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.

Of course I understand not wanting to see the film.

I do want to see it. I want to make my own mind up about it. I like to think for myself.

I think it's possible I'll find the film disturbing and wish I had never seen it. It's also possible I'll find it brilliant. I loved the book so I want to see for myself.

I believe works of art can and sometimes should deal with difficult and upsetting subject matter. I'm not trying to tell anyone else to see or not see the film. Just amazed how confident some people are in pronouncing it terrible/misogynist/exploitative without having seen it.

I'm not trying to give you permission. Obviously. Please don't get it so twisted.

You don't have to take offence over a difference in opinion. Really, there is so little at stake here, in terms of whether we agree or not. No need to make it so personal.

People who choose not to see this film on the basis of the trailer, reviews, online discussion and interviews with the director and actors are also thinking for themselves and making up their own minds.

And also based on how much they could stand of The Lobster and The Favourite...

Yes, I agree.

Whenever I read these type of discussions I always think how fortunate we all are to live in a free society where actresses can play unusual or controversial roles, where films can be made that make us discuss uncomfortable subjects and we are all free to voice our opinions on whether the premise of a film is positive or not. Whether you like the film or not (I’ve not seen it), there is a place for these kind of films in a free society and it’s brilliant that they can exist and be discussed.

Agreed in principle, although it would be great if a few more of the controversial multimillion pound projects were, for example, radical feminist ones. The people made uncomfortable by this are women with experience of male exploitation and violence. It's not really challenging anything, or making people in power or who exploit others uncomfortable. TBH even the stuff that is supposed to go against the gradient often seems to reinforce it to me, e.g. revenge plots where we have to watch a lot of highly produced sexist or racist violence, but then it's all fine because the perpetrator gets murdered later on (usually with a lot less glamour and gratuitous gore than the initial crime).

*pronounsbundlebundle · 16/01/2024 22:23

I hate the idea that it's a baby's brain. Unless that brain has been in her body for 16 years before she has sex it's paedophilia and rape.

The whole 'the brain matures in some ways faster than others' sounds like a really really tenuous argument for justifying the idea that children's brains can in some situations consent to sex. Is there any evidence this is what would happen? I doubt it a LOT.

Really dodgy MAP-like stuff. The brain develops as a whole and this is an extremely unappetising thought experiment by people who clearly like the idea of having sex with someone with a baby's brain and are dressing this up as art.

Quite a lot of red flags, no matter how nicely it's produced.*

They were very clear that her pace of development was very much more rapid that a normal persons would be, so she effectively grew up during the space of the movie - the hair growth was there to represent how quickly her brain was maturing. So by the time she was having sex, she was the equivalent of a young woman.

This 100%. Thank you I was having trouble articulating this.

There’s a piece in the Guardian. Zoe Williams’ take will surprise no one

This is v good, lots of interesting viewpoints

I totally agree about Gray , never met the man but his appearances on tv etc give me the creeps, and so does his writing. I do like his paintings.

I’ve read some of the pieces in the Guardian and imho it would appear that some reviewers believe (or would like to convince themselves that) if it weren’t for social conditioning women would shag any man at the drop of a hat all the time. I think we only need to look at the animal kingdom to see that isn’t the case.

The Jess Cartner Morley one is jaw dropping: brothels are great, it's not the male gaze because they wear pink underwear, and big sleeves are empowering. (OK the last one originated with a costume designer who clearly knows fuck all about history, but JCM repeats it uncritically.)

Yep. Funny how women's liberation always seems to work most successfully when it's also satisfying men's sexual appetites.

I'd asked upthread about whether the baby brained adult bodied central character was also incontinent to begin with as a baby would be. I was told there was a pee scene, but what about the less appealing aspects of toilet training? Were those covered in great detail - did the central character smear poo (deliberately or inadvertently) all over her living space? Did we see anyone cleaning it up endlessly? Or was it just the sex stuff that was explored?

I suspect I know the answer.

No poo.

Yup.
ALL those words by all those people and nobody bothered to ask:
Even if she loves sex and is beautiful with no inhibition... she'd focus on the attractive blokes! Not the old smelly ones.

One point that's really stuck with me from this thread is the PP who asked, would this film be as popular, and would it be touted as an exploration of female empowerment and autonomy if the protagonist was old, ugly, or obese? I'm quite certain the answer is no, and that many people would be repulsed by that version. And that's really so telling.

Absolutely @LongTermLurker.

Actually it’s just occurred to me that if you swap the sex of the protagonists the reaction would be different too. A beautiful young man having sex with unattractive people. Would that be seen as exploitation?

Exactly this. That whole post was excellent but that was the best point made. She'd either be a figure of repulsion or ridicule, or both.

I thought it was brilliant. It’s not meant to be realistic.The colours, the steam punk aesthetic. She was definitely not a baby when the sex scenes started. She matured very rapidly. The way she completely turned the tables on the Mark Ruffalo character. I found it a lot more feminist than Barbie.
It should definitely come with a warning though - I can completely understand why people would find it disturbing.

I don't think it's the degree to which this film is "realistic" is what people find problematic. The debate is more around what it means and how it represents women.

I agree. There used to be jokes about playing disabled characters would get you an Oscar. Some of the roles that able bodied people took on they may have second thoughts about now.

If you look at other roles woman played in the past, the award winning ‘gritty’ ones -particularly involving sex - the actresses have looked back with unease about them now.

This is the same. It’s just dressed up artily.

Over time, I think the actors will have issues with this one too. Emma particularly if she decides to become a mum. And any if they ever have the unfortunate situation of caring for a close relative/friend with a brain disorder/injury/learning disability. Benefit of hindsight and the precarious of being an actor at the mercy of a male script adapter (who has only written the story from the viewpoint of a male narrator in the multi-narrated original male-written book) and a male director. It would have been a very different movie if more women were involved in the writing and directing but they are woefully scarce in the film industry.

It is a male fantasy.