Very interesting part about the dangers of homeless women being taken in. I was completely appalled by the way she was fetishized from the start while still being a completely helpless baby on the inside. While that alone is fucked up enough, the fact that at the beginning, she presents as someone with severe brain damage, made me think about how much more in danger disabled women are at becoming a victim of sexual abuse. The male gaze all over this extremely vulnerable human being was kinda sickening to me. Maybe, as a woman with a neurological disease I‘m a bit sensitive here but the fact that so many people don’t seem to question this fetishized portrayal is rather frightening to me.
Yeah, wasn’t that all the point? The infantilization, possessiveness, disgusting behavior of many men enabled by the patriarchy? It was like lifting up a rock and shining a spotlight on all the gross absurd bugs existing under there. Did people miss all that? Jeez.
The film did present her fetishization as wrong though, Bella even called god and her almost fiance out when she saw that they made another girl like her and her previous husband also acknowledged that these men were exploiting her when he disturbed the wedding (even if he proceeded to be awful to her as well). I think that Lanthimos wanted the audience to make their own moral judgments but he never presented Bellas mistreatment as acceptable. That's why none of the sex scenes in this movie were erotic, they were disturbing because Bellas reality was disturbing even if she didn't understand it at times.
I think your point about questioning Bella's position at the end of the film is interesting. When you said it I thought it's quite a conventional masculine success ending, planted on a female to make her look empowered within the male gaze. She has successfully got revenge on her abusive partner, has a man serve her drinks, drove her evil lover to insanity and soaks up the sun while relaxing on a sun lounger. Empowerment through a male gaze usually is at the mercy of others - rather than rewarding Bella with empowerment which comes from within, it's only through her external rewards has she becomes 'empowered'. Thanks for the vid it sparked some great thoughts!
"Empowerment through a male gaze usually is at the mercy of others" - this is such an interesting reading! Thank you for sharing it. You make a great point: if success for Bella involves her moving up in this power structure and not questioning or altering how the structure depends on (or encourages) exerting power over others, there's a certain comedy and poetic justice to the situation, but it's not particularly radical or freeing. It's arguably a very masculine or male-coded definition of success. Maybe she subverts it by being a woman - or is she simply perpetuating something that ought to be questioned more? Good food for thought. Thanks again!
I see your point but not entirely agree with the concept of "at mercy of others" if well observed the paths of the characters and their agencies. In the case of Duncan, Bella expresses more then once that she believes in his possibility of growing. But he's too trapped in his own narcissism and hedonistic journey to understand and accept rejection [as a side note I dont even think he loves her, but only the feeling of possession]. As an adult with - ironically - childish emotional development, he becomes bitter and bitter seeing his "toy" creating an awareness and interest in the world that does not include him and decides to fight voraciously against it, leading to his "insanity". And almost the same is applicable to the general, except that his reasonings are values and ideais given by society (the role of the woman, her relashionship with sexual desire, etc). Max, in this triangulation, would be the partner willing to accept her freedom and see her as an equal - beyond sexual pleasure and beauty, they discuss themes important to both and help each other in the operating table. The final scene with him, to my eyes, is much more revealing of their partnership than his submission. The movie, nonetheless, has a particular individualistic take on liberty, and unfortunately, almost nothing is shown about Bella' take on power structures despite her supposed interest in socialism.
Wait, but she’s also self-actualized, perusing her interests, created a community/family of like-minded folks, activated, and happy. It’s even implied that she’s working to improve the lives of the maid and her successor, both showing progress in attitude and skills upon her arrival. Ahdunno, I didn’t see it as a baller-male-success-trope.
Wait, what? Conventional masculine success ending? What does that even mean? Is getting revenge against those who've wronged you, keeping a partner who satisfies you, surrounding yourself with people you feel comfortable with and making a successful career for yourself a strictly masculine thing? Well... okay, I guess. So, in your opinion, what would be a feminine success ending for Bella Baxter? What would empowerment look like from a female standpoint? What would "empowerment that comes from within" look like to you?
I don't understand why people expect a film to be feminist. The question is it a good film, i.e. does it do well what it set out to do? Is it more interesting than predictable ? A film can be feminist and still be a bad film; a film can be not feminist (fetishistic, what is it? is not all representation with a centre fetishistic?) and still good.
@@turnipsociety706 It's of course all subjective but for me the goal of any piece of art is to evoke some sort of emotion. What I personally define as "good art" is one that doesn't necessarily have to align with my morals or politics. I can say, yeah Poor Things is a pretty good movie in a lot of ways, but a lot of the analysis I've seen of the film (on UA-cam it's mostly male content creators) latching this feminist identity to it because it has a female lead engaging in ownership of sexuality. I have a similar issue with Neon Genesis Evangelion which is on it's face *good*, but at the expense of sexualizing underage girls. The issue then becomes how is the art effecting it's audience and their perceptions of women. I find issue with a male author, male writer, and male director attempting a story on ethics & feminism, which can't truly be as authentic and compelling as it would be if it were made by women. That's not to say a woman could as easily bungle up a story like this. It's about equality of sexes after all. Lastly, I believe it's fetishistic because it's premise is blatantly dependent on: What if a child's brain was in an adults body and *wanted* to have sex with you? The purpose is for a troublesome ethical question, but who is that question for and why is it being asked?
@@jesdotby Did the director, author or writer say they were doing a film on feminism? Or is it the content creators that analysed it? I think this point is key to criticise it. Still, I find it very reductive and essentialistic to say that men cannot write a story on feminism as authentically as a woman. A man cannot be more of a feminist than a woman? Is a woman always a "better" feminist?
I see a lot of praise for this film. I certainly felt in the minority of not seeing what others seem to. I couldn't work out what the film was trying to say either.
There are good aspects of the film. But the sex was not one of them. It was too much, too prominent, and the way she starts at a young age feels wrong. It could have explored these themes without exploiting the main character so much.
Those of us who felt unsettled by the film do not simply consume what is being fed to us, just like Bella at the dinner table. LOL! Too many contradictions, confusing narratives and not enough of a well conceived journey.
Have not seen the film yet...BUT based on what I have seen, more HOLLYWOOD GARBAGE. Hollywood's "acclaimed" films -- in contrast to its European counterparts -- leave audiences in the muck of their strange, deranged, jumbled imaginations. As I noted to a friend years back, who was perplexed why he could NOT find a movie worth watching on Dish Network with 1000's + 1000's of channels, movies + programs from which to choose -- other than rewatch a film he'd already seen (this man, like I, appreciates QUALITY, regardless the product. I simply replied, "Looks whose writing the material. Hollywood is neither literate, nor moral, for the most part, and that comprizes most of what's on cable, Dish NW, etc. If you want to see something of quality -- look to British films (usually period pieces) or other European works (in recent years: the Diana Gabaldon series "Outlander" or "The Last Kingdom" series + concluding film "Seven Kings Must Die" written by Martha Hillier, based on "The Saxon Stories," by Bernard Cornwell. Both of these are historic, period works, but the Brits and other European film companies do create and release all types of film...At least, some people still know how to write and tell a masterful tale. THANK GOD! As for "Poor Things" and other ill-conceived and constructed works -- I seriously doubt I will waste my time or money.
At one point Bella remarks that sex work is socialist and therefore good. However, she simultaneously knows this is not true when she questions if she has to have sex with a man she finds unappealing, and the Madame’s answer is yes. The concept of being forced to have sex with men she doesn’t want to is not explored at all… in the end, her experience is framed as liberating and positive, and having sex with someone she doesn’t want to is a mere bump in the road. Obviously this is in stark contrast to the realities women forced into sex work face across the globe. It was an incredibly flippant, under-explored, male-centered view on women forced into sex work.
Framed as a 'mere bump in the road' - I agree with you about this. My impression is that the director was seeking to explore questions surrounding shame and stigma and sex work, by portraying it through Bella's wide-eyed gaze; however, I also felt that the film's omission of the violence and abuse that often accompanies sex work felt as naive as Bella's own perspective. Maybe she exists as a character to make those around her - as well as audiences - question their beliefs, but again, it did feel naive to and simplistic to portray sex work in this way, even in a work of fiction. Male-centred: I think you are right about this.
Exactly. So annoying that the pillars of her awakening were: 1, unconsensual phallo-centric sx that feels like a p0rn scenario (ex: pure, classic "she looks mature for her age" plus did anyone else notice the day after discovering m$sturbation she wants a cucumber inside herself? are you for fcking real? is p*netration all you know??) and secondly the drawing of herself from above, f€llating a boat, as if she came to the world with a pre-installed male gaze in her baby brain, like... please. So unimaginative for a science fiction film). And 2, Sx work as empowerment - such a tired, male-centric view of female liberation (note the comment about a client where she speaks of vi0lent sx as "weirdly not unpleasant" - I was so over it at this point, plus the madame is the only villain in this fucking film! Of course the actualy, visible, creepy coertion is exercized by a woman, because why not, rght? Women can be abusers too, don't be sexist! Even the husband feels completely unthreatening for his whole meager plot, and is resolved that way: a silly little goat, don't you worry about him). I am so annoyed with the way they are talking about this film in interviews like it is about the absence of shame or some bullshit. This film is a verbiose non-comment about some problematic situations, and it completely fails to address them.
I've loved every other Yorgos film since Dogtooth, but Poor Things left me so disappointed in him, and even more so, in the writer, Tony McNamara. The book does a better (not much, but better) job of handling this complex and problematic subject matter, not least of all by acknowledging that the story is told from a man's limited, unreliable point of view - in the case of the film, we must hope the audience sees that on its own. At one point on her two-week cruise of enlightenment, Bella says "if it is disgusting, why should I keep it in my mouth?" as she spits out her fancy dinner. She doesn't like it, she spits it out - she doesn't continue eating it, day in, day out, forever to see if she might feel differently about something she felt was disgusting. She actively expresses the disgust she feels when working as a prostitute, and yet she continues to do it, indefinitely, seemingly under the thumb of a madam who physically harms her. Then, bafflingly, she declares it a net-positive experience and the film plays it for laughs. An unsocialized human would instinctually, as we have seen, run away from a negative experience that provokes disgust and pain. Spit out that disgusting thing. Yet she continues, even though she has the means to leave or work in literally any other field or explore any other part of society. She's supposedly wise enough from exposure to those two or three books, the token black person explaining suffering for a quick 2 minute aside, and that noble street performer's song, to understand socialism, but she doesn't understand the realities of prostitution? And why prostitution? If she's evolved to the status of a grown woman capable of consent, she should be able to function in society in any number of ways that are more enjoyable. Yet she chooses prostitution even though these experiences are not pleasurable or even consensual, and she vocalizes that multiple times. There's also never any concern for pregnancy, menstruation, disease, assault or really any female pleasure. Even the slightly more consensual (felt more like a pedophilic grooming fantasy to me...) scenes with Mark Ruffalo felt like anything I'd see in regular heteronormative p0rn - a distinctly male gaze with zero attention to the mechanics of female pleasure or orgasm. And if her goal was solely sexual pleasure, why not experiment as she does in the book, with partners of her choosing, instead of partners she openly finds disgusting? I reject the character motivations on face because she contradicts her own stated instincts, feelings and logic. If this were a critique of how society, specifically patriarchy, funnels women into these situations and treated it with the seriousness sex work deserves, including the many potential harms to vulnerable women, then perhaps I could buy an *attempt* at a feminist message. But she insists that she likes it and suffers nothing, after describing her utter disgust. The lush setting almost glamorized the lifestyle of a sex worker and implied this somehow led to her self-actualization and freedom. But how exactly? And can we really even call these actions free if she's being physically and psychologically coerced by the madam? If not for God's illness, she would have continued as a prostitute and I still have no idea why - except to showcase more nudity and "shocking" sexual situations. Funny that the male author, male screenwriter and male director would believe that a woman's unsocialized, pure response to sexual awakening would be to focus it all on male fantasies and desires rather than her own. Ultimately, the initially promising premise of an unsocialized female being exploring the world without social constraint became an exploitative exercise in the male gaze where a woman's base instinct is to have unpleasurable sex with men for money. Poor Things reduces a woman's journey of self-actualization to twenty minutes of ''learning" and an hour plus of unenjoyable sex she doesn't fully consent to, with a tacked on faux feminist ending to absolve itself. Only with the threat of the (sadly, once real) clitoridectomy solution to her supposed mental health issues by her cartoon villain of a husband are we faced with a worse villain than the film itself - I guess I can praise it for pointing out that tragic historical fact. But it also weirdly positions this as the alternative to the much better life of "whoring." I think everyone is loving the pretty, shiny packaging, but even from a technical standpoint, the film feels all over the place. The cinematography is novel, but it's also inconsistent and gimmicky - throwing in every cinematic trick in the book, the black and white to color cliché, the fish eye lens, the peephole, the title cards, the actually-not-original-at-all steampunk aesthetic. I've seen it before and this feels very much style over substance, with an everything but the kitchen sink approach. The only thing I truly loved was Emma Stone's performance, and she definitely deserves a trophy. I just wish the story was worthy of her talent.
This is a very thorough and thoughtful comment. I haven't read the book, so it is very interesting to read your assessment of how the book and film compare. I also think you are right to highlight the somewhat tokenistic manner in which Bella acquires 'worldliness' and perspective and learning. Thank you for taking the time to write this - I found it thought-provoking!
Thank you for exposing other contradictory aspects of the film that caused many of us to feel confused and unfulfilled by the film. I've now analysed this film way too much to explain why it doesn't work narratively or even existentially. Now It's just comes down to one word: FRANKENHOOKER. But I have to disagree with you and many! Because of the film's flaws, even Emma Stone's performance felt forced, displaced and over acted due the movies more childishly cruel portrayal rather than the books more cheerful and loving persona of Bella which didn't feel anymore believable as she uneventfully matures towards the dreadful ending.
I feel that the movie hinted at a pervasive issue in romantic relationships between men and women in that the men all seemed to be more attracted to Bella the more childlike she was. It seemed to imply the core issue of men striving to claim dominance over women and to control and trap them however they can. I also appreciate the points you make here. Overall, I still enjoyed the film and felt like Bella refused to live her life pleasing any man who tried to own her in one way or another, which is something I think more women need to embody. My life has been very peaceful ever since I stopped caring about men's approval and gaze.
My partner and I thougth the movie was mostly critical feedback on how men try to control and manipulate women. I find it very interesting that every person gets something totally different from this film, in that I find it a piece of art. Even though we were both very disturbed by the sexual stuff when her mind is in the very early stages.
Thats a lot of what the movie was about. and it was SUPPOSED to be disturbing. and because women got disturbed (the literal intended effect) they think that makes it NOT a feminist film??
The movie felt very male. There were pieces of the female experience in there, but then there were missing pieces that made the non missing pieces feel ridiculous or irrelevant. Apparently there's supposed to be some theme about what a woman without the shame society puts on her would be like. I think this is an interesting conversation, but its impossible to have a complete picture of this in Poor Things because Bella never has fear of pregnancy, STI's or any other illness, hurt feelings, or even violence and so Bella becomes an avatar for what a man thinks she would be Not to mention filming r4pe scenes in that way is egregious and added absolutely nothing to the film
One of the reasons why Lanthimos' films, even when they later persist in my imagination, fail to win me over, is because they rarely make me feel something. They dazzle me as an audiovisual spectacle, they absorb me in their improbable scenarios, but they can't make me feel any real emotion. I find his films to be fabulous artistic exercises, but intellectually incomplete, and emotionally absent. And Poor Things seems to me the perfect example of this.
I'm curious to what films you could suggest that tick all those boxes. I too often find fault in movies plots and am always looking to find suggestions to ones I haven't seen.
@@thefadebeta580 I mean, of course this'll be a subjective response as while there are assessable attributes in a film, how much you converge with the director/writer's vision and perspective is decisive. So what I can tell you is with whom I converge the most in almost all creative aspects: Charlie Kaufman. I put my IMDb link with lists and shit but it got deleted by youtube :/
The movie remind me of something Anya Taylor Joy says to the chef in another movie, The Menu : ' I don't like your food. There's no love in what you cook, it all felt like some avant-garde, intellectual bullshit. There wasn't a real emotion behind it...' Poor Things made that impression to me.
Also, maybe it’s insignificant, but I could just see the male gaze in the way that there was no real understanding about the physical mechanics of female pleasure. It all felt so sensationalized and unrealistic, and every scene where she was supposed to be “empowered” felt like it was more about male pleasure.
I don't know if this film ever claims she is 'Empowered'. To say it is about Male Pleasure seems to be really missing one of the consistent themes of this story: at almost every stage the male characters are more concerned about limiting Her Pleasure, than satisfying their Own. Even the male characters who consider themselves the Most Liberated are deeply disturbed by her lack of Inhibition. And I suppose that is The Point. By Bella's peculiar Origin, she is freed from the usual psychological constraints, by seeing the Horror this causes the Male Characters, we are reminded of how reliant men are on feelings of Repression and Shame in Women. This is not a Guide for Liberating Women, this is a Reminder to men that if they ever found a woman as Uninhibited as they think they would like, they might not like it as much as they think they would.
Yeah, I mean the apple and the cucumber? Really? You're telling me that a girl who discovered her clit a day ago would just start shoving anything up there? That's certainly something a man would imagine and it's ridiculous even for Bella.
I did not see the ending as a victory - I found the last scene deeply horrifying, and I think the garish music reinforces how she is still trapped within the marriage she’s been groomed for, as well as the walls of the garden.
She wasn't groomed for the marriage, though. Or anything, really. She was just an experiment, originally. Dafoe's character viewed her as his child. The marriage was suggested by him in fear and desperation as a means to keep Bella close, safe and satisfied. Which was clearly wrong of him in every possible way, and the movie makes a point of showing you exactly how and why it was wrong. The marriage Bella chooses at the end of the film is not the marriage anyone intended for her - it is her own choice. Nobody chooses her partner for her - she makes that choice on her own.
@@HopeNight100 but in the end, God the Father was right in his choice. The husband he chose IS a good guy. She's rich, beautiful, self realized- there really wasn't another nice guy in the whole world to pick, someone even better for her then the one God picked?
It qualifies as by far the worst movie I've ever seen. Not only because of the distressing and desperate feeling it generated in me during its course, but also because of the rough analysis I had later on. I really agree that everything revolves around the male gaze, I couldn't even empathize with any character. An example of this is the repeated sexual scenes, which as a woman I perceived as exaggerated and unpleasant. How can enjoyment be seen as a method of torture? At what point does sexual freedom become so confused with female empowerment? I understood it as a covert and unquestioning justification of slavery and violence, ultimately getting nowhere. She accepts how the (terrible) world is and comfortably decides to be part of it, even having a slight understanding that it is wrong. Very few people understand the wrong message this leaves regarding the gender perspective. Anyway, beyond the aesthetic part, a lousy treatment of deep issues that only reinforce a bias we are trying to escape from.
This whole comment section is full of people who were so shocked by how this movie chose to tackle women's issues (head on) that they are blinded to the absolutely massive messages and meanings. This movie is my favorite of all time and a WAYYYYY better feminist movie than the Barbie movie which was just a bunch of mattel corporate propeganda. Barbie movie was probably the biggest ad of a movie, EVER. but people think its a feminist movie which is disgustingly laughable.
Not me chanting, “Old tropes! Old tropes!” and “Kill joy! Kill joy!” (I hated this movie, it almost got me to ruin my sobriety, but luckily did not.) I forgot about the whole Victorian Woman “goal” bc of all the sexual violence, but yeah, that whole arc from baby to whore to Victorian Woman is a wild choice, and not at all feminist…the madam tells Bella at one point (when she’s asking to choose her own clients), “Some men like it when you don’t like it,” and I feel like that’s the thesis of the movie, at least that’s where I finally “got” the movie, Yorgos being the “some men” and me being made the poor thing, for 2.5 hours.
so sex workers can't be feminists? You think all sex workers are not in control over their destinies? You pointed out what madam said "Some men like it when you don't like it" and so what was the next scene?? BELLA NOT LETTING THAT HAPPEN. She didn't want to have sex with people if she didn't like it! so she started making the men listen to HER. she took her power and control back. I can't believe how many anti-feminist comments are on this video.
@@EliciaDragos-jq1vl honestly I was just triggered by it all bc I didn’t do my research before watching it (irresponsible, I know, but now I know to do that ) You have a point about the sex workers bc they are so vital and their stories should be shared bc they happen and stories matter, and everything you said is right, I wasn’t thinking about context throughout bc I was just upset by the movie. It was a sensory-hellish experience which also just made me overreact to and hate the whole thing at the time of writing my comment. In the time since then, I watched other readings of the movie which put more context on it for me? I do change my mind about hating PT, except that damn movie did hurt my ears, eyes and brain for nearly three hours, and I had beef with that lost time. I’m not mad at the movie for existing anymore tho. 🤷♀️
@@EliciaDragos-jq1vl honestly I was just triggered by it all bc I didn’t do my research before watching it (irresponsible, I know, but now I know to do that 👍). You have a point about the sex workers bc they are so important, and their stories should be shared bc they happen and stories matter, and everything you said is right, I wasn’t thinking about context throughout bc I was just upset by the movie. It was a sensory-hellish experience which also just made me overreact to and hate the whole thing at the time of writing my initial comment. In the time since then, I watched other readings of the movie which put more context on it for me? I do change my mind about hating PT, except that damn movie did hurt my ears, eyes, and brain for nearly three hours, and I had beef with that lost time. I’m not mad at the movie for existing anymore tho 🤷♀️
This film is full male-gaze narrative. The discourse is completely controversial. I don't mind having narratives that are ambiguous, controversial and provocative. But there are certain themes that need to be carefully presented. Grooming in particular is completely relativized. We see a woman acting as a literal toddler fascinating adult men through the whole movie. Even her father figure says he doesnt sleep with her because he phisically can't. I could see this as a critical statement about men being predatory. But, at the end, it seems fine to Max to want to marry her at the period she had the mind of a toddler. It's fine, as long as he says "your body, your rules" and doesn't keep her as a captive. Like "wow, he is so nice to her, he doesn't even keep her locked as a prisioner". Also, as you said, the female sexual experience is very much reduced. While Barbie feels the male gaze as something suspiciously violent and uncomfortable, we see Bella as a woman who always wants sex from men, no matter who and what situation. It's almost like abuse, compulsory prostitution and grooming are fine as long as you don't know what's going on.
"It's almost like abuse, compulsory prostitution and grooming are fine as long as you don't know what's going on" - I like how you have phrased and captured this idea. Perhaps the film was trying to make some comment on this dynamic through Bella's naivety, but that approach in itself feels somewhat naive, at least from a feminist reading perspective (perhaps it might be different if one were to read the film above all as a satire, I suppose... but I'm not convinced). I think you make a very good point. Thank you for the thoughtful comment!
I have to wholeheartedly disagree with your point at the end about Bella always wanting sex. As the movie progresses, her interests change. Sex work is the only sexual acts of her that are portrayed during that portion. It's also apparent that she isn't attracted to many of her 'clients' and isn't okay with everything that's happening to her. Other than that, I agree with all else
@@yotam6x7 there is a point that she questions what's going on, indeed. But like everything in this movie, the discussion goes nowhere in the end. Her problem is feeling "empty" at some point. The real problem is far beyond feeling "empty". At the end, overall she describes the experience as "fascinating". But I have to agree that she does changes her view and progresses somehow through the narrative.
"female sexual experience is very much reduced" th film is not talking about female experience in general. Did you notice it does not take place in our reality, and that no one has never had a baby brain transplanted? You are being surprisingly literal and are projecting reasonable real-life expectations on a narrative that is very clearly not meant to apply to our world
Out of all the films I've ever watched, this film is the most I can relate to as a woman of the world. Sex is raunchy many times. People have kinks. There's a giant community of DD/lg , vetting, formulating scenes etc. The movie has ZERO problems. What is happening is-- Yorgos is using the book as a platform to show there is an alternative lifestyle for many many people and women are at the forefront. I have been in Bella's position and I called it the best time of my life. I was the master of my body. Chose with whom and when and how much. I had satellites of people revolving around me and as a person who has identified as a "little" this could have not been a happier time in my life. Sex is fun. and for many people it's extremely important and Yorgos was the perfect director. He comes from a culture (Greek) where patriarchy is the loving monster. I thought Bella was extremely praised, worshipped and loved for who she was and the person she was "growing up" to be. I think if you're not in the Kink community or alternative lifestyle this film can come across as very objectifying and film will always be subjective anyways. Bella demonstrates Infantilism. Not monstrosity. Please don't confuse raunchy with other things. At the end of the day Bella was becoming a Doctor and became the master (Mistress) of the house. Sex was a mere facet of her life. You will be surprised who you will find in a BDSM dungeon. The film is a fantasy as you stated and that's why it comes from the genre which classifies as meta fiction. This film is the bookend to Dogtooth.
You have articulated a unique understanding of the ethos of the film that has upset some people. Thank you for your contribution to it's understanding.
I don't think the film is about kink or bdsm. And the fundamental principle of the kink & BDSM communities is consent. Consent, consent, consent. That's why dungeons have dungeon masters/monitors and strict rules. That's why negotiation exists in a D/s relationship and why scenes are so carefully crafted with the sub's consent. That's why safe words exist. She doesn't know what any of that is. Her actions were coerced, through violence, she said no and was forced, and she was not mentally mature beyond perhaps a 12 or 13 year old. Her actions weren't free or consensual, or importantly, were not exploratory of her OWN kinks, fetishes or desires, only those of the men around her.
Having Emma Stone walk around and act like a toddler in one scene, and have sex like an adult directly after feels like someone's barely concealed fetish, and it made me feel extremely uncomfortable. Unsurprising that it was so popular among th le Hollywood elite
@@brookelyn_rayne I feel like people are just ignoring the fact or just close theyre eyes when they hear it. Its honestly sick to see soo many people defend this by saying ''oh but she isnt a baby shes an adult when she has sex!'' like, since when did yall get that info even? it feels pretty obvious to me that she has the brain of a toddler or perhaps maximum a teenager throughout the whole movie..even the sex parts.
@@misscoolgirl7166 Exactly. They don’t even listen just because she has the body of a grown woman. She is a child throughout the majority if not the whole movie. I think they just dismiss it as her discovering herself rather than exploitation only because she has the body of a woman.
That’s why the entire movie made me feel uneasy. I could never turn off the part of my brain that know she was basically a baby. Also the logical inconsistency that her brain wouldn’t be maturing fast enough to keep up with the development she was making through the movie.
I agree with you 100%, I watched the movie and couldn’t understand how it was so well aclamed, only I could think of was how misogynistic it was. And if the intention was to make a point or to provoke (I don’t think it was) it didn’t worked, to portray woman in a submissive way without well developing it in the movie isn’t provocative, it’s degrading.
It was like The Green Knight. Hipster trash that is raved as being this new thing. Foreign directors have been cranking out these types of movies for a long time. Self indulgent, pseudo intellectual shock art.
Thanks. I'm a 70+ y.o. male & I had many concerns similar to use and wondered "am I just an old fogey, not "hip" to new feminism?". Hadn't thought about could she give consent with child's mind... well done
I was so surprised seeing letterbox reviews, usually I agree with the majority there and their analysis. This time I was shocked with the positive reviews and rating. Is the movie done perfectly sound, visual, dialogue, acting wise? Yes but the themes explored are so shallow and male gazey, after the movie when you remove all the good parts and think of the core messages + the core character development, you think what the fuck? This is not it. This is not the feminist lens I thought I would see at all, this is far from it. This is like girl boss feminism, feminism yes but shallow that acts for the acceptable gender societal norms in the opposite way. The lack of race, class discussion was wild, also how come she is having sex so many times no mention of birth control problems or menstruation. The prostitution made me roll my eyes, knowing how white ppl from the west go to countries like Philippines for it, what about sex work for those people? They don’t do it for liberation they do it as the last resort. Will this get the awards yes? But it deserves for its technical prowess with the cinematic form not at all with the content. I think people are so happy to give money to anything that talks about the struggle of women in sex, jobs, relationships, love, we forget there are standards and depth for those themes. Just glossing them over is not enough.
This comment is ridiculous, you expect a two hour movie that covers all the social problems all over the world? If they refer to the sex trade in the Philippines, then you can say what about Thailand?
Very good analysis. Ever since I saw the film I was perplexed by the lack of criticism especially from a feminist lens. I did enjoy certain parts of the film (especially Bella’s mentor/mentee relationship with Martha) I had just seen Priscilla and the difference it how it frames grooming is striking. The fact that people are incapable of seeing the blatant issues with the portrayal of Bella’s sexuality is quite simply very telling of how women’s experiences are ignored by society at large.
Hoooooorrible analysis. She offered almost zero actual analysis, she just stated she didn't like it a bunch but never offered any real reasons as to why other than she didn't understand the movie.
Watched "Poor things" yesterday and I completely agree with you. I was left half unimpressed half horrified by its messaging. I was mostly horrified that nobody in the film ever considers that this is not a woman - this a humanoid form with a mature body but an infantile mind. How is nobody talking about how wrong it is to exploit Bella's sexuality?? She is not empowered, she was abused in her self-discovery. And as soon as Mark Ruffalo's character appears and touches her inappropriately and that is not seen in any way as a bad thing (and it keeps being that way until the end of the film, everyone suddenly forgets there's a developing mind in there!). I couldn't get passed that, because every "sexual liberation" move Bella takes from then on is not "liberation" but just living through trauma as a sexually abused child.
But everybody is talking about the exploitation of Bella's sexuality--including you! That's one of the points of the film. Now I'd like to see the film done from Bella's point of view.
@@EliciaDragos-jq1vlIt’s a poorly made point. It’s only really addressed by having the villains/exploiters be punished in the end. It has no narrative consequences on Bella that harm her. it’s simply bad because it’s done by “bad guys.” She forgives God pretty easily and Max is never presented as an exploiter because he says all the good guy things.
Personally, I see her “growth” in the following direction: 1. Physical: as she is literally integrated brand new baby brain and grown woman body, with potentially higher libido levels. First, she shows all her physical (which happens to be sexual) energy, as the other life dimensions are unknown to her. 2. Emotional: As she (her brain) grows, she starts understanding what emotions are, and discovers the depth of them. These emotions are quite complex for her, and she officially opens the new dimension of life, which is the key for understanding people and their pain. 3. Ethical: Now, when she discovered emotions, and can potentially empathise, she tries to do something, take actions to prevent or manifest some important things from her perspective according to the spectrum of feelings she has now, but not necessarily doing it in a conventionally smart way. 4. Intellectual: When she comes back to God, she gains some knowledge about her origin. Afterwards, her ex-husband triggers to complete her dimensional view of the world, she gets intelligence, now not only academic. When it comes to the sex in this movie, I also had an issue with watching some sexual interactions between her immature mind and grown adults. But in the end, it is an exaggeration which is completely understandable and meaningful in this case. Especially, if we think of her as a human being that committed suicide because of over controlling ex-husband, who mentions about her unacceptable higher libido and how he sees her as nothing more than an incubator. In my point of view, it was not pointless to show her rage to discover herself in this context. Discovery of physical is crucial, but we cannot have sexual tension as newborns, but here it was more relatable to show the reason Bella was not perceived “normal woman” because of her physical natural features. It doesn’t necessarily imply that all women have higher sexual libido, it just one of the cases where woman is seen as unacceptable by society. But why her physical (aka sexual) step in her growth cannot be considered as a part of feminism? This is just a story of a single person, woman, about one of the thousands possible struggles in our patriarchal world. I would say in today’s reality this exaggeration is the way to make more people reflect on this topic, as it is easily relatable.
A lot to think about here. But as a woman who is now 51 and who's intellectual and emotional journey toward maturity was inextricably intertwined with my sexuality, with my own hyper-sexulaity, and even with my choice to engage in sex work for a time, I found Bella incredibly relatable. Perhaps I'm strange, but how does one even extract one's sexual experiences from the holistic experience of coming of age? Or is it just her hyepr-sexual nature that makes her less relatable to you as a character? I have found some women have had trouble relating to my own story as well unless they were similarly hyper-sexual in their youth. It's been a strange feeling to have the notion of being "male created" overlayed upon my experience by others. A feeling that I should not trust that my own desires and impulses were my own because they involved casual heterosexual sex. This movie made me feel understood in a refreshing way.
Also "the body that was never meant to house her," was literally her own mother's body which was housing her brain and her entire body. Have we delved into the mother-daughter implications there, which from my perspective as a middle-aged woman with a daughter, are fascinating!!!
Another angle that was NEVER addressed was the sex of the baby who's brain was transplanted into the mother's body! And this points to neurodivergent women and the idea that autism is called "extreme male brain." And the characteristics of Bella, her social unawarenes for example, point to metaphoric neurodivergence. That would be a rich area to explore in reference to this film! Perhaps a literal interpretation of Bella as having a "different brain" is not even appropriate in the case of art.
@@ViolaVoltairine What about the comment above citing the film's " zero attention to the mechanics of female pleasure or orgasm. And if her goal was solely sexual pleasure, why not experiment as she does in the book, with partners of her choosing, instead of partners she openly finds disgusting?" The brothel situation seemed more coercive than voluntary for these reasons. Your views on this would be valuable in trying to reconcile the varying views of the comments herein and throughout the critiquing of this film. Many fine points arise as so many views are aired. What an interesting discussion, yes?
@@luckystoller6171 the scene where Bella asked that very question reminded me of me when I left the escort agency and went off on my own as an independent sex worker. "Would it not be better if the women choose?" And as a hyper sexual young woman just about every kind of sexual stimulation gave me orgasms. So I'm not really sure about a need for demonstrating mechanics. Is the movie a sex ed piece? Although I noted that her goal was to get off with her clients and some she seemed to sincerely enjoy (she told the priest he had a gift). I think because of the stigma some may find it hard to believe that even bad sex with clients is an interesting experience if just from a curiosity standpoint. My thought as a sex worker was always "I would do all of this anyway, might as well get paid well!" And in the Victorian time it was that or attach yourself to one man, which is even more oppressive, depressing, and annoying (and still is even today, though now we have other choices, thank goodness). As I said I felt finally fully understood in my innocent and curious explorations into sex work as a young woman. She did not seem requisitely desperate or broken the way prostitutes are often portrayed in film. And she was not the mothering prostitute with a heart of gold, healing a broken man: another typical sex work trope. She defied all the typical tropes and was just exploring, getting annoyed and bored and pissed off at times, but still enjoying herself without shame and without losing her sense of self. I found it incredibly refreshing.
I loved the movie. It is so unsettling and creepy I had no doubt in my mind for even a second that it was supposed to make the audience feel disgusted by Godwin and Max and even more so by Mark Ruffalo (I don't remember his character's name). The end felt to me not exactly like Stockholm syndrome but definitely complex and bittersweet. On one hand, Bella matured and ended a journey of self-discovery finishing off an arch of (mental) growth from a baby to an adult. On the other hand, she came back to Godwin and Max, completely underselling how damaging they were to her. She makes some sort of amends with Godwin when she states that she disagrees with what he's done with her body and how she did not consent to being created but that she forgives him partly simply because she enjoys being alive. Of course, if you read this from the literal POV of a woman whose body was violated by a man, it's disgusting and evil. But when watching the film my first interpretation wasn't of a man talking to a woman, but of creation talking to God. None of us consented to being alive. And sometimes the conditions in which we are brought into this world are cruel. But if one still has a will to live, it's because despite all that, we somehow still enjoy being alive. My main critique of the film is about its portrayal of sex work. While the first interactions of Bella with Godwin, Max, and Mark Ruffalo are absolutely creepy, scenes of Bella having unwanted sex with abusive men are shown as quirky or funny. The movie only slightly hinted at the many problems of sex work In the end, I "forgive" the creepy ending or even the exaggerated sex scenes because in my opinion they were purposely creepy and aimed to create discomfort and questioning. I don't "forgive" the portrayal of sex work on the other hand because it was somewhat naturalized uncritically.
The movie does a lot really well, however, the self-discovery element at its heart feels a bit shallow. The end that the viewer arrives at is that the imperatives of self are the motivators for living. I think there was a missed ending here where Bella's journey could have concluded with some more profound realizations besides "I do what I want to do because it's my body". 98% of the movie is Bella learning what she wants (and it's mostly sex). She says at one point about the need to help the poor, but that is quickly moved on from once she is looking to serve herself. She spends more time in a brothel than taking her wealth in her pocket to better herself and others. But perhaps that is the argument, that these impulses and desires are largely self-serving. Also, it's odd that a movie entirely centered on a girl becoming a woman was produced by so many men. The book was written by a man, the screenplay by a man, cinematographer a man, and directed by a man. Seems odd. If their point was to present Bella through "the male gaze" then it hit it spot on. If its meant to show female empowerment? Massive failure.
I, a big film enthusiast and actress just came from the movies and these are my first thoughts: I left it with no feeling at all, more so, I was relieved when it ended because the last third of the movie I got really bored because I understood that the film was not going to give me any big surprises anymore, and I was right. I saw the trailer and the good critics a few months ago but somehow never was called to watch the movie, it didn't catch me at all. Tonight though I was scrolling through the movie theatre program and stumbled on it again and thought I'd give it a shot, I thought, there must be something about it since it got two Oscars. The idea sounds interesting but from the first minute I already knew that this was going to be banal. The biggest surprise was to me the hypersexuality in this film that I didn't like. I didn't expect it at all, I thought it was going to be about the explorations of life's beauty and misery with a naive childlike mind. Turns out by this movie, there is not much more in life besides sex. I feel sorry for those for whom this is true. The comedy was, besides the dinner scene in Lissabon, awkward and very simple, too. All in all a shallow movie in shiny disguise. I definitely don't feel empowered by this movie. There are many movies that do it better. It's unfortunately a movie I could have skipped and I wouldn't have missed anything.
I felt really weird after watching the movie, and somehow youtube just recommended me your video and it literally puts in words my feelings - so thanks for the great work and I hope to see more videos of yours : )
Hey Matheus - I'm really happy to read this! Glad you got something out of this video, and thank you for the kind and encouraging comment. Will do my best with future videos :)
She doesn't possess a childs mind when voraciously exploring her sexuality. Her growth in intellectual terms is that of a teenager, hence, her heightened libido. At the end, she's fully grown - body and brain in symbiosis. Look at how quickly her hair grows, as Max observes at the beginning. The Victorians were fascinated by anatomical possibilities - this was the time of the Burke and Hare murders in Edinburgh. That's why it's framed through her body, IMO.
I think this criticism is very valid but maybe more relevant to the broader discussion of the film, than to the film itself. I actually thought the film did examine the issue of consent very critically, it just didn't smash you over the head with a moral sledgehammer. It presented a situation and left the audience to make the critique. Maybe it was just me, but I thought the fact that she had the mind of a child (irrespective of how/why this was the case) and was being taken advantage of by men in different ways (e.g. Max vs Duncan) was inherently a direct commentary on men and sexual consent. I would be shocked if the director wasn't thinking about consent, control, predatory behaviour, etc when crafting the sexual scenes based on how they are presented. I appreciated the way that the film left the audience to do some work in thinking, reflecting, discussing, rather than forcing a lesson down your throat. Although I do think the messages are not exactly hidden deep below the surface for anyone willing to think a little. The fact that a lot of people seem to have missed the point does not necessarily make it bad art, this is kind of inevitable when trying to make something subtle and complex for a mass market. All the more important to have commentary like this out there, though as I say I think it is misdirected at the film-makers when the problem is really the audience (specifically the people over-simplifying the themes in reviews/criticism).
Which is why we need people like you to speak up and point out what isn't immediately obvious because it's covered over with beauty and presented with skill.
Agreed. It's also worth noting (with a grain of salt) that Emma Stone has described her producer role her as granting her agency in how she/Bella was presented in the film, too. A lot of discourse about the male direction of this film (which is still definitely something to acknowledge) completely elides Stone's creative agency in the work.
THANK YOU !!! IT's AMAZING how we who have very intelligent criticism of the film, all really wanted to like the film but for the film felt like many of the characters themselves: Unresolved, Clunky, and self-destructive in that it seemed to destroy its own message. I was so UNDERWELMED! And at some point the story just stalled without evolving for me until we reached that sudden silly twist & ending! All this makes Emma's performance feel forced. After an hour, I felt no more sense of adventure, drama, intrigue, suspense, excitement or thrills!
Hey - you're welcome! I'm really pleased you got something out of this video essay. Self-destructiveness is interesting to think about in the context of this film - I might give it some further thought. Thank you again!
@@ganymedia One of the reasons why Lanthimos' films fail to win me over, is because they rarely make me feel something. The tries to dazzle with overt visuals & ornamental spectacle, which are only intriguing for the first 30 mins , but never lets me feel any real emotion. I find his films to be artistic exercises, but intellectually incomplete, and emotionally absent. And Poor Things seems to me the perfect example of this. Maybe if I also had the brain of a child who was naive to pedophilia and plot substance then I may have liked it too!
The best reply I could think of giving to you... is that the story might not be about her as much as you think... but more so about the men that surround her. Like, displaying the horrors that you speak of might not perpetuate the ideas you think of but instead highlight how bad men are towards women. I also did get the thought that it was weird that no one questioned her limp body being taken to an unknown location but maybe the lack of that regard that men have is the point Yorgos is trying to make.
As a man I thought the film was rather boring, with the themes telegraphed from very early on and either muddled in their execution or else simply perverse. Critical of the men in the story who try to control Bella and prey upon her naivety and sexual curiosity, the male director and writer do exactly the same thing, exposing her for the audience’s enjoyment. Bella pursues sex without shame, which could be read as empowering, and the comedy seems to centre on the power of Bella’s uninhibited nature. But in the broader context of the film’s themes and production I am sceptical as well. To me, it felt like a male fantasy of an uninhibited woman who attempts to escape control and yet is ultimately controlled by the unseen male forces behind the camera. She is never liberated regardless of what takes place in the story. On top of all that, the story itself was dull as dishwater. If not for the visual creativity of the sets, costumes, music and some of the stylised performances, it would have been an utterly forgettable film.
By the end of the movie I was not convinced at all that she had mentally developed into an adult woman. To me she came across as a 16 or 17 year old girl - which makes the movie very dark.
Good point! I agree, it's hard to gauge to what extent she has developed mentally. Also, even if she did meet some fixed marker indicating that she had matured to the point that she is 18, and not 16-17, the movie would still be dark given the coercion she experiences. I like how your comment raises the issue, too, of teengaers sometimes being perceived as older and more capable of consent than they are (just because some look like adults, it doesn't mean that they are!). Very interesting.
-couldnt agreee more! I was also kind of at first a bit attached to the gothic, larger than life sets and the moody music and bella's eccentric character, but I wish there was more to all that. The director kind of reduced her character to a sex symbol, as if all she enjoyed at first is discovering about sex lol. She did go see the poor people and felt for them but at the end she also just wants to imitate 'God' and takes his place, so I am not sure what was the director's message here. Like you said, in a male lead frankenstein kind of role maybe the portraiture would be different. Like on Edward Scissors hand, it was more about him discovering heart and social cconnections and he wanted to go beyond his loneliness. There was even no mention of sex to the least. So it is disappointing that poor things, although it had its potentials, but just tries to take the more hyped elements of society and give audience what they want, women's emancipation in a nicer prettier package.
Thank you for this comment! I haven't seen Edward Scissorhands, so it's good to be reminded about it and to read this analysis. Very interesting that that film focuses on his sense of belonging and social growth. It sounds humanising. I also like your point about Bella wanting to 'imitate God'. Another commenter made a good point that is a little similar, about how Bella reproduces the power structure she is already in; she doesn't abandon the hierachy of the house (with God - or her - at the top). I think you've identified how this ending can (at least by my interpretation) feel narratively neat, but a little emotionally dissatisfying, to see her ascend to take God's place, but still be kind of caught within the same structure (however much she may feel this is voluntarily). Is the film satirising this notion that we really believe we can change our lives, and break free of familiar cycles? Is the ending a little tongue-in-cheek? Perhaps - some might argue that. Personally, I don't think the film was effective enough as a satire throughout to attribute this reading to the ending... But it's all interesting food for thought! Thank you again for the thought-provoking comment.
you articulated this so well, i completely agree. I'm not gonna lie i actually hate this movie, like i *deeply* hate this movie. I'm so wary of sex positive feminism as a form of empowerment because it only ever seems to center and ultimately benefit men. And then it makes sense that this movie is so popular lol. And it isn't lost on me that the director's take on this book immediately went into the most sexual direction possible and had very little focus on her altruism or pursuit of knowledge. I wanted to like it but was thoroughly dissapointed.
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.
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've enjoyed this video essay Rosalind! I liked your in-depth analysis on the problematic tropes in the film, after hearing which I'm shocked why would this film would be considered feminist. 😀
You probably think the Barbie movie is a feminist movie. this is my favorite movie of all times and a pinnacle example of women taking back their autonomy, power, and authority.
I feel like you’re spot on with the ending not being a “happy ending”. I’m not sure the film intended it to be a “happily ever after” either, though. It was satisfying to see her goat that jerk in a silly disturbing way, but also heartwarming to see her community she establishes of chosen family/like-minded, the positive effect she was already starting to have on the maid and Bella#2 first upon arrival, her self-appreciation on how far she’s come, plus working toward perusing her interests, causes, beliefs. And just enjoying the moment for a beat! To me, the film’s ending was that she’s still stuck in the patriarchy (as we all are)-she’s still in the walls, etc.-but her journey has just begun. She’s got more tools than ever before, and while there’s still f’ed up structures and people to knock down… she’ll persist. Kind of a “standing on the shoulders of giants” and “still an embryo with a long long way to go” ending, in my eyes. I guess Im trying hard not to conflate the themes/plot points too literally. But also I’m a man I guess, so, take my interpretation here for what it is!
OK last thought! And I’ll hush. Your flags about “women being taken in” not being expanded/realistically explored in the movie:, I again totally agree. And again, too, I think that’s what the film was going for… it’s a regressive narrative because it’s trying to spotlight the regressive world. It’s almost a Brechtian “romantic jape” (to quote Ruffalo’s horrible character) elbow to the rib. Tongue in cheek-quite valid and which may not be for very many. Certainly disturbing and crucial subject matter, and depends on one’s taste for the cavalier. However I think the intention was it shouldn’t be viewed as literal. Instead, allegory.
I think it is a mistake to see this film as about how All Women could seek Empowerment. This is about a very particular character who falls outside of Society's Norms. By contrasting her lack of Inhibition with Civilised Society, it demonstrates how desperate most people are to see other people conforming to the same rules they cling to: ESPECIALLY MEN. So yes, this film is directed and written by Men and says more about Men and their need to see Women conflicted about their Sexuality, than it does about Women's Liberation. This does not make it a bad movie and I admire Emma Stone's ability to make a bizarre and fantastical character likeable and amusing.
You are the only one to mention what most bothered me early on: her creator/ward agreeing to a marriage when she was unable to give informed consent. That fact from early in the story cast a shadow over everything else.
@@EliciaDragos-jq1vlWe are not missing this, we just think is terrible and doing something like that doesn't necessarily make good art. The movie is shallow af and tries to be more and scream more at your face when the message is forced, outdated and boring.
I saw it as a commentary on acceptable male behavior well into adulthood. It only works if the main character is fetishized. She's developmentally at a stage where she is seeking her own pleasure, something all kids experience. When you put her next to Duncan it creates the best juxtaposition. Her excuse for her behavior is she doesn't know any better at that point, she knows "genital parts" make "happy on demand" and her higher level learning hasn't kicked in yet. But what is the excuse for all of the men in the movie? Not just the ones aware of her actual age, but Duncan, who acts exactly like her, but is well into having grey hair. I saw the ending not as some male success ending, but as Bella matured past the stage of development where seeking mere physical pleasure is her driving goal, but all the dudes stayed the same lol. Again, commentary on acceptable male behavior in society. Guys can act like children until the day they die, and no one thinks twice about it. That was the movie I saw under all the sex and nudity, none of which was filmed to look sexy or appealing at all cuz it wasn't meant to.
I certainly didn't see any views of the male gaze but naked women sometimes is equated with such. I personally thought she was tied into the "born sexy yesterday" trope and that's my only issue.
What are you on?! the dudes did NOT all stay the same! Duncan: is literally impoverished and institutionalized for his actions. McCandle: listens to Bella and understands she is a being of free will, DOESN'T marry her in the end. As the only man in the movie with any semblance of respect for Bella, he gets what he deserves: to be around her as long as he continues to fully respect her. (Note he's the ONLY man in the scene at the end of the movie) Godwin: dies from cancer, the death he deserved for playing 'God' Ex-husband: LITERALLY shoots himself in the foot (how could that message NOT be any clearer) AND gets his brain removed so he couldn't go after Bella or anyone else ever again (he gets what he deserves)
She felt 'tied to' that trope as a subversion of it, for me. The film is resolutely empathic to her, on her side, and interested in her interests - unlike a typical 'born sexy yesterday's film which is framed from the perspective of the man enchanted by this woman-child. This movie (among other things) explores the experience of being a woman/girl in a world where men are perversely fascinated by a woman with the mind of a child.
Thanks for your interesting breakdown. My friend kept insisting this was a masterpiece I must see so i checked it out. I liked it but I couldn't really see what all the fuss was about so I started looking at reviews to work out what I was missing. One think I kept hearing was "neo Feminist" but for the life of me I couldn't see it, The way the story and sex aspects were pitched I hate to admit but it kinda appealed to my worst tendencies. I found myself forgetting all the other ideas in the film and focused on objectifying Bella as some kind of sex slave. I know this dosen't speak well of me but I can usually keep things zipped up unless I'm pushed into a corner and I felt this director really did push me into a corner in this respect. Also all the bizarre imaginitive visual surrealism seemed to be giving me liecence to engage my own imagination and fantasy realm - I think a fever dream is a very adapt description of the films affect on me. For me I found this film as you mentioned all body no love to the point where I felt I was watching a very different type of film to what it was purported to be. Although I have been quite honest and frank here I am a little reluctant to get back to me friend and tell him the truth about how I felt about this film, or tell anyone else for that matter, please forgive me, Thanks again.
I wonder how making this movie seemed like a good idea. I would think Hollywood would want to distance themselves from problematic themes like this, after all of the media exposure, exposing Hollywood’s rampant, misogyny and pedophilia. it’s like some director thinking that remaking Lolita again and glamorizing it all over again is a good idea.
I agree with your questions about this film. I love the stars in it and enjoyed aspects of it. However, I found it the opposite of feminist in how Bella was treated as a body and not really given any consideration as a real person with respect.
I felt that the film treated her as a real person, but the men in the film (apart from the nihilist on the boat) treated her as a body, and that that dissonance was part of the point.
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".
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.
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
Thank you for making this video. Although I watched the film and feel differently than you do, I truly appreciate the thoughst and analysis you put into this review. This is how art should be discussed, by communicating different ideas and opinions. Because ultimately, nobody is right or wrong. I think that the inspiration for POOR THINGS can be found in two famous literary works: Mary Shelley's Frankenstein and The Bible. In The Bible, Eve is created from Man, and in the full body of a Woman. Whether or not Eve has an accelerating brain like Bella's is rarely questioned. What we do know is that God made her for the purpose of being Adam's companion, so he would not be lonely. Therefore, Christianity teaches that females exist to satisfy the needs of men. But Eve is also responsible for bringing sin and shame onto the world after tempting Adam with the apple. More on that in a bit. Shelley's 'Frankenstein" was about about a re-animated Creature called 'Adam' by his creator. The creature also refers to himself as the 'Fallen Angel,' which could also describe Bella at the top of the film. Scholars believe the novel is based on Rousseau’s idea that people are born inherently good, only to be made wicked by a corrupt society. By comparison Bella's infant brain is pure and good. It is society, and the men in it, who seek to corrupt her goodness. POOR THINGS is also based on Mary Shelley's own life. After her own Mother died, less than 2 weeks after giving birth to her, Mary was raised by her father,-the scholar William Godwin. Godwin, of course was Dafoe's character in ther film. Mary loved her father, but deeply upset him when she ran off to Paris at age 16 with the older (and married) Percy Bysshe Shelley. Mary started writing Frankenstein after her own baby was born prematurely and died. All of these themes are throughout POOR THINGS. The Bible not only blames Eve for Original Sin, it also condemns women for behaving lustfully and stigmatizes prostitution. In doing so, the Bible perpetuates the societal construct that women cannot survive independent of men. For years, Mary Shelley was plagued by assumptions that Frankenstein must have been written by her husband. After all, how could a woman have gotten such cleverly gruesome ideas from her own mind? Why POOR THING succeeds as a Feminist film is because it takes these literary and historic and shoots them down. It takes into full account that Victorian London in the early 19th century was patriarchal, and that a female's only hope for happiness was to 'marry well.' It should be noted that during this time girls got married as early as 12, and half the workhouse employees were children. Like Bella, boys and girls 'grew up' much earlier than they should have. So it would seem logical that young girls were married off to potential suitors and the notion of 'consent' barely. existed. And while all of us would agree that these realities are reprehensible by today's standards, we also shouldn't re-write history, even fictional history, so that it better aligns with our own modern day sensibilities. The story takes place when it does for good reason. Feminism has always been about equality. Bella sees no difference between a man's interests, pleasures, and curiosities and her own. She is steadfast to explore without any biblical shame or guilt. Whereas Eve offered the apple to Adam, Bella literally offers this apple to herself. She requires no Adam to provide her pleasure. When Duncan runs out of cash, an unstigmatized Bella immediately heads to the brothel.In doing so, Bella reveals the truth behind this biblical no-no; prostitution isn't inherently evil. It's just a means of bill-paying men scourge against because they're less employable at it. Which may explain why the stigma ever started in the first place. This is what the Madame means when she tells Bella that some men prefer it when the woman doesn't enjoy sex. Is it really prostitution if a woman doesn't feel degraded and looked down upon? Only Bella doesn't. The film's sexual scenes aren't meant to look arousing or romantic, because actual sex does look awkward and foolish and kind of tedious. But the question I ask is, if people believe Emma Stone is being 'objectified' in these scenes, why are they not saying that about the men in the scenes with her?
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.
Seeing it for a second time today with a friend who hasn’t seen. I love this review- and I definitely hear what you are saying. Excited for more of your essays. 💥
I actually thought that the film was more descriptive, showing us how “the other” (men) will treat us because of our bodies, because of us being women. I personally felt like I was watching the growing agency of Bella and that the film didn’t force me to an opinion - I could watch, feel for instance disgusted when she was taken sexually advantage of. I really considered it to be descriptive, maybe that’s another way of viewing, and in thay way, the movie doesn’t need to make a point.
This is an interesting take - thank you for writing it down! I will think more about this one. The idea of a film not forcing the viewer to an opinion is also intriguing - it raises questions about whether films have intended purposes, and whether their 'purposes' can exist independent of their director's purposes... And whether some films are even created as displays, perhaps distant from audiences, rather than stories to connect with. Thank you for commenting - good food for thought!
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 ...
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.
except said victim does get that this is abuse others agree that this is abuse and the shouldn't do that/have no real motive to and then keep on doing it anyway/barley regret it. it is just off
THANK YOU!!! I've been trying to find commentary on this film that explains (way better than I could) how I feel about this film. I really appreciate you taking the time to work through POOR THINGS and discussing many of the points some of us have been feeling/thinking, but have been perhaps initmated to share since the movie has been praised as such a fabulous, feminist move.
I loved hearing your views on this and honestly didn’t realize until you said it that ALL of the views I’d heard about this film were from males. You gave me a lot to chew on. Thanks for that.
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.
I'm really touched that you watched this video - thank you, C.H.! And I think your point is an excellent one. Sometimes desires end up being achieved out of luck, e.g. when someone ends up with e.g. a job or a lifestyle that they didn't know existed or didn't expect to have, but which they like. However, I agree that leveraging what one possesses often comes into it too. An interesting and somewhat mercenary/realist angle. Good food for thought.
I disagree with your reading on the placement of sexuality in the film. It makes me think whether it's a selective perception of general sensitivity to the use of it. Constantly being on alert wheter it is misrepresented or giving the wrong message. But if we could move pass that anxious alertness, amprically, her relationship with different sensations mostly food and touch and smashing was in the mixture as much as her sexuality which I wouldn't call hyler-sexualized. It was the male gaze so to say, which called it hypersexualized. Howevever granting a judgement free mind to a yound woman's body, It was quite a healthy apetite of sexuality demonstrated, and in the phases of growing up, It is quite good to have sexuality as a focal point of ones experience of the world for a time. As it was for Bella. Her intresinct desires were portrayed to be her guiding drives, curiosity sexuality fear anger sadness frustration love. .. I don't find it troubling at all in the development of the character. However the character is indeed placed in Victorian society which is still the back bone of contemporary psychology of western society . It makes that era a good story device to emphasise a point regarding our so called modern society. So that very society is woven by male gaze, it makes sense how the female body ia being twisted, exposed and abused literally in the embodiment of the male gaze. The feeling of trouble and wrongness that overcomes while watching is very much the purpose quite obviously. And we experience it not only in the sexual scenes but in many other scenes like in dialogues, surgeries, eating scene etc... I believe any good student of a storytelling would be aware of rhe demonization triangle of sexuality, nature and women. The meta story of civilization versus nature. And I believe the director is quite aware of it as well, made clear in several points. However a story cannot be and should not be a politically correct statement. Thats not the job, right? The story is a much repeated one, and still something we need to poke and change and reframe. That's what the director did, i believe. As a male director, who perhaps trying to be a different male and searching for it. I dont expect a woman's perspective from him but I don't find his view disturbing neither. Male gaze trying to re-imagine itself, making a movie all about male gaze, it is so obvious I could nominate male-gaze a supporting actor in this film. It somehow reminds me the Olympia of Manet, the object of the desire , stares back at the male gaze, exposing it. Perhaps that's the best way to put it, the movie doesn't portray an ideal situation, It exposes something that is still a struggle in modern society.
I don't see how all the nuances and complexities of the ideas you suggested would adhere to an already obscure movie plot, even though I will admit that some of your analysis brings up some thought-provoking arguments. Having expectations that a movie such as this would be able to pull off all of what the original book had intended may be setting the bar too high. Nonetheless, it's worthy of discussion; I enjoyed listening to your opinions.
This is a good point! No film can tell every story, so it's not really fair to expect any film to do so. And I agree that it's typically easier to convey more details and nuances via book than onscreen (though obviously the cinematic medium offers other opportunities for creative storytelling). I think a lot of the critical reception of Poor Things that I read seemed lacking to me, which is why I wished to point out various different ideas and perspectives and to explore how these complicate understandings of the film as 'feminist' or as being of untouchably high quality. But I think you make a good point. Thank you for the thoughtful commment!
@ganymedia As a man, I acknowledge my intrinsic limitations in fully comprehending the experience of being a woman. While I can grasp the concept intellectually, truly feeling it is beyond my reach. There will always be subtle nuances and perspectives that you perceive, which I might overlook. Thus, I am profoundly grateful for the opportunity to gain new insights and broaden my understanding. It is the diversity of perspectives that drew me here, and I deeply appreciate the chance to engage with and reflect upon them.
Your most insightful review has generated a fascinating discussion, a wide spectrum of opinion with respectful disagreement and well thought out points of view. I am now subscribing and look forward to future discussions! What a pleasure to find people who can disagree without being disagreeable! Congratulations for setting the tone here!
This is a lovely comment - thank you so much! I'm also really happy to see people writing such thoughtful comments about the film (even if I haven't been able to reply to them all; and including when they sometimes disagree with my own ideas). Fingers crossed that the thoughtful discussions continue. And thank you for subscribing - I'll do my best to continue making interesting/useful videos!
One thing that leaves me thinking is that we don’t know the sex of the baby whose brain replaced that of the mother. Would your views differ if the brain was of a different gender? Would you expect the brain to have a gender?
Totally ignores the idea of the film: the treatment of women by men, their attempts to control her and her body through emotion, the father, glamour and excitement, her first lover, money and besic needs, the brothel, mental and physical control, her ex-husband. The glory of Bella is that in every situation she overcomes them all. She can enjoy the sex but not be defined by it, she can sell her body but not be degraded, she can escape her husband's and his society of doctors and police's right to total control of her. Bella is victorious.
I would have to agree with you here especially given the period where women lacked agency - all the male characters are trying to control/own Bella in some way as you point out and Bella refuses to be controlled by them or social norms. Emma Stone produced this film, let's not forget, so she oversaw the writing and for that matter the directing. What makes Poor Things a strong film in fact is not so much the converations about trying to be "right" but the mere fact that the film generates these sorts of discussions. Can you view the film in different ways and draw different conclusions - great art to me does that. Feminism isn't the only thing to discuss here either. Willem Dafoe who was monstrously treated as a child - was tortured horrifically he becomes a scientist because his body and soul have been abused by and for scientific experimentation. Godwin is both Frankenstein and his sensitive creation. For me, this was the best film out of the films nominated with Past Lives, Zone of Interest and Anatomy of a Fall also very strong contenders. Thus, none of these will win. It will be the good but not great Oppenheimer likely to win everything.
Surely, human sexuality is overwhelmingly degraded and repulsive in reality. The inability of people to respect others and not seek to control and abuse t hem is epidemic in our society...and proximity appears to be the only requirement (schools, sports clubs, gyma...) However, Bella is born into this world and attempts to find 'a life' acceptable to her. She falls from one possibility to the next, she doesn't accept. she suggests improvements, moves on and that's about it. The film is about what is, not what should be.@@sainttheresetaylor2054
@@richardausten5295 The Oscars certainly proved you right about your predictions but you're right about something even more important: the fact that the film is generating these discussions is more important and more lasting than anything the entertainment world has brought us this year, glitzy package notwithstanding.
I am so glad I found your analysis on this film. I wanted to like this movie so badly but it just didn't sit right with me, and I really think it is because of the pervasiveness of the male gaze. I don't mind films that are full of sex scenes and that are disturbing, but the way they portrayed Bella's arc somehow just didn't feel empowering. I really think the film could have told the same story and with the right perspective it could have been a brilliant and feminist piece of art, but it really fell short and left me feeling uncomfortable. This film just really infantilized women and people with cognitive disabilities and portrayed abuse and grooming rather than empowerment. 99% of the sex scenes did not feel empowering... just the way they were shot and framed. And I agree... it is incredibly problematic that they boiled her "maturity" down to her sexual discovery. Thank you for your thoughtful analysis, and I love your dress!
Hey, really enjoyed hearing your perspective of the movie as I only could think of praise after watching it. Breaking it down more from a feminist perspective definitely shows some interesting choices made by the director. That being said, I saw the way that sex was used in this film was more of a contemplation of Freudian psychosexual theory and also a mirror for how some of our historied expectations of women can seem so outdated yet still engrained today. As the sexual beings we are, according to Freud, it is fun to follow Emma's journey as she discovers this and learns about the societal rules around it. Emma's character allows for the audience to rediscover what sex is as well as how we experience it as a part of the Victorian society portrayed. While I get what you mean by the choice of using so much sex to drive the movie, I think it helps us re-question some of our expectations of women as being chaste and sexually reserved. Baxter goes so far as becoming a prostitute for financial reasons (why not if you enjoy it) which can pose questions to the audience as to why it is such a socially "wrong" profession for women in the first place. I personally enjoyed the use of sex as a plot piece to help pose these kinds of ethical, psychological and societal questions. Still, I do agree with your statements on how this might impact some viewers in how they see women (sexually or otherwise) and how female monsters are questioned as "are they women" instead of "are they human," I just think the movie wouldn't have been able to accomplish what it did without it.
Thought the film was a bore. It was also dodgy. The young doctor knew he was going to marry and presumably have sex with an adult body with a baby brain. This idea of the accelerated brain development (never explained) was supposed to make the viewer easier with this basically paedophile behaviour. Didn’t work at all for me, as a large part of the ‘humour’ (didn’t laugh once) was based on her emotional development at odds with her physical. Amazing to me that so many critics get captured by supposedly PC themed films rather than judging it objectively.
You absolutely missed the entire point of the film. you were SUPPOSED to feel uncomfortable. you were SUPPOSED to identify the behavior of the men as creepy and bad. that was the POINT. because it WAS creepy and bad.
@@luckystoller6171The Green Knight was also a movie that got this kind of praise from critics but was awful. Hipster crap movies that regular people don't care about.
I asked myself: OK, the film deals with a woman's freedom and sexuality... what about real, lovely intimicy and what about mestruation and living in a patriarchal working world in which no consideration is given to abdominal pain? Does Bella not have mestruation? Or was it simply not taken into account by a male director that a woman (who was once pregnant) that is passionately discovering herself, should somehow also discover that blood are bubbling out of her vagina; that she has menstrual symptoms, like swelling breasts, abdominal pain, mood swings... what the hell is wrong with her hormones and why don't we get anything of them to see in this movie - except a malegaze-like hunger for sex?! As a woman who strongly identifies with both, her sexuality/intimicy and her cycle, I find that very unfeminist about the film. As a tantric woman that I am, I can say for myself: hundreds of loveless one-night stands have not given me the inner awakening that loving intimacy with myself and with a sexual partners, male or female could give me. The film shows us all kinds of things, but no intimacy that enables truly loving, self-empowering awakening and no woman whose growth is influenced by her natural female cycle. And in the end I find it almost a little glorifying of surgery and perhaps even the female section. Where Bella, who once had her baby cut out of her stomach in the operation room, realizes that she never feels as safe as she does here. It's easy to believe that her husband from her old life wasn't lying when he said, that - when she was Viktoria - she hated her baby and called it the monster. We're obviously dealing with a woman who doesn't particularly value her feminine-physics-realitiy and her opportunity to create new life. She prefers to do such things at the operating table, like her father "God" and creat a men with goat Brain.... What is, if I think about it twice is realy fun! Even if it's not my definition of feminism. I just like to be a cyclical, motherly feminist who prefers love and intimacy; and prefers a balance between work and motherhood, to work my ass of in a male-dominated profession and fucking around to feel impowerd as a woman.
Thank you. This was a calm and reflected review of the film. Have decided not to watch it. Another reviewer criticized the excess. And any excess I don't like either. Would have loved to see the cinematography and camera...
Maybe "The Favourite" is more to your liking. It is less flashy, less filled with meta-references, less quirky and grotesque, less ambiguous in tone, but it also has many of the core aesthetics that are featured in "Poor Things", as it has been directed by the same person.
Oh damm you human, you have made such great points ❤, this video deserves more views. Would love to here more nuance, indepth, critical analysis of other movies or topics
Thank you for the time you took to create this review. I found it enlightening and hope other women listen to the entire 24 minute critique. I felt the movie was a story created by men for men to justify their obsession with female sex without taking responsibility for their own. Men will only be liberated after women understand their own internalized oppression.
What evidence in the movie supports your hypothesis that the movie in any way justifies any obsession with female sex without taking responsibility? Where on earth did that happen? (it didn't)
The horrible sex scene took me out the movie and made me feel like Emma stone the person was being degraded, specially when it added nothing interesting.
The clue to this films adaptation of Alasdair Gray's book, is the Blessington characters monologue on the cruise ship. Life is meaningless and humans are monsters. By the end of the film... Bella is content to be the metaphorical, and literal monster she knows she is. Not to help humanity, but to experiment on it. The core of the film is that humans are irredeemable. That's why the 'happy ending' is so unsettling. It is the quietude in the garden of utter madness. *Most men believed 'fully grown women' were still 'internally' infantile children. See Schopenhauer's ( now infamous, yet then taken as empirically valid ) 1851 'On Women' essay. This is literally the case with Bella. But the film asks the viewer... what happens if the child grows up? Although not to a happy resolution, a fairytale conclusion, but to fully realise humans were never benign to begin with. To understand that, only the veneer of societal conditioning, disguises what humans truly are. To help hide the fact, humans invent fabulous illusionary stories about themselves. That they're nothing but flightless angels. This film isn't about feminism, it is about how women wish to distance themselves, from men, in order to disown the inner monster within both of them. Not about uncovering the horrors of the outside world, just the horrors hiding within you.
how would you change it? That would help me understand your point - the way she marries Candles I thought was very dominating - he was just an item for her to marry at the end after her adventures without any resistance - what would you change to make this more feminist in your view?
20:06 Great example of this playing out recently is the treatment of Ukrainian women as refugees. The United Nations high commissioner for refugees spoke to The Guardian cautioning against the practice of matching women and children refugees with single men, as these women began to be exploited for domestic labor and in the worst cases sexual services. The article is “Stop matching lone female Ukraine refugees with single men, UK told” for those interested. Of course, there is no mention of such practices occurring to the infirm, elderly, or men who could not serve in Ukrainian forces and had to emigrate. I feel nauseous at the thought of teenagers and young ladies in the same position - and Bella’s treatment definitely fits that bill. We’ve seen this play throughout history, but I thought it interesting to bring up its uniquely topical relevancy.
I am trying hard to get your argument but sex, gender and feminism is just part of what this movie is all about wich is the social education of Bella Baxter.
If this movie was realistic she would have been beaten through the whole movie and then died of syphilis at the end. Give me a break. This movie is a feminist's fever dream. It's hipster bait.
The novel “Poor Things” was called "a magnificently brisk, funny, dirty, brainy book" by the London Review of Books. I haven’t read the book or seen the film. But if the book is “dirty”, the film also needs to be “dirty”.
Oh goodness - please don't believe this about yourself! I make an argument in this video essay based on my interpretation of the film, which is subjective and informed by my own experiences and way of thinking. My particular tastes, cultural background, and personal experiences mean that I am predisposed to pick up on certain issues and amplify them (e.g. feminism and depictions of women). As I say in the video, this film is a rich text and there are many ways of interpreting it. There are likely ways of interpreting it of which I am ignorant. So, I stand by the arguments I make in the video, especially as I was debating the widespread use of the label 'feminist' to describe the film, which I'd oppose; yet I'll also happily acknowledge that there may be things I have missed. For example, some critics argue the film is tongue-in-cheek and transgressive: that it satirises norms of any kind and presents a story in which Bella's behaviour serves as an insightful commentary into how unquestioningly the people around her follow unwritten social rules. The Guardian even ran an entire article showing how critics have disgreed over interpretations of the film: www.theguardian.com/film/2024/jan/24/bound-gagged-poor-things-feminist-masterpiece-male-sex-fantasy-oscar-emma-stone-ruffalo If you came away loving this film, it's entirely possible that you spotted a quality to it that I failed to see, or had more of a willingness to engage with the positive attributes of the film. It's exciting when people have different opinions about art, so I hope you feel confident to analyse why you liked the film, test out your ideas critically, and then stand by them.
@@ganymedia The points you bring up articulate what disturbed me about the film even as I was transported by its art and beauty and the excellence of the actors and the skills of its creators. Ultimately, the value of the film itself is in the discussions it is provoking on sites like this which bravely challenge the areas that, yes, are disturbing and deserve to be explored.
Hello, I have a suggestion, or a demand... would you be okay to publish a text version of your video ? Like a pdf file that you would add to the description section ? Best regards !
Imagine a world where, out of our control, our sexual lives would be exposed and shared with everyone? When we start doing it, we want to do it all the time and tht's true in this film. That's why it starts to show weakness in the third act. Bella is never corrupted.Nor she ever falls in love. Now that would have been interesting. Oh, and by the way: how old was Bella's brain when she had sex those first times? Interesting question, don't you think?
I'm upset with the ending because after all the learning that Bella does, she's content to just be a surgeon and that is the good that she does in the world. Her mental agonizing about poor and misfortunate people takes a backseat to her own simple issues and it never seems to get back to philosophy.
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.
I felt it was all surface and very little depth - def a win for Production Design. But the theme of women should control their bodies and narrative/ men are evil seems a bit overdone at this point in so much contemporary art. I did not see anything new in the intellectual themes - all text and no subtext. Def visually striking and beautiful .... I do believe this could have been a much tighter film at 2 hours- creatively edited montages of the brothel scenes would have been much more effective.
Edward Scissorhands meets Bride of Frankenstein? Love your take and glad found channel. Sigh agree conflicted I'll go with hedonism is good, even for women....to a point says possessive men and society. Had a literal girl in a box scene....countered by overt happy revenge ending? Very visual yes, cast delivers and as you say Stone "embodies" alright, brave but hard to get past agree with male gaze comments. Saw a take comparing as a "weird Barbie"...Barbie''s...as you put it, fever dream? Well, liked the Wednesday Adams dance scene...
Thank you for this comment - I'm touched you enjoyed the take and are interested in the channel. Also (just quickly!), I am familiar with the Wednesday Adams dance scene as well and enjoyed it a lot too. It has been a good couple of years for unconventional dancing in film!
Very interesting part about the dangers of homeless women being taken in. I was completely appalled by the way she was fetishized from the start while still being a completely helpless baby on the inside. While that alone is fucked up enough, the fact that at the beginning, she presents as someone with severe brain damage, made me think about how much more in danger disabled women are at becoming a victim of sexual abuse. The male gaze all over this extremely vulnerable human being was kinda sickening to me. Maybe, as a woman with a neurological disease I‘m a bit sensitive here but the fact that so many people don’t seem to question this fetishized portrayal is rather frightening to me.
everyone is not a victim she was prey and then she preyed on others.
did the film not present her fetization and exploitation as being obviously awful things.
@@twot2224i was in theatre filled with people laughing at the most traumatic scenes, so I would dare to say no
Yeah, wasn’t that all the point? The infantilization, possessiveness, disgusting behavior of many men enabled by the patriarchy? It was like lifting up a rock and shining a spotlight on all the gross absurd bugs existing under there. Did people miss all that? Jeez.
The film did present her fetishization as wrong though, Bella even called god and her almost fiance out when she saw that they made another girl like her and her previous husband also acknowledged that these men were exploiting her when he disturbed the wedding (even if he proceeded to be awful to her as well).
I think that Lanthimos wanted the audience to make their own moral judgments but he never presented Bellas mistreatment as acceptable. That's why none of the sex scenes in this movie were erotic, they were disturbing because Bellas reality was disturbing even if she didn't understand it at times.
I think your point about questioning Bella's position at the end of the film is interesting. When you said it I thought it's quite a conventional masculine success ending, planted on a female to make her look empowered within the male gaze. She has successfully got revenge on her abusive partner, has a man serve her drinks, drove her evil lover to insanity and soaks up the sun while relaxing on a sun lounger. Empowerment through a male gaze usually is at the mercy of others - rather than rewarding Bella with empowerment which comes from within, it's only through her external rewards has she becomes 'empowered'. Thanks for the vid it sparked some great thoughts!
"Empowerment through a male gaze usually is at the mercy of others" - this is such an interesting reading! Thank you for sharing it. You make a great point: if success for Bella involves her moving up in this power structure and not questioning or altering how the structure depends on (or encourages) exerting power over others, there's a certain comedy and poetic justice to the situation, but it's not particularly radical or freeing. It's arguably a very masculine or male-coded definition of success. Maybe she subverts it by being a woman - or is she simply perpetuating something that ought to be questioned more? Good food for thought. Thanks again!
this is an excellent insight
I see your point but not entirely agree with the concept of "at mercy of others" if well observed the paths of the characters and their agencies.
In the case of Duncan, Bella expresses more then once that she believes in his possibility of growing. But he's too trapped in his own narcissism and hedonistic journey to understand and accept rejection [as a side note I dont even think he loves her, but only the feeling of possession]. As an adult with - ironically - childish emotional development, he becomes bitter and bitter seeing his "toy" creating an awareness and interest in the world that does not include him and decides to fight voraciously against it, leading to his "insanity". And almost the same is applicable to the general, except that his reasonings are values and ideais given by society (the role of the woman, her relashionship with sexual desire, etc).
Max, in this triangulation, would be the partner willing to accept her freedom and see her as an equal - beyond sexual pleasure and beauty, they discuss themes important to both and help each other in the operating table. The final scene with him, to my eyes, is much more revealing of their partnership than his submission.
The movie, nonetheless, has a particular individualistic take on liberty, and unfortunately, almost nothing is shown about Bella' take on power structures despite her supposed interest in socialism.
Wait, but she’s also self-actualized, perusing her interests, created a community/family of like-minded folks, activated, and happy. It’s even implied that she’s working to improve the lives of the maid and her successor, both showing progress in attitude and skills upon her arrival. Ahdunno, I didn’t see it as a baller-male-success-trope.
Wait, what? Conventional masculine success ending? What does that even mean? Is getting revenge against those who've wronged you, keeping a partner who satisfies you, surrounding yourself with people you feel comfortable with and making a successful career for yourself a strictly masculine thing? Well... okay, I guess. So, in your opinion, what would be a feminine success ending for Bella Baxter? What would empowerment look like from a female standpoint? What would "empowerment that comes from within" look like to you?
Great analysis! I left the theater feeling like Poor Things is more fetishistic than it is feminist.
Really happy you enjoyed the analysis - thank you!
I don't understand why people expect a film to be feminist. The question is it a good film, i.e. does it do well what it set out to do? Is it more interesting than predictable ? A film can be feminist and still be a bad film; a film can be not feminist (fetishistic, what is it? is not all representation with a centre fetishistic?) and still good.
@@turnipsociety706 It's of course all subjective but for me the goal of any piece of art is to evoke some sort of emotion. What I personally define as "good art" is one that doesn't necessarily have to align with my morals or politics. I can say, yeah Poor Things is a pretty good movie in a lot of ways, but a lot of the analysis I've seen of the film (on UA-cam it's mostly male content creators) latching this feminist identity to it because it has a female lead engaging in ownership of sexuality. I have a similar issue with Neon Genesis Evangelion which is on it's face *good*, but at the expense of sexualizing underage girls.
The issue then becomes how is the art effecting it's audience and their perceptions of women. I find issue with a male author, male writer, and male director attempting a story on ethics & feminism, which can't truly be as authentic and compelling as it would be if it were made by women. That's not to say a woman could as easily bungle up a story like this. It's about equality of sexes after all.
Lastly, I believe it's fetishistic because it's premise is blatantly dependent on: What if a child's brain was in an adults body and *wanted* to have sex with you? The purpose is for a troublesome ethical question, but who is that question for and why is it being asked?
@@jesdotby Did the director, author or writer say they were doing a film on feminism? Or is it the content creators that analysed it? I think this point is key to criticise it.
Still, I find it very reductive and essentialistic to say that men cannot write a story on feminism as authentically as a woman. A man cannot be more of a feminist than a woman? Is a woman always a "better" feminist?
@@MariaSuarez-tu9zf Male directors, writers rarely ever write women well. Hope this helps you understand.
I see a lot of praise for this film. I certainly felt in the minority of not seeing what others seem to. I couldn't work out what the film was trying to say either.
They all are liers
There are good aspects of the film. But the sex was not one of them. It was too much, too prominent, and the way she starts at a young age feels wrong. It could have explored these themes without exploiting the main character so much.
if a film obviously tries to say something, why make a film? just say the thing. A good film is more than a "message" (that is propaganda)
Those of us who felt unsettled by the film do not simply consume what is being fed to us, just like Bella at the dinner table. LOL! Too many contradictions, confusing narratives and not enough of a well conceived journey.
Have not seen the film yet...BUT based on what I have seen, more HOLLYWOOD GARBAGE. Hollywood's "acclaimed" films -- in contrast to its European counterparts -- leave audiences in the muck of their strange, deranged, jumbled imaginations.
As I noted to a friend years back, who was perplexed why he could NOT find a movie worth watching on Dish Network with 1000's + 1000's of channels, movies + programs from which to choose -- other than rewatch a film he'd already seen (this man, like I, appreciates QUALITY, regardless the product.
I simply replied, "Looks whose writing the material. Hollywood is neither literate, nor moral, for the most part, and that comprizes most of what's on cable, Dish NW, etc.
If you want to see something of quality -- look to British films (usually period pieces) or other European works (in recent years: the Diana Gabaldon series "Outlander" or "The Last Kingdom" series + concluding film "Seven Kings Must Die" written by Martha Hillier, based on "The Saxon Stories," by Bernard Cornwell. Both of these are historic, period works, but the Brits and other European film companies do create and release all types of film...At least, some people still know how to write and tell a masterful tale. THANK GOD!
As for "Poor Things" and other ill-conceived and constructed works -- I seriously doubt I will waste my time or money.
At one point Bella remarks that sex work is socialist and therefore good. However, she simultaneously knows this is not true when she questions if she has to have sex with a man she finds unappealing, and the Madame’s answer is yes. The concept of being forced to have sex with men she doesn’t want to is not explored at all… in the end, her experience is framed as liberating and positive, and having sex with someone she doesn’t want to is a mere bump in the road.
Obviously this is in stark contrast to the realities women forced into sex work face across the globe. It was an incredibly flippant, under-explored, male-centered view on women forced into sex work.
Framed as a 'mere bump in the road' - I agree with you about this. My impression is that the director was seeking to explore questions surrounding shame and stigma and sex work, by portraying it through Bella's wide-eyed gaze; however, I also felt that the film's omission of the violence and abuse that often accompanies sex work felt as naive as Bella's own perspective. Maybe she exists as a character to make those around her - as well as audiences - question their beliefs, but again, it did feel naive to and simplistic to portray sex work in this way, even in a work of fiction. Male-centred: I think you are right about this.
And thank you for the thoughtful comment!
"FrankenHooker" sums it up! I've also analysed way too much exactly why this film fails on many levels narratively and now I'm down to that one word!
Exactly. So annoying that the pillars of her awakening were: 1, unconsensual phallo-centric sx that feels like a p0rn scenario (ex: pure, classic "she looks mature for her age" plus did anyone else notice the day after discovering m$sturbation she wants a cucumber inside herself? are you for fcking real? is p*netration all you know??) and secondly the drawing of herself from above, f€llating a boat, as if she came to the world with a pre-installed male gaze in her baby brain, like... please. So unimaginative for a science fiction film). And 2, Sx work as empowerment - such a tired, male-centric view of female liberation (note the comment about a client where she speaks of vi0lent sx as "weirdly not unpleasant" - I was so over it at this point, plus the madame is the only villain in this fucking film! Of course the actualy, visible, creepy coertion is exercized by a woman, because why not, rght? Women can be abusers too, don't be sexist! Even the husband feels completely unthreatening for his whole meager plot, and is resolved that way: a silly little goat, don't you worry about him). I am so annoyed with the way they are talking about this film in interviews like it is about the absence of shame or some bullshit. This film is a verbiose non-comment about some problematic situations, and it completely fails to address them.
Actually, it was just obvious that she was being taken advantage of and lied to. throughout the movie, up until she ruined her ex husband.
I've loved every other Yorgos film since Dogtooth, but Poor Things left me so disappointed in him, and even more so, in the writer, Tony McNamara. The book does a better (not much, but better) job of handling this complex and problematic subject matter, not least of all by acknowledging that the story is told from a man's limited, unreliable point of view - in the case of the film, we must hope the audience sees that on its own. At one point on her two-week cruise of enlightenment, Bella says "if it is disgusting, why should I keep it in my mouth?" as she spits out her fancy dinner. She doesn't like it, she spits it out - she doesn't continue eating it, day in, day out, forever to see if she might feel differently about something she felt was disgusting. She actively expresses the disgust she feels when working as a prostitute, and yet she continues to do it, indefinitely, seemingly under the thumb of a madam who physically harms her. Then, bafflingly, she declares it a net-positive experience and the film plays it for laughs. An unsocialized human would instinctually, as we have seen, run away from a negative experience that provokes disgust and pain. Spit out that disgusting thing. Yet she continues, even though she has the means to leave or work in literally any other field or explore any other part of society. She's supposedly wise enough from exposure to those two or three books, the token black person explaining suffering for a quick 2 minute aside, and that noble street performer's song, to understand socialism, but she doesn't understand the realities of prostitution? And why prostitution? If she's evolved to the status of a grown woman capable of consent, she should be able to function in society in any number of ways that are more enjoyable. Yet she chooses prostitution even though these experiences are not pleasurable or even consensual, and she vocalizes that multiple times. There's also never any concern for pregnancy, menstruation, disease, assault or really any female pleasure. Even the slightly more consensual (felt more like a pedophilic grooming fantasy to me...) scenes with Mark Ruffalo felt like anything I'd see in regular heteronormative p0rn - a distinctly male gaze with zero attention to the mechanics of female pleasure or orgasm. And if her goal was solely sexual pleasure, why not experiment as she does in the book, with partners of her choosing, instead of partners she openly finds disgusting? I reject the character motivations on face because she contradicts her own stated instincts, feelings and logic. If this were a critique of how society, specifically patriarchy, funnels women into these situations and treated it with the seriousness sex work deserves, including the many potential harms to vulnerable women, then perhaps I could buy an *attempt* at a feminist message. But she insists that she likes it and suffers nothing, after describing her utter disgust. The lush setting almost glamorized the lifestyle of a sex worker and implied this somehow led to her self-actualization and freedom. But how exactly? And can we really even call these actions free if she's being physically and psychologically coerced by the madam? If not for God's illness, she would have continued as a prostitute and I still have no idea why - except to showcase more nudity and "shocking" sexual situations. Funny that the male author, male screenwriter and male director would believe that a woman's unsocialized, pure response to sexual awakening would be to focus it all on male fantasies and desires rather than her own. Ultimately, the initially promising premise of an unsocialized female being exploring the world without social constraint became an exploitative exercise in the male gaze where a woman's base instinct is to have unpleasurable sex with men for money. Poor Things reduces a woman's journey of self-actualization to twenty minutes of ''learning" and an hour plus of unenjoyable sex she doesn't fully consent to, with a tacked on faux feminist ending to absolve itself. Only with the threat of the (sadly, once real) clitoridectomy solution to her supposed mental health issues by her cartoon villain of a husband are we faced with a worse villain than the film itself - I guess I can praise it for pointing out that tragic historical fact. But it also weirdly positions this as the alternative to the much better life of "whoring." I think everyone is loving the pretty, shiny packaging, but even from a technical standpoint, the film feels all over the place. The cinematography is novel, but it's also inconsistent and gimmicky - throwing in every cinematic trick in the book, the black and white to color cliché, the fish eye lens, the peephole, the title cards, the actually-not-original-at-all steampunk aesthetic. I've seen it before and this feels very much style over substance, with an everything but the kitchen sink approach. The only thing I truly loved was Emma Stone's performance, and she definitely deserves a trophy. I just wish the story was worthy of her talent.
This is a very thorough and thoughtful comment. I haven't read the book, so it is very interesting to read your assessment of how the book and film compare. I also think you are right to highlight the somewhat tokenistic manner in which Bella acquires 'worldliness' and perspective and learning. Thank you for taking the time to write this - I found it thought-provoking!
Thank you for exposing other contradictory aspects of the film that caused many of us to feel confused and unfulfilled by the film. I've now analysed this film way too much to explain why it doesn't work narratively or even existentially. Now It's just comes down to one word: FRANKENHOOKER. But I have to disagree with you and many! Because of the film's flaws, even Emma Stone's performance felt forced, displaced and over acted due the movies more childishly cruel portrayal rather than the books more cheerful and loving persona of Bella which didn't feel anymore believable as she uneventfully matures towards the dreadful ending.
Female pleasure with a complete disregard for "politeness" is the engine for her entire journey, watch the movie again, numb-eggs.
Yes yes yes - all surface no depth. Great production design though!
Well said!!!!
I feel that the movie hinted at a pervasive issue in romantic relationships between men and women in that the men all seemed to be more attracted to Bella the more childlike she was. It seemed to imply the core issue of men striving to claim dominance over women and to control and trap them however they can. I also appreciate the points you make here. Overall, I still enjoyed the film and felt like Bella refused to live her life pleasing any man who tried to own her in one way or another, which is something I think more women need to embody. My life has been very peaceful ever since I stopped caring about men's approval and gaze.
My partner and I thougth the movie was mostly critical feedback on how men try to control and manipulate women.
I find it very interesting that every person gets something totally different from this film, in that I find it a piece of art.
Even though we were both very disturbed by the sexual stuff when her mind is in the very early stages.
Thats a lot of what the movie was about. and it was SUPPOSED to be disturbing. and because women got disturbed (the literal intended effect) they think that makes it NOT a feminist film??
The movie felt very male. There were pieces of the female experience in there, but then there were missing pieces that made the non missing pieces feel ridiculous or irrelevant. Apparently there's supposed to be some theme about what a woman without the shame society puts on her would be like. I think this is an interesting conversation, but its impossible to have a complete picture of this in Poor Things because Bella never has fear of pregnancy, STI's or any other illness, hurt feelings, or even violence and so Bella becomes an avatar for what a man thinks she would be
Not to mention filming r4pe scenes in that way is egregious and added absolutely nothing to the film
One of the reasons why Lanthimos' films, even when they later persist in my imagination, fail to win me over, is because they rarely make me feel something. They dazzle me as an audiovisual spectacle, they absorb me in their improbable scenarios, but they can't make me feel any real emotion. I find his films to be fabulous artistic exercises, but intellectually incomplete, and emotionally absent. And Poor Things seems to me the perfect example of this.
I'm curious to what films you could suggest that tick all those boxes. I too often find fault in movies plots and am always looking to find suggestions to ones I haven't seen.
@@thefadebeta580 I mean, of course this'll be a subjective response as while there are assessable attributes in a film, how much you converge with the director/writer's vision and perspective is decisive. So what I can tell you is with whom I converge the most in almost all creative aspects: Charlie Kaufman.
I put my IMDb link with lists and shit but it got deleted by youtube :/
@@feniaax Gonna check it out. thank you; If you think of anything else please share.
EXACTLY!!!! Thank you for breaking it down to the core of it all
The movie remind me of something Anya Taylor Joy says to the chef in another movie, The Menu : ' I don't like your food. There's no love in what you cook, it all felt like some avant-garde, intellectual bullshit. There wasn't a real emotion behind it...'
Poor Things made that impression to me.
Also, maybe it’s insignificant, but I could just see the male gaze in the way that there was no real understanding about the physical mechanics of female pleasure. It all felt so sensationalized and unrealistic, and every scene where she was supposed to be “empowered” felt like it was more about male pleasure.
100% this.
I don't know if this film ever claims she is 'Empowered'.
To say it is about Male Pleasure seems to be really missing one of the consistent themes of this story: at almost every stage the male characters are more concerned about limiting Her Pleasure, than satisfying their Own. Even the male characters who consider themselves the Most Liberated are deeply disturbed by her lack of Inhibition. And I suppose that is The Point. By Bella's peculiar Origin, she is freed from the usual psychological constraints, by seeing the Horror this causes the Male Characters, we are reminded of how reliant men are on feelings of Repression and Shame in Women.
This is not a Guide for Liberating Women, this is a Reminder to men that if they ever found a woman as Uninhibited as they think they would like, they might not like it as much as they think they would.
Yeah exactly, and that’s why I don’t enjoy the movie. Just my opinion.@@rustyk4645
Yeah, I mean the apple and the cucumber? Really?
You're telling me that a girl who discovered her clit a day ago would just start shoving anything up there? That's certainly something a man would imagine and it's ridiculous even for Bella.
So basically it's a movie for men? Got it. @@rustyk4645
I did not see the ending as a victory - I found the last scene deeply horrifying, and I think the garish music reinforces how she is still trapped within the marriage she’s been groomed for, as well as the walls of the garden.
But she clearly wanted to marry him. At every turn she had the opportunity not to but she does anyway. What does that say about the character?
She wasn't groomed for the marriage, though. Or anything, really. She was just an experiment, originally. Dafoe's character viewed her as his child. The marriage was suggested by him in fear and desperation as a means to keep Bella close, safe and satisfied. Which was clearly wrong of him in every possible way, and the movie makes a point of showing you exactly how and why it was wrong. The marriage Bella chooses at the end of the film is not the marriage anyone intended for her - it is her own choice. Nobody chooses her partner for her - she makes that choice on her own.
@@HopeNight100 but in the end, God the Father was right in his choice. The husband he chose IS a good guy. She's rich, beautiful, self realized- there really wasn't another nice guy in the whole world to pick, someone even better for her then the one God picked?
It qualifies as by far the worst movie I've ever seen. Not only because of the distressing and desperate feeling it generated in me during its course, but also because of the rough analysis I had later on.
I really agree that everything revolves around the male gaze, I couldn't even empathize with any character. An example of this is the repeated sexual scenes, which as a woman I perceived as exaggerated and unpleasant. How can enjoyment be seen as a method of torture? At what point does sexual freedom become so confused with female empowerment? I understood it as a covert and unquestioning justification of slavery and violence, ultimately getting nowhere. She accepts how the (terrible) world is and comfortably decides to be part of it, even having a slight understanding that it is wrong. Very few people understand the wrong message this leaves regarding the gender perspective.
Anyway, beyond the aesthetic part, a lousy treatment of deep issues that only reinforce a bias we are trying to escape from.
This whole comment section is full of people who were so shocked by how this movie chose to tackle women's issues (head on) that they are blinded to the absolutely massive messages and meanings. This movie is my favorite of all time and a WAYYYYY better feminist movie than the Barbie movie which was just a bunch of mattel corporate propeganda. Barbie movie was probably the biggest ad of a movie, EVER. but people think its a feminist movie which is disgustingly laughable.
Not me chanting, “Old tropes! Old tropes!” and “Kill joy! Kill joy!” (I hated this movie, it almost got me to ruin my sobriety, but luckily did not.) I forgot about the whole Victorian Woman “goal” bc of all the sexual violence, but yeah, that whole arc from baby to whore to Victorian Woman is a wild choice, and not at all feminist…the madam tells Bella at one point (when she’s asking to choose her own clients), “Some men like it when you don’t like it,” and I feel like that’s the thesis of the movie, at least that’s where I finally “got” the movie, Yorgos being the “some men” and me being made the poor thing, for 2.5 hours.
I didn't see it but it sounds awful and definitely not something women need right now, as our rights are getting trampled on.
@@anarcho-communist11I watched a part and couldn't stomach any of it. I had to stop and walk away.
so sex workers can't be feminists? You think all sex workers are not in control over their destinies? You pointed out what madam said "Some men like it when you don't like it" and so what was the next scene?? BELLA NOT LETTING THAT HAPPEN. She didn't want to have sex with people if she didn't like it! so she started making the men listen to HER. she took her power and control back.
I can't believe how many anti-feminist comments are on this video.
@@EliciaDragos-jq1vl honestly I was just triggered by it all bc I didn’t do my research before watching it (irresponsible, I know, but now I know to do that ) You have a point about the sex workers bc they are so vital and their stories should be shared bc they happen and stories matter, and everything you said is right, I wasn’t thinking about context throughout bc I was just upset by the movie. It was a sensory-hellish experience which also just made me overreact to and hate the whole thing at the time of writing my comment. In the time since then, I watched other readings of the movie which put more context on it for me? I do change my mind about hating PT, except that damn movie did hurt my ears, eyes and brain for nearly three hours, and I had beef with that lost time. I’m not mad at the movie for existing anymore tho. 🤷♀️
@@EliciaDragos-jq1vl honestly I was just triggered by it all bc I didn’t do my research before watching it (irresponsible, I know, but now I know to do that 👍). You have a point about the sex workers bc they are so important, and their stories should be shared bc they happen and stories matter, and everything you said is right, I wasn’t thinking about context throughout bc I was just upset by the movie. It was a sensory-hellish experience which also just made me overreact to and hate the whole thing at the time of writing my initial comment. In the time since then, I watched other readings of the movie which put more context on it for me? I do change my mind about hating PT, except that damn movie did hurt my ears, eyes, and brain for nearly three hours, and I had beef with that lost time. I’m not mad at the movie for existing anymore tho 🤷♀️
This film is full male-gaze narrative. The discourse is completely controversial. I don't mind having narratives that are ambiguous, controversial and provocative. But there are certain themes that need to be carefully presented. Grooming in particular is completely relativized. We see a woman acting as a literal toddler fascinating adult men through the whole movie. Even her father figure says he doesnt sleep with her because he phisically can't. I could see this as a critical statement about men being predatory. But, at the end, it seems fine to Max to want to marry her at the period she had the mind of a toddler. It's fine, as long as he says "your body, your rules" and doesn't keep her as a captive. Like "wow, he is so nice to her, he doesn't even keep her locked as a prisioner".
Also, as you said, the female sexual experience is very much reduced. While Barbie feels the male gaze as something suspiciously violent and uncomfortable, we see Bella as a woman who always wants sex from men, no matter who and what situation. It's almost like abuse, compulsory prostitution and grooming are fine as long as you don't know what's going on.
"It's almost like abuse, compulsory prostitution and grooming are fine as long as you don't know what's going on" - I like how you have phrased and captured this idea. Perhaps the film was trying to make some comment on this dynamic through Bella's naivety, but that approach in itself feels somewhat naive, at least from a feminist reading perspective (perhaps it might be different if one were to read the film above all as a satire, I suppose... but I'm not convinced). I think you make a very good point. Thank you for the thoughtful comment!
I have to wholeheartedly disagree with your point at the end about Bella always wanting sex. As the movie progresses, her interests change. Sex work is the only sexual acts of her that are portrayed during that portion. It's also apparent that she isn't attracted to many of her 'clients' and isn't okay with everything that's happening to her.
Other than that, I agree with all else
@@yotam6x7 there is a point that she questions what's going on, indeed. But like everything in this movie, the discussion goes nowhere in the end. Her problem is feeling "empty" at some point. The real problem is far beyond feeling "empty". At the end, overall she describes the experience as "fascinating". But I have to agree that she does changes her view and progresses somehow through the narrative.
she didn't have the mind of a toddler when he wanted to marry her.
"female sexual experience is very much reduced" th film is not talking about female experience in general. Did you notice it does not take place in our reality, and that no one has never had a baby brain transplanted? You are being surprisingly literal and are projecting reasonable real-life expectations on a narrative that is very clearly not meant to apply to our world
Out of all the films I've ever watched, this film is the most I can relate to as a woman of the world. Sex is raunchy many times. People have kinks. There's a giant community of DD/lg , vetting, formulating scenes etc. The movie has ZERO problems. What is happening is-- Yorgos is using the book as a platform to show there is an alternative lifestyle for many many people and women are at the forefront. I have been in Bella's position and I called it the best time of my life. I was the master of my body. Chose with whom and when and how much. I had satellites of people revolving around me and as a person who has identified as a "little" this could have not been a happier time in my life. Sex is fun. and for many people it's extremely important and Yorgos was the perfect director. He comes from a culture (Greek) where patriarchy is the loving monster.
I thought Bella was extremely praised, worshipped and loved for who she was and the person she was "growing up" to be.
I think if you're not in the Kink community or alternative lifestyle this film can come across as very objectifying and film will always be subjective anyways.
Bella demonstrates Infantilism. Not monstrosity. Please don't confuse raunchy with other things. At the end of the day Bella was becoming a Doctor and became the master (Mistress) of the house. Sex was a mere facet of her life. You will be surprised who you will find in a BDSM dungeon.
The film is a fantasy as you stated and that's why it comes from the genre which classifies as meta fiction.
This film is the bookend to Dogtooth.
You have articulated a unique understanding of the ethos of the film that has upset some people. Thank you for your contribution to it's understanding.
I don't think the film is about kink or bdsm. And the fundamental principle of the kink & BDSM communities is consent. Consent, consent, consent. That's why dungeons have dungeon masters/monitors and strict rules. That's why negotiation exists in a D/s relationship and why scenes are so carefully crafted with the sub's consent. That's why safe words exist. She doesn't know what any of that is. Her actions were coerced, through violence, she said no and was forced, and she was not mentally mature beyond perhaps a 12 or 13 year old. Her actions weren't free or consensual, or importantly, were not exploratory of her OWN kinks, fetishes or desires, only those of the men around her.
Having Emma Stone walk around and act like a toddler in one scene, and have sex like an adult directly after feels like someone's barely concealed fetish, and it made me feel extremely uncomfortable.
Unsurprising that it was so popular among th le Hollywood elite
It’s so weird how people forget that she’s literally a baby.
@@brookelyn_rayne I feel like people are just ignoring the fact or just close theyre eyes when they hear it. Its honestly sick to see soo many people defend this by saying ''oh but she isnt a baby shes an adult when she has sex!'' like, since when did yall get that info even? it feels pretty obvious to me that she has the brain of a toddler or perhaps maximum a teenager throughout the whole movie..even the sex parts.
@@misscoolgirl7166 Exactly. They don’t even listen just because she has the body of a grown woman. She is a child throughout the majority if not the whole movie. I think they just dismiss it as her discovering herself rather than exploitation only because she has the body of a woman.
That’s why the entire movie made me feel uneasy. I could never turn off the part of my brain that know she was basically a baby. Also the logical inconsistency that her brain wouldn’t be maturing fast enough to keep up with the development she was making through the movie.
It's stunning that someone could miss the point so completely while simultaneously pointing the point out.
I agree with you 100%, I watched the movie and couldn’t understand how it was so well aclamed, only I could think of was how misogynistic it was. And if the intention was to make a point or to provoke (I don’t think it was) it didn’t worked, to portray woman in a submissive way without well developing it in the movie isn’t provocative, it’s degrading.
It was like The Green Knight. Hipster trash that is raved as being this new thing. Foreign directors have been cranking out these types of movies for a long time. Self indulgent, pseudo intellectual shock art.
It's kind of like Yoko Ono's music if you think about it. People love it and eat this crap up.
Thanks. I'm a 70+ y.o. male & I had many concerns similar to use and wondered "am I just an old fogey, not "hip" to new feminism?". Hadn't thought about could she give consent with child's mind... well done
I was so surprised seeing letterbox reviews, usually I agree with the majority there and their analysis. This time I was shocked with the positive reviews and rating. Is the movie done perfectly sound, visual, dialogue, acting wise? Yes but the themes explored are so shallow and male gazey, after the movie when you remove all the good parts and think of the core messages + the core character development, you think what the fuck? This is not it. This is not the feminist lens I thought I would see at all, this is far from it. This is like girl boss feminism, feminism yes but shallow that acts for the acceptable gender societal norms in the opposite way. The lack of race, class discussion was wild, also how come she is having sex so many times no mention of birth control problems or menstruation. The prostitution made me roll my eyes, knowing how white ppl from the west go to countries like Philippines for it, what about sex work for those people? They don’t do it for liberation they do it as the last resort. Will this get the awards yes? But it deserves for its technical prowess with the cinematic form not at all with the content. I think people are so happy to give money to anything that talks about the struggle of women in sex, jobs, relationships, love, we forget there are standards and depth for those themes. Just glossing them over is not enough.
I wish Poor Things brought up the suffering of women in the Philippines. No film is complete without mentioning that.
Precisely this - you think what the fuck? Was my thinking!
This comment is ridiculous, you expect a two hour movie that covers all the social problems all over the world? If they refer to the sex trade in the Philippines, then you can say what about Thailand?
Very good analysis. Ever since I saw the film I was perplexed by the lack of criticism especially from a feminist lens. I did enjoy certain parts of the film (especially Bella’s mentor/mentee relationship with Martha) I had just seen Priscilla and the difference it how it frames grooming is striking. The fact that people are incapable of seeing the blatant issues with the portrayal of Bella’s sexuality is quite simply very telling of how women’s experiences are ignored by society at large.
can u go in to depth about the issues surrounding her sexuality? as a young woman I GET IT intuitively, but can't put it into words
Hoooooorrible analysis. She offered almost zero actual analysis, she just stated she didn't like it a bunch but never offered any real reasons as to why other than she didn't understand the movie.
Watched "Poor things" yesterday and I completely agree with you. I was left half unimpressed half horrified by its messaging. I was mostly horrified that nobody in the film ever considers that this is not a woman - this a humanoid form with a mature body but an infantile mind. How is nobody talking about how wrong it is to exploit Bella's sexuality?? She is not empowered, she was abused in her self-discovery. And as soon as Mark Ruffalo's character appears and touches her inappropriately and that is not seen in any way as a bad thing (and it keeps being that way until the end of the film, everyone suddenly forgets there's a developing mind in there!). I couldn't get passed that, because every "sexual liberation" move Bella takes from then on is not "liberation" but just living through trauma as a sexually abused child.
But everybody is talking about the exploitation of Bella's sexuality--including you! That's one of the points of the film. Now I'd like to see the film done from Bella's point of view.
IT IS WRONG TO EXPLOIT, THATS LITERALLY THE POINT OF THE MOVIE. HOW DID SO MANY PEOPLE MISS THAT???!?!?!?!?!?
@@EliciaDragos-jq1vlIt’s a poorly made point. It’s only really addressed by having the villains/exploiters be punished in the end. It has no narrative consequences on Bella that harm her. it’s simply bad because it’s done by “bad guys.” She forgives God pretty easily and Max is never presented as an exploiter because he says all the good guy things.
@@EliciaDragos-jq1vlmore like the movie romanticized that, rather than making a real critique with nuance
Personally, I see her “growth” in the following direction:
1. Physical: as she is literally integrated brand new baby brain and grown woman body, with potentially higher libido levels. First, she shows all her physical (which happens to be sexual) energy, as the other life dimensions are unknown to her.
2. Emotional: As she (her brain) grows, she starts understanding what emotions are, and discovers the depth of them. These emotions are quite complex for her, and she officially opens the new dimension of life, which is the key for understanding people and their pain.
3. Ethical: Now, when she discovered emotions, and can potentially empathise, she tries to do something, take actions to prevent or manifest some important things from her perspective according to the spectrum of feelings she has now, but not necessarily doing it in a conventionally smart way.
4. Intellectual: When she comes back to God, she gains some knowledge about her origin. Afterwards, her ex-husband triggers to complete her dimensional view of the world, she gets intelligence, now not only academic.
When it comes to the sex in this movie, I also had an issue with watching some sexual interactions between her immature mind and grown adults. But in the end, it is an exaggeration which is completely understandable and meaningful in this case. Especially, if we think of her as a human being that committed suicide because of over controlling ex-husband, who mentions about her unacceptable higher libido and how he sees her as nothing more than an incubator. In my point of view, it was not pointless to show her rage to discover herself in this context. Discovery of physical is crucial, but we cannot have sexual tension as newborns, but here it was more relatable to show the reason Bella was not perceived “normal woman” because of her physical natural features. It doesn’t necessarily imply that all women have higher sexual libido, it just one of the cases where woman is seen as unacceptable by society.
But why her physical (aka sexual) step in her growth cannot be considered as a part of feminism? This is just a story of a single person, woman, about one of the thousands possible struggles in our patriarchal world. I would say in today’s reality this exaggeration is the way to make more people reflect on this topic, as it is easily relatable.
A lot to think about here. But as a woman who is now 51 and who's intellectual and emotional journey toward maturity was inextricably intertwined with my sexuality, with my own hyper-sexulaity, and even with my choice to engage in sex work for a time, I found Bella incredibly relatable. Perhaps I'm strange, but how does one even extract one's sexual experiences from the holistic experience of coming of age? Or is it just her hyepr-sexual nature that makes her less relatable to you as a character? I have found some women have had trouble relating to my own story as well unless they were similarly hyper-sexual in their youth. It's been a strange feeling to have the notion of being "male created" overlayed upon my experience by others. A feeling that I should not trust that my own desires and impulses were my own because they involved casual heterosexual sex. This movie made me feel understood in a refreshing way.
Also "the body that was never meant to house her," was literally her own mother's body which was housing her brain and her entire body. Have we delved into the mother-daughter implications there, which from my perspective as a middle-aged woman with a daughter, are fascinating!!!
Another angle that was NEVER addressed was the sex of the baby who's brain was transplanted into the mother's body! And this points to neurodivergent women and the idea that autism is called "extreme male brain." And the characteristics of Bella, her social unawarenes for example, point to metaphoric neurodivergence. That would be a rich area to explore in reference to this film! Perhaps a literal interpretation of Bella as having a "different brain" is not even appropriate in the case of art.
@@ViolaVoltairine What about the comment above citing the film's " zero attention to the mechanics of female pleasure or orgasm. And if her goal was solely sexual pleasure, why not experiment as she does in the book, with partners of her choosing, instead of partners she openly finds disgusting?" The brothel situation seemed more coercive than voluntary for these reasons. Your views on this would be valuable in trying to reconcile the varying views of the comments herein and throughout the critiquing of this film. Many fine points arise as so many views are aired. What an interesting discussion, yes?
@@luckystoller6171 the scene where Bella asked that very question reminded me of me when I left the escort agency and went off on my own as an independent sex worker. "Would it not be better if the women choose?"
And as a hyper sexual young woman just about every kind of sexual stimulation gave me orgasms. So I'm not really sure about a need for demonstrating mechanics. Is the movie a sex ed piece? Although I noted that her goal was to get off with her clients and some she seemed to sincerely enjoy (she told the priest he had a gift).
I think because of the stigma some may find it hard to believe that even bad sex with clients is an interesting experience if just from a curiosity standpoint.
My thought as a sex worker was always "I would do all of this anyway, might as well get paid well!" And in the Victorian time it was that or attach yourself to one man, which is even more oppressive, depressing, and annoying (and still is even today, though now we have other choices, thank goodness).
As I said I felt finally fully understood in my innocent and curious explorations into sex work as a young woman. She did not seem requisitely desperate or broken the way prostitutes are often portrayed in film. And she was not the mothering prostitute with a heart of gold, healing a broken man: another typical sex work trope. She defied all the typical tropes and was just exploring, getting annoyed and bored and pissed off at times, but still enjoying herself without shame and without losing her sense of self. I found it incredibly refreshing.
I loved the movie. It is so unsettling and creepy I had no doubt in my mind for even a second that it was supposed to make the audience feel disgusted by Godwin and Max and even more so by Mark Ruffalo (I don't remember his character's name). The end felt to me not exactly like Stockholm syndrome but definitely complex and bittersweet. On one hand, Bella matured and ended a journey of self-discovery finishing off an arch of (mental) growth from a baby to an adult. On the other hand, she came back to Godwin and Max, completely underselling how damaging they were to her. She makes some sort of amends with Godwin when she states that she disagrees with what he's done with her body and how she did not consent to being created but that she forgives him partly simply because she enjoys being alive. Of course, if you read this from the literal POV of a woman whose body was violated by a man, it's disgusting and evil. But when watching the film my first interpretation wasn't of a man talking to a woman, but of creation talking to God. None of us consented to being alive. And sometimes the conditions in which we are brought into this world are cruel. But if one still has a will to live, it's because despite all that, we somehow still enjoy being alive.
My main critique of the film is about its portrayal of sex work. While the first interactions of Bella with Godwin, Max, and Mark Ruffalo are absolutely creepy, scenes of Bella having unwanted sex with abusive men are shown as quirky or funny. The movie only slightly hinted at the many problems of sex work
In the end, I "forgive" the creepy ending or even the exaggerated sex scenes because in my opinion they were purposely creepy and aimed to create discomfort and questioning. I don't "forgive" the portrayal of sex work on the other hand because it was somewhat naturalized uncritically.
The movie does a lot really well, however, the self-discovery element at its heart feels a bit shallow. The end that the viewer arrives at is that the imperatives of self are the motivators for living. I think there was a missed ending here where Bella's journey could have concluded with some more profound realizations besides "I do what I want to do because it's my body". 98% of the movie is Bella learning what she wants (and it's mostly sex). She says at one point about the need to help the poor, but that is quickly moved on from once she is looking to serve herself. She spends more time in a brothel than taking her wealth in her pocket to better herself and others. But perhaps that is the argument, that these impulses and desires are largely self-serving. Also, it's odd that a movie entirely centered on a girl becoming a woman was produced by so many men. The book was written by a man, the screenplay by a man, cinematographer a man, and directed by a man. Seems odd. If their point was to present Bella through "the male gaze" then it hit it spot on. If its meant to show female empowerment? Massive failure.
I, a big film enthusiast and actress just came from the movies and these are my first thoughts: I left it with no feeling at all, more so, I was relieved when it ended because the last third of the movie I got really bored because I understood that the film was not going to give me any big surprises anymore, and I was right. I saw the trailer and the good critics a few months ago but somehow never was called to watch the movie, it didn't catch me at all. Tonight though I was scrolling through the movie theatre program and stumbled on it again and thought I'd give it a shot, I thought, there must be something about it since it got two Oscars.
The idea sounds interesting but from the first minute I already knew that this was going to be banal. The biggest surprise was to me the hypersexuality in this film that I didn't like. I didn't expect it at all, I thought it was going to be about the explorations of life's beauty and misery with a naive childlike mind. Turns out by this movie, there is not much more in life besides sex. I feel sorry for those for whom this is true. The comedy was, besides the dinner scene in Lissabon, awkward and very simple, too. All in all a shallow movie in shiny disguise. I definitely don't feel empowered by this movie. There are many movies that do it better. It's unfortunately a movie I could have skipped and I wouldn't have missed anything.
I felt really weird after watching the movie, and somehow youtube just recommended me your video and it literally puts in words my feelings - so thanks for the great work and I hope to see more videos of yours : )
Hey Matheus - I'm really happy to read this! Glad you got something out of this video, and thank you for the kind and encouraging comment. Will do my best with future videos :)
She doesn't possess a childs mind when voraciously exploring her sexuality. Her growth in intellectual terms is that of a teenager, hence, her heightened libido. At the end, she's fully grown - body and brain in symbiosis. Look at how quickly her hair grows, as Max observes at the beginning. The Victorians were fascinated by anatomical possibilities - this was the time of the Burke and Hare murders in Edinburgh. That's why it's framed through her body, IMO.
I think this criticism is very valid but maybe more relevant to the broader discussion of the film, than to the film itself. I actually thought the film did examine the issue of consent very critically, it just didn't smash you over the head with a moral sledgehammer. It presented a situation and left the audience to make the critique. Maybe it was just me, but I thought the fact that she had the mind of a child (irrespective of how/why this was the case) and was being taken advantage of by men in different ways (e.g. Max vs Duncan) was inherently a direct commentary on men and sexual consent. I would be shocked if the director wasn't thinking about consent, control, predatory behaviour, etc when crafting the sexual scenes based on how they are presented. I appreciated the way that the film left the audience to do some work in thinking, reflecting, discussing, rather than forcing a lesson down your throat. Although I do think the messages are not exactly hidden deep below the surface for anyone willing to think a little. The fact that a lot of people seem to have missed the point does not necessarily make it bad art, this is kind of inevitable when trying to make something subtle and complex for a mass market. All the more important to have commentary like this out there, though as I say I think it is misdirected at the film-makers when the problem is really the audience (specifically the people over-simplifying the themes in reviews/criticism).
Which is why we need people like you to speak up and point out what isn't immediately obvious because it's covered over with beauty and presented with skill.
Agreed. It's also worth noting (with a grain of salt) that Emma Stone has described her producer role her as granting her agency in how she/Bella was presented in the film, too. A lot of discourse about the male direction of this film (which is still definitely something to acknowledge) completely elides Stone's creative agency in the work.
THANK YOU !!! IT's AMAZING how we who have very intelligent criticism of the film, all really wanted to like the film but for the film felt like many of the characters themselves: Unresolved, Clunky, and self-destructive in that it seemed to destroy its own message. I was so UNDERWELMED! And at some point the story just stalled without evolving for me until we reached that sudden silly twist & ending! All this makes Emma's performance feel forced. After an hour, I felt no more sense of adventure, drama, intrigue, suspense, excitement or thrills!
Hey - you're welcome! I'm really pleased you got something out of this video essay. Self-destructiveness is interesting to think about in the context of this film - I might give it some further thought. Thank you again!
@@ganymedia One of the reasons why Lanthimos' films fail to win me over, is because they rarely make me feel something. The tries to dazzle with overt visuals & ornamental spectacle, which are only intriguing for the first 30 mins , but never lets me feel any real emotion. I find his films to be artistic exercises, but intellectually incomplete, and emotionally absent. And Poor Things seems to me the perfect example of this. Maybe if I also had the brain of a child who was naive to pedophilia and plot substance then I may have liked it too!
The best reply I could think of giving to you... is that the story might not be about her as much as you think... but more so about the men that surround her. Like, displaying the horrors that you speak of might not perpetuate the ideas you think of but instead highlight how bad men are towards women. I also did get the thought that it was weird that no one questioned her limp body being taken to an unknown location but maybe the lack of that regard that men have is the point Yorgos is trying to make.
finally someone said it !!
As a man I thought the film was rather boring, with the themes telegraphed from very early on and either muddled in their execution or else simply perverse. Critical of the men in the story who try to control Bella and prey upon her naivety and sexual curiosity, the male director and writer do exactly the same thing, exposing her for the audience’s enjoyment.
Bella pursues sex without shame, which could be read as empowering, and the comedy seems to centre on the power of Bella’s uninhibited nature. But in the broader context of the film’s themes and production I am sceptical as well.
To me, it felt like a male fantasy of an uninhibited woman who attempts to escape control and yet is ultimately controlled by the unseen male forces behind the camera. She is never liberated regardless of what takes place in the story.
On top of all that, the story itself was dull as dishwater. If not for the visual creativity of the sets, costumes, music and some of the stylised performances, it would have been an utterly forgettable film.
By the end of the movie I was not convinced at all that she had mentally developed into an adult woman. To me she came across as a 16 or 17 year old girl - which makes the movie very dark.
Good point! I agree, it's hard to gauge to what extent she has developed mentally. Also, even if she did meet some fixed marker indicating that she had matured to the point that she is 18, and not 16-17, the movie would still be dark given the coercion she experiences. I like how your comment raises the issue, too, of teengaers sometimes being perceived as older and more capable of consent than they are (just because some look like adults, it doesn't mean that they are!). Very interesting.
@@ganymedia Yes. And how brave of you to challenge the uncritical acceptance of this film because of its visual beauty and compelling themes.
@@ganymedia Excellent point!
-couldnt agreee more! I was also kind of at first a bit attached to the gothic, larger than life sets and the moody music and bella's eccentric character, but I wish there was more to all that. The director kind of reduced her character to a sex symbol, as if all she enjoyed at first is discovering about sex lol. She did go see the poor people and felt for them but at the end she also just wants to imitate 'God' and takes his place, so I am not sure what was the director's message here.
Like you said, in a male lead frankenstein kind of role maybe the portraiture would be different. Like on Edward Scissors hand, it was more about him discovering heart and social cconnections and he wanted to go beyond his loneliness. There was even no mention of sex to the least. So it is disappointing that poor things, although it had its potentials, but just tries to take the more hyped elements of society and give audience what they want, women's emancipation in a nicer prettier package.
Thank you for this comment! I haven't seen Edward Scissorhands, so it's good to be reminded about it and to read this analysis. Very interesting that that film focuses on his sense of belonging and social growth. It sounds humanising.
I also like your point about Bella wanting to 'imitate God'. Another commenter made a good point that is a little similar, about how Bella reproduces the power structure she is already in; she doesn't abandon the hierachy of the house (with God - or her - at the top). I think you've identified how this ending can (at least by my interpretation) feel narratively neat, but a little emotionally dissatisfying, to see her ascend to take God's place, but still be kind of caught within the same structure (however much she may feel this is voluntarily). Is the film satirising this notion that we really believe we can change our lives, and break free of familiar cycles? Is the ending a little tongue-in-cheek? Perhaps - some might argue that. Personally, I don't think the film was effective enough as a satire throughout to attribute this reading to the ending... But it's all interesting food for thought! Thank you again for the thought-provoking comment.
you articulated this so well, i completely agree. I'm not gonna lie i actually hate this movie, like i *deeply* hate this movie. I'm so wary of sex positive feminism as a form of empowerment because it only ever seems to center and ultimately benefit men. And then it makes sense that this movie is so popular lol. And it isn't lost on me that the director's take on this book immediately went into the most sexual direction possible and had very little focus on her altruism or pursuit of knowledge. I wanted to like it but was thoroughly dissapointed.
If I only liked movies with great politics I wouldn’t like anything
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.
(trying to be vague to not completely spoil it)
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've enjoyed this video essay Rosalind! I liked your in-depth analysis on the problematic tropes in the film, after hearing which I'm shocked why would this film would be considered feminist. 😀
This is a lovely comment - thank you! I'm really happy you enjoyed the video essay and got something out of it 😊
You probably think the Barbie movie is a feminist movie. this is my favorite movie of all times and a pinnacle example of women taking back their autonomy, power, and authority.
I feel like you’re spot on with the ending not being a “happy ending”. I’m not sure the film intended it to be a “happily ever after” either, though. It was satisfying to see her goat that jerk in a silly disturbing way, but also heartwarming to see her community she establishes of chosen family/like-minded, the positive effect she was already starting to have on the maid and Bella#2 first upon arrival, her self-appreciation on how far she’s come, plus working toward perusing her interests, causes, beliefs. And just enjoying the moment for a beat! To me, the film’s ending was that she’s still stuck in the patriarchy (as we all are)-she’s still in the walls, etc.-but her journey has just begun. She’s got more tools than ever before, and while there’s still f’ed up structures and people to knock down… she’ll persist. Kind of a “standing on the shoulders of giants” and “still an embryo with a long long way to go” ending, in my eyes. I guess Im trying hard not to conflate the themes/plot points too literally. But also I’m a man I guess, so, take my interpretation here for what it is!
OK last thought! And I’ll hush. Your flags about “women being taken in” not being expanded/realistically explored in the movie:, I again totally agree. And again, too, I think that’s what the film was going for… it’s a regressive narrative because it’s trying to spotlight the regressive world. It’s almost a Brechtian “romantic jape” (to quote Ruffalo’s horrible character) elbow to the rib. Tongue in cheek-quite valid and which may not be for very many. Certainly disturbing and crucial subject matter, and depends on one’s taste for the cavalier. However I think the intention was it shouldn’t be viewed as literal. Instead, allegory.
I think it is a mistake to see this film as about how All Women could seek Empowerment. This is about a very particular character who falls outside of Society's Norms. By contrasting her lack of Inhibition with Civilised Society, it demonstrates how desperate most people are to see other people conforming to the same rules they cling to: ESPECIALLY MEN.
So yes, this film is directed and written by Men and says more about Men and their need to see Women conflicted about their Sexuality, than it does about Women's Liberation.
This does not make it a bad movie and I admire Emma Stone's ability to make a bizarre and fantastical character likeable and amusing.
You are the only one to mention what most bothered me early on: her creator/ward agreeing to a marriage when she was unable to give informed consent. That fact from early in the story cast a shadow over everything else.
IT WAS SUPPOSED TO MAKE YOU UNCOMFORTABLE. THAT WAS THE POINT. how are so many people missing this.
@@EliciaDragos-jq1vlWe are not missing this, we just think is terrible and doing something like that doesn't necessarily make good art. The movie is shallow af and tries to be more and scream more at your face when the message is forced, outdated and boring.
I saw it as a commentary on acceptable male behavior well into adulthood. It only works if the main character is fetishized. She's developmentally at a stage where she is seeking her own pleasure, something all kids experience. When you put her next to Duncan it creates the best juxtaposition. Her excuse for her behavior is she doesn't know any better at that point, she knows "genital parts" make "happy on demand" and her higher level learning hasn't kicked in yet. But what is the excuse for all of the men in the movie? Not just the ones aware of her actual age, but Duncan, who acts exactly like her, but is well into having grey hair. I saw the ending not as some male success ending, but as Bella matured past the stage of development where seeking mere physical pleasure is her driving goal, but all the dudes stayed the same lol. Again, commentary on acceptable male behavior in society. Guys can act like children until the day they die, and no one thinks twice about it. That was the movie I saw under all the sex and nudity, none of which was filmed to look sexy or appealing at all cuz it wasn't meant to.
I certainly didn't see any views of the male gaze but naked women sometimes is equated with such. I personally thought she was tied into the "born sexy yesterday" trope and that's my only issue.
What are you on?! the dudes did NOT all stay the same!
Duncan: is literally impoverished and institutionalized for his actions.
McCandle: listens to Bella and understands she is a being of free will, DOESN'T marry her in the end. As the only man in the movie with any semblance of respect for Bella, he gets what he deserves: to be around her as long as he continues to fully respect her. (Note he's the ONLY man in the scene at the end of the movie)
Godwin: dies from cancer, the death he deserved for playing 'God'
Ex-husband: LITERALLY shoots himself in the foot (how could that message NOT be any clearer) AND gets his brain removed so he couldn't go after Bella or anyone else ever again (he gets what he deserves)
She felt 'tied to' that trope as a subversion of it, for me. The film is resolutely empathic to her, on her side, and interested in her interests - unlike a typical 'born sexy yesterday's film which is framed from the perspective of the man enchanted by this woman-child.
This movie (among other things) explores the experience of being a woman/girl in a world where men are perversely fascinated by a woman with the mind of a child.
Thanks for your interesting breakdown. My friend kept insisting this was a masterpiece I must see so i checked it out. I liked it but I couldn't really see what all the fuss was about so I started looking at reviews to work out what I was missing. One think I kept hearing was "neo Feminist" but for the life of me I couldn't see it, The way the story and sex aspects were pitched I hate to admit but it kinda appealed to my worst tendencies. I found myself forgetting all the other ideas in the film and focused on objectifying Bella as some kind of sex slave. I know this dosen't speak well of me but I can usually keep things zipped up unless I'm pushed into a corner and I felt this director really did push me into a corner in this respect. Also all the bizarre imaginitive visual surrealism seemed to be giving me liecence to engage my own imagination and fantasy realm - I think a fever dream is a very adapt description of the films affect on me. For me I found this film as you mentioned all body no love to the point where I felt I was watching a very different type of film to what it was purported to be. Although I have been quite honest and frank here I am a little reluctant to get back to me friend and tell him the truth about how I felt about this film, or tell anyone else for that matter, please forgive me, Thanks again.
are you a man? and what worst tendencies are you talking about?
I wonder how making this movie seemed like a good idea. I would think Hollywood would want to distance themselves from problematic themes like this, after all of the media exposure, exposing Hollywood’s rampant, misogyny and pedophilia. it’s like some director thinking that remaking Lolita again and glamorizing it all over again is a good idea.
I agree with your questions about this film. I love the stars in it and enjoyed aspects of it. However, I found it the opposite of feminist in how Bella was treated as a body and not really given any consideration as a real person with respect.
I felt that the film treated her as a real person, but the men in the film (apart from the nihilist on the boat) treated her as a body, and that that dissonance was part of the point.
I think Possession is much more complex than that but barely got to hear your thoughts on it, would be cool if you made a video about Possession!
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".
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.
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
Thank you for making this video. Although I watched the film and feel differently than you do, I truly appreciate the thoughst and analysis you put into this review. This is how art should be discussed, by communicating different ideas and opinions. Because ultimately, nobody is right or wrong. I think that the inspiration for POOR THINGS can be found in two famous literary works: Mary Shelley's Frankenstein and The Bible.
In The Bible, Eve is created from Man, and in the full body of a Woman. Whether or not Eve has an accelerating brain like Bella's is rarely questioned. What we do know is that God made her for the purpose of being Adam's companion, so he would not be lonely. Therefore, Christianity teaches that females exist to satisfy the needs of men. But Eve is also responsible for bringing sin and shame onto the world after tempting Adam with the apple. More on that in a bit.
Shelley's 'Frankenstein" was about about a re-animated Creature called 'Adam' by his creator. The creature also refers to himself as the 'Fallen Angel,' which could also describe Bella at the top of the film. Scholars believe the novel is based on Rousseau’s idea that people are born inherently good, only to be made wicked by a corrupt society. By comparison Bella's infant brain is pure and good. It is society, and the men in it, who seek to corrupt her goodness.
POOR THINGS is also based on Mary Shelley's own life. After her own Mother died, less than 2 weeks after giving birth to her, Mary was raised by her father,-the scholar William Godwin. Godwin, of course was Dafoe's character in ther film. Mary loved her father, but deeply upset him when she ran off to Paris at age 16 with the older (and married) Percy Bysshe Shelley. Mary started writing Frankenstein after her own baby was born prematurely and died.
All of these themes are throughout POOR THINGS. The Bible not only blames Eve for Original Sin, it also condemns women for behaving lustfully and stigmatizes prostitution. In doing so, the Bible perpetuates the societal construct that women cannot survive independent of men. For years, Mary Shelley was plagued by assumptions that Frankenstein must have been written by her husband. After all, how could a woman have gotten such cleverly gruesome ideas from her own mind?
Why POOR THING succeeds as a Feminist film is because it takes these literary and historic and shoots them down. It takes into full account that Victorian London in the early 19th century was patriarchal, and that a female's only hope for happiness was to 'marry well.' It should be noted that during this time girls got married as early as 12, and half the workhouse employees were children. Like Bella, boys and girls 'grew up' much earlier than they should have. So it would seem logical that young girls were married off to potential suitors and the notion of 'consent' barely. existed. And while all of us would agree that these realities are reprehensible by today's standards, we also shouldn't re-write history, even fictional history, so that it better aligns with our own modern day sensibilities. The story takes place when it does for good reason.
Feminism has always been about equality. Bella sees no difference between a man's interests, pleasures, and curiosities and her own. She is steadfast to explore without any biblical shame or guilt. Whereas Eve offered the apple to Adam, Bella literally offers this apple to herself. She requires no Adam to provide her pleasure. When Duncan runs out of cash, an unstigmatized Bella immediately heads to the brothel.In doing so, Bella reveals the truth behind this biblical no-no; prostitution isn't inherently evil. It's just a means of bill-paying men scourge against because they're less employable at it. Which may explain why the stigma ever started in the first place. This is what the Madame means when she tells Bella that some men prefer it when the woman doesn't enjoy sex. Is it really prostitution if a woman doesn't feel degraded and looked down upon?
Only Bella doesn't. The film's sexual scenes aren't meant to look arousing or romantic, because actual sex does look awkward and foolish and kind of tedious. But the question I ask is, if people believe Emma Stone is being 'objectified' in these scenes, why are they not saying that about the men in the scenes with her?
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.
Seeing it for a second time today with a friend who hasn’t seen. I love this review- and I definitely hear what you are saying. Excited for more of your essays. 💥
Thank you - this is so kind! Really happy you enjoyed the review so much. I'll do my best with future essays!
I actually thought that the film was more descriptive, showing us how “the other” (men) will treat us because of our bodies, because of us being women. I personally felt like I was watching the growing agency of Bella and that the film didn’t force me to an opinion - I could watch, feel for instance disgusted when she was taken sexually advantage of. I really considered it to be descriptive, maybe that’s another way of viewing, and in thay way, the movie doesn’t need to make a point.
This is an interesting take - thank you for writing it down! I will think more about this one. The idea of a film not forcing the viewer to an opinion is also intriguing - it raises questions about whether films have intended purposes, and whether their 'purposes' can exist independent of their director's purposes... And whether some films are even created as displays, perhaps distant from audiences, rather than stories to connect with. Thank you for commenting - good food for thought!
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 ...
It's like she's a symbolically dead soul. Not surprised by it. But Stone isn't that great of an actress to begin with.
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.
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.
except said victim does get that this is abuse others agree that this is abuse and the shouldn't do that/have no real motive to and then keep on doing it anyway/barley regret it. it is just off
THANK YOU!!! I've been trying to find commentary on this film that explains (way better than I could) how I feel about this film. I really appreciate you taking the time to work through POOR THINGS and discussing many of the points some of us have been feeling/thinking, but have been perhaps initmated to share since the movie has been praised as such a fabulous, feminist move.
Hey - thank you for the kind comment, and you are very welcome! I'm happy to hear you got something out of this commentary :)
I loved hearing your views on this and honestly didn’t realize until you said it that ALL of the views I’d heard about this film were from males. You gave me a lot to chew on. Thanks for that.
You're very welcome. I'm happy to read you got something out of the video!
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.
I'm really touched that you watched this video - thank you, C.H.! And I think your point is an excellent one. Sometimes desires end up being achieved out of luck, e.g. when someone ends up with e.g. a job or a lifestyle that they didn't know existed or didn't expect to have, but which they like. However, I agree that leveraging what one possesses often comes into it too. An interesting and somewhat mercenary/realist angle. Good food for thought.
I disagree with your reading on the placement of sexuality in the film. It makes me think whether it's a selective perception of general sensitivity to the use of it. Constantly being on alert wheter it is misrepresented or giving the wrong message. But if we could move pass that anxious alertness, amprically, her relationship with different sensations mostly food and touch and smashing was in the mixture as much as her sexuality which I wouldn't call hyler-sexualized. It was the male gaze so to say, which called it hypersexualized. Howevever granting a judgement free mind to a yound woman's body, It was quite a healthy apetite of sexuality demonstrated, and in the phases of growing up, It is quite good to have sexuality as a focal point of ones experience of the world for a time. As it was for Bella. Her intresinct desires were portrayed to be her guiding drives, curiosity sexuality fear anger sadness frustration love. .. I don't find it troubling at all in the development of the character. However the character is indeed placed in Victorian society which is still the back bone of contemporary psychology of western society . It makes that era a good story device to emphasise a point regarding our so called modern society. So that very society is woven by male gaze, it makes sense how the female body ia being twisted, exposed and abused literally in the embodiment of the male gaze. The feeling of trouble and wrongness that overcomes while watching is very much the purpose quite obviously. And we experience it not only in the sexual scenes but in many other scenes like in dialogues, surgeries, eating scene etc... I believe any good student of a storytelling would be aware of rhe demonization triangle of sexuality, nature and women. The meta story of civilization versus nature. And I believe the director is quite aware of it as well, made clear in several points. However a story cannot be and should not be a politically correct statement. Thats not the job, right? The story is a much repeated one, and still something we need to poke and change and reframe. That's what the director did, i believe. As a male director, who perhaps trying to be a different male and searching for it. I dont expect a woman's perspective from him but I don't find his view disturbing neither. Male gaze trying to re-imagine itself, making a movie all about male gaze, it is so obvious I could nominate male-gaze a supporting actor in this film. It somehow reminds me the Olympia of Manet, the object of the desire , stares back at the male gaze, exposing it. Perhaps that's the best way to put it, the movie doesn't portray an ideal situation, It exposes something that is still a struggle in modern society.
Good point.
I don't see how all the nuances and complexities of the ideas you suggested would adhere to an already obscure movie plot, even though I will admit that some of your analysis brings up some thought-provoking arguments. Having expectations that a movie such as this would be able to pull off all of what the original book had intended may be setting the bar too high. Nonetheless, it's worthy of discussion; I enjoyed listening to your opinions.
This is a good point! No film can tell every story, so it's not really fair to expect any film to do so. And I agree that it's typically easier to convey more details and nuances via book than onscreen (though obviously the cinematic medium offers other opportunities for creative storytelling). I think a lot of the critical reception of Poor Things that I read seemed lacking to me, which is why I wished to point out various different ideas and perspectives and to explore how these complicate understandings of the film as 'feminist' or as being of untouchably high quality. But I think you make a good point. Thank you for the thoughtful commment!
@ganymedia As a man, I acknowledge my intrinsic limitations in fully comprehending the experience of being a woman. While I can grasp the concept intellectually, truly feeling it is beyond my reach. There will always be subtle nuances and perspectives that you perceive, which I might overlook. Thus, I am profoundly grateful for the opportunity to gain new insights and broaden my understanding. It is the diversity of perspectives that drew me here, and I deeply appreciate the chance to engage with and reflect upon them.
Your most insightful review has generated a fascinating discussion, a wide spectrum of opinion with respectful disagreement and well thought out points of view. I am now subscribing and look forward to future discussions! What a pleasure to find people who can disagree without being disagreeable! Congratulations for setting the tone here!
This is a lovely comment - thank you so much! I'm also really happy to see people writing such thoughtful comments about the film (even if I haven't been able to reply to them all; and including when they sometimes disagree with my own ideas). Fingers crossed that the thoughtful discussions continue. And thank you for subscribing - I'll do my best to continue making interesting/useful videos!
One thing that leaves me thinking is that we don’t know the sex of the baby whose brain replaced that of the mother. Would your views differ if the brain was of a different gender? Would you expect the brain to have a gender?
Totally ignores the idea of the film: the treatment of women by men, their attempts to control her and her body through emotion, the father, glamour and excitement, her first lover, money and besic needs, the brothel, mental and physical control, her ex-husband. The glory of Bella is that in every situation she overcomes them all. She can enjoy the sex but not be defined by it, she can sell her body but not be degraded, she can escape her husband's and his society of doctors and police's right to total control of her.
Bella is victorious.
I would have to agree with you here especially given the period where women lacked agency - all the male characters are trying to control/own Bella in some way as you point out and Bella refuses to be controlled by them or social norms. Emma Stone produced this film, let's not forget, so she oversaw the writing and for that matter the directing. What makes Poor Things a strong film in fact is not so much the converations about trying to be "right" but the mere fact that the film generates these sorts of discussions. Can you view the film in different ways and draw different conclusions - great art to me does that. Feminism isn't the only thing to discuss here either.
Willem Dafoe who was monstrously treated as a child - was tortured horrifically he becomes a scientist because his body and soul have been abused by and for scientific experimentation. Godwin is both Frankenstein and his sensitive creation. For me, this was the best film out of the films nominated with Past Lives, Zone of Interest and Anatomy of a Fall also very strong contenders. Thus, none of these will win. It will be the good but not great Oppenheimer likely to win everything.
In true Marxist fashion she shoves her morals aside and becomes an oppressor instead of one of the oppressed.
having sex with someone you're repulsed by is inherently degrading
Surely, human sexuality is overwhelmingly degraded and repulsive in reality. The inability of people to respect others and not seek to control and abuse t hem is epidemic in our society...and proximity appears to be the only requirement (schools, sports clubs, gyma...) However, Bella is born into this world and attempts to find 'a life' acceptable to her. She falls from one possibility to the next, she doesn't accept. she suggests improvements, moves on and that's about it. The film is about what is, not what should be.@@sainttheresetaylor2054
@@richardausten5295 The Oscars certainly proved you right about your predictions but you're right about something even more important: the fact that the film is generating these discussions is more important and more lasting than anything the entertainment world has brought us this year, glitzy package notwithstanding.
I am so glad I found your analysis on this film. I wanted to like this movie so badly but it just didn't sit right with me, and I really think it is because of the pervasiveness of the male gaze. I don't mind films that are full of sex scenes and that are disturbing, but the way they portrayed Bella's arc somehow just didn't feel empowering. I really think the film could have told the same story and with the right perspective it could have been a brilliant and feminist piece of art, but it really fell short and left me feeling uncomfortable. This film just really infantilized women and people with cognitive disabilities and portrayed abuse and grooming rather than empowerment. 99% of the sex scenes did not feel empowering... just the way they were shot and framed. And I agree... it is incredibly problematic that they boiled her "maturity" down to her sexual discovery. Thank you for your thoughtful analysis, and I love your dress!
Hey, really enjoyed hearing your perspective of the movie as I only could think of praise after watching it. Breaking it down more from a feminist perspective definitely shows some interesting choices made by the director. That being said, I saw the way that sex was used in this film was more of a contemplation of Freudian psychosexual theory and also a mirror for how some of our historied expectations of women can seem so outdated yet still engrained today. As the sexual beings we are, according to Freud, it is fun to follow Emma's journey as she discovers this and learns about the societal rules around it. Emma's character allows for the audience to rediscover what sex is as well as how we experience it as a part of the Victorian society portrayed. While I get what you mean by the choice of using so much sex to drive the movie, I think it helps us re-question some of our expectations of women as being chaste and sexually reserved. Baxter goes so far as becoming a prostitute for financial reasons (why not if you enjoy it) which can pose questions to the audience as to why it is such a socially "wrong" profession for women in the first place. I personally enjoyed the use of sex as a plot piece to help pose these kinds of ethical, psychological and societal questions. Still, I do agree with your statements on how this might impact some viewers in how they see women (sexually or otherwise) and how female monsters are questioned as "are they women" instead of "are they human," I just think the movie wouldn't have been able to accomplish what it did without it.
Thought the film was a bore. It was also dodgy. The young doctor knew he was going to marry and presumably have sex with an adult body with a baby brain. This idea of the accelerated brain development (never explained) was supposed to make the viewer easier with this basically paedophile behaviour. Didn’t work at all for me, as a large part of the ‘humour’ (didn’t laugh once) was based on her emotional development at odds with her physical. Amazing to me that so many critics get captured by supposedly PC themed films rather than judging it objectively.
Maybe one of the goals of the film was to elicit comments like yours...
You absolutely missed the entire point of the film. you were SUPPOSED to feel uncomfortable. you were SUPPOSED to identify the behavior of the men as creepy and bad. that was the POINT. because it WAS creepy and bad.
@@luckystoller6171The Green Knight was also a movie that got this kind of praise from critics but was awful. Hipster crap movies that regular people don't care about.
@@EliciaDragos-jq1vlit's was heavy handed with the nuance of a homeless drunk shuffling down the road.
A voice of reason, how refreshing, thank you.
I'm so pleased to read this - thank you!
I asked myself: OK, the film deals with a woman's freedom and sexuality... what about real, lovely intimicy and what about mestruation and living in a patriarchal working world in which no consideration is given to abdominal pain?
Does Bella not have mestruation? Or was it simply not taken into account by a male director that a woman (who was once pregnant) that is passionately discovering herself, should somehow also discover that blood are bubbling out of her vagina; that she has menstrual symptoms, like swelling breasts, abdominal pain, mood swings... what the hell is wrong with her hormones and why don't we get anything of them to see in this movie - except a malegaze-like hunger for sex?!
As a woman who strongly identifies with both, her sexuality/intimicy and her cycle, I find that very unfeminist about the film. As a tantric woman that I am, I can say for myself: hundreds of loveless one-night stands have not given me the inner awakening that loving intimacy with myself and with a sexual partners, male or female could give me.
The film shows us all kinds of things, but no intimacy that enables truly loving, self-empowering awakening and no woman whose growth is influenced by her natural female cycle.
And in the end I find it almost a little glorifying of surgery and perhaps even the female section. Where Bella, who once had her baby cut out of her stomach in the operation room, realizes that she never feels as safe as she does here.
It's easy to believe that her husband from her old life wasn't lying when he said, that - when she was Viktoria - she hated her baby and called it the monster. We're obviously dealing with a woman who doesn't particularly value her feminine-physics-realitiy and her opportunity to create new life. She prefers to do such things at the operating table, like her father "God" and creat a men with goat Brain....
What is, if I think about it twice is realy fun!
Even if it's not my definition of feminism.
I just like to be a cyclical, motherly feminist who prefers love and intimacy; and prefers a balance between work and motherhood, to work my ass of in a male-dominated profession and fucking around to feel impowerd as a woman.
Thank you. This was a calm and reflected review of the film. Have decided not to watch it. Another reviewer criticized the excess. And any excess I don't like either. Would have loved to see the cinematography and camera...
Maybe "The Favourite" is more to your liking. It is less flashy, less filled with meta-references, less quirky and grotesque, less ambiguous in tone, but it also has many of the core aesthetics that are featured in "Poor Things", as it has been directed by the same person.
@@elevenseven-yq4vu Thank you! I will check it out!
THANK YOU! I've never felt more validated in a unpopular opinion
For me, it was impossible to sympathize with Bella.
This movie was so boring.
Oh damm you human, you have made such great points ❤, this video deserves more views.
Would love to here more nuance, indepth, critical analysis of other movies or topics
Thank you - I'm really pleased that you got something out of this! I'll do my best with future videos :)
@@ganymedia Have you watched "The zone of Intrest" ?? Would love to hear your opinions on this
Thank you for the time you took to create this review. I found it enlightening and hope other women listen to the entire 24 minute critique. I felt the movie was a story created by men for men to justify their obsession with female sex without taking responsibility for their own. Men will only be liberated after women understand their own internalized oppression.
What evidence in the movie supports your hypothesis that the movie in any way justifies any obsession with female sex without taking responsibility? Where on earth did that happen? (it didn't)
if you think about it. this movie has the same themes and is a bit less feminist than frankenhooker.
The film is a somewhat direct adaptation. The basic plot and hyper-focus on her nymphomania are from it.
I was waiting for the film to pull the rug on us and disprove the whole "life is exploration" nonsense
Not related to the video but where is your dress from?! Its beautiful
This is very kind! It's second-hand and without a visible brand label - I bought it at a flea market in London (good place for second-hand finds!)
Didn’t finish the film since i was disturbed by the fact the film is pretty much like Lolita
As in how the films miss the point that Humbert is unreliable and a creep.
The horrible sex scene took me out the movie and made me feel like Emma stone the person was being degraded, specially when it added nothing interesting.
Great analysis!!
The clue to this films adaptation of Alasdair Gray's book,
is the Blessington characters monologue on the cruise ship.
Life is meaningless and humans are monsters.
By the end of the film... Bella is content to be the metaphorical,
and literal monster she knows she is. Not to help humanity,
but to experiment on it.
The core of the film is that humans are irredeemable.
That's why the 'happy ending' is so unsettling.
It is the quietude in the garden of utter madness.
*Most men believed 'fully grown women' were still 'internally' infantile children.
See Schopenhauer's ( now infamous, yet then taken as empirically valid )
1851 'On Women' essay. This is literally the case with Bella.
But the film asks the viewer... what happens if the child grows up?
Although not to a happy resolution, a fairytale conclusion,
but to fully realise humans were never benign to begin with.
To understand that, only the veneer of societal conditioning,
disguises what humans truly are. To help hide the fact,
humans invent fabulous illusionary stories about themselves.
That they're nothing but flightless angels.
This film isn't about feminism, it is about how women wish to distance themselves,
from men, in order to disown the inner monster within both of them.
Not about uncovering the horrors of the outside world, just the horrors hiding within you.
That is a lot of words to spell bullshit.
@@TheDreamingDays Bingo!
Good grief, what have you been reading?
how would you change it? That would help me understand your point - the way she marries Candles I thought was very dominating - he was just an item for her to marry at the end after her adventures without any resistance - what would you change to make this more feminist in your view?
20:06 Great example of this playing out recently is the treatment of Ukrainian women as refugees. The United Nations high commissioner for refugees spoke to The Guardian cautioning against the practice of matching women and children refugees with single men, as these women began to be exploited for domestic labor and in the worst cases sexual services. The article is “Stop matching lone female Ukraine refugees with single men, UK told” for those interested. Of course, there is no mention of such practices occurring to the infirm, elderly, or men who could not serve in Ukrainian forces and had to emigrate. I feel nauseous at the thought of teenagers and young ladies in the same position - and Bella’s treatment definitely fits that bill. We’ve seen this play throughout history, but I thought it interesting to bring up its uniquely topical relevancy.
Women and children are still the spoils of war.
I am trying hard to get your argument but sex, gender and feminism is just part of what this movie is all about wich is the social education of Bella Baxter.
If this movie was realistic she would have been beaten through the whole movie and then died of syphilis at the end. Give me a break. This movie is a feminist's fever dream. It's hipster bait.
@@timd729 it is not realistic... and it clearly does not intend to
The novel “Poor Things” was called "a magnificently brisk, funny, dirty, brainy book" by the London Review of Books. I haven’t read the book or seen the film. But if the book is “dirty”, the film also needs to be “dirty”.
Something many people miss is that the film and the book are different though both from the POV of male characters. I'd love to read/see Bella's side.
i came away loving this film but now it makes me think i'm not smart enough to know what is good.
Oh goodness - please don't believe this about yourself! I make an argument in this video essay based on my interpretation of the film, which is subjective and informed by my own experiences and way of thinking. My particular tastes, cultural background, and personal experiences mean that I am predisposed to pick up on certain issues and amplify them (e.g. feminism and depictions of women). As I say in the video, this film is a rich text and there are many ways of interpreting it. There are likely ways of interpreting it of which I am ignorant. So, I stand by the arguments I make in the video, especially as I was debating the widespread use of the label 'feminist' to describe the film, which I'd oppose; yet I'll also happily acknowledge that there may be things I have missed. For example, some critics argue the film is tongue-in-cheek and transgressive: that it satirises norms of any kind and presents a story in which Bella's behaviour serves as an insightful commentary into how unquestioningly the people around her follow unwritten social rules. The Guardian even ran an entire article showing how critics have disgreed over interpretations of the film: www.theguardian.com/film/2024/jan/24/bound-gagged-poor-things-feminist-masterpiece-male-sex-fantasy-oscar-emma-stone-ruffalo
If you came away loving this film, it's entirely possible that you spotted a quality to it that I failed to see, or had more of a willingness to engage with the positive attributes of the film. It's exciting when people have different opinions about art, so I hope you feel confident to analyse why you liked the film, test out your ideas critically, and then stand by them.
@@ganymedia The points you bring up articulate what disturbed me about the film even as I was transported by its art and beauty and the excellence of the actors and the skills of its creators. Ultimately, the value of the film itself is in the discussions it is provoking on sites like this which bravely challenge the areas that, yes, are disturbing and deserve to be explored.
good analysis, I though I was alone
Thank you - I'm happy you enjoyed the video!
Hello, I have a suggestion, or a demand... would you be okay to publish a text version of your video ? Like a pdf file that you would add to the description section ? Best regards !
Imagine a world where, out of our control, our sexual lives would be exposed and shared with everyone? When we start doing it, we want to do it all the time and tht's true in this film. That's why it starts to show weakness in the third act. Bella is never corrupted.Nor she ever falls in love. Now that would have been interesting. Oh, and by the way: how old was Bella's brain when she had sex those first times? Interesting question, don't you think?
Where did you get this dress? Suits you so well!
This is very sweet - thank you! :) I found it second-hand in London a few years ago. It's a great city for curious finds!
DEGRADING, PORQUE BELLA ACABA POR TOMAR EL DESTINO DE UN HOMBRE, LO QUE REFUERZA EL CARÁCTER INFANTIL DE SU CEREBRO.
I think that sex in the film was not a symonym for growth but rather another indication of bella’s immaturity and lack of self awareness
I'm upset with the ending because after all the learning that Bella does, she's content to just be a surgeon and that is the good that she does in the world. Her mental agonizing about poor and misfortunate people takes a backseat to her own simple issues and it never seems to get back to philosophy.
Interesting that you fear a sexual character and saw nothing but her sexuality, even though much more occurred in the film.
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.
I felt it was all surface and very little depth - def a win for Production Design. But the theme of women should control their bodies and narrative/ men are evil seems a bit overdone at this point in so much contemporary art. I did not see anything new in the intellectual themes - all text and no subtext. Def visually striking and beautiful .... I do believe this could have been a much tighter film at 2 hours- creatively edited montages of the brothel scenes would have been much more effective.
Edward Scissorhands meets Bride of Frankenstein? Love your take and glad found channel. Sigh agree conflicted I'll go with hedonism is good, even for women....to a point says possessive men and society. Had a literal girl in a box scene....countered by overt happy revenge ending? Very visual yes, cast delivers and as you say Stone "embodies" alright, brave but hard to get past agree with male gaze comments. Saw a take comparing as a "weird Barbie"...Barbie''s...as you put it, fever dream? Well, liked the Wednesday Adams dance scene...
Thank you for this comment - I'm touched you enjoyed the take and are interested in the channel. Also (just quickly!), I am familiar with the Wednesday Adams dance scene as well and enjoyed it a lot too. It has been a good couple of years for unconventional dancing in film!