Це відео не доступне.
Перепрошуємо.
Disability Coding & Ableism in Poor Things
Вставка
- Опубліковано 12 сер 2024
- Poor Things received buzz at this year's Golden Globes, but in the disabled community, it's been criticized for ableism and perpetuating harmful stereotypes. While one can argue that none of the characters are explicitly disabled, there is something to be said about disability coding in the media.
Sources mentioned:
/ c1ovcplyw_n
www.indiewire.com/awards/cons...
letterboxd.com/reelreviewdude...
![ЛЕБЕДЕВ у ДУДЯ: муху не обманешь 😁 [Пародия]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/E74h5fvVrqs/mqdefault.jpg)
Thanks for filming this. I'm autistic and watched the movie last night. Worse than the film's ableism was the audience's, who laughed all the way through. It's honestly been playing on my mind all morning.
I'm not on the spectrum and came here to gather perspective on the way Bella Baxter is disability coded. I personally found the film's premise fascinating and saw it as a thought experiment, but there were times when the depiction was distasteful and harmful. I realized not everyone was experiencing it the same way I was judging by the things the audience was laughing at. It sucks because the film was actually really funny, but no one seemed to laugh at the real jokes.
I certainly laughed a lot throughout, not at Bella though.
I think I understand how you feel. I'm also autistic (late-diagnosed) and went to see this movie without realising what it actually was. I found the discordant musical score and the bizarre imagery nauseating and disorienting. I suffer from vertigo, which flares up whenever I have an unnerving sensory experience.
Anyhow, I live in Germany, where English films are dubbed over in German. This one was playing at a theatre nearby in its original language, and I was invited to go and see it with several other foreigners living nearby, so I went. I was uncomfortable as soon as the movie started. I felt like walking out the second I heard the R-word used. However, the laughter of the audience didn't bother me as much as my own laughter during the part where they were having dinner in the restaurant and then started dancing ridiculously. I had to seriously think about why I laughed at this scene and whether I would have laughed had I been watching it on my own without a large audience around me. I realised I wouldn't because I would have never gotten that far into the movie if I'd been watching it alone. I would have turned it off probably 5 to 10 minutes into starting it.
I 100% agree. I couldn't believe how little discourse there was about this topic. Even negative reviews of the film I read purely seemed to focus on its questionable feminist politics or that it was trying too hard to be shocking, but no mentions of what to me felt like incredibly obvious coding. I hated how the movie framed things like her speech impediments or the way she walks as just these 'weird' behaviours she has to grow out off on her way to becoming a 'normal', independent and self-possessed girlboss/as an award-baity acting challenge for Emma Stone. I honestly found it so grim it was hard to watch.
This is a really well spoken, interesting perspective that I hadn’t considered because I didn’t see the movie myself, either. From the trailers I saw, it looked like something I wouldn’t be interested in because of the ways Emma’s character seemed infantilized, so I avoided it. But now I know that I would’ve hated it. Thank you for making this!!! I hope your covid recovery is going smoothly
SPOILERS FOR POOR THINGS (but really why watch it)
.
.
.
I kept waiting for the movie to condemn ALL of the men in Bella’s life for the shitty parts they played, because as I was watching her age and mature I kept thinking “oh, so now that her mind matches her body she’s going to reprimand DeFoe and Youssef’s characters for treating her like an experiment instead of a person (Youssef’s character Max was said to have fallen in love with her, but considering he called her a “pretty r*tard” in their first moment of meeting, and when she wanted to go outside she wasn’t allowed to, I wasn’t really buying it)” but that didn’t happen.
Btw that review that talks about the adventure Bella enthusiastically goes on, leaves out the fact that the guy who takes her on that adventure does so because he knew he could take advantage of her naivety for sex. Once she started aging (and ignoring societal niceties, which she didn’t understand the reason for conforming to) he gets increasingly upset, even commenting that she’s not talking “in that cute way [he likes]”.
The movie is a big mess that rubbed me the wrong way the whole time, and I was doing my best to not judge it until the end. Well, I’ve seen the end, and it sucked.
Thank you for confirming my fears 😢 sounds awful
Erica, thank you so much for making this video.
the premise of the movie feels like a spin on the born sexy yesterday trope, woman whose body is "grown" but is naive and borderline acts like a child :(
Oh my god thank you you are the only person I’ve seen online express the same discomfort. Especially with the scene of them describing how she has a babies brain being played RIGHT before the first scene we see of her having sex. (I saw it twice for some reason)
oh hell no... that's messed up
Oh goodness, I'm so sorry you had covid for two weeks 🌸I got it for a month & a year plus later I'm dealing with Long Covid 😢
From what I hear (because I also don't plan on watching the movie!), you're pretty spot on. Very much agree.
This was an excellent video, I had a very similar reaction and thought process when I saw the trailer. It's good to know I'm not alone in that, it honestly shocked me. With the very first clip of it I thought "oh is this going to be a period piece movie about an autistic person?" And then seconds after they went into the Frankenstein stuff and I just thought "there's no way someone greenlit this without seeing how badly it could look/ be recieved right?"
I imagine once more people have seen it (hopefully through piracy), we'll probably start seeing a similar response to how the Internet reacted to Sia's movie Music. At least I hope that's the reaction. But until then, this video did an excellent job of using the trailer as a good jumping off point to discuss and educate about ableism in media and by extension, society.
Thank you so much for this video! I have never seen your content before but I was looking for perspectives on this movie from the disability community; when I saw it, there were things that bothered me but I don't know enough disability activism and critique to be able to articulate it well myself. So thank you for sharing that!
I am also autistic, and I find it offensive that people see Bella Baxter as autistic.
The film very clearly explains that she is a girl in a woman’s body.
That is not true of autistic people. We are not children in our brains. We are grown adults.
Seeing us as children is not at all helpful.
If I hear one more person say she is “autistically coded”, I think I will vomit.
Autistic people all act the same way?
Our autism is obvious because we act like children?
That’s not my experience of having autism.
Woah cool! Such a great combo of interests for me. I always appreciate your views, and I had been curious to watch this movie. I know nothing about it, but if I do see it now I will see it through this new lens you have given me.
Thank you this is a wonderful take and you articulated so many of my own thoughts. I would love to hear more of what you have to say after watching the movie :)
Important video. Thank you for this!
If we know that it's an absurd to hire an white actor for a black role and just paint them black for the movie, why are we still doing this for people with facial differences and other visible disabilities? Like, spending 6 HOURS on makeup/prosthetics when you could simply hire someone with the kind of face difference you're looking for? There ARE people with facial differences that want to act but never get the chance to, because they wouldn't be chosen for a "normal" role, and the roles with facial differences are already taken from some able-bodied actor. I really hope to see the industry changing
thank you for making this video
I was thinking about going to see it because I love Emma Stone but I was really unsure on whether I'd be interested in it otherwise. Thanks for your perspective!
Hope you're feeling better, and this sweater is a great colour on you.
Great video! I have seen the movie and confirm that your analysis is accurate.
Thank you for this video and I'm so glad UA-cam recommended it to me. I had some friends excited for the movie but the trailer gave me bad vibes, I'm glad I decided not to give my money and see it.
Really appreciate the general point about movies not being exempt from ableism just coz they're not overtly about disability in theme. Also, like, up the snowflakes! lol.
I would not describe Willem Defoe as having beauty privilege (I appreciate this is a personal thing, but that guy consistently gets hired coz he's got a unique face, often precisely coz it's somewhat menacing and "not generically beautiful". Of course there are other reasons he gets hired, for example coz he's a decent actor). He's also not "the bad guy" in the movie and his facial scars are certainly not played for laughs. In any case, he's not a cartoon, scarfaced bond villain type trope. It's also not just a gratuitous facial deformity, like, oh look at him, ugly, scary: it's an injury, part of the plot, as evidence of his dad's cruel experimentation on him. It's just not viable to go out there and try and find actors with facial configurations that match what is needed in the script. sometimes this works (see film: dirty god. great movie btw) and it's great when there is better representation for actors from marginalised backgrounds. However, sometimes it doesn't. this is acting after all, and it doesn't always have to be method/authentic. When Scarlet Johansen played the lead in Ghost in the Shell, it made no sense coz it's a generic lead and there are of course plenty of actors in Asia who could have played that role. I don't think you can say the same about Defoe's character.
also as vehement as the review from Sam is, I think it's important to balance that with the fact that there are other disabled people (at least from my readings on reddit), particularly autistic people it seems, who really liked the move, and considered it good representation. that of course doesn't necessarily mean it's not ableist. There's a similar thing going on with debates over whether the film is feminist or misogynistic. ultimately, this is an age old film debate about exploitation or representation/liberation, which is not to imply that they're mutually exclusive. for example many blacksploitation movies (eg. Shaft, The Mack, Foxy Brown), can quite easily be described as both exploitative and loved by black people as liberatory. the film Freaks (1932) would be another example relating to disability, wherein it's difficult to uncontextualise it from the era it came out in.
my own perspective on ableism is hardly relevant here as i am broadly not disabled, however, it does interest me that people, including disabled people, are picking up on precisely the same aspects of the film as both "good, progressive, clever, liberatory", or, alternatively "bad, regressive, stupid, insensitive".
I just saw the movie in a theater with friends. I did not know about the movie's existence until i bought tickets. I went in entirely blind. Was rather disgusted by the ableist and antifeminist nature of the whole film. Especially given how disgustingly, and pathetically, the movie appears to pay lukewarm lib lipservice to the causes of oppressed people.
This -I had so many issues with the movie 😐
I felt so gross watching Poor Things. I don't know what sources Emma Stone drew on as 'inspiration' in building her work for this film, especially the earlier scenes, but it felt incredibly cringey.
(Spoiler alert) It's interesting how people can see the same movie and come to opposite conclusions.
It's not for everyone.
First, it's best to see the movie by oneself and without labels.
Second, you need to buy in on the highly accelerated mental development, in particular to the appropriate age when the seggs happens, if not then you can't watch this movie without getting really bad vibes, for good reasons.
Myself I had labeled it as a "fantasy/fairytale" before watching, only learning afterwards to my surprise that the movie was labeled as a "comedy".
I'm glad I didn't knew it was marketed as a comedy.
So likely I was moved by some scenes and laughing at other scenes, likely not as the directors intended.
Several autistic people including myself, saw the autistic experience (spiked profile) portrayed in a very relatable way, such as seeing unexpected beauty in the world, difficulty with neurotypical inconsistent social rules, how we need stimming, the way we are more open about seggs when there is a safe space for it, the ability to see through BS.
In Dafoe's character, there is deep tragedy of trauma by abuse by closest family.
When the woman goes traveling (mentally developed by then to someone of around 18 years) the father figure gives her emergency get home safe money, safely hidden in her jacket.
There is more to it, how she improves the working conditions in the private house, within the limitations, how she practices consent, even teaching by example in a scene that looks awkward, until you realize that this and even more explicit, happened in the time of which elements were borrowed for the fantasy world.
Many Big Country's viewers find the seggs too explicit, whereas European viewers just shrug their shoulders at it, which can be a culture difference. At closer look, it's very implied, you don't actually see anything.
It does look real, in the way seggs as I at times do it, is also unglamorous. Recognizable.
The protagonist is in control and decides her pleasure (next time with more tongue, is the feedback she gives to a man after kissing). The dance scene makes lot of sense as I am doing dance myself including intuitive forms also practiced at "extatic dance" no touch, no alcohol, no speech, events increasingly popular in my country in the art scene, where people simply dance to the music to the flow, without trying to look good to bystanders. Stimming, expression, give it a name.
So does the reading advanced books and how many autistic people get accused of using five dollar words, we pick up at an early age via books. My book pile is enormous.
There is more to it, but in my view little can go wrong in a movie featuring duck-dogs.
My guess, most of the movie is what Bob Ross used to say is a "happy accident", unplanned by the director.
In a way it is an make your own movie experience.
I saw the movie and i understand your point, how can be hurtful seeing people laughing at that character. But I can assure you that everyone loved her, and admired her, while the males who tried to use and trap her were the real characters who the public really laughed at. Maybe I'm wrong but I think this could be a good opportunity to talk about neurodivergency representation. And how neurodivergency could be seen as a different way to live the world, something neurotypical people could learn from.
I think this perspective is what the film wants us to think and feel about Bella, but unfortunately the experiential reality--ie, the experience of watching it and thinking about it is-- quite unalike its intention. In the movie, Bella has a developmental disability; it makes her seem funny and 'primitive' to the neuro-normative audience this is written for. It makes it funny that she is hyper-sexualized, and because it's funny, it's assures us it's okay to enjoy the many graphic scenes of a person the film tells us has the cognitive age of a child engaging in sometimes non-consensual sex, too. Because Bella's disability is designed to be 'resolved' at some mythical point in its neuro-developmental process and she is expected to at least theoretically 'grow out' of her disability, the film seems to assure us this is all in good fun, I think. I didn't experience it as such.
🏳🌈🏳⚧🏴☠