To think that Poor Things is actually a seriously fucked up film?

[AngeloMysterioso]

Spoilers obvs

Basic plot summary- pregnant woman trapped in an abusive marriage attempts suicide by jumping from a bridge. Frankenstein-type scientist retrieves her body, transplants the unborn baby’s brain into her head and brings her back to life. This child-woman is then basically abducted by a dodgy bloke who teaches her all about the joys of fucking, she very naively gives all their money away and because they are now broke and she enjoys sex so very much, she becomes a prostitute, whilst still having the mental age of a young child.

There’s no denying Emma Stone is brilliant in the role, but AIBU to think that it is otherwise one completely messed up Freudian nightmare of a movie?!

No one is going to "force" you to watch anything...i'm not sure how posters on MN could do that even if they wanted to. But it is interesting how many posters feel justified in being disgusted and offended by something they openly admit they haven't seen or even heard of, just because someone on an anonymous forum has told them they should be disgusted and offended.

We all hear about a film or watch the trailer and go "yeah that's not for me, going to give it a miss". Nothing wrong with that. But you then can't expect to speak with any authority about why the film is rubbish and offensive without people pointing out that you're just regurgitating others opinions.

@Didimum it’s a great point for a film to make, that women are infantilised and sexualised. Agreed.

But this director chose to do that through multiple images of a naked woman masturbating, being used as a prostitute etc. Basically he made the point through male gaze porn and worse than that, there is no doubt that a large part of the titillation involved idea of sex between adults and children or adults with a mental disability. This is not edgy or excitingly transgressive it is the same old revolting abusive objectification dressed up with arty lenses and costumes.

What I also really object to, on the grounds of its dated and conservative idea of the struggles of female identity, is the ending. We are supposed to think that Bella has triumphed in the end. She is pictured sipping cocktails in the garden with her acolytes around her. She has ‘won’ by being just as power hungry and unpleasant as those who dominated her in the past. This is an entirely male perspective as it sees men and women as engaged in a power struggle battling to dominate, to be the top dog. That is the essence of toxic masculinity. The director presumably could not imagine a world in which a woman freeing herself would not then choose to be an unpleasant narcissist.

It’s not edgy and transgressive, it’s the same old toxic shit. But worse.

Good grief @Leah5678 that's a leap.

This thread is quite brilliant. Many people who haven't seen it clutching their pearls and lashing out.

This is where the success of tabloids comes from I guess.

Never let the truth get in the way of a good story.

Thank you to all the articulate posters describing the film accurately.

I personally loved it.

And brilliant fucking thick comments demonstrating internalised misogyny using terms like pearl clutching about perfectly legitimate concerns about the subject matter of films because women have the temerity to question the male gaze and the sort of films men write and make about female characters.

Again, so condescending- don't agree with you so it is wrong. I have seen it and still stand by my interpretation being that the main female character is simply a titillating prop in the ecstatic and violent fantasies of men.

TallulahBetty · Today 10:29

“Made by men, for men. The classic.”

Wasn’t Emma Stone Producer? Either way, I thought she was excellent, well deserved Oscar.

Exactly.

Apparently saying we hate the sound of a film based on the description of it and loads of reviews and articles both positive and negative is "pearl clutching" and not allowed.

Someone will be along to call us prudes in a minute.

Agreed. Same old toxic shit dressed up in steampunk and spun as feminism.

That anyone falls for it is genuinely astonishing to me.

It is brilliant. Saltburn on the other hand... dreadful

@shearwater2 ... annnnnd yet more lashing out.

@localnotail On the money there!

I recently went to an "in conversation" with the director. In the Q&A, an audience member, who worked with sex workers, actually said the feedback from that community was that it was refreshing to see them depicted in a less patronising way than usual.

I'm a big Yorgos Lanthimos fan but found this a difficult watch in places. He is known for very unusual films but obviously this concept is based on a book.

Saying you don't like the sound of a film you haven't seen is absolutely fine. What isn't fine is posters making definitive statements that a film they haven't seen is so terrible it cannot be called art, that the creators of the film must be "paedos", or that anyone who watched it and wasn't offended "should have their hard-drives checked".

@neverbeenskiing Well said.

The aggression and wild accusations definitely come from that side of the argument.

There is nothing wrong with it's not wanting to watch something, or finding the premise disturbing, but to talk about hardrives is a leap.

"good grief" "pearl clutching" this post is so eloquently written even though it's a criticism of me I have to appreciate that. It reminds me of the hunger games where the rich fancy ones where Into really weird shit. No shade at you btw. I don't need to see the film to know that it's weird as hell, if you like it then whatever but calling a film "art" is just as much of a leap as what I said but in the opposite kind of way. It only sounds like a porno with a disturbing storyline to me

It's funny isn't it, because I entirely disagree with all of this (not being snarky, just highlighting the subjectivity of film and representation).

As others have pointed out, I didn't see Bella as a child nor mentally disabled, but as a juvenile (something which I think need differentiation), and her being juvenile is supposed to be comment on the blurred line of girlhood and adulthood, and how the blurring of that line is dangerous, which I think the film portrayed very well. Again, I think it's lazy to brand anything with a naked woman in it as 'male gaze'. My dissertation was on the subject of the male gaze in film and it's a very specific set of shots and angles, among other things, which this film did not make use of.

I did not see the ending like that. I can't think of what parts portrayed Bella has power hungry, unpleasant or narcissistic at all. She sought to bring up the 'next experiment' in the hands of a woman and continue her direction by her own choices, and only dominated the men who had sought to dominate her.

Can you explain the hard drive comment in detail then please @Leah5678 ?

This thread is essentially showing that most people who’ve seen it and hated it are far too literal in their interpretation of film. That’s fine for most blockbuster fare but this isn’t one of those films.
It’s fine to hate it, but at least try to understand it first. There have been some excellent analytical replies up thread worth reading if all you took from the film was baby brains and fucking

Loved it, found it hysterical.
I got the impression she wasn't in an abusive relationship but that she was as bad as the husband previous to committing suicide. The staff hated her didn't they? Her husband suggested she was had a similar sense of humour to him, enjoyed being cruel and killed herself because she not want the baby.

I thought the point of it was she did whatever she wanted, enjoyed sex with whomever she wanted, was not submissive like women of that time. Men tried to control her and she had none of them and ended up on top, inheriting "God"'s house, probably her goat husband's estate and was becoming what she wanted to be, a doctor, which was probably fairly unusual at the time. Her partner who agreed to marry her had no issue with her being a prostitute for a time and she had a gay lover too.

You've read my original comment havent you? I said I haven't seen the film but going by the description in the op anyone who enjoys watching it is weird.
Maybe the description op provided isn't accurate? Can you provide a better one? If not then I guess you just have to accept it's a little weird that you consider such smut " art "

Just a reminder....

@Leah5678
I admit I hadn't heard of this film till reading your thread but based on your summary of the plot I think anyone who calls this "art" needs their harddrive checked

And there it is. You've not even seen it. Case rested 😂

Have a fabulous day.

Why the reminder? I remember what I posted 10 minutes thank you very much I haven't got Alzheimer's.

I repeat, I have seen the film and I haven't come to the same conclusion as you.

Every sex scene, every sexual act leads to the next one and it leads nowhere, it is simply titillation and rather dull for it.