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?!

Because we haven’t had this message over and over again or anything? Nothing in the least bit original for women living this crap. Just more titillation for the men who want to keep women objectified and oppressed.

Haven't seen it.

Did she enjoy being a prostitute? If so what is it trying to say about women's sexuality? That if only they'd drop this feminism thing (the ''fresh'' outlook of a brand new brain) they'd actually enjoy prostitution and see it as liberating ??!

I mean that's what i'm getting.

Yes, because that’s exactly the message Nabokov was trying to get across

I loathed it. It may not have been the intention but some men watching it will draw the conclusion that women are inherently promiscuous

I enjoyed it for the visual effects and the acting and it was funny - but yeah it was fucked up, the idea of a horny baby woman is just bleeurrrgh. She was still toddling when she was having enthusiastic sex with Mark Ruffalo's character. It is, as always, a male fantasy rather than anything approaching feminism. Men always arrive at the unoriginal conclusion think that, freed from the weight of social convention, women would just be nymphomaniacs. Of course. And they love the trope of the happy hooker. Again, of course.

Why didn't Bella have periods or have to worry about pregnancy, violence or STDs, either?

It's meant to be disturbing. Art is often controversial and designed to evoke a visceral reaction. Lot's of people just consume sanitised Hollywood films so it feels more jarring when you see disturbing themes via this medium.

If anyone had bothered to watch Dogtooth they would have known what they were getting themselves into.

So is taking a shit but how often do we see graphic depictions of that on screen?

Exactly this - well, not so much dropping feminism as being freed from the constraints of social expectation to behave modestly. Alhough the film didn't have anything inconvenient in there like pregnancy, periods, violence, STDs or addictions which might make being a prostitute a bit less fun.

Are you aware that you’re attacking the personalities of other people by suggesting that if you dislike the concept or the movie you must be used to ‘low brow’? Can’t you conceive that perhaps very intelligent, cultured women may disagree with you?

Yupppp. If we are free from judgement we can have sec like rabbits and enjoy it.

If they actually included that stuff it might be more interesting and make more sense

Precisely. And instead of being ‘unique’ this is precisely on point for the current liberal take that women are meant to be nothing more than objects but empowered whilst being so and therefore it’s totally okay. 🙄

🙄

There is an interesting video essay on this concept as it is actually pretty common. The video covers more broadly depictions of women in film, but the relevant part of the video is about the "born yesterday" women.

Some men do seem to LOVE the idea of a woman who has no concept of the world and are completely naive and usually reliant on the male lead, but it's okay because she's a hot adult woman...

Anyone with an ounce of sense doesn’t have to see it portrayed to know it!

Its most definitely NOT the whole premise of a film, its just one fairly secondary detail.

Bella is, when it boils down to it, the ultimate Pixie Dream Girl.

Yes, I thought the same. Of course it is not explicit in its message on sexual fluidity, it is 'Art' after all. Its main theme is sex between anyone, the zeitgeist of the 2020s, I don't see it as anything more than that.

To be fair, sex scenes can expand on character relationships and dynamics and if done right can make the audience more invested in a relationship and make the characters more three dimensional.

There's nothing wrong with portraying intimacy on screen but it's a big fat lie to say it's never done gratuitously. taking a shit doesn't usually have the same story deepening effects

Watch it and see for yourself, why are you asking other people?

Which was itself a parody of sci-fi B movie tropes just like that.

I would argue you can attach any ‘arty’ metaphor to anything if you try hard enough. Which is the argument many posters are using to defend the explicitness.

I think that as a society we should be more concerned with movies being produced like this when we have a very clear porn problem. Dressing it up in fancy costumes and pretending there is an intellectual bent to it doesn’t make it less problematic, it simply makes those who want to see it feel self-righteous.

I'll stop replying after this because this has been explained so many times now. In summary: Bella is an adult. Ruffalo is the villain. What he does to her is not sexual awakening, it's supposed to be exploitative. Like all women, Bella learns who she is and what she wants against the backdrop of exploitation.

Final question because I really think we must have seen different films. The people saying that the point is women want to be promiscuous prostitutes - how do you explain the ending? The ending where she gets married and explicitly says that she doesn't want that life? The ending where she gets fulfilment from motherhood and a rewarding and intellectually stimulating career?

I don't understand how the film could be taken as supporting prostitution. There's an entire scene where Bella says something like "this doesn't make sense, we don't want to have sex with these men" and she's told explicitly that the point of her job is for the benefit of men and nothing else. The woman who runs the brothel exploits her, as do the men who pay for her. The film makes clear that Bella isn't "damaged goods" or morally inferior because of her prostitution, but it definitely doesn't paint the prostitution as liberating.

I think it's a decent criticism that perhaps men are ill equipped to direct a film like this (and perhaps we should have waited for a Native American to direct Killers of the Flower Moon). It's also a decent criticism that perhaps the message isn't that original and perhaps many women don't need to be told it. Fine. But to say that the film actively glorifies child molestation or paedophilia or the idea that women just want to be promiscuous is just incorrect.

You don't have to like it, but other people get to. I loved it.

And it's always hilarious seeing people getting uppity about something they haven't even seen.

If you haven't seen a film, you don't have a valid opinion on it.

I don't know about that. Poor Things isn't really targeted at your average PornHub user. Yes, it definitely comes from a male gaze perspective, but at least it does make the viewer question patriarchy/women's role in society. I do think the inclusion of the sex aspect is questionable, but the film doesn't position Bella as just a fuckbot - the point of the film is that she absolutely does not see herself in the way men or even other women see her. She's a three-dimensional character and that's why Emma Stone won the Oscar for her. The problem is that male writers/directors are very limited in their view on what women can do and can't resist the male gaze element - ironically, as that's literally what the film is trying to challenge. It can't quite succeed in that though.

It ain't feminism for sure. It's interesting and provocative though.