Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To think that Poor Things is actually a seriously fucked up film?

749 replies

AngeloMysterioso · 13/03/2024 21:29

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?!

OP posts:
Alwaysdieting · 14/03/2024 10:53

I thought it was very picturesque and the costumes were nice. I love Mark Ruffolo but was surprised at him in the film. Like his English accent, though others have said its not good. Too much sex for me but I loved the music and the dance scene. Yes it was bonkers. Preferred Emma Stone as Cruella.

queenofarles · 14/03/2024 10:57

It’s visually striking , a cross between steampunk and Wes Anderson style in a Victorian setting , the music is also kind of juvenile and light , I read it’s supposed to mimic how children( Bella) see the world .
remove all the prettiness and lightness and it’s rather disturbing , which supports the point most are trying to say really , you can pass any creepy and insane work if you dress it up nicely .

OooErMissuss · 14/03/2024 10:59

I will never watch this film. The plot description is enough to put me off. It sounds repellent and cyncially designed (like those gratuitous scenes in Saltburn) specifically to attract attention by being repellent and shocking.

A plot about someone who is mentally a child being introduced to sex makes me feel sick and I'm pretty disgusted that the performance of that kind of plot got an Oscar as a point of principle no matter how good it was.

becreca · 14/03/2024 10:59

utterly utterly weird, switched it off after the marriage proposal and just thinking about it still gives me the ice. UANBU

MightyGoldBear · 14/03/2024 11:01

LittleGlowingOblong · 14/03/2024 10:19

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.

This is very well put. I haven't seen it yet so I won't add my fully formed opinion. But the elements it seems they are missing out like periods, threat of pregnancy, stds etc just seems its utterly under the male gaze of what's sexy or palletteable to men. If her brain was still toddler age yet her body would of been having periods/defecating. As most toddlers investigate does it have scenes of this or is it only sexually "appealing"scenes allowed to be graphic and shocking? I'm also not hearing much about it in wider society about its deeper meanings. Purely just oh look at the sex scenes and nudity.

Viviennemary · 14/03/2024 11:01

Sounds a bit sick. That sort of nonsense doesn't appeal to me at all.

Alwaysdieting · 14/03/2024 11:02

I know some think she was used by the men but she did actually like sex and even her horrible husband said she liked it too much.

localnotail · 14/03/2024 11:04

horseyhorsey17 · 14/03/2024 09:56

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!

I agree that its a bit weird and inconsistent, and I agree that there is too much sex in this film. I'm actually not a fan of this director, he's just not my cup of tea. But I would disagree with simplistic view of his work, its definitely fresh, original and interesting.

middleofthenightmediumsizedtoblerone · 14/03/2024 11:05

I've haven't heard/seen Peado this much since leaving school.

Meaning I didn't realise people over the age of 13 said it.

Scorchio84 · 14/03/2024 11:07

I think the fact there were no furthere pregnancies & because God preformed a caesarian while she was "dead" would suggest, to me anyway, that he most likely performed a hysterectomy too, in for a penny & all that 🙄

She was asked by Max after she got back from Paris & confirmed she had been a prostitute if she had or would be willing to get tested for STI's so that's how I think they could explain those two anomolies away

neverbeenskiing · 14/03/2024 11:08

Leah5678 · 14/03/2024 10:40

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

You're seriously implying that anyone who describes this film, that you haven't even seen, as "art" is a potential sex offender? Just because you've read that someone on mumsnet found the film distasteful?

What a mind-numbingly ignorant thing to say.

localnotail · 14/03/2024 11:08

I actually find some of the reviews hilarious. Its like and old Russian joke (I'm paraphrasing here, can't remember the exact wording): "I really don't like Pavarotti's aria, he's rubbish - What, you've heard him sing? - No, but my neighbour sang it for me, and it was really crap!"

Leah5678 · 14/03/2024 11:10

neverbeenskiing · 14/03/2024 11:08

You're seriously implying that anyone who describes this film, that you haven't even seen, as "art" is a potential sex offender? Just because you've read that someone on mumsnet found the film distasteful?

What a mind-numbingly ignorant thing to say.

Yes that's right

Newsenmum · 14/03/2024 11:10

Alwaysdieting · 14/03/2024 11:02

I know some think she was used by the men but she did actually like sex and even her horrible husband said she liked it too much.

Of course she did! Again, male gaze.

Sparklesocks · 14/03/2024 11:14

Isn’t that the point? I saw it as about misogyny and how men treat/want to mould women, and women’s sexuality versus the discomfort/anger men feel when they can’t control it.

Magnastorm · 14/03/2024 11:15

Leah5678 · 14/03/2024 10:40

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

So you've not heard of the film, not seen the film but you immediately think that anyone who likes it is obviously some sort of safeguarding risk?

For. Fuck. Sake.

neverbeenskiing · 14/03/2024 11:18

Leah5678 · 14/03/2024 11:10

Yes that's right

Leaving aside for a moment the ridiculousness of accusing people of being paedophiles based on no evidence whatsoever, you do understand that recognising something as art (which doesn't mean you personally liked or enjoyed it) isn't the same as endorsing the subject matter, don't you? Or do you also think that if someone describes a film about the Holocaust, for example, as a work of art they must be a Nazi?

doorsteps · 14/03/2024 11:19

I mean, if you think like that, there is also the bit where her actual father wants her to pretend she is his wife; until she shoots him and gives him a goat's brain...

What makes it palatable is not thinking of her as any other child but a creation of its own kind - a beautiful monster.

I also liked it and agree with @ghostyslovesheets summary.

theremustbecake · 14/03/2024 11:20

For everyone saying you have to see the film to judge it - I would normally agree, but I'm not paying money to see misogynistic crap made for the male gaze by men, pretending to be feminist/enlightened/art whatever. Major gaslighting, I won't support it.

I'll put my money somewhere else thanks.

Magnastorm · 14/03/2024 11:20

Viviennemary · 14/03/2024 11:01

Sounds a bit sick. That sort of nonsense doesn't appeal to me at all.

Which is fine, of course.

I absolutely hate torture porn films such as saw/ hostel etc. I don't, however, assume that everyone who does like them is 2 steps away from torturing people themselves as some posters on this thread seem to think - not necessarily you.

The fact is though, if you haven't seen a particular film/ tv show/book/ whatever, you don't really get to have any sort of opinion about it's content.

lacyviolet · 14/03/2024 11:22

theremustbecake · 14/03/2024 11:20

For everyone saying you have to see the film to judge it - I would normally agree, but I'm not paying money to see misogynistic crap made for the male gaze by men, pretending to be feminist/enlightened/art whatever. Major gaslighting, I won't support it.

I'll put my money somewhere else thanks.

This.

To those saying we have to see the film... Please don't force me to watch something that I know I would find upsetting just so I can be 'allowed' to express an opinion on the subject matter.

Abitofalark · 14/03/2024 11:24

Haven't seen the film or read the book, and am unlikely to, but had a look online to get some idea what the book is about, and found mentions of English colonising of Scotland, socialism, the present state of Scottish Culture, Frankenstein. It won literary prizes including the Whitbread and a Guardian one.

This book review from 1993 by an unnamed author gives a favourable view* of it and what appears to a fairly straightforward outline of the story:
https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/alasdair-gray/poor-things/

*It mentions a previous book of his which from which he later removed a lot of the sexual content, according to an article in Wikipedia:

' "Something Leather concludes with a section entitled Critic Fuel - An Epilogue, in which Gray describes the circumstances surrounding the book's development and offers an extended ending. He comments in the Acknowledgements that the title made reviewers treat it as "a sadomasochistic Lesbian adventure story" (these events only take place in the framing Chapters 1 and 12) and that had he called it Glaswegians they might have paid more attention to the rest of the book. Indeed, when Something Leather was collected as part of Every Short Story 1951-2012 (Canongate, 2012), the collection was grouped under the title Glaswegians, and some of the stronger sadomasochistic elements were dropped.
Gray said that the novel was born out of an attempt to write a story about a woman (an idea he credits to Kathy Acker) since his previous books had been about "men who found life a task they never doubted until an unexpected collision opened their eyes and changed their habits." '

A lengthy and enthusiastic review by Jonathan Coe also goes into this:
"Here we find another contrast with Something Leather. Part of the impetus for that novel came from a suggestion made by Kathy Acker, who asked Gray if he had ever written a story with a woman as the main character. He answered: ‘No, that was impossible because I could not imagine how a woman felt when alone.’ This was a brave and candid admission. It acknowledged an inability to engage with female characters without the mediating presence of a male consciousness: for the purposes of Gray’s imagination, in other words, women are only defined, only made real, by their relationship with men. It’s for this reason that the all-female orgy scenes in Something Leather don’t come to life (except for those, perhaps, who share his particular fetishes). And this, too, is why Gray is able to enter with such gusto into the story of Godwin Baxter and his artificial woman – because it’s also the story of Alasdair Gray, the writer, and the various Rimas, Marjories, Helens, Dennys, Jills, Ludmillas, Junes and Donaldas he has fashioned out of words during his career as a novelist, sharing with Godwin the simultaneous hope and anxiety of the benevolent creator who longs to see his progeny take on an independent life even as he is loathe to forfeit his own absolute control over their destinies."
https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v14/n19/jonathan-coe/gray-s-elegy

A shorter article here by Philip Hensher, a judge on the Guardian prize panel:
"Elizabeth Young, reviewing Poor Things in the Guardian, considered it to be the "most substantial" book that he had written since Lanark. Gray, she wrote, has finally man aged to unite a number ot appar ently irreconcilable obsessions with women, fiction, politics, and Scottish history into what is a bibliophile's paradise of postmodern precision. Poor Things revives an intriguing literary torm, the medical romance. Like Doctor Jekyll and Mr Hyde, or The Island of Doctor Moreau, Gray's novel raises serious philosophical and historical issues within the engaging framework of nineteenth-century melodrama. What seems at first an amusing farrago of virtuous Scotswomen, wicked English rakes, Parisian brothels and monstrous medical experimentation, slowly shows itself to be a meditation upon sexual morality and upon notions of femininity."
-https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-guardian-the-guardian-fiction-prize/134289496/

ghostyslovesheets · 14/03/2024 11:27

I get the discomfort around her young brain/ sex but if a part of the films message is around men’s sexual exploitation of women - well let’s not pretend that starts at 18 - she is groomed essentially by him.

I understand totally why people won’t like this film - I feel the same about Pretty Women (which I feel is way more problematic) or Dirty Dancing!

Zyq · 14/03/2024 11:27

HeadNorth · 14/03/2024 08:37

It is not realism, it is gothic fantasy and is not meant to be interpreted literally. It is exploring concepts - in this case, Bella’s hasn’t been subject to normal social conditioning & the film plays with what happens to a woman plunked into society without being brought up with expectations of how she should behave.

I thought the visuals, costumes and acting were wonderful. It was a bit long and also squirmy at times (although that was deliberate).

I do despair of posters who have never seen it declaring ‘paedo film’ based on random posters opinions- it shows how pitchfork wielding mobs are formed.

I hope that last paragraph wasn't directed at me, as I didn't say "paedo film" or anything like it. The point was that the poster I was responding to was saying she was fully mature mentally at the point when she started having sex and I queried how that could be possible. It looks like you're agreeing that actually it isn't.

ghostyslovesheets · 14/03/2024 11:28

Most people aren’t emotionally mature when they start having sex though - even legally at 16!