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?!

It's a modern book not a Victorian one - Alastair Gray, the author, is still alive. He wrote it in 1992.

**
@Alcyoneus These clever, superior intelligent beings must feel so out of place among the plebs. Their higher intellect must be such a curse”

I thought it was really interesting, Emma Stone was excellent. Love an Indiana Jones, Die Hard and a bit of Mary Poppins too 😁 I think most people in the real world can enjoy all sorts of films without having to resort to insults.

'the male gaze', please quote where I said that?

I thought you hadn't seen the film? If not and your credentials for a 'good' film are that the lead actress is 'pretty and enjoys sex', you'll definitely love this film!

This is exactly it.

She develops extremely quickly an in a fairly private safe space so as said doesn't learn all about shame and rules of society.

Nope, never said that's what I look for in a film. I like all sorts of films.

@Goldenbear Male fantasy not male gaze.

Someone asked upthread what's thought provoking about it.

It made me think about what concepts we would have if we experienced the world for the first time, without any prior concepts, as adults with engaged and functioning brains. It's a "state of nature"/ "blank slate" story which in general I quite like. I enjoyed the thought experiment of seeing how different influences (like being exposed to philosophy, experiencing friendship, experiencing inequality) would pull her in different directions, given that she has no real practical responsibilities of constraints. All her constraints are through power dynamics and inexperience: she doesn't have responsibilities, or authority figures, or financial worries.

It also made me think about the ways in which some men will sexualise anyone with a female body, as if the body is all that matters. As an anecdote, my DH found the film unwatchable. He thought the scene where she's a child and the med doctor just focuses on her beauty was disgusting and exploitative of people with disabilities. I found it weirdly moving because it reminded me of experiencing men clearly eyeing me and my friends up when we were very young, 13 or 14 maybe, and it was a stark way of driving home really what it's like to grow up in a society that places so much emphasis on you as a sexual object, even when you are too young to want anything sexually yourself or even understand it.

A small detail, but I found the dream like quality interesting. Many of the things that Bella sees and is told make no sense when you think about them properly, but they have that superficial plausibility you get from dream narratives. For example, the brothel owner tells Bella that she can't turn away customers because she has a baby who is sick and would die without the money for medicine: then she picks up this little baby from a nook in the wall and shows it to Bella. What are we supposed to make of this? Perhaps the brothel owner is just lying, but the hazy details (baby has never been mentioned, whose baby is she, why is she sleeping in the wall, what is wrong with her, etc.) make it all feel dreamlike. The same with the poor people at the base of the cafe in Athens, why are they outside instead of just building a roof if the sun is the problem? Nothing really adds up, but at the same time, the narrative works anyway.

Yes 'a male fantasy', 'a' is the key word here.

What are you waffling on about?

1. just because you disagree with something doesn’t make it ‘knee jerk’.
2. plenty of us have explained why. You just happen to disagree with those explanations. Which is absolutely fine, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t satisfactory - it just means it didn’t satisfy YOU. And the reason for that has been made abundantly clear - because you simply want agreement.

See I saw it very differently- especially with a modern view

1. of course it’s not okay but the reality is it happens - men groom and abuse young girls - he grooms her and traffics her
2. well like only fans- young women sold the myth that sexual exploitation is financially rewarding and empowering - when it’s a one way transaction- she does not enjoy sex in the brothel because it’s all about male satisfaction- unless it’s with the other women - and she leaves
3. she’s abused throughout the film - groomed, robbed, sexually exploited- we see it she doesn’t- exactly like young girls involved in CSE or domestic abuse. We don’t know if she gets an STI or not and he butchered her body getting the baby out
4. she survives the abuse and comes back more worldly and powerful ready to help the new creation avoid her experiences

but that’s the thing with films we all read them differently

Alastair Gray, the author, is still alive

He's not alive anymore actually. He did agree to the movie but it took many years for them to bring it to screen.
Not many people were keen to back up Yorgos Lanthimos. It's not surprising reading the comments from people who haven't seen the movie. Stripped to its bones the story is just mad.
Which makes the movie even more watch-worthy - imagine what this director can do with a 'good' story.

That's a plot device used to expose hypocrisy in society and men's misogynistic, exploitative and manipulative behaviour

As in one, singular.

I don't like the film and that's allowed.

Look at it this way: you can't make an anti-war film without showing the worst excesses of what happens in war. That's what this film is doing (well or badly is subjective) in relation to misogyny

Exactly. This is what is going right over people's head. I don't care that they say 'I disagree', they clearly did not understand the film.

Are you saying reports of his death have been greatly exaggerated - all those obituaries in the newspapers?

Oh! Hahahaha.

The brothel owner says the baby is her grandchild.

Other than that, I agree!

What’s hypocritical is that they’re ‘exposing’ this by exposing her to the misogynistic, explorative and manipulative behaviour of the male directors, audience, and society at large. You can’t remove the film from the context of the situation the west is in - which is that the worth of women lies in their sexual availability for men. I do not believe that adding to the myriad of media already pandering to this hits the correct note. But I also think that the directors absolutely know this and don’t care.

You’re aren’t killing people in movies about war. In the majority of movies, and this one included IMO, the actresses are being objectified and the canon is contributing to the overarching issue.

You: people who disagree with me don’t understand!

🙄

Equally, a poster on the thread described how the politics of the novel is as important a theme as the sex; I haven't read the novel but it strikes me that this balance does not exist in the film!

Emma Stone is an intelligent well known rich actress. She wasn't forced to do the film. She did the film because she understand what it was about and wanted to do it. So how is she being exposed by the Directors etc?

Precisely, which is a clear indication that there was a specific reason for choosing to focus on sex. I would personally argue that since there is clear form for this across adaptations, it’s because ‘we know the audience wants an abundance of sex’, but I suppose since the posters we have had opposing views to have raised the issue of people simply not understanding things, perhaps the decision was made that it was considered too intellectual for audiences to have to think about politics…