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?!

She winds the men up because she can't be manipulated or gas lighted to do things that she doesn't want to do.

Right. So films should never broach any subjects ever again that might show how awful human beings can be to each other?

Where did anyone say that?

It sort of is celebrating it in a way - casting a famous actress with lavish sets and costumes. Here we are showcasing exploitation.

films will always be made with famous actors. Sets and costumes will always be explored and played with. Stories can be true to life or can be artistic depictions. Art can entertain and/or hold mirrors up to problems in society (or lots of other things).

Like I said, I didn’t love the film. But I think it has gone over a lot of peoples heads.

Yes but boy is pointed out that the men like that, they desire that from a woman that’s what they are paying for.

But I think it has gone over a lot of peoples heads.

Over or under?

it isn’t exactly groundbreaking with its thematic exploration; it is a film to titillate, pure and simple.

I agree it’s not groundbreaking. I didn’t learn anything new which is why I think I didn’t love it.
But I wholeheartedly disagree that it’s about titillation.

Not true that films are always made with famous actors with lavish sets and costumes. Making a film about the exploitation of a vulnerable person might the time to eschew all that to avoid glamorising the subject. Except of course this is fantasy so though so that makes it alright. And that’s the point. Fantasy. Fantasy sex. Fantasy prostitution. Fantasy exploitation. Male fantasy.

I didn’t say that all films are. I said films will always be made that encompass those things.
I can see your mind is made up on this and you aren’t willing to understand my points, so I will wish you a nice evening :)

I don't think that this is true. As I said upthread, I think that the point of the film is how we'd perceive social practices and norms without any prior socialisation. As women who have grown up against the backdrop of male sexual oppression then to us it's obvious that sex with a random man who is paying for it will be bad. Bella doesn't know because she lacks experience, not because she has a disability. The point really is that there is nothing obviously bad about sex with strangers, stripped of the social power dynamics of male oppression and of buying sex. But of course those things are real, and make sex like that bad.

Bella doesn't realise that prostitution is bad because she doesn't realise that men use and objectify women. She has only experienced sex with someone who wants to please her (despite his many other flaws) so she doesn't actually know that it can be bad.

No-one has said that she has a disability. But that the brain implant puts her in a situation that is akin to being a child in adults body or vulnerable adult with no life experience.

I understand you haven’t really understood the points being made and that’s fine. I am not pursuing this further.

You said she had a disability. I don’t think you really understand the film.

@Mirabai the film is explained by the people who made it. You can not like it but you can't say that the explanation is incorrect.

No I didn’t, read it again.

If it's about titillation pure and simple it's going for quite a niche audience who get off on seeing a disfigured man hooked up to some weird digestion device and belching, on men being humiliated and on mutilated animals, but if that falls within your definition of titillation, then you do you.

I gave up. Then I was told it’s feminist and went back to it. It is! But it’s also an indictment on the patriarchy and that’s a hard watch, however you package it.

It’s actually light touch on what could have happened with the brothel scenes and disease and violence. Ruffalo is disempowered by Baxter. More disturbing is the original husband and the suicide plot. You have to really like Stone as an actress to enjoy this film. She’s in most scenes, acting her socks off in a variety of extreme situations. Glad I watched it and thought Oppenheimer’s portrayal of women was way worse. Now that’s a dull film.

@Doyoumind 👏👏

You evidently don’t understand the meaning of the word. Unsure why you are so defensive about it; "The lady doth protest too much, methinks".

Why is the poster being defensive?

Titillation
The arousal of interest or excitement, especially through sexually suggestive images or words.

We all know what it means.

The ‘mutulated’ animals bit made me laugh. Does that make me a bad person? 😂

No 😂

According to IMDB, Emma Stone named two of the animals Goose Willis and Meryl Cheep

You said this: But this is where the vulnerable/learning disability problem kicks in. Either she’s an adult who would work that out in 1 second flat or her lack of experience due to her brain situation effectively makes her special needs. (I wouldn't phrase it in these terms, but I want to avoid the "no one said that" objection.)

In response to your second alternative ("her lack of experience due to her brain situation effectively makes her special needs") I said that no, her brain situation does not effectively make her special needs, because she processes new situations like an adult with a fully functioning brain would.

In response to your first alternative ("she’s an adult who would work that out in 1 second flat") that no, she wouldn't work it out in one second flat. Someone who had never experienced objectification and had only experienced a sexual partner who wanted to please them would not naturally deduce that sex for work would be bad.

She is not a vulnerable adult with no life experience. She's a vulnerable adult with a very specific and curated life experience, namely, the ones that her various captors have given her.

I watched it the other day expecting to hate it, but actually I thought it was really good.

Couple of points, not for any sort of rebuttal:

• The doctor points out many times that her brain matures much faster than her gross motor skills. So when she's finding out about sex, she's supposedly 16 or so in the brain
• Neither we nor she know she was in an abusive marriage until the last ten minutes or so, so I'm not sure that's hugely relevant