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?!

I’m not angry. I’m just amazed at how awful people can be.

I’m done wasting my time here.

It’s really very clear which posters are here just to be outright mean

Not so much mean as - not here to discuss the problems with the film as per the thread title - rather to indulge nethuns type tagging with whooping and emoticons in order to disrupt debate.

Yup.

A poster agreeing with someone who you don't agree with by using an emoji or a hand clap is not 'disrupting debate'

There's nothing wrong with it.

Relax.

Endless emoticons and petty echoing of comments pages back is not contributing to debate.

I didn't say I was 'contributing'

Also, please don't police me.

Cheers.

I wouldn’t say you were either.

Not policing, merely commenting.

I’m off to watch a film.

Oh good luck!

I agree with @LovelyTheresa 's take on this. I think it's a device to create a "state of nature" type person who has no pre-existing concepts or social expectations but is able to reason about and taken in new experiences as an adult would. The point is to get us to reflect on what social and moral norms we'd accept if we didn't already have a lifetime of being socialised into them.

Thank you, you described it much better than I managed to!

Yes, exactly this!

You gave it your best shot but there is no ‘discussion’ just tedious put downs.

look at review on Muddy Stilettos, things to do, films to watch. I would suggest anyone who has not seen the film read this first before giving opinions.

I have read most of this thread, and there hasn’t been much discussion about the differences between the book and the film. There are huge divergences in terms of theme, plot and characterisation - for the worse imo. In some ways it seems to miss the point entirely.

• The ending’s erasure of the book’s unreliable narrator trope and its multiplicity of perspectives. The book ends with a letter from Bella in which she contests parts of the preceding narrative. Lanthimos's position aligns with McCandless's since he only showed us his twisted and fantasmagorical interpretation of Bella's "origin story", character and journey. Which, we come to realize, is only one side of the story. But since we never got this moment of realization on screen we can only take this as the only version available and we never suspect the credibility of what we just saw.

• Again: in the movie Bella was just a beautiful grown-up woman with the brain of an infant and the credibility of that fact was never questioned. We never get to make fun of the way men sometimes projects their own sexual fantasies onto women, and even bend reality to accommodate their desires/delusions - which is satirised to great effect in the book. Instead in the movie Bella starts the story as a nymphomaniac baby with almost 0 agency and this is just something we have to accept at face value. we never get to question reality, which is the absolute opposite of what’s implied in the book. Bravo Lanthimos!

• Scotland was completely removed from the whole project. Gray was a proud Scot, and his works showed that. He thought it was important to promote Scottish artists and contributions to the world. Much of his perspective comes from a working class Scottish upbringing. The Scottish political landscape that shaped the novel, the themes of classism and socialism, were all but completely lost.

• In the book - and in Gray’s writing - he presupposes that we are inherently good but that society/socialization/abuse makes us treat each other poorly. Hence the title of the book. Instead Yorgos Lanthimos instilled his dark worldview rather than using Gray's, where human beings are instead inherently violent, cruel, and horny.

There are so many other simplifications - eg in the book Bella is Godwin's assistant in surgeries, and this work precedes her decision to become a doctor. In the movie, she out of nowhere is like "I want to be a doctor!" but there is no background to explain why her character is saying this. She had shown no prior interest or skill in being a doctor or healthcare. Otherwise characters are also reduced to husks of their literary selves. A disappointment.

I'm not interested in seeing the film, but I will now read the book...thank you.

• Scotland was completely removed from the whole project. Gray was a proud Scot, and his works showed that. He thought it was important to promote Scottish artists and contributions to the world. Much of his perspective comes from a working class Scottish upbringing. The Scottish political landscape that shaped the novel, the themes of classism and socialism, were all but completely lost.

Yes, the filmmakers spoke in length about this. They said they decided they can't do this particular theme justice and they wouldn't attempt it.

I think it's fair they took and did the bits they were inspired by and added their own interpretation and creativity. They could have taken the idea and rewritten it, made it almost unrecognisable, without giving credits to the author but they gave credits and paid for the rights.
But at the end of the day, they are two different projects, each in their own right.

I read the first few pages of this thread and was horrified.

And watched the film and really enjoyed it.

😑

It made me very uncomfortable, in the way that Taxi Driver does, but I can't deny that's a fantastic film.

The who thing is pretty sick but I don't know. I just found it sad and beautiful. Weirdly as I was absolutely ready to HATE it.

I was too!

Not after reading this thread but after other stuff I'd read online.

Went to see it a couple of months ago and really liked it. Powerful film.

Does Ruffalo know she's got the brain of a child though? I mean he clearly knows she's not of sound mind, so he's still vile in his behaviour but did the contract mention the baby brain thing?

I didn’t like it, to be fair I hated the book too, I just thought I’d watch it to see what the Academy Award fuss was about.

We gave up after half an hour. It was utter rubbish.

I loved it because Emma Stone was just so brilliant, but there was far too much sex and the whole father and sons thing was disgusting and completely unnecessary. There are a million more interesting directions Bella's character could have gone in than prostitution. I'm ninth in line to read the book from the library online so I'll be interested to see how it differs.

Uuurgh Taxi Driver is a film that really makes me sick. Jodie Foster as the happy 12 year old child prostitute. Grim.

It is grim. Extremely.

But it's regarded as brilliant despite.

By men mainly. It wouldn’t get made now.