Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

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

749 replies

AngeloMysterioso · 13/03/2024 21:29

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?!

OP posts:
ManchesterBeatrice · 14/03/2024 12:05

Also 'a little weird' and 'such smut' pretty different to 'need your hardrive checked'

Slight change of your own story there.

JamSandle · 14/03/2024 12:06

I didnt find it that fucked up. If you've seem Dogtooth I thought that was even more fucked up (also felt closer to reality).

Didimum · 14/03/2024 12:06

Mirabai · 14/03/2024 11:47

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

That anyone falls for it is genuinely astonishing to me.

You shall have to remain astonished then.

localnotail · 14/03/2024 12:08

Goldenbear · 14/03/2024 11:43

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.

How on earth is this condescending?! I never said people who disagree with me are wrong. For example, I think your comment and point of view is completely valid and well articulated and I respect it because you have seen the film and this is what you made of it. But, if someone is basing their view of anything (work of art, book, film, etc) on hearsay and tabloid like sensationalist bullshit - without ever seeing it, ffs!- well, its just sad and idiotic, sorry.

Leah5678 · 14/03/2024 12:09

ManchesterBeatrice · 14/03/2024 12:03

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

Have a fabulous day.

I said in my first comment that I hadn't seen it 🤷🏻‍♀️ keep thinking you've proven something if you want 😉
No hard feelings btw I like the eloquent way you type, one of my favourite things about Mumsnet is how good the users grammar is, such a contrast with Facebook.
(I acknowledge my own grammar isn't perfect haha)

ManchesterBeatrice · 14/03/2024 12:09

@localnotail 🙌 👏

Leah5678 · 14/03/2024 12:15

localnotail · 14/03/2024 12:08

How on earth is this condescending?! I never said people who disagree with me are wrong. For example, I think your comment and point of view is completely valid and well articulated and I respect it because you have seen the film and this is what you made of it. But, if someone is basing their view of anything (work of art, book, film, etc) on hearsay and tabloid like sensationalist bullshit - without ever seeing it, ffs!- well, its just sad and idiotic, sorry.

Edited

As someone who has based my view of this film entirely on the " hearsay and tabloid like sensationalist bullshit " that is the ops post I wholeheartedly disagree that it's idiotic to do so. I already know by reading even the positive comments on this thread that I would hate the film 😂😂 "work of art" "fascinating subtle niche criticism of whatever "
Sorry just sounds horrendous

Goldenbear · 14/03/2024 12:19

TerrysCIockworkOrange · 14/03/2024 12:00

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

Again, can't you imagine that someone who does not think the film is worthy of the praise you have afforded it, has not simply misunderstood it. I don't see that at all in this thread. Far from literal, it's the opposite, it's implication and audience conditioning.

Where are decently written, authentic female characters these days. Sex, sex, sex, really challenging the audience, it isn't the 1950s, it is not a shocking subject or even particularly interesting.

horseyhorsey17 · 14/03/2024 12:20

lacyviolet · 14/03/2024 11:22

This.

To those saying we have to see the film... Please don't force me to watch something that I know I would find upsetting just so I can be 'allowed' to express an opinion on the subject matter.

Nobody's forcing you to watch it but obviously your opinion on it is going to be significantly less valid than that of someone who's actually seen it.

OoooohSpookyGhost · 14/03/2024 12:21

Abitofalark · 14/03/2024 11:24

Haven't seen the film or read the book, and am unlikely to, but had a look online to get some idea what the book is about, and found mentions of English colonising of Scotland, socialism, the present state of Scottish Culture, Frankenstein. It won literary prizes including the Whitbread and a Guardian one.

This book review from 1993 by an unnamed author gives a favourable view* of it and what appears to a fairly straightforward outline of the story:
https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/alasdair-gray/poor-things/

*It mentions a previous book of his which from which he later removed a lot of the sexual content, according to an article in Wikipedia:

' "Something Leather concludes with a section entitled Critic Fuel - An Epilogue, in which Gray describes the circumstances surrounding the book's development and offers an extended ending. He comments in the Acknowledgements that the title made reviewers treat it as "a sadomasochistic Lesbian adventure story" (these events only take place in the framing Chapters 1 and 12) and that had he called it Glaswegians they might have paid more attention to the rest of the book. Indeed, when Something Leather was collected as part of Every Short Story 1951-2012 (Canongate, 2012), the collection was grouped under the title Glaswegians, and some of the stronger sadomasochistic elements were dropped.
Gray said that the novel was born out of an attempt to write a story about a woman (an idea he credits to Kathy Acker) since his previous books had been about "men who found life a task they never doubted until an unexpected collision opened their eyes and changed their habits." '

A lengthy and enthusiastic review by Jonathan Coe also goes into this:
"Here we find another contrast with Something Leather. Part of the impetus for that novel came from a suggestion made by Kathy Acker, who asked Gray if he had ever written a story with a woman as the main character. He answered: ‘No, that was impossible because I could not imagine how a woman felt when alone.’ This was a brave and candid admission. It acknowledged an inability to engage with female characters without the mediating presence of a male consciousness: for the purposes of Gray’s imagination, in other words, women are only defined, only made real, by their relationship with men. It’s for this reason that the all-female orgy scenes in Something Leather don’t come to life (except for those, perhaps, who share his particular fetishes). And this, too, is why Gray is able to enter with such gusto into the story of Godwin Baxter and his artificial woman – because it’s also the story of Alasdair Gray, the writer, and the various Rimas, Marjories, Helens, Dennys, Jills, Ludmillas, Junes and Donaldas he has fashioned out of words during his career as a novelist, sharing with Godwin the simultaneous hope and anxiety of the benevolent creator who longs to see his progeny take on an independent life even as he is loathe to forfeit his own absolute control over their destinies."
https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v14/n19/jonathan-coe/gray-s-elegy

A shorter article here by Philip Hensher, a judge on the Guardian prize panel:
"Elizabeth Young, reviewing Poor Things in the Guardian, considered it to be the "most substantial" book that he had written since Lanark. Gray, she wrote, has finally man aged to unite a number ot appar ently irreconcilable obsessions with women, fiction, politics, and Scottish history into what is a bibliophile's paradise of postmodern precision. Poor Things revives an intriguing literary torm, the medical romance. Like Doctor Jekyll and Mr Hyde, or The Island of Doctor Moreau, Gray's novel raises serious philosophical and historical issues within the engaging framework of nineteenth-century melodrama. What seems at first an amusing farrago of virtuous Scotswomen, wicked English rakes, Parisian brothels and monstrous medical experimentation, slowly shows itself to be a meditation upon sexual morality and upon notions of femininity."
-https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-guardian-the-guardian-fiction-prize/134289496/

The value or content of the book doesn’t necessarily equate to the value or content of the movie.

localnotail · 14/03/2024 12:22

Leah5678 · 14/03/2024 12:15

As someone who has based my view of this film entirely on the " hearsay and tabloid like sensationalist bullshit " that is the ops post I wholeheartedly disagree that it's idiotic to do so. I already know by reading even the positive comments on this thread that I would hate the film 😂😂 "work of art" "fascinating subtle niche criticism of whatever "
Sorry just sounds horrendous

purely out of the curiosity - what films do you like?

Mirabai · 14/03/2024 12:22

TerrysCIockworkOrange · 14/03/2024 12:00

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

Interesting, as I think the opposite - that the people who like it are literal and naive in their interpretation, and fail to see the wood for the trees.

It seems that if you dress misogyny up with enough ersatz glitz - famous male writer, famous male director, Hollywood stars - it seduces people, even educated women.

ManchesterBeatrice · 14/03/2024 12:24

I think part of the problem with this film is that there is a big gulf between the tabloids, sensationalism, and the actual film, which means it's a film which, without seeing, is really difficult to form an opinion on.

I went into it with great trepidation, and a deep sense of worrying that I would be uncomfortable with what it was, and some of the scenes, but came out completely the opposite.

@Leah5678 Appreciate the grammar comment, I try really hard here. My spelling and grammar generally terrible 😳

OoooohSpookyGhost · 14/03/2024 12:26

Didimum · 14/03/2024 11:58

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.

I disagree with your assessment of the male gaze here in relation to the movie, though I do agree nudity does not have to equal male gaze.

Leah5678 · 14/03/2024 12:29

localnotail · 14/03/2024 12:22

purely out of the curiosity - what films do you like?

I'm honestly not a big film watcher, the only thing that springs to mind is dune 1 which I watched the other day in anticipation of seeing dune 2 at the cinema.
Actually one of my all time favourites is the original Narnia series, I kind of like avatar too you know with the blue people.
Im sure this question is being used to tell me my favourite films are weird too 😭😂 but hell it's a Thursday and i'm bored and waiting for the plumber to come and fix my bathtub so of course I'm going to argue over a film I haven't seen

MeinKraft · 14/03/2024 12:32

I'm pretty much guaranteed to hate anything William Dafoe is in. He does loads of creepy disturbing films.

ManchesterBeatrice · 14/03/2024 12:32

@Leah5678 That's very honest 😂

Magnastorm · 14/03/2024 12:36

Leah5678 · 14/03/2024 11:57

"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

Yes, you do actually need to see the film to label it "weird as hell".

You really do.

This doesn't mean that anyone is forcing you to see it, but if you want to have an opinion taken seriously on, well, anything, you need to actually base that opinion on something.

LovelyTheresa · 14/03/2024 12:42

MyLovelyPurse · 13/03/2024 22:54

@LovelyTheresa of course @Bazinga007 doesn’t have to agree with others. I’m not sure why you think that I meant that. I’d be really interested to hear about the reasons why she has that opinion. Definitely don’t think she has to agree with everyone.
It’s just that she wasn’t responding to the other posts and didn’t explain why she thought it was great.

Again, why should she? The consensus on here seems to be that it was an awful film. I disagree with that and agree with @Bazinga007 that it was wonderful: visually beautiful, witty, and thought provoking. The people who said that it was 'paedophilic' clearly weren't watching it properly and just rushed to outrage without understanding.

LovelyTheresa · 14/03/2024 12:43

Mirabai · 14/03/2024 12:22

Interesting, as I think the opposite - that the people who like it are literal and naive in their interpretation, and fail to see the wood for the trees.

It seems that if you dress misogyny up with enough ersatz glitz - famous male writer, famous male director, Hollywood stars - it seduces people, even educated women.

I wish that people would stop crying 'misogyny' at every turn. It is so boring, condescending, and kneejerk. Can you explain what was 'misogynisitc' about the film?

Mirabai · 14/03/2024 12:55

LovelyTheresa · 14/03/2024 12:43

I wish that people would stop crying 'misogyny' at every turn. It is so boring, condescending, and kneejerk. Can you explain what was 'misogynisitc' about the film?

Do you really need it explaining?

LovelyTheresa · 14/03/2024 12:55

Mirabai · 14/03/2024 12:55

Do you really need it explaining?

Yes, I do. What did you think was misogynistic about the film?

Carouselfish · 14/03/2024 13:02

Jesus! Yes, that plot sound awful and definitely from a man's brain! I haven't watched it because I couldn't bear her version of an English accent! Now I have more reason to avoid.

Mirabai · 14/03/2024 13:08

LovelyTheresa · 14/03/2024 12:55

Yes, I do. What did you think was misogynistic about the film?

Why don’t you think about it and see if you can figure it out.

ManchesterBeatrice · 14/03/2024 13:11

@Mirabai I'd love to know this too (breakdown of what you thought was misogyny) thanks 😊

Swipe left for the next trending thread