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?!

Watching a second time tonight, so fabulous 😊😳

This...why would anyone want to write it!?

Because he got off on it obviously. Writers explore their interests and fantasies in their work.

The book is a male fantasy about unfettered female sexuality/prostitution/exploitation with cod female empowerment and philosophy thrown in to make it palatable.

Cursory look online would show these opinions are not confined to MN.

It won four Oscars. Two went solely to women, and two to teams including women. That's part of the context, in addition to the wider context you discuss.

There's only one director, but multiple producers, of which Emma Stone is one.

I don't think there needed to be as much sex in the film as there was. I'll give you that. I've said I don't think the film is feminist, but there's a hell of a lot of other films out there that are way more exploitative and where women aren't building successful careers. Why get so wound up about this one?

I’m not in the least bit wound up - I’m critiquing it. I critique a lot of things. I also praise a lot of things.

I have not seen it, but from the plot I would guess it is a satire of all the "born sexy yesterday" tropes in movies.

I loved ‘The Piano’ too and I hadn’t thought about it in those terms but she rejects patriarchy and feels desire on her own terms. A brilliant, brilliant film with amazing performances, cinematography and score.

I remember when I first heard of it and I was horrified. I thought it was like legal paedophilia but I bit the bullet and watched it yesterday.

It was…interesting. I won’t watch it again as I didn’t really enjoy it but I’m glad I watched it at least once. I did like the ending though

I’m not talking about the characters, I’m talking about the cinematography.

ETA: apols, reading too quickly! Yes you’re right, and especially about the score - one of the best soundtracks ever!

It really does appear the opposite - being upset, anger with some posters that someone doesn't like a film that they do. It's a film discussion - nothing more, nothing less, chill out.

I had to turn it off I'd had enough not for me.

I think I’d better stop reading/replying when I’m multi-tasking! 😂

I agree with you, I'm being told I'm stupid for not liking it too,

I think anger has been shown from some who are insistent we are wrong.

Confused by reviews, I obtained a copy of the book "Poor Things" . Most of it hangs on the "Gothic" idea of scientific reanimation - see "Frankenstein", though a separate statement by Bella/Victoria at the end, denies this". A lot of enjoyable ranting is aimed at Victorian values ( the author was born in 1911) and the false expectations of women by cruel and inadequate men. Set mostly in Glasgow in the 1880's. I did discover that the film maker has probably ruined the book, by removing the Scottish social settings and comments entirely. I have decided not to bother going to see the film. I strongly recommend reading the book. Purchase as a used paperback copy online. It is not really suitable for making into a film. Bella becomes a respected, ardently socialist, female doctor, living into the twentieth century

Haha. Sorry, edited as you were posting I think! I sent you a DM. Totally agree!

😁

i wonder how the film would come across if the Bella character was male and the Mark Ruffalo character female. Someone should do this as a remake.

Going to watch it this weekend with dh and already feeling a bit uneasy having read some of the comments etc but trying to have an open mind.

Probably should just stick to Wonka…!

Or if the writer had been female. Where they have taken a child-woman unfettered by social conditioning? Into masturbation, brothels and exploitation? Hell no.

Well I guess seeing a child like woman be fucked by various men then a little bit of girl on girl action is far more entertaining than seeing a woman being respected for having strong political ideas and becoming a doctor though the film eluded to some sort of growth it didn’t you shall be glad to hear waste too much time on this part of the story

Bella becomes a respected, ardently socialist, female doctor, living into the twentieth century

Ah yes the happy hooker male fantasy that brothels and male exploitation don’t break women and give them syphilis, but pave the way to respectable careers..

Oh yes I forgot the masturbating I was thinking to hard at what actually happened in the last five minutes of the film

Of course not. You wouldn’t want a middle-aged man’s fantasy about nymphomania deflated by socialism or medical terms.

Or the chance to win an Oscar for really pushing yourself past your usual limitations in the name of art

My favourite critique from the Guardian:

Bidisha Mamata, broadcaster and presenter

Bloated wank fantasy or simple-hearted bildungsroman? Poor Things is both. The plot is this: Frankenstein creates a manic pixie baby dream girl who’s also a socialist PhD hooker who’s also a thoroughly modern Millie and striking fashion plate who makes no emotional demands and is also a really intelligent nymphomaniac without a jealous bone in her body. With her fresh mind, literal interpretation of events and gorgeous looks, she’s just so bewitchingly bold and artlessly instinctual and unspoilt that she drives men mad with lust and love and longing. But those men just want to control her.

Bella’s “adventures” are 98% penetrative heterosexual sex and 2% conversation. I was particularly grateful for her foray into brothel life, because men who write stories can’t imagine any job for women except prostitution, and then they turn themselves inside out spaffing off about how it’s all just so philosophically interesting, and add insult to injury by putting these masturbatory, self-justifying thoughts into the mouths of fictional women. But what would I know? Just like Bella at the start of the film, I’m just a braindead fuckwit, and I don’t have Bella’s unique combination of intense carnality and virginal beauty to make up for it.

Not that it doesn’t look great, like Willy Wonka directing a Campari ad. Know what we also see a lot of? Stone’s nipples, pubic hair, supine body and unaware, sleeping face. Lanthimos has depressing form in this regard – remember the long, leering, breasty shot of a teenage girl swimming backstroke in The Lobster, and the full-body underwear shot of a teenage girl displaying herself to the boy she wants to impress in The Killing of a Sacred Deer. His camera just eats up all that nubile female flesh.

Poor Things also had a screenplay by McNamara, photography by Robbie Ryan, is based on the novel by Gray, and is executive produced by Daniel Battsek and Ollie Madden. So let me say to all these guys: thank you for explaining.