Poor Things (film)

[TinselAngel]

Has anybody here seem Poor Things yet?

I went to see it this afternoon and sat slightly horrified in a cinema full of chortling people, about Emma Stone's character being relentlessly exploited by men but this being portrayed as not being altogether a bad thing.

My take on the film is that it re-imagines the trope of an alien visiting Earth and continually asking "But why do you do that? Why do you believe that? Why can't you say that?" It is often uncomfortable and there was so much graphic sex that it felt exploitative of Bella - she is essentially a child in a woman's body trying to learn about the world and about herself. There were elements that worked well - such as her frank confusion of societal conventions, but it was too angled towards sexual constraints and could have said more about the more holistic constraints society places on women. It sometimes made me feel uncomfortable as it challenged my own conventionality - why can't we masturbate at the breakfast table if it feels good? And it did shine a light on the way many men exploit women for their own gratification. But ultimately my life is much more than just my sex life and those other (greater) elements were largely ignored.
Yes, I agree with this.
But I also thought it was a great film.

I thought she ended up marrying the man who exploited her the least, but he had still exploited her, scientifically and through voyeurism.

Yes it is.

This outlines my own reservation much more articulately than I did.

Out of interest would those who enjoyed it have felt the same if the Emma Stone character had had an obvious and significant physical disability?

Well, the whole thing as described makes me feel nauseous. I'll swerve.

That would be different. The story would not have played out the same way.

Yes but she recognised that. I’m not happy that she did marry him. But she was still living in a patriarchal society so did what she needed to. She remained a flawed character, doing the same science experiments that had been done to her, the treatment of her husband after death was vindictive.

I thought they were going to put God's brain into the ex husband.

I'm not sure that it really stated that her marriage was abusive, it felt to me like we were supposed to believe Victoria had been just as bad as the husband and she'd killed herself because she "hated the baby".

I haven't seen this film but it sounds like a fetishised wank fest on what men think it is to be a woman.

Hopefully I'm wrong!

The other thing I objected to was the idea that a woman's desire to see the world and experience life is purely motivated by sex. I'm sure men would like to think this, and maybe it's true of men, I've no idea, but it's not true of women.

I loved the film.. it was feel good and empowering for women

How was it empowering?

From what I've heard of the film it sounds more like it's pushing the idea that a baby can enthusiastically consent.

That's a hard pass from me.

Surely it’s not saying all women’s desires are motivated by sex but some women’s are and specifically Bella’s. There have been books/films where women have travelled for a desire for love for years and no-one bats an eyelid.

She's looking for adventure (sex) though not love.

Not at all.

Bella had a baby’s brain transplanted into her and then that developed. Like happens to every human. This brain did not develop in the same way as normal. Some areas along development were faster than others. She was in an adult’s body so theoretically would’ve had adult hormones and drive. It was when she discovered masturbation that she found enjoyment through sex. She was initially exploited sexually by Duncan who recognised this.

I think we were supposed to be able to work out how long it has all taken by how long her hair was, but I wasn't concentrating sufficiently on the bit where it said how fast her hair grew. I think it all took place over months rather than years though.

The baby's brain rapidly develops and is more of a blank state. She has an appetite for knowledge and as she gains knowledge, through experience and later reading her intelligence accelerates.

So like a preteen/teen who physically developed early but who brain hasn't and is still childlike and socially,emotionally and intellectually maturing still.

It sounds worrying but then I was such a pre teen/teen and men did behaving inappropriately if they could and it was the opposition of empowering and was never welcome occurrence. Maybe everything gets lost in behind the cinematography - but doesn't sound appealing at all.

That’s what I mean. There is always a motivation. In this film it was sex (amongst other things). There are so many films when it’s about love (and many of those of problematic for other reasons).
Bella just had a different motivation to lots of other protagonists.

I’ve never seen Lara Von Triers’ Nymphomaniac. I wonder how Poor Things compares to it.

Why don't all the posters who have concerns about it (which I can understand) go and see it for themselves, instead of consulting the hive-mind of MN?
TBH you all sound pretty Victorian about it all.

I saw this last night. I'd say that when she starts masturbating and seeking sex her 'brain age' is definitely well under 10. The premise is very much 'what would it be like if a young child could enjoy sex'. The author of the novel, the screenwriter and the director are all men. Draw your own conclusions from that.

Objecting to a positive portrayal of sexual exploitation is "Victorian"?

Well yes, if you haven't seen the film.