Good video with good points. I absolutely loved the film and the way it makes people revaluate their way of thinking about society. It's by far my favorite film of 2023 and it's also my favorite film of all time.
I personally don’t see what other people see I guess. It’s a beautifully shot movie and the acting was great but I don’t think Bella is this amazing cinematic heroine that everyone is making her out to be.
Perfect timing, I am more intrigued now. Haven't seen the film yet and my Wife refuses, I need a plan and will revisit your take. Thanks. We like Emma but are skeptical about this one.
I think this film actually very much fits the norms of how women are portrayed by men in cinema. 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 Madame? 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 she finds disgusting 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.
Just to address a couple points: - I don't think the movie was, or tried to be, feminist. - I also feel like I can't criticise the writer too harshly for it (the director maybe), but there have been a couple of deleted scenes that dealt with exactly the points your'e raising. Poor choice I suppose to leave them out, but for me (and I understand somebody else might feel differently) it shows that there was a comprehensive direction for the characters.
I mean the official synopsis described Bella as such: "Free from the prejudices of her times, Bella grows steadfast in her purpose to stand for equality and liberation." And much of the (mostly male) critical discourse as well as the marketing campaign itself call it a "feminist fantasy." Because the text from which it's adapted is inherently concerned with these themes, and more so is critical of the male gaze, I think we should look at this aspect critically. Yes she is not real, and that's why we must interrogate the motives, biases and lens through which we interpret her and her behavior. Feminist or not, I think her choices contradict her pleasure-seeking character. I have not seen the deleted scenes, so I can't comment, but I feel this was a huge missed opportunity to actually explore real female sexuality but it's almost exclusively PIV, i.e. phallocentric instead of clitorocentric. If someone who perhaps had lived experience in a female body was involved or even if they had stayed more true to the source material, it would be easier to see the work as having a positive impact. And if it is not trying to be feminist, then I think it's just straight exploitative and harmful, especially with regards to how it portrays grooming and consent. What is Yorgos trying to say if not a feminist message? That this is okay if it weren't for societal shame bc she likes it? Big yikes.@@barbzthings
I left so let down & feeling like the poor thing was me having gone to see it! I view the mainstream praise as a reflection of our times where superficiality vs substance has become the norm. If there's enough surface glitter, lip filler, butt padding & marketing ferocity then there's a good chance of success. Like a Frankenstein monster, Poor Things was a series of pieced-together events that touched on several deep social issues yet followed through on none of them. Like a Frankenstein who's threads are were loose vs sewn tight., much of her character was just plain contradictory. For one, her performance seemed to be retarded at first rather than a newborn innocently becoming aware while her unrestrained bluntness & unfettered reactions seemed too cold & cruel and lacking any sweet naive childlike innocence or wide-eyed curiosity. She was often emotionally one dimensional & distant, IMO. Later attempts were made to humanize her but by then the story had already begun to drag & the many narrative ideas remained unresolved. SO MANY CRITICS HAVE HAD THE EXACT SAME REACTIONS to the film so I know I'm not just being purely subjective. EITHER YOU CAN IGNORE ALL THE BROKEN PIECES of the Story or they stand out like a sore thumb. Maybe the pretty nature on the surface camouflaged the holes in the film or the quirkiness but it was far from the best thing since sliced bread. In fact it ended up being mostly just icing without much cake! I find it interesting that people care less about seamless intricate complex storytelling & more about surface decoration. Some directors can do both. Although there were a few funs scenes, none of them validate the flaws of the overall film. At times her actions are CONTRADICTORY & hypocritical to a Story that was CONVOLUTED in it's exploration of many social themes which were never resolved. Many scenes were pretty but ARBITRARY and did little to progress the narrative! Her FRANKENHOOKER phase was wild & a bit intense but it was mostly contrary to her strong free-willed independent nature. Concepts of misogyny, pedophilia, prostitution, abuse only serve to SHOCK rather than reveal any true insight, empathy or heroic sentiment. For all the men bashing she then freely allows a woman, the Madame Dwarf, to use & abuse her. Saying nothing about contraception and STD's. Often I was just confused to whether or not to laugh or frown. Nevertheless the IMAGERY is stimulating to watch but the STORY just gets SLOW around 3/4 the way through. After all the controversial SEX, when it should become full of intrigue, conflict resolution or drama it stalls when her new found "ENLIGHTENMENT" BOAT TOUR tries to get Political, to no successful conclusion except to END with a GOAT SACRIFICE & sick operation to show REVENGE towards her estranged Father, a stranger to us & her the entire film only to end with a, so far, non-romantic relationship with a FEEBLE wannabe Frankenstein Scientist Husband who unsuccessfully did to that poor girl exactly what was done to Bella. WTF!!! I LEFT UNINSPIRED, unsympathetic, irritated over the whole experiences! >
Good video with good points. I absolutely loved the film and the way it makes people revaluate their way of thinking about society. It's by far my favorite film of 2023 and it's also my favorite film of all time.
I personally don’t see what other people see I guess. It’s a beautifully shot movie and the acting was great but I don’t think Bella is this amazing cinematic heroine that everyone is making her out to be.
Perfect timing, I am more intrigued now. Haven't seen the film yet and my Wife refuses, I need a plan and will revisit your take. Thanks. We like Emma but are skeptical about this one.
great video :)
Very well put!
I think this film actually very much fits the norms of how women are portrayed by men in cinema. 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 Madame? 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 she finds disgusting 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.
Just to address a couple points:
- I don't think the movie was, or tried to be, feminist.
- I also feel like I can't criticise the writer too harshly for it (the director maybe), but there have been a couple of deleted scenes that dealt with exactly the points your'e raising. Poor choice I suppose to leave them out, but for me (and I understand somebody else might feel differently) it shows that there was a comprehensive direction for the characters.
I mean the official synopsis described Bella as such: "Free from the prejudices of her times, Bella grows steadfast in her purpose to stand for equality and liberation." And much of the (mostly male) critical discourse as well as the marketing campaign itself call it a "feminist fantasy." Because the text from which it's adapted is inherently concerned with these themes, and more so is critical of the male gaze, I think we should look at this aspect critically. Yes she is not real, and that's why we must interrogate the motives, biases and lens through which we interpret her and her behavior. Feminist or not, I think her choices contradict her pleasure-seeking character.
I have not seen the deleted scenes, so I can't comment, but I feel this was a huge missed opportunity to actually explore real female sexuality but it's almost exclusively PIV, i.e. phallocentric instead of clitorocentric. If someone who perhaps had lived experience in a female body was involved or even if they had stayed more true to the source material, it would be easier to see the work as having a positive impact. And if it is not trying to be feminist, then I think it's just straight exploitative and harmful, especially with regards to how it portrays grooming and consent. What is Yorgos trying to say if not a feminist message? That this is okay if it weren't for societal shame bc she likes it? Big yikes.@@barbzthings
I left so let down & feeling like the poor thing was me having gone to see it! I view the mainstream praise as a reflection of our times where superficiality vs substance has become the norm. If there's enough surface glitter, lip filler, butt padding & marketing ferocity then there's a good chance of success. Like a Frankenstein monster, Poor Things was a series of pieced-together events that touched on several deep social issues yet followed through on none of them. Like a Frankenstein who's threads are were loose vs sewn tight., much of her character was just plain contradictory. For one, her performance seemed to be retarded at first rather than a newborn innocently becoming aware while her unrestrained bluntness & unfettered reactions seemed too cold & cruel and lacking any sweet naive childlike innocence or wide-eyed curiosity. She was often emotionally one dimensional & distant, IMO. Later attempts were made to humanize her but by then the story had already begun to drag & the many narrative ideas remained unresolved. SO MANY CRITICS HAVE HAD THE EXACT SAME REACTIONS to the film so I know I'm not just being purely subjective. EITHER YOU CAN IGNORE ALL THE BROKEN PIECES of the Story or they stand out like a sore thumb. Maybe the pretty nature on the surface camouflaged the holes in the film or the quirkiness but it was far from the best thing since sliced bread. In fact it ended up being mostly just icing without much cake! I find it interesting that people care less about seamless intricate complex storytelling & more about surface decoration. Some directors can do both. Although there were a few funs scenes, none of them validate the flaws of the overall film. At times her actions are CONTRADICTORY & hypocritical to a Story that was CONVOLUTED in it's exploration of many social themes which were never resolved. Many scenes were pretty but ARBITRARY and did little to progress the narrative! Her FRANKENHOOKER phase was wild & a bit intense but it was mostly contrary to her strong free-willed independent nature. Concepts of misogyny, pedophilia, prostitution, abuse only serve to SHOCK rather than reveal any true insight, empathy or heroic sentiment. For all the men bashing she then freely allows a woman, the Madame Dwarf, to use & abuse her. Saying nothing about contraception and STD's. Often I was just confused to whether or not to laugh or frown. Nevertheless the IMAGERY is stimulating to watch but the STORY just gets SLOW around 3/4 the way through. After all the controversial SEX, when it should become full of intrigue, conflict resolution or drama it stalls when her new found "ENLIGHTENMENT" BOAT TOUR tries to get Political, to no successful conclusion except to END with a GOAT SACRIFICE & sick operation to show REVENGE towards her estranged Father, a stranger to us & her the entire film only to end with a, so far, non-romantic relationship with a FEEBLE wannabe Frankenstein Scientist Husband who unsuccessfully did to that poor girl exactly what was done to Bella. WTF!!! I LEFT UNINSPIRED, unsympathetic, irritated over the whole experiences! >