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?!

A lot of people here confusing a "device" with a story itself. The baby brain transplant is a way to get character to act and think they way she does, not the story itself.

Also, if the creator portrays stuff like exploitation, violence, questionable behaviour, etc - it does not mean he agrees with it or glorifies it. Its a way to get a message across, to get viewers to think and to ask questions. Shame though that the only question some people can ask is "is this a paedo movie or what"

I don't think I agree that consensual sex scenes in film are the same, materially or philosophically, as pornography.

I was prepared to hate it but I really enjoyed it. Same with my daughter, who is a rad fem - she said she found it surreal and nightmareish and she had a LOT to say about it, but she still watched the whole thing!

The problem was, though, that it was hard to work out how she was ageing. Emma Stone didn't age herself, although apparently her brain was ageing quickly, so by that token she should have been about 90 by the end of the film. Having said that, she was still toddling when she was starting to be sexually active, which I found a bit icky. I get that it was a plot device but it was a bit inconsistent!

Art Film shows every graphic detail of the young, attractive female character’s exploitation while making the ground breaking point that girls are exploited by men. Women who say “ ew no thanks” are too pedestrian to understand Art Film nuances and themes and should go back to reading Take- a-Break.
Isn’t that basically the trap women have walked into since wanky male “ Art” began? 🙄

We don’t need to see yet more graphic nudity and depictions of sex to understand that point. Which is my main issue with it. Particularly when that depiction in itself is reinforcing the very thing that it is meant to be critiquing. It just compounds the issue.

I think it’s also a stretch to say she won the Oscar for the reason you stated when it’s been clear for goodness knows how long that there is significant bias, both personal and political, in who gets Oscars each year.

I understand some people may find it interesting snd thought provoking. But I believe on balance it does more harm than good. It’s not fresh or new, objectively, in the ideas it is presenting. It’s simply adding to the canon of third-wave ‘empowerment’ feminism that is already significant.

On a broader scale, I think Hollywood is very tired and hasn’t produced anything original or ground breaking in quite a long time. But I also don’t expect them to - they are the cookie cutter of the film world. It’s the film equivalent of pop music.

Beautifully articulated. Which is another reason I liken it to porn - you’re a pearl-clutching Mary Whitehouse who doesn’t like sex if you don’t play along with male fantasy.

I really liked it, Emma Stone was perfect as Bella.

I’m enjoying reading your posts @VampireWeekday .

how about you actually read the book and then decide whether portrayal equals endorsement

I have to ask, what is bobbins?

Well, there is an issue that it does, perhaps inadvertently, reinforce the ideas of patriarchy/the male gaze that it's trying to satirise. Unless and until Hollywood is run by women, though, this is unlikely to change. Films are about making money and not about artistic purity, unfortunately.

I don't think the nudity was especially gratuitous. I don't think the film really fitted into the mould of third wave 'empowerment' feminism either. It could be read that way, but I don't think that was the intent of either the book or film. If I thought the film was trying to be feminist, I would have been grinding my teeth, but without that filter, I enjoyed it.

The interpretation of Art is subjective so how can you categorically assert that posters who have seen the film but don't agree with you are 'incorrect'?

I haven't watched it yet (not sure if I will) but there's a good discussion and interview with Emma Stone and the director on radio 4s Front Row from 16th January which is worth a listen.

Because the paedophelia criticism is (mostly) premised on "she has sex as a child" which does not happen in the film. Art isn't so subjective that you can invent your own scenes and then criticise the film for them.

Back in the 80s when I was a young adult I watched ‘art house’ type movies because I thought it made me cultured and cerebral 😁 I didn’t understand or like most of them and decided to just be me and stick to the rom coms and comedies 😁

In the end I came to the conclusion that the edginess was disingenuous.

eg - masturbation yes, menstruation no.

Bella Baxter as an extremely beautiful woman - but of course, imagine her on the story as a dumpy wee thing with buck teeth.

All sorts of sex, but no rape.
No contraception, but no pregnancy (perhaps God put paid to that though). No abortions, no chlamydia.

Her education is very superficially acquired, no depiction of real hard graft (unlike McCandless).

Lust, but no desire - I found it all very unerotic.

The fact that she was literally her husband’s child, and actually she inherited a lot of his heartlessness and some of his cruelty (see the ending). Who did she love, who did she care for? No one, except God. Everyone loves their parents but they should grow up to love other people.

I didn’t like the casual age- looks- and class-based misogyny of the housekeeper looking after her and wiping up her pee (cf the treatment of Martha).

I found it very interesting but on balance I decided it was titillating and misogynistic entertainment dressed up as intellectual art, and with great fashion.

I didn’t say it endorsed or condoned adult sexual contact with a child I said it portrayed it. To reiterate I don’t need to read or see it to know that it’s wrong, it’s not going to ‘enlighten’ me but some men will find it titillating.

Made by men, for men. The classic.

The whole thing makes me feel a bit sick on the stomach tbh. I just stay away from it.

Nobody has invented scenes. On that premise, you are suggesting there is only one way to interpret the film - literally. Given the fact that it isn't just a plot driven film, isn't that a bit of a limited interpretation?

Absolutely!

I think a comparison with Barbie is interesting, they have similar themes, both are a female coming of age story. But one is based on a book by a man and directed and produced by men and the other is based on a toy developed by a woman and produced and directed by women. One won lots of prizes, the other made lots of money. I watched both and enjoyed both but I think Barbie is a more effective feminist film and less exploitative of its stars.

I suppose the question is whether the film would still have been made if there had been no sexual element. I can think of a million interesting ways to make a film about an adult with the brain of a child, but most would fall by the wayside as it's the sexual element that seems to sell what we think of as art house type movies - to the producers at least. It's a shame, because the opening sequence sounds really promising in terms of where it could lead.

Personally I have no interest in watching sexual activity on screen, and it gives me the ick in many cases, so if that makes up a high proportion of the storyline then I won't watch it. From the descriptions I've read, it does sound misogynistic, although it's far from alone in that. As regards the book, I haven't read it, but I think it's possible to get away with more in a book, as it's all in the reader's mind, plus the writer can add more nuance to the messaging.

I admit I hadn't heard of this film till reading your thread but based on your summary of the plot I think anyone who calls this "art" needs their harddrive checked

The costumes and sets were amazing.

But I found it really awkwardly self aware / self congratulatory somehow.

To me it tried so hard to be outrageous and uninhibited that I couldn't dive into it and instead felt how contrived it was. If that even makes sense?!

I couldn't lose myself in it because it felt very forced.

I really like Emma Stone and think she did well with the material but was really surprised she got the Oscar rather than Lily Gladstone. I think Emma was too, tbf.