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.

Yes she wee'd on the floor to get fresh delight very much like a toddler / preschooler. She put food in her mouth and spat it out because it was gross. Her relationship with her "creator" was entirely paternal.

By the time she exploring herself sexually she was older, and it was done off shot.

DH and I were trying to work out approx ages and it occurs to me her running off reminds me of I think Lydia Bennet and Mr Wickham? I think that's the right sister. The flightly one who runs off with the dodgy bloke. Which given the rate of her maturation she's late teens at least. He is predatory, that's part of the comment on men wanting ownership and he comes unravelled for it. He isn't rewarded for his exploits.

I loved the book and Alasfair Gray is one of my favourite writers, so I'm definitely going to see the film. I hope they haven't fucked it up too badly.

It's usually worth seeing a film that divides opinion this way. Suggests that it's doing something or trying to do something interesting.

Wasn't Lydia 'not yet 16' in P&P? I'm pretty sure that's what Lizzie said when asked during a visit to Rosings IIRC. She might have just turned 16 by the time of her marriage, but I don't remember for certain.

Thats right - she's mentioned at Rosings as being 'not 16' and young to be out. The timescale between then and the elopement is a little fuzzy, but she's 16 at most when she elopes.

My adult son and his girlfriend walked out. And ds has trouble publicly complaining about anything- so I'm assuming it was pretty grim.

I don't think the act of running away itself is indicative of a certain age or level of maturity. Lydia was immature even for 15/16, and Wickham was in the habit of grooming young girls.

A female writer in The Times walked out of it, despite loving the book, loving Emma Stone and loving the directors previous work.

She couldn't take the lengthy and exploitative brothel bit.

I think I'm too northern and keen to get my moneys worth, to ever walk out.

Sorry, just seen it linked upthread! Thought it was a brilliant article.

I don't agree that you have to part with twenty quid and an evening of your life before you can comment on films. Once the reviews are out, the contents are clear.

This isn't my kind of film at all and it sounds about as feminist as a lap dancing ladette.

I think you could argue it is more common below a certain age, but definitely not that it's an indication someone has reached a particuar age/maturity level.

I am planning to see it at the weekend, I have read the book and liked that a lot but I have no idea what the director has done with his adaptation. He is a good director and the case is excellent so lets see.

So the good things are the set and costume design is sumptuous. The bad… I’d echo what a lot of others have said. What frustrated me was Bella was always playing by men’s rules and terms and never managed to escape that framework. There were just so many awful men that she heavily relied on. It would have been great if she’d just been like “fuck this” and went to be a witch in a bog somewhere. But it was quite tiresome to see how enmeshed she was within patriarchal structures and this was never challenged. Like in the brothel she has this marvellous idea that the women should get to choose the male customers. This never happens of course, but she never goes further and examines … why are men in so much power? Where do they get their money from? Why are they entitled to women’s bodies anyway? The patriarchy is also portrayed as this slightly goofy force- she runs rings round all the silly men. But one wonders how she would have coped if she met a really nasty John who was determined to do violence to her.

I also found myself reacting really negatively to the sex scenes. They didn’t seem woman focused at all… just very male gazey. But weirdly I also got quite upset at the idea that she could just stick an apple in her fanny and orgasm, or be aggressively humped by any old bloke and love it. I’m quite insecure because my sexuality doesn’t work like that (I find penetrative sex the least interesting part), so it made me feel there was something wrong with me because I get basically nothing from porn style jack hammering sex. It was like consuming fashion magazines … it just made me feel inadequate.

I keep thinking of this being touted as 'the feminist Frankenstein' and why this bothers me.

It's not just that F was written by a woman and that PT was written by a man. l need to think about it some more and then I'll get back to you.

But Bella leaves the M Ruffalo character behind, doesn't she?

..and the dance scene - she is dancing to her own steps. He rushes onto the dance floor and tries to control her, but fails.

And fancy being a film reviewer who has to leave a film! I can't see them getting more gigs in THAT role.

@beastlyslumber "It's usually worth seeing a film that divides opinion this way. Suggests that it's doing something or trying to do something interesting."

Not sure I agree with you on this- I think that rather than add my £10 to the coffers, I'm happy to rely on the opinion of reviewers I trust. Particularly if there are lots of them and they include people I know....

Ah thanks for that, I knew it was around that.

Old enough to think you know what you're doing, not old enough to know what you're doing, old enough to want to do it, not old enough to be doing it.

Certainly sounds an unusual film- my H is keen to see it- he likes very arty off the wall films- suspect he will enjoy it more than myself

I was talking in reference to the "it's a baby" comments. She was obv exploited to MRs character but there's a huge difference between taking advantage of someone with the menyal age of someone around the rape of someone with the mental capacity of a 6 month old. Not saying either are ok, I don't think the movie implied it was ok for them to run off together either. But for those saying "basically having sex with a baby" it's just factually incorrect.

Has anyone else seen Dogtooth? I watched it years ago and it had a graphic brother/sister incest scene that was non-consensual on the sister's part.

But we can’t remove Emma Stone from the machine that is Hollywood. She lives in a world where she gets enormous acclaim for taking on a role like this (and to be fair, she was very good) and can build her success and career even further. She may well see it as a feminist masterpiece, but she also might not be in a position to judge objectively because performing in a film that’s been so praised is good for her - not for women, but for her. Which is fair enough, we all live in a capitalist system, but the fact that she’s already successful and produced he film doesn’t change the fact that many, many women who have viewed the film see it as profoundly exploitative.

@Duckswaddle @BestwisheswarmestregardstoJesusMaryJoseph I’m definitely not saying that you’re wrong, but please can you explain the empowerment a little more? I can see that the actors and director would take that line, but within the film she is a child (thinking about how she speaks and moves when she goes away with Duncan) who expresses herself very babyishly and only about her want for more sex. Then she becomes a prostitute (with no mention of the risks to her body). Bella might be an empowered woman by the end of the film, but the actual message the film sends about how women develop, want, think, enjoy, struggle, and grow up, are a million million miles away from any woman I know or any true female experience. Is that ok, because it’s art?

I normally love a dance scene in a film, but it was incredibly brief and did nothing to advance the plot that didn’t happen before or after. Really wanted more from it.

RE Frankenstein.
OK, so I think the key here is that VF is male. This obviously means that he cannot gestate an embryo/foetus/baby. He does however create life using dead body parts and electricity (inspired by Galvinism) and then abandons his creation.

Now I know that Mary Shelly titles the book 'Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus' and that she (probably) wasn't thinking about male Vs female - but the over-reaching of modern man (of the time) and a warning about hubris and God's/nature's power over life and death - but I can't help but think of male/female and the creation of life due to what is currently happening. The warning can be applied to things such as uterus inplants into men, the rat experiments etc. It is absolutely a warning about unchecked science and 'just because you can, doesn't mean that you should.'

Anyway, the TLDR version is that 'Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus' quite possibly is the feminist Frankenstein.

That's your right, of course.

I'd rather think for myself.

I’m not discussing the role of consent in general. It’s the role of consent with regard to a character in a role that I have actually watched. Not one I’ve read reviews about.