickening absurdity of the lobster & sacred deer maybe subdued, but a newer, stranger embrace of surrealism is becoming welcome as evident with poor things (& relatively less significantly the end of the favourite). that’s what this video is about
Truly jarring to see Greek pop musicians I grew up with flash through the screen as examples of music videos he directed back in the day hahaha he had raaange
Having started out with Dogtooth back when I was a teenager, I really don't see it as dark as you make it out to be. Yes, the actual situation is very dark, but the layer of absurd on top of that film really softens that inherent darkness. If Yorgos is a scientist looking at his characters, then Dogtooth is the film where he invites the audience to come see the ants scurry about and have a good chuckle at their antics. It's perhaps a detached perspective on the world, I grant you, but, well, boiling down absurdism is just "Everything is meaningless, might as well laugh at the chaos". Regardless of any other interpretations, Poor Things is the only Lanthimos film since Dogtooth that I feel has struck that balance perfectly. It is very different, visually, from what he's made before, but the basic premise of "A parent who keeps their child removed from the world and then that child experiences facets of the world and interprets them in their own way" exists in both. Maybe it's just a vibes thing, but this is the first movie of his that I felt as "special" since Dogtooth. All the others have been good, but this one has the spark for me. As for the feminist interpretations, I would not want to wade into THAT minefield, but I will say that while I understand the overall critique of "Why doesn't Bella do more for the world", I think I like the message that we must break the cycle of abuse by first focusing on our own happiness. Knowing his previous work, I was fully expecting this one to end just as strangely and sadly as all the other ones, so I was glad that this one ended with Bella and co. being just happy and enjoying themselves. It's a tough thing for the Internet to understand sometimes, but people are allowed to be happy without turning into bastions of a particular social and/ or political movement.
The fishiest part is the calculated "surrealism" or whatever aesthetic they decorate themselves with, is clearly calculated to fit in with a certain trend of thoughts, especially problematic when the trend is the most popular ideology amongst the authorities of culture today, makes me feel like these filmmakers are not really interested in the art itself but the art of message/commentary packaging, they are just trying so hard to tailor their films to the themes they premeditated.
WOW! POOR THING story, it's visuals, Emma Stone & other strange characters were very intriguing for the first hr. but then everything stalled and slid slowly downhill when the story began to go nowhere. The movie starts to stumble along and even her character doesn't mature which made her performance begin to feel forced. Yes, and by adding the "never mentioned before" subplot just to create an abrupt conclusion after 2+20mins. of her clunking & fcking around was very disappointing! And by making SEX her ONLY passionate learning experience, it all seemed SHALLOW as a story and for her as a women. Her free-spirited pre-feminist non-conformist persona was weakened by a dead end 2 dimensional story.
Poor Things has a pretty obvious point that runs across the whole thing. Yeah it looks weird and has a weird initial premise but at the end of the end it's a story about female maturation and confronting patriarchy that really doesn't rock the boat on that idea beyond I suppose being more sex positive that maybe some factions would like.
Mmm. A video about artistic taxonomies… 🎉 It’s very likely neither Lanthimos nor Lynch give a damn about whether their work is surrealist or absurdist. This is why artists make art and critics critic.
The feminist critique on this movie has been so reductive. It's trying so much more to be human than just ideal. It's funny that you mention the countless works this year by directors and franchises commenting on themselves. I feel as if Lanthimos's human nature through sex ideology that has been a through line in his work so far has been put into question in this film. What critics call the "lull" in the back half of the film is, what I believe, Bella realizing literal human to human contact is not true connection. It's how she truly internalizes empathy and commradery. Just my two pennies.
You just summed up the feelings I had but didn't know how to put into words. There are so many lenses I can view this film through, and the feminist one is certainly one of them. But I was profoundly struck by the relatable human aspect of all of the characters....how they related to one another and aspects of society. I think this video is above my head a bit. Even though I love watching movies, including everything David Lynch, I'm not well versed enough to use the correct words or know where one genre ends and the next begins. I'll just say, I loved Poor Things and I'm sure I'll pick up on a lot more nuance upon more viewings. ❤
Thank you for articulating this. The film is not intuitive or esoteric enough to be surrealist. It's contrived and pastichey, an essential quality of the steampunk aesthetic used. I thought it was a good movie, just not surrealist. There's also a difference between something being surreal and Suurrealist with a capital S. There are some surreal aspects of the film, but I wouldn't call it Surrealist. Fantastical is a better description.
I think your right on the money here, I just don't know why Yorgos doesn't commit to having a bigger answer to the themes he poses. Like you've gone so far why stop now? Get Bella to change the world in a radical way or at least start her own practice because shes still in gods court by the end of it. Not really a dealbreaker just preference really (I also think it works better as a neurodivergence liberation story than a feminist one but they work in tandem with each other ig)
Yeah it is weird that film ends with her comfortable in her house having secured her revenge while the world still presumably sucks. I feel that part was forgotten. Also her sister still being treated like a pet.
I mean, I think a big aspect of the story is that the world itself won’t change in some radical way because of how much societal norms have been engrained so we have to find our own ways to navigate it. By the end, she found her own area of comfort that combined her previous life, her upbringing, the man who loves her, and what she learned from the world.
@@adanrodriguez9140well that’s awful, she ended up like Harry, the man that showed her poverty existed in Aexandria, just a cynical person who acknowledges the world sucks but won’t do anything about it
I must admit, I absolutely despised every instance where Mark Ruffalo's character broke the fourth wall and disrupted the immersive experience by reassuring viewers that they weren't losing their minds and that the events unfolding were abnormal. This departure from Lanthimos's signature technique was particularly disappointing, as his previous works thrived on creating worlds with distinct rules and expectations that eerily resembled our own. This approach not only heightened the unsettling atmosphere but also allowed for the exploration of profound ideas from our reality within these alternate realms, without overtly spoon-feeding the audience. In contrast, this film seemed to lack faith in its viewers' ability to comprehend its intricacies, resorting to unnecessary exposition that felt out of place for a director of Lanthimos's caliber.
That's precisely why "Dogtooth" feels so surreal yet grounded in reality-it seamlessly blends the surreal elements into the fabric of everyday life. Watching "Poor Things," I couldn't shake the feeling that it could have been directed by anyone. This sentiment lingered throughout the film, despite the fantastic score, which, although remarkable, deviated from the way Lanthimos typically utilizes music in his previous works. In his earlier films, the scores served to accentuate the unsettling emotions within the flat, apathetic characters, who often failed to react in ways expected by the audience. However, in "Poor Things," the intense score seemed at odds with the characters, who were not as flat or apathetic as in Lanthimos's previous works, resulting in an intense musical backdrop against intense visuals and scenery. Which is all fine and dandy but it didn’t feel very Lanthimos at all.
Yorgos is not surrealist but a boring materialist, subjectivist, moral relativists who uses a couple of uninspired fairytale images to make himself seem more interesting than he is.
Be me...8 years old...1986. First time I get to pick the movie. Great American grocery store ; Oh yeah forgot to mention small town America. Reagan 2 years til pasteurization....for all those who think dems keep those with dementia too long check them times (heck you're on UA-cam do it here start the red pilling of your algorithm) out. 2 movies catch the school weird kids eye: ispitonyourgrave (makes it difficulter to read maybe) and/or Eraserhead. My single mother...after rightly reading the backs...maybe (hey im def say in one is a hard no, the other a total unh...) not so rightly (friggin pick a cartoon or something kid) said Eraserhead would be the more acceptable choice. Us that know, know just what the doctor ordered for the weirdo, maybe not so much for mom and my 6 year old sister. Loved poor things with or without nudity. Original story familiar yet slightly askew universe thought provoking questions that can spur long discussions into thebnight (hahaha hey thanx 4 getting this far ((be me...8..eraserhead)) quasi tedious huh?) or even the...
Personally I find his writing more surrealist than his directing, but instead of his films feeling like Kaufman or Lynch his films have a rule set of their own. The lobster and the killing of a sacred deer look more like our world than poor things but the characters act much less human when he pens the script
This film was so self-indulgent in the worst way possible. No depth just theatrics. Quite infuriating result by such a once admired director. Pretention to the fullest. Poor things was indeed poorly done.
I find all of yargos' films to be like that. Everytime someone tries to explain why his film is meaningful, the answer just comes off so pretentious. The only one I can kinda understand is people finding the style funny and enjoying the bizarre characters. Outside of that though, the reasoning behind any of his movies feel so contrived and pointless.
Ive not seen poor things yet, but ive just partially watched and then read the synopsis of the killing of a sacred deer, and i had to do the same with the lobster a while back. Im gonna come back to this after i give poor things a chance, but good lord i find lanthimos' films to be so annoying. I find all the praise for it, beyond those who think the style is funny, to be so fucking pretentious.
i seriously feel so dumb when i listen to you talk. you use such big words that i sometimes don't know what you're even talking about... xD sure, english isn't my FIRST language but i'd like to think i'm very good at it. still... i struggle to follow WHAT you are talking about sometimes.
That's the problem more is less. most times a yes ,no or maybe will suffice.Yorgos is not that deep, he purposely tries to disturb , which is what is disturbing!
No offense but I not a fan of that director.. have only seen two of his works to be fair and it’s wasn’t not for me .. haven’t watched this one so doesn’t have a opinion on that one.. but for what I could see one thing struck me.. this is a Tim Burton film.. visually interesting and weird as hell but don’t know if it’s worth it or something like that …!
The articles you mention are very bad. Reviews are meant to be subjective, sure, but why does subjectivity boil down to politics/morality? It's exhausting. I understand these articles are written as quickly as possible and writers don't have time to make a fair judgement of the movie... But, at this point, most reviews are just shallow political opinions with run-of-the-mill style. Saying Poor Things has "unchallenging liberal sensibilities" isn't insightful at all, it's just tagging something and moving along.
Cool cool, anyway, go read the book because the movie only tells half the story. Which, with full offense, makes me ask why the fuck Yorgos adapted the book if he wasn't going to actually adapt it?!
I expected so much more from the third act of Poor Things.🤔 It was so politically correct! A truly fantastical ending from a far left feminist intersectional perspective. Oh well.🤷🏾♀️
Are the "far left" people in the room with us right now? You people are so afraid of everything. What an exhausting life that must be. Consuming anti-liberal fear porn "news" to satisfy your needs.
I don't know if you're using those terms facetiously, but this movie was fully in lock-step with liberal consensus. A bit disappointing considering the director's previous works and their pessimism.
bruh this is the most essay of video essays
Well yes. That is because Poor Things is not remotely surrealist. It is not trying to be. The set design, use of color and the camera work all work to signal the inner feelings of Bella. Even the acting, dialogue and staging are all there to signal her inner feelings and development. There is a word that describes this kind of style. It is not surrealism, it is expressionism. Surrealism is subconscious brought to view and in cinema it usually forms through edit and camera, then design and acting.
It feels like I'm insane. For every movie with unconventional aesthetics people come out and throw around surrealism as if it doesn't have a definition and a clear cannon in cinema. Then there are smart people that know these movies are not surreal, but can't think of anything else so they use Absurdism. Absurdism in art is more a mode of art and story then a clear style. Conventional drama, family comedy, sci fi pulp, action and basically anything can have absurd as a mode, even if only for a brief moment in the story or its visuals. Absurd is not a style.
Categories like surrealism are merely a lens through which to see the art and try to pick up what it's laying down. The problem comes when discourse about the art becomes more preoccupied with the categories they've put the art into, and whether the art ticks all the boxes in the category, rather than taking the art for what it is. The same goes when the director's filmography, and where the film stands in it, becomes more important than the film as a discreet piece.
Things like film genres and art movements are worthwhile when they help us understand and appreciate the work on more levels. But what often happens is that these things are used to dismiss or diminish the work. They become artificial hurdles that the work can then be criticized for failing to vault.
To me, no matter how sophisticated the level of discourse becomes, all criticism comes back to two categories: "This could be better than it is," or "this should be different than it is." the first category begins with accepting the film you're watching for what it wants to be, and evaluates how well it accomplishes that. The second category begins with a notion of what the film ought to be, and measures it by that standard. Both can be useful ways of examining film. But the second way runs the risk of mistaking, say, a fantasy film like Poor Things for a surrealist film like, say, Mulholland Drive. So the critic falls into the trap of judging a fish by how well it climbs a tree.
In the Documentary "I'm a Born Liar," the great surrealist filmmaker, Federico Fellini, complains that his producers always want to make his previous film. I think there's a comfort that all film fans seek out in trying to judge what they're seeing based on what they already know. But that's not where we experience what we love about movies. It's in the unexpected experience, the new ideas, that the real magic happens. But that magic comes with discomfort, the discomfort of not understanding what we're seeing, having to do the work of wrapping out head around it, thinking in new ways about new concepts. Struggling to piece together the chaos of images and ideas and try to understand what it all might mean.
But when we slot it all into familiar categories in order to understand it, we begin with a confirmation bias, and distort or dismiss what doesn't fit. And we don't end up really understanding the whole. Which leads to everything being disappointing, because we're judging it all by what we think it should mean, rather than what it could mean. I think that's what's happening here.
@@rottensquid No, no. Surrealism, Impressionism, expressionism, suprematism are all distinct formalist and textual approaches to art which have a lot of historical value. They are not mere categories. But I do agree with you that we have stolen these terms and use them willy-nilly to mean anything nowadays. They are terms with distinct meaning and context, and we can't just slap Surrealist on a 21.st century film.
@@serugolino7867 I think you're still thinking like an academic and not an artist. Sure, it's important to know these movements historically, and even to understand them deeply if we're going to use them as an influence in a new creative work. But I think it's a mistake to categorize new media through these older movements. Movements are labeled only after they've emerged. The common pattern that emerges from the artistic community establishes the rules of the movement, not the other way around. If the art doesn't tick the boxes, that doesn't mean it has failed to be what it was intended to be, that just means it's not what you expected it to be. So to label some new piece of media as surrealist or absurdist, and then criticize its failure to live up to the formalities of the label you imposed, is making the criticism more about your expectations than anything the art is doing.
The bottom line is, Yorgos Lanthimos isn't a surrealist as the title of the video suggests. But it's not because he's failing to be David Lynch. It's because he's succeeding at being Yorgos Lanthimos.
And he most likely hasn't the faintest interest in what kind of director the public thinks he should be. He clearly made the exact movie he intended to make. Whatever else you can say about Poor Things, it seems obvious to me that it's everything it intends to be. My point is, it's up to the audience, and the critic, not to decide what it should have been and how it failed, but to work out what it actually is, and decide from there if we like it or not. And I see precious little of that in this video.
@@rottensquidOMG yes.
Everyone’s overthinking. (Many disgustingly too much so, including this UA-camr. Ppl just sounding like self-absorbed snots.)
This is a dark comedy with a wonderfully visually absurd “Po-Mo” take on Victorian costume and scenic design/scifi, meshed with ironically v cheap 60s Hollywood sets. Start with a base of 20s Frankenstein’s monster spookiness gone 70s New Wave cinematic cynicism/zoom-ins/outs.
Add different lenses of ever width.
Add current womens’ move for unbiased individual identities -(not just equal treatment and rights)
plus campy 00s themes of self-actuations-via-lite-philosophy-of-life.)
Sprinkle a little Harold&Maude, MontyPy., and Besson.
Viola!
It’s alive!!!
Truly loved the movie though.
It's interesting looking at the imagery from Dogtooth and Alps. It is very Haneke in a more exotic, southern, sunny setting. I think that in films from anywhere but northern Europe and North America, there is, if not an expectation of, at least not much surprise when there's the inclusion of something like magic realism, Animism, the transmigration of souls, etc., or surrealism. The lush vegetation of the Athens suburb and the fall and colour of the light somehow evokes (among other things) Barcelona, Gaudi, Picasso, Dali, as well as world cinema such as that of Miguel Gomes (Portugal), Apichatpong Weerasethakul (Thailand), Kleber Mendonca Fihlo (Brazil), Albert Serra. That is, I would say, sometimes very challenging and slow paced cinema, but a kind of filmmaking that was extremely passionately championed by highbrow critics, right around the time of Dogtooth-through-Alps.
The director Antonio Campos, whose first feature film, Afterschool, was very Haneke-inspired, has said that Dogtooth was "a turning point ... it was like Wes Anderson meets Bruno Dumont; when “European art house” became sort of an aesthetic." Campos was mentored in a Cannes workshop by Bruno Dumont. The style of Dumont's early films, with their widescreen tableaux and long takes, non-professional actors, real sex and certain absurd actions or juxtapositions, is something that edges the line between sincerity and satire so finely, that it is vulnerable to parody.
Could the art house style that was prevalent and championed by highbrow critics in the 2000's persist as it was? I say all of this in the context of the theme of Yorgos Lanthimos coming closer to the mainstream centre, A24, and so on. Consider Joanna Hogg. The Souvenir films are great, I think. Archipelago (and I would guess Unrelated and Exhibition, which I haven't seen) is actively irritating to watch and was precisely the style of film being foisted on cinephiles by high critics between Dogtooth and Alps, and which critics can no longer bolster in the same way, if they would still want to. (Did you feel compelled to see The Eternal Daughter?) Consider Albert Serra's Pacifiction. I don't think young cinephiles are being made to feel less than if they don't subject themselves to this (and Serra's five previous major films for extra credit), but there would have been some of that a dozen years ago.
Filmmakers need to stop softening their knives because it's what makes them interesting and unique
Now if they can only make something Original we'll be Aces,,,,
i agree but i would argue lanthimos may be softening some knives he’s also sharpening others at the same. the sickening absurdity of the lobster & sacred deer maybe subdued, but a newer, stranger embrace of surrealism is becoming welcome as evident with poor things (& relatively less significantly the end of the favourite). that’s what this video is about
Truly jarring to see Greek pop musicians I grew up with flash through the screen as examples of music videos he directed back in the day hahaha he had raaange
I loved it. Very beautifully shot, the music was perfect for the story.
Having started out with Dogtooth back when I was a teenager, I really don't see it as dark as you make it out to be. Yes, the actual situation is very dark, but the layer of absurd on top of that film really softens that inherent darkness. If Yorgos is a scientist looking at his characters, then Dogtooth is the film where he invites the audience to come see the ants scurry about and have a good chuckle at their antics. It's perhaps a detached perspective on the world, I grant you, but, well, boiling down absurdism is just "Everything is meaningless, might as well laugh at the chaos".
Regardless of any other interpretations, Poor Things is the only Lanthimos film since Dogtooth that I feel has struck that balance perfectly. It is very different, visually, from what he's made before, but the basic premise of "A parent who keeps their child removed from the world and then that child experiences facets of the world and interprets them in their own way" exists in both. Maybe it's just a vibes thing, but this is the first movie of his that I felt as "special" since Dogtooth. All the others have been good, but this one has the spark for me.
As for the feminist interpretations, I would not want to wade into THAT minefield, but I will say that while I understand the overall critique of "Why doesn't Bella do more for the world", I think I like the message that we must break the cycle of abuse by first focusing on our own happiness. Knowing his previous work, I was fully expecting this one to end just as strangely and sadly as all the other ones, so I was glad that this one ended with Bella and co. being just happy and enjoying themselves. It's a tough thing for the Internet to understand sometimes, but people are allowed to be happy without turning into bastions of a particular social and/ or political movement.
Great video, gave me so much to think about
The fishiest part is the calculated "surrealism" or whatever aesthetic they decorate themselves with, is clearly calculated to fit in with a certain trend of thoughts, especially problematic when the trend is the most popular ideology amongst the authorities of culture today, makes me feel like these filmmakers are not really interested in the art itself but the art of message/commentary packaging, they are just trying so hard to tailor their films to the themes they premeditated.
WOW! POOR THING story, it's visuals, Emma Stone & other strange characters were very intriguing for the first hr. but then everything stalled and slid slowly downhill when the story began to go nowhere. The movie starts to stumble along and even her character doesn't mature which made her performance begin to feel forced. Yes, and by adding the "never mentioned before" subplot just to create an abrupt conclusion after 2+20mins. of her clunking & fcking around was very disappointing! And by making SEX her ONLY passionate learning experience, it all seemed SHALLOW as a story and for her as a women. Her free-spirited pre-feminist non-conformist persona was weakened by a dead end 2 dimensional story.
This was the Poor Things conversation I was looking for, great thoughts thank you!
Poor Things has a pretty obvious point that runs across the whole thing. Yeah it looks weird and has a weird initial premise but at the end of the end it's a story about female maturation and confronting patriarchy that really doesn't rock the boat on that idea beyond I suppose being more sex positive that maybe some factions would like.
And its all about sex.
It's garbage
If by sex positive you mean having very unclear messaging regarding consent and giving a paedo a good guy edit then yes I guest...
you are seriously a skilled and thought-provoking writer. i couldn't appreciate this video and your insight more.
film reviewer in a tool shed is paul schrader vibes
Mmm. A video about artistic taxonomies… 🎉 It’s very likely neither Lanthimos nor Lynch give a damn about whether their work is surrealist or absurdist. This is why artists make art and critics critic.
The feminist critique on this movie has been so reductive. It's trying so much more to be human than just ideal. It's funny that you mention the countless works this year by directors and franchises commenting on themselves. I feel as if Lanthimos's human nature through sex ideology that has been a through line in his work so far has been put into question in this film. What critics call the "lull" in the back half of the film is, what I believe, Bella realizing literal human to human contact is not true connection. It's how she truly internalizes empathy and commradery. Just my two pennies.
You just summed up the feelings I had but didn't know how to put into words. There are so many lenses I can view this film through, and the feminist one is certainly one of them. But I was profoundly struck by the relatable human aspect of all of the characters....how they related to one another and aspects of society.
I think this video is above my head a bit. Even though I love watching movies, including everything David Lynch, I'm not well versed enough to use the correct words or know where one genre ends and the next begins.
I'll just say, I loved Poor Things and I'm sure I'll pick up on a lot more nuance upon more viewings. ❤
Andre Breton stopped giving out Surrealism cards in the 1930s.
interesting video!
21:40 you should’ve mentioned The Boy and the heron 😂
5:02 André Breton is pronounced ANDREY BREH-TONE, not whatever Taylor said.
Great video! Any thoughts on how kinds of kindness brings back that classic yorgos? would love to hear more 😂🪩
Thank you for articulating this. The film is not intuitive or esoteric enough to be surrealist. It's contrived and pastichey, an essential quality of the steampunk aesthetic used. I thought it was a good movie, just not surrealist.
There's also a difference between something being surreal and Suurrealist with a capital S. There are some surreal aspects of the film, but I wouldn't call it Surrealist. Fantastical is a better description.
I think your right on the money here, I just don't know why Yorgos doesn't commit to having a bigger answer to the themes he poses. Like you've gone so far why stop now? Get Bella to change the world in a radical way or at least start her own practice because shes still in gods court by the end of it. Not really a dealbreaker just preference really (I also think it works better as a neurodivergence liberation story than a feminist one but they work in tandem with each other ig)
Yeah it is weird that film ends with her comfortable in her house having secured her revenge while the world still presumably sucks. I feel that part was forgotten. Also her sister still being treated like a pet.
Then you might want to read the book by Alasdair Gray ❤
I mean, I think a big aspect of the story is that the world itself won’t change in some radical way because of how much societal norms have been engrained so we have to find our own ways to navigate it. By the end, she found her own area of comfort that combined her previous life, her upbringing, the man who loves her, and what she learned from the world.
@@adanrodriguez9140well that’s awful, she ended up like Harry, the man that showed her poverty existed in Aexandria, just a cynical person who acknowledges the world sucks but won’t do anything about it
@@Cto-mr8hk it's certainly not a terrible fate compared to the alternatives
Mr. Williams reminds me of a zoomer George Lucas
How is no one talking about the kids and sex being in the same room being played for laughs? No one?
Thank you
Lanthimos has made more controversial scenes
i wouldn’t say it was played for laughs
dear god the bobbleheading
More of a Symbolist than a Surrealist, I think
I think I understood like 50% of this essay, im too dumb for this I fear
I must admit, I absolutely despised every instance where Mark Ruffalo's character broke the fourth wall and disrupted the immersive experience by reassuring viewers that they weren't losing their minds and that the events unfolding were abnormal. This departure from Lanthimos's signature technique was particularly disappointing, as his previous works thrived on creating worlds with distinct rules and expectations that eerily resembled our own. This approach not only heightened the unsettling atmosphere but also allowed for the exploration of profound ideas from our reality within these alternate realms, without overtly spoon-feeding the audience. In contrast, this film seemed to lack faith in its viewers' ability to comprehend its intricacies, resorting to unnecessary exposition that felt out of place for a director of Lanthimos's caliber.
That's precisely why "Dogtooth" feels so surreal yet grounded in reality-it seamlessly blends the surreal elements into the fabric of everyday life. Watching "Poor Things," I couldn't shake the feeling that it could have been directed by anyone. This sentiment lingered throughout the film, despite the fantastic score, which, although remarkable, deviated from the way Lanthimos typically utilizes music in his previous works. In his earlier films, the scores served to accentuate the unsettling emotions within the flat, apathetic characters, who often failed to react in ways expected by the audience. However, in "Poor Things," the intense score seemed at odds with the characters, who were not as flat or apathetic as in Lanthimos's previous works, resulting in an intense musical backdrop against intense visuals and scenery. Which is all fine and dandy but it didn’t feel very Lanthimos at all.
Lanthimos has lost his (Dog)teeth
Nice video! Did you see the movie Poor Things? Is sooooo surreal 😅
15:40 white lodge
3:56 - but are you/that quote implying Bergman and Tarkovsky are surrealists or anything to do with surrealism?
Yorgos is not surrealist but a boring materialist, subjectivist, moral relativists who uses a couple of uninspired fairytale images to make himself seem more interesting than he is.
He's not a surrealist, but an absurdist
Man, get to the point already
Ideological activists are no different than religious zealots
This was a book before a movie. The book is the world's view of Bella. The movie is Bella'a view of the world. Dog Tooth ROCKS!!
you must be fun at parties
Epic
i like listening to you talk because understanding your big fancy vocabulary makes me feel like an asshole
Be me...8 years old...1986. First time I get to pick the movie. Great American grocery store ; Oh yeah forgot to mention small town America. Reagan 2 years til pasteurization....for all those who think dems keep those with dementia too long check them times (heck you're on UA-cam do it here start the red pilling of your algorithm) out. 2 movies catch the school weird kids eye: ispitonyourgrave (makes it difficulter to read maybe) and/or Eraserhead. My single mother...after rightly reading the backs...maybe (hey im def say in one is a hard no, the other a total unh...) not so rightly (friggin pick a cartoon or something kid) said Eraserhead would be the more acceptable choice. Us that know, know just what the doctor ordered for the weirdo, maybe not so much for mom and my 6 year old sister. Loved poor things with or without nudity. Original story familiar yet slightly askew universe thought provoking questions that can spur long discussions into thebnight (hahaha hey thanx 4 getting this far ((be me...8..eraserhead)) quasi tedious huh?) or even the...
He’s a formalist
Personally I find his writing more surrealist than his directing, but instead of his films feeling like Kaufman or Lynch his films have a rule set of their own. The lobster and the killing of a sacred deer look more like our world than poor things but the characters act much less human when he pens the script
One of the worst movies I've ever seen. Worse then The Room
This film was so self-indulgent in the worst way possible. No depth just theatrics. Quite infuriating result by such a once admired director. Pretention to the fullest. Poor things was indeed poorly done.
I find all of yargos' films to be like that. Everytime someone tries to explain why his film is meaningful, the answer just comes off so pretentious. The only one I can kinda understand is people finding the style funny and enjoying the bizarre characters. Outside of that though, the reasoning behind any of his movies feel so contrived and pointless.
🤣🤣🤣
Ive not seen poor things yet, but ive just partially watched and then read the synopsis of the killing of a sacred deer, and i had to do the same with the lobster a while back. Im gonna come back to this after i give poor things a chance, but good lord i find lanthimos' films to be so annoying. I find all the praise for it, beyond those who think the style is funny, to be so fucking pretentious.
that's a lot of talking and not saying much
Why does he speak like this?
Yorgos has made it clear that he intends to balance his taste with the ability to continue to make films
i seriously feel so dumb when i listen to you talk. you use such big words that i sometimes don't know what you're even talking about... xD sure, english isn't my FIRST language but i'd like to think i'm very good at it. still... i struggle to follow WHAT you are talking about sometimes.
Read book
It's okay, he doesn't either.
Don't worry he's just ~obtusely applying pretentious jargon to spice up a very pedestrian review lol
That's the problem more is less. most times a yes ,no or maybe will suffice.Yorgos is not that deep, he purposely tries to disturb , which is what is disturbing!
Calling someone pretentious while using the word "pedestrian" as an adjective
Do not waste your hard earned money on seeing Poor Things. It's Trash.
Lanthimos is an absurdist.
Poor Things was poor. Horrible and boring. Characters were all hollow. He made Poor Things to appease to the public.
No offense but I not a fan of that director.. have only seen two of his works to be fair and it’s wasn’t not for me .. haven’t watched this one so doesn’t have a opinion on that one.. but for what I could see one thing struck me.. this is a Tim Burton film.. visually interesting and weird as hell but don’t know if it’s worth it or something like that …!
I don’t understand how you could think this film could be remotely interested in appealing to the public …
@@bacht4799 Guy Maddin is not for everyone. His work is very niche.
The articles you mention are very bad. Reviews are meant to be subjective, sure, but why does subjectivity boil down to politics/morality? It's exhausting. I understand these articles are written as quickly as possible and writers don't have time to make a fair judgement of the movie... But, at this point, most reviews are just shallow political opinions with run-of-the-mill style. Saying Poor Things has "unchallenging liberal sensibilities" isn't insightful at all, it's just tagging something and moving along.
Anyone else think Taylor looks handsome here? 🥰
Cool cool, anyway, go read the book because the movie only tells half the story. Which, with full offense, makes me ask why the fuck Yorgos adapted the book if he wasn't going to actually adapt it?!
I expected so much more from the third act of Poor Things.🤔 It was so politically correct! A truly fantastical ending from a far left feminist intersectional perspective. Oh well.🤷🏾♀️
I was absolutely loving this movie until the third act. Really disappointing how they evolved the story into that :/.
Are the "far left" people in the room with us right now?
You people are so afraid of everything. What an exhausting life that must be. Consuming anti-liberal fear porn "news" to satisfy your needs.
I don't know if you're using those terms facetiously, but this movie was fully in lock-step with liberal consensus. A bit disappointing considering the director's previous works and their pessimism.
@@Garrett1240 it sounds like your feelings are too delicate to be watching movies.
It was pretty 'far left intersectional feminist' right from the beginning dude. The whole movie is an allegory of how society conceptualizes women.