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?!

Isn’t the point is that Emma is playing a woman with the brain of a child at the start?

The point of what?

Yes, at the start! NOT when she is having all the sex. I keep seeing the 'sex with a child in a woman's body' line trotted out but it isn't accurate.

The ‘her brain is an adult when she’s having sex’ line is interesting, because while that might be true, the premise of the movie hinges on the idea that she is developmentally delayed. So I think the idea of consent here is still very much part of what the movie is asking the audience to grapple with.

Otherwise, where is the originality? It would just be ‘baby brain in adult body at start but for the rest she’s totally the same as everyone else’. Which makes the whole thing redundant. Can’t be both ways.

So I think it’s a bit tenacious to say that it isn’t problematic on those grounds above. She’s vulnerable. Isn’t that the point? Which also
makes it intriguingly convenient that one can say her brain is adult in a legal sense without considering the other vulnerabilities going on. As if that singular point makes many of the audience feel comfortable. Would it matter if she DID have a baby’s brain if the actress playing the character is an adult?

The idea isn't so much that she is 'delayed' as that she is unbiased because she has not had the usual stages of life. She isn't mentally deficient, just doesn't have the social conditioning that everyone else has. Now, you could argue that makes her vulnerable, but it isn't quite the vulnerability of someone who has a learning difficulty. I don't understand the point about the actress vs the character, of course the whole story suspends disbelief. I think it funny that you say that, though: I think that a lot of the distaste for this film comes from the perception that Emma Stone looks 'childlike'. I would put money on people being less perturbed if say Margot Robbie or Jennifer Lawrence had played Bella.

I don’t have an issue with the actress’s body type and haven’t suggested as such.

I also don’t suggest she’s mentally deficient. But you don’t become an adult without aging, mentally, and learning is part of that. So I think what I’m trying to do is work out why people think her brain suddenly isn’t a child’s brain but for all intent and purposes she’s had no growing up and therefore it is.

I suspect a lot has to do with the perceived levels of comfort of what the audience is willing to accept. The words ‘child’s brain’ nope, but ‘adult brain but she’s still learning about her world’ yep. Even though practically speaking, there is absolutely no difference.

I’d be perturbed whichever poor actress had her sex scenes plastered over porn sites to be wanked over for the rest of their career tbh.

I mean, the whole thing is a fantasy. It isn't really possible to have a child's brain in an adult's body. Even when people say of developmentally delayed people that they have a 'mental age of six (or whatever age)' that is just convenient way of saying that they have a very low IQ. Bella does not have a low IQ, for the purposes of the story her brain is indeed an adults brain without societal influence, rather than a child's brain.

That is the choice they make, they clearly don't see themselves as 'poor'. Plus male stars have sex scenes as well.

That’s ridiculous. Simply because without influence you don’t become an adult. That’s not how aging works. Physically yes. But her physical body is already there. This is about her mental state. Which has, at least, large environmental influence. Why bother putting the baby brain in if there is no growing process at all? The more I dig into this, the less convinced I am by the point of it, but conversely, the more interested I am in the house of cards people are constructing around the premise.

You really think there will be a huge demand for that on porn sites? So naive. I honestly think some women on Mumsnet live in another world.

I mean the film is complete fantasy, it’s a surrealist film. Are the people who are getting so upset about it realising this?

Its rare male stars are objectified. It happens, but it’s very low in comparison.

Actually, there is a bizarre niche for this.

In a word, no. That becomes clearer and clearer the more they post.

The point of surrealism is to make people think around issues that are real. Or don’t you understand that?

I know! It is a film, it is not porn. It does not depict real sex and everyone knows it.

This is a thread that keeps giving...

I thought the 'My husband...' posts were the highlight but maybe not!

@WouldRatherBeAPieceOftToast So true 😂

Surrealism is to help you find magic and beauty in the strange and unusual and to release the minds imagination. Seems that some people have trouble suspending their disbelief.

Your wilful ignorance isn’t cute. You deliberately took her words out of context and then mocked her for them.

It’s really very clear which posters are here just to be outright mean to others and which are trying to engage in the topic, regardless of which side of the debate.

😂😂😂😂

And again, thanks 😂

Or the ones who are just putting laughing emojis for absolutely no reason. 😉

They really are the gift that keeps on giving, aren't they? They don't understand a goddamn thing and are just so angry that we aren't all caught up in a moral panic.