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?!

People who aren't too good at stringing a sentence together and don't really understand what paedophilia is - apparently yes.

I haven't seen Poor Things for no reason other than I don't like watching sex scenes, but Emma Stone is very much an adult woman.

Ok, fair enough - but the guy who has sex with her is supposed to be the main villain! He is meant to be seen as someone who takes advantage of this mentally disturbed woman. He doesn't ever stop to ask why she is the way that she is, he just wants her. She quickly outgrows him, and by the time the real sex scenes come along is already mentally older. It's never part of the story that he wants her specifcally because she's late teens.

The film isn't condoning or glorifying peadophelia. The man who arguably has sex with her when she's 17 traps her on a boat, takes all her money, and eventually tries to ruin her life by handing her over to her murderous husband. He is a real bad guy.

I absolutely hated it. Vile misogynist film, seeking to erode boundaries of age, learning disability etc. If there were a single definition of the pernicious male gaze, this would be it.

Well she is groomed and exploited. That's kind of the point. It is uncomfortable. But by the end she's gained greater control of her circumstances, as PP said.

Did you all also hate Killers of the Flower Moon, because it's just "so fucked up" that a racist man would poison his wife and kill her whole family?

And to anticipate the reply of "But that really happened"........ Poor Things is a surrealist film, but the point is that the things that happen to Bella really happen to women, too. Women get exploited and trapped and have their consciousness, concepts and experiences limited by the men's world they inhabit.

Her becoming a prostitute happens in the immediate aftermath of/is necessitated by her giving away all their money. Not exactly the actions of someone with an intelligent, mature adult level of thought

The film isn't condoning or glorifying peadophelia
I don’t think they should be allowed to make films about paedophilia. Normal people don’t want to watch sick stuff about child abuse (even if it’s a woman acting as a child). It’s just giving wank fodder to sickos who get off on watching stuff like that.

I wish people would do some basic research on a film before they watch it ( even as basic as it's derived from a book ) then they could make a more informed judgement about 'is this something I would like' rather than 'oh it's got Emma stone in it', it must be like La La Land'. That would then prevent these tedious 'I'm outraged' threads.

Yes, I thought it was ultimately a sad commentary on men. Maybe that was a rather obscure layer of interpretation though. I have an idea that lots of people will go to see it for One Reason Only.

It's weird but it's also entertaining funny and arty in spades

One of my favourite films!! 😍

I’m don’t watch any of these movies or TV programmes. The violence, horror, sexual abuse, drugs. I don’t find any of it entertaining at all. Soap operas as well. Just grim. Books are going the same way with all of the “fun” murder stuff…

I had a rant about this yesterday. My mum brought up the Mary Wollenstonecraft statue in London and it just set me off! It would be nice to celebrate feminism without relating it to naked women.

As a film I thought it was a bit tedious to be honest, and most of the story relied alot on ES being naked and faking orgasms and saying "outrageous" things under the guidance of high art. Her speech cadence was very annoying and I don't think this was a good performance and I like her movies most of the time.

I did get annoyed when people kept saying it was "feminist" i.e she is empowered by conquering the sexual service role that women are expected to fill to finally earn her right to chose. She goes from naive ingenue to sex puppet to prostitute and then she is empowered? The problem with the film/story is that it doesn't point out the way she has been treated has been wrong, all the men are given a pass.

I loved the costumes and the soundtrack was amazing, and I even enjoyed Mark Ruffulo character, but honestly its not a film I would bother to watch again. However, I am prepared to be bored by men telling me how more feminist it is than Barbie.

Male fantasy, body of a woman, maleable and vulnerable with few boundaries like a child.

Oddly enough I did look it up as it wasnt something I had heard of, and as I enjoyed The Favourite I thought it would be good. I still stand by my comment.

I've personally never heard of this film... but based purely on your synopsis, why tf are some people here calling it 'art'?? That's utterly disgusting! A baby's brain and she's being taught about having sex and becomes a prostitute?? Wtf? Please someone tell me I'm missing something here? Because wtaf?

I'm a massive fan of the whole "Frankenstein" genre so I watched it yesterday & while it was okay it's not one I'd watch again, it was massively overlong & despite the "shock" of a few scenes I could feel my attention drifting

I liked the ending "Ladies gin?" but it was an effort (For both Bella AND I!) to get there

Costumes & set design were right up my street though

You could RTFT and get some other perspectives on what you're missing. It might not be for you but that doesn't mean it's worthless.

But she (or even he or they) might have opinions about why they found it brilliant.

I loved it. I agree with some of the other PPs on here who have pointed out that basically it is imagining a situation in which a sexually mature woman materialises with none of the patriarchal conditioning the rest of us have been broken down by over decades.

All she's known in her short life is affection and affirmation. She has an unshakeable sense of self. She doesn't realise she is meant to be, for example, grateful for men's attention; she hasn't been taught to minimise her own desires or to limit herself intellectually or to be ashamed of anything she might want or think or do. She goes into the world with a reasonable expectation of how she might be treated as a human, and when that doesn't transpire she doesn't quietly accept and internalise it, but either tries to make the situation right or removes herself from it without guilt. These are all things many adult women struggle with. When she does them, people find it baffling and rude.

The other stuff is intentionally lurid and surreal, and it might not be to everyone's taste. It's supposed to be uncomfortable. It's clearly fantastical. It concerns me how many people think it is advocating stuff like putting baby's brains inside women's heads when it is very very obviously not intended as a gritty slice-of-life movie.

“wouldn't patriarchy seem fucked if we really saw it fresh out the oven, with little to no social acclimitisation?".

it seems pretty fucked up to me as an older woman even after a lifetime of social acclimatisation. I have no desire to see a woman’s world as seen through the eyes of a baby.

This thread is such a relief to me. I thought I was the only one who found the film disturbingly anti woman. While watching I was enchanted by the amazing steampunk aesthetic, but left the cinema grossed out and angered by its misogyny, more so because this male controlled work was being touted as feminist. What a fucking insult to women. Given that so few female directors get to make films. - presumably because they wouldn’t exploit or undermine the female body and mind the way that male directors do. Although Barbie is equally inane (apologies to those who loved it).

i dream of seeing great films made by intelligent artistically mature women in the rest of my lifetime.

I read the book before seeing the film. I really enjoyed the book and found it very clever, not a big fan of the film at all. It seemed like it was trying to be ‘artsy’ for the sake of it.
I also feel like the sex was made into a bigger deal in the film than it was in the book. I’m not someone who has issues with nudity and sex scenes, I believe they can be worthwhile in films/tv because they’re a huge part of life but it all felt very forced in this.

I also hated that they changed the setting.

I meant to add, the acting was the only thing that made me feel like I hadn’t completely wasted a few hours of my life.

I enjoyed the setting and weirdness of it. I liked that it was different. Not a film you'll forget in a hurry. More than anything it was a bit long and tedious. Could have done with being half an hour shorter. The point (whatever you decide it is) has been well and truly made by the end.

@bottomsup12 I love your response!!! 🤣 I thought the same on my literature degree.