Poor Things (2023)
December 26, 2023 4:10 AM - Subscribe
Brought back to life by an unorthodox scientist, a young woman runs off with a debauched lawyer on a whirlwind adventure across the continents. Free from the prejudices of her times, she grows steadfast in her purpose to stand for equality and liberation.
Just watched this tonight and it’s incredible. It made me want to rewatch Lanthimo’s earlier film Dogtooth, which had a lot of similarities.
posted by ejs at 6:25 PM on December 27, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by ejs at 6:25 PM on December 27, 2023 [1 favorite]
I've seen it twice now. So much about it blows me away, not least of which are Emma Stone's phenomenal physical comedy chops. She's one of my favorite actors working today, and this may be her crowning achievement thus far. But there's so much more to recommend it. Production design, costuming, cinematography, score ... The pacing and editing are note-perfect, the gags pile on, and I agree that it feels like his lightest work. Like all his films, it trades in some uncomfortable ideas and situations around human nature, but the broadness of the humor adds more sugar to the pill.
posted by mykescipark at 7:41 PM on December 27, 2023 [4 favorites]
posted by mykescipark at 7:41 PM on December 27, 2023 [4 favorites]
what i loved...
* emma stone
* emma stone/willem dafoe playing off each other
* the sets
* the costumes
* the music
what i didn't love...
* it was tedious
* it's observations about gender were facile
* it felt like men talking about women
* i felt like I'd seen it's particular kind of quirkiness before (jeunet meets anderson meets greenaway xtra lite?)
i would love to see this story in the hands of a Sally Potter or other queer woman director
posted by kokaku at 4:42 PM on December 28, 2023 [15 favorites]
* emma stone
* emma stone/willem dafoe playing off each other
* the sets
* the costumes
* the music
what i didn't love...
* it was tedious
* it's observations about gender were facile
* it felt like men talking about women
* i felt like I'd seen it's particular kind of quirkiness before (jeunet meets anderson meets greenaway xtra lite?)
i would love to see this story in the hands of a Sally Potter or other queer woman director
posted by kokaku at 4:42 PM on December 28, 2023 [15 favorites]
I saw this as a meditation or fantasy of what it would be like to not have a childhood. To just arrive in adulthood without the traumas and prejudices and fears we pick up as children. God is a counterpoint to that, deeply scarred by his childhood.
That said, I agree that it felt like men talking about women. If the main character was a man, would he have spent a third of the movie doing sex work?
posted by jeoc at 7:38 AM on January 1 [6 favorites]
That said, I agree that it felt like men talking about women. If the main character was a man, would he have spent a third of the movie doing sex work?
posted by jeoc at 7:38 AM on January 1 [6 favorites]
This was so much lighter than the other YL films it was almost odd. I wanted to like it a lot, but I'm not entirely sure what it was trying to say. I was just...agreeing with it. A travelogue through fantastic steampunk Europe and being a young, conventionally pretty, woman. Yes, this is what men do. Yes, this is what society does. Yes, let's please organize the working class. I tried to discuss it with my best friend (male) and he was insistent it was much deeper than that. I agree that it felt like men talking about women, Anderson vibes, all this. I'm frustrated because I feel like I missed something tying it all together, or some kind of big statement.
posted by cobaltnine at 1:59 PM on January 7 [5 favorites]
posted by cobaltnine at 1:59 PM on January 7 [5 favorites]
I don't think you missed anything, cobaltnine. I'm very curious to know what depth your friend found.
I wanted to like this so badly--I love weird shit and this is weird. It just kept not landing for me. It was a movie I shouldn't have been bored by but I was just waiting for it to be over. She is treated as an object by every man, and that never changes. I cannot help but wonder what it would have been like directed by a woman, or if the screenplay was written by a woman. Or perhaps the problem is in the source material, written by a man. I agree it's a meditation/fantasy about not having a childhood, or girlhood specifically, but what she was learning or not unlearning didn't ring true, or at the very least, was very far from what I would want to explore with that concept.
Barbie is part of the current conversation that women are having about reinventing what being a woman means. Poor Things felt like a contribution to that conversation from a man who wants to but doesn't quite get it.
posted by emkelley at 12:25 PM on January 10 [2 favorites]
I wanted to like this so badly--I love weird shit and this is weird. It just kept not landing for me. It was a movie I shouldn't have been bored by but I was just waiting for it to be over. She is treated as an object by every man, and that never changes. I cannot help but wonder what it would have been like directed by a woman, or if the screenplay was written by a woman. Or perhaps the problem is in the source material, written by a man. I agree it's a meditation/fantasy about not having a childhood, or girlhood specifically, but what she was learning or not unlearning didn't ring true, or at the very least, was very far from what I would want to explore with that concept.
Barbie is part of the current conversation that women are having about reinventing what being a woman means. Poor Things felt like a contribution to that conversation from a man who wants to but doesn't quite get it.
posted by emkelley at 12:25 PM on January 10 [2 favorites]
I liked the part where Mark Ruffalo's penis got so sad he had to be committed but I am simple woman
posted by phunniemee at 1:07 PM on January 10 [27 favorites]
posted by phunniemee at 1:07 PM on January 10 [27 favorites]
Agree with most of the comments above. Great visuals. Great performance. Felt like it could have had more to say.
The one disagreement is that I hated the soundtrack. At the theatre volume it was too loud and too intrusive. I was constantly getting distracted and thinking things "good grief, he's creaking that stupid tune out on another instrument now, is it a cello or a double bass?"
posted by TheophileEscargot at 9:20 AM on January 14 [2 favorites]
The one disagreement is that I hated the soundtrack. At the theatre volume it was too loud and too intrusive. I was constantly getting distracted and thinking things "good grief, he's creaking that stupid tune out on another instrument now, is it a cello or a double bass?"
posted by TheophileEscargot at 9:20 AM on January 14 [2 favorites]
Also random questions. Why not put Godwin's brain in the baddie's body? And why does nobody ever just sit down and explain sexual mores like monogamy and jealousy to the intelligent/innocent entity newly arrived in an adult female body?
posted by TheophileEscargot at 9:26 AM on January 14 [3 favorites]
posted by TheophileEscargot at 9:26 AM on January 14 [3 favorites]
If you want a coming of age story where the female lead is taught to conform to society's romantic standards, go watch a Disney movie.
Nobody did that in this one because that is not what this movie is.
posted by phunniemee at 7:26 PM on January 15 [11 favorites]
Nobody did that in this one because that is not what this movie is.
posted by phunniemee at 7:26 PM on January 15 [11 favorites]
Why not put Godwin's brain in the baddie's body?
I think it's because she has chosen, in her life, not to avoid death at all costs, as Godwin did. And I think it is also her granting Godwin some grace and some rest, which he has not shown her; it is a moment of her deliberately choosing another way to approach existence.
That does mean the baddie/goat transfer is solely for the purpose of comedy and/or torture, but I decided I'm okay with that.
posted by librarina at 10:00 AM on January 18 [7 favorites]
I think it's because she has chosen, in her life, not to avoid death at all costs, as Godwin did. And I think it is also her granting Godwin some grace and some rest, which he has not shown her; it is a moment of her deliberately choosing another way to approach existence.
That does mean the baddie/goat transfer is solely for the purpose of comedy and/or torture, but I decided I'm okay with that.
posted by librarina at 10:00 AM on January 18 [7 favorites]
Maybe the brain-swap only works for babies? I can't remember the details of the explanation but it kind of makes sense that only an infant brain can adapt to a new body.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 9:03 PM on January 19 [2 favorites]
posted by TheophileEscargot at 9:03 PM on January 19 [2 favorites]
Hated it. A movie that thinks it's feminist but isn't, and is utterly unable to engage with most of the subjects it brings up on more than a surface level.
posted by kyrademon at 5:01 PM on January 20 [2 favorites]
posted by kyrademon at 5:01 PM on January 20 [2 favorites]
I generally liked about the first half of this. The mad scientist black and white aesthetics was really cool, and the general premise of having Bella going from basically a toddler to something resembling adulthood in an adult body was an interesting way to get things going. It just got old pretty fast. Her blunt interactions with the world as she speaks and acts with no social filter is amusing, but it got tedious as the movie just repeated that "joke" throughout the entire movie. It was just going through the motions with predictable developments on how she learns how prostitution works and the like. It stopped being both funny and original. I was hoping they would have went for a bit more clever ending, but the revenge fantasy storyline with her previous husband was just silly.
posted by winther at 5:27 AM on January 23 [2 favorites]
posted by winther at 5:27 AM on January 23 [2 favorites]
Ctrl+F "Candide" zero results
Ctrl+F "bildungsroman" zero results
Huh. I seem to have had a different experience watching this.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 7:01 AM on January 23 [9 favorites]
Ctrl+F "bildungsroman" zero results
Huh. I seem to have had a different experience watching this.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 7:01 AM on January 23 [9 favorites]
We (myself, Comrade Doll, and Action Horse) saw this over the weekend and really enjoyed it. To these eyes, it was a bonkers bildungsroman about the human condition and the joys of the flesh, but also about science, books, empathy, and a hundred more other things.
I recall now from our talks about Snowpiercer that MetaFilter rankles a bit at filmic parables, struggling to fit them into a shape that feels less figurative, that makes a better kind of logical sense, that sees what reads as funhouse mirror to some as simply distorted and inaccurate.
Anyway, it looked great and Emma Stone was fantastic.
It sure was an awful lot of fucking in a movie your kid went to see with you, but we came out relatively untraumatized.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 12:31 PM on January 23 [14 favorites]
I recall now from our talks about Snowpiercer that MetaFilter rankles a bit at filmic parables, struggling to fit them into a shape that feels less figurative, that makes a better kind of logical sense, that sees what reads as funhouse mirror to some as simply distorted and inaccurate.
Anyway, it looked great and Emma Stone was fantastic.
It sure was an awful lot of fucking in a movie your kid went to see with you, but we came out relatively untraumatized.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 12:31 PM on January 23 [14 favorites]
By the by, I recently posted the 1962 Czech version of Baron Munchasuen on FanFare and if the wild, living illustrations visual style of this movie appealed to you, maybe take a trip back sixty years and check out one of the film's inspirations, which took a similar tactic only faking most of the three dimensionality with matte paintings and painted sets.
Karel Zeman films are a trip.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 7:24 AM on January 24 [7 favorites]
Karel Zeman films are a trip.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 7:24 AM on January 24 [7 favorites]
This piece by Charlotte Higgins, Guardian chief culture writer is pretty much where I land, as well.
To ask the question “Is Poor Things a feminist movie?” strikes me as a category error. No, I do not think that I will be basing my feminist manifesto on this film any time soon. I might as well think of Medea, the magnificent character of Greek myth who kills her own children, as charting a practical path to power. Poor Things – an adaptation of the late Alasdair Gray’s 1992 novel, itself a version of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein – is a fable.posted by DirtyOldTown at 11:33 AM on January 25 [15 favorites]
It is not a handbook advocating the transplanting of a newborn’s brain into the head of a recently deceased adult woman, nor is it promoting (as some have suggested) paedophilia. Its relationship with realism is pretty heavily signalled from the off – as in, a distant one. You have never seen a person like Bella Baxter. You have also never seen a living creature composed of half a goose and half a dog.
Like the story of Medea, though, it brings something rich that is nothing to do with its surface mechanics. In Bella, the film offers a vision of a sexually free woman who fearlessly, without guilt, without negative consequences, quenches her appetites, utterly unconscious of Judaeo-Christian or patriarchal shame. Not a real-world picture, but a thrilling one, albeit one that might be found threatening in some quarters.
The phrase “male gaze” has been attached to the film, owing to the triumvirate of Gray, screenwriter Tony McNamara and director Yorgos Lanthimos. However, unless informed to the contrary, I regard Stone as an artist and a person in her own right, who has chosen to embody Bella in delicious ways of her own devising. That character, by the way, is not just a bodily person but a thinking one (a particularly enjoyable scene involves her, a book, and an older woman played by screen legend Hanna Schygulla). Is Poor Things feminist? The story is too wild and capricious to be captured by such a word, and is all the more magnificent for it.
The film just sounds like creepytown to me. Man puts baby's brain in dead woman, brings woman back to life with baby brain, men find baby woman sexy, do sex to her, something something the proletariat, a brothel, and then she goes back to work for a man. Like, even if it's satire, even if the filmmaker is toying with the audience's expectations and trying to make them uncomfortable or whatever, I just have no interest in seeing a movie where dudes are lusting after a small child in an adult woman's body. And Ruffalo's "Bellaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa" in the trailer is just so cringe that how can it really be any good? My apologies to Emma Stone, who I really like, who I loved in Birdman, whose performance I would otherwise like to see, but, unlike the Little Engine That Could, I don't think I can.
posted by grumpybear69 at 4:24 PM on January 25 [1 favorite]
posted by grumpybear69 at 4:24 PM on January 25 [1 favorite]
okay
posted by phunniemee at 7:03 PM on January 25 [12 favorites]
posted by phunniemee at 7:03 PM on January 25 [12 favorites]
People can get really mad at mushroom ravioli for not being chicken piccata.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 8:37 AM on January 28 [15 favorites]
posted by DirtyOldTown at 8:37 AM on January 28 [15 favorites]
We can also dislike a movie because it is a movie we understood just fine but still dislike.
posted by kyrademon at 10:12 AM on January 28 [5 favorites]
posted by kyrademon at 10:12 AM on January 28 [5 favorites]
My partner and I saw this together. We quite liked it! Visually spectacular. Stone was excellent, as were most of the other performances. My only complaint was the pacing was off. Some parts dragged and other parts felt rushed.
And I agree with DirtyOldTown: it seems most of the contempt shown in this thread is because the movie was something other than what the poster wanted it to be, which is odd. But not unexpected, I guess.
posted by SoberHighland at 4:54 AM on January 29 [5 favorites]
And I agree with DirtyOldTown: it seems most of the contempt shown in this thread is because the movie was something other than what the poster wanted it to be, which is odd. But not unexpected, I guess.
posted by SoberHighland at 4:54 AM on January 29 [5 favorites]
We can also dislike a movie because it is a movie we understood just fine but still dislike.
Sure but it helps to have actually seen the movie.
Man puts baby's brain in dead woman, brings woman back to life with baby brain, men find baby woman sexy, do sex to her, something something the proletariat, a brothel, and then she goes back to work for a man.
See like 70% of this statement is just a factually inaccurate description of the plot by someone who refuses to see the film because they dislike a 70% inaccurate description of the plot.
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 1:29 PM on January 29 [17 favorites]
Sure but it helps to have actually seen the movie.
Man puts baby's brain in dead woman, brings woman back to life with baby brain, men find baby woman sexy, do sex to her, something something the proletariat, a brothel, and then she goes back to work for a man.
See like 70% of this statement is just a factually inaccurate description of the plot by someone who refuses to see the film because they dislike a 70% inaccurate description of the plot.
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 1:29 PM on January 29 [17 favorites]
I have tried to speak sideways because it really isn't how I want to conduct myself on FF to tell people they misunderstood a movie. But despite the relativity of art and the tremendous room for individual responses, there is a point at direct odds.
Some folks above have stated that they believe this was intended to be a feminist film and that it failed at that.
I believe it was not intended to be a feminist film, not what we would consider a double capital F Feminist Film anyway. It's a fable, a bildungsroman. It does not, to me, feel that both claims can be right. On that much, we probably agree. So I do not think I have said anything more unkind than the reverse position.
I'm not gonna be so uncouth as to tell people they misunderstood the film, but I do feel there is a category error at play here. Charlotte Higgins said what I am trying to say better than I have and I have already quoted her above. So I'll defer to that as being as well as I can think it can be said. And if we disagree after that, okay.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 4:02 PM on January 29 [6 favorites]
Some folks above have stated that they believe this was intended to be a feminist film and that it failed at that.
I believe it was not intended to be a feminist film, not what we would consider a double capital F Feminist Film anyway. It's a fable, a bildungsroman. It does not, to me, feel that both claims can be right. On that much, we probably agree. So I do not think I have said anything more unkind than the reverse position.
I'm not gonna be so uncouth as to tell people they misunderstood the film, but I do feel there is a category error at play here. Charlotte Higgins said what I am trying to say better than I have and I have already quoted her above. So I'll defer to that as being as well as I can think it can be said. And if we disagree after that, okay.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 4:02 PM on January 29 [6 favorites]
We talk about movies here, not trailers.
posted by Pronoiac at 4:04 PM on January 29 [3 favorites]
posted by Pronoiac at 4:04 PM on January 29 [3 favorites]
I was speaking more to kyrademon.
Respectfully, I do not know why I would attempt to debate a movie with a person who hasn't seen it.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 4:05 PM on January 29 [1 favorite]
Respectfully, I do not know why I would attempt to debate a movie with a person who hasn't seen it.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 4:05 PM on January 29 [1 favorite]
Poor Things fails to be a feminist film in the same way that cramming five delicious custard tarts into my mouth fails to be a healthy dinner. That wasn't the point.
posted by phunniemee at 4:35 PM on January 29 [12 favorites]
posted by phunniemee at 4:35 PM on January 29 [12 favorites]
I am also loathe to tell other people they were wrong about a film. In fact, I will not tell you so, DirtyOldTown, and I do no think it would be an accurate assessment if I did. You got out of it what you got out of it, and I am glad you found much to appreciate in this movie.
So all I will say is that, on the Guardian page you link to with Charlotte Higgins' take on the film, there were many other opinions as well, some of which I found more in keeping with my take on the film than Higgins'.
There are both positive and negative opinions there that I do not agree with at all -- on the negative side, I do not, for example, especially agree with the criticism that "Bella, Stone’s character, has an infant’s brain – and the consent issue for a woman with learning difficulties is a blazing red flag." I think that is an overly literal interpretation of a film which, as you rightly point out, is not meant to be taken literally. Bella is not meant to be interpreted as being a literal mental infant.
There are, however, also criticisms there that I do agree with. For example:
"Bloated wank fantasy or simple-hearted bildungsroman? Poor Things is both... Bella’s 'adventures' are 98% penetrative heterosexual sex and 2% conversation. I was particularly grateful for her foray into brothel life, because men who write stories can’t imagine any job for women except prostitution, and then they turn themselves inside out spaffing off about how it’s all just so philosophically interesting, and add insult to injury by putting these masturbatory, self-justifying thoughts into the mouths of fictional women."
"... the film is not faultless. While Lisbon is depicted for its beauty, Alexandria is presented as a cesspit of poverty, a conduit through which Bella can muse on the 'poor things' of Egypt and make vain attempts to improve their lives. Those poor people she witnesses are also described as people who would rape and murder those on the cruise ship if they had the chance..."
"Poor Things reminded me of the Tumblr-level gender politics of my high school years, which dictated that a woman’s power is inherently linked to her anatomy and fucking as much as you can is a source of uncomplicated liberation. There’s nothing particularly wrong with those ideas, but Poor Things makes no effort at all to complicate or question them..."
posted by kyrademon at 5:15 PM on January 29 [3 favorites]
So all I will say is that, on the Guardian page you link to with Charlotte Higgins' take on the film, there were many other opinions as well, some of which I found more in keeping with my take on the film than Higgins'.
There are both positive and negative opinions there that I do not agree with at all -- on the negative side, I do not, for example, especially agree with the criticism that "Bella, Stone’s character, has an infant’s brain – and the consent issue for a woman with learning difficulties is a blazing red flag." I think that is an overly literal interpretation of a film which, as you rightly point out, is not meant to be taken literally. Bella is not meant to be interpreted as being a literal mental infant.
There are, however, also criticisms there that I do agree with. For example:
"Bloated wank fantasy or simple-hearted bildungsroman? Poor Things is both... Bella’s 'adventures' are 98% penetrative heterosexual sex and 2% conversation. I was particularly grateful for her foray into brothel life, because men who write stories can’t imagine any job for women except prostitution, and then they turn themselves inside out spaffing off about how it’s all just so philosophically interesting, and add insult to injury by putting these masturbatory, self-justifying thoughts into the mouths of fictional women."
"... the film is not faultless. While Lisbon is depicted for its beauty, Alexandria is presented as a cesspit of poverty, a conduit through which Bella can muse on the 'poor things' of Egypt and make vain attempts to improve their lives. Those poor people she witnesses are also described as people who would rape and murder those on the cruise ship if they had the chance..."
"Poor Things reminded me of the Tumblr-level gender politics of my high school years, which dictated that a woman’s power is inherently linked to her anatomy and fucking as much as you can is a source of uncomplicated liberation. There’s nothing particularly wrong with those ideas, but Poor Things makes no effort at all to complicate or question them..."
posted by kyrademon at 5:15 PM on January 29 [3 favorites]
Those are definitely ways they could have gone for more nuance and realism in [checks notes] a story about a baby brain transplanted into a dead body in a house where a guy who blows digestive acid bubbles had a dog-goose.
I do not doubt there are more realistic ways Dorothy's relationship with her adoptive parents in Kansas could have been handled in The Wizard of Oz, but in a story with talking lions, witches, and flying monkeys, I do not know that I consider this a convincing criticism.
I sound silly, but that is kind of how I see fables. I'm just disinclined to grade it on the same scale for logic and realism.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 5:29 PM on January 29 [6 favorites]
I do not doubt there are more realistic ways Dorothy's relationship with her adoptive parents in Kansas could have been handled in The Wizard of Oz, but in a story with talking lions, witches, and flying monkeys, I do not know that I consider this a convincing criticism.
I sound silly, but that is kind of how I see fables. I'm just disinclined to grade it on the same scale for logic and realism.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 5:29 PM on January 29 [6 favorites]
I mean, did the way she ate seem reasonable or real?
Did the way she traveled? Did you notice the boat didn't look real, didn't match the dimensions shown inside, seemed to be an odd model pushed around a playset, rather than a realistic boat? The towns, did they seem like real architecture?
What do you make of all of that?
posted by DirtyOldTown at 5:40 PM on January 29 [4 favorites]
Did the way she traveled? Did you notice the boat didn't look real, didn't match the dimensions shown inside, seemed to be an odd model pushed around a playset, rather than a realistic boat? The towns, did they seem like real architecture?
What do you make of all of that?
posted by DirtyOldTown at 5:40 PM on January 29 [4 favorites]
I... no? Of course I didn't think the movie was going for logic and realism? I'm baffled that you think this is my objection to it. Obviously it was a fable. Honestly, it's getting kind of tiresome that you want to repeatedly tell me I didn't understand that, when I did. Because it was freakin' obvious.
So, OK. I'll try to be clear. about what I didn't like. It's a bildungsroman where 95% of the story solely depicts the main character in terms of her relationships to men. Almost always men who want to have sex with her. Daughter to fiancee to lover to prostitute to wife. The film takes no time whatsoever to have her, say, go off and study philosophy with the woman she meets on the boat, and her time spent learning about socialism with her friend from the brothel happens entirely offscreen. Presumably because actually depicting any of that would take away from yet more Naked Bella Time. To me, that makes it a rather crappy, limited bildungsroman, and also a rather boring one.
Speaking of the socialism aspect. The film spends a fair bit thematic time on the issue of social inequality. In fact, I'd venture to say it seemed like a key aspect of the fable it was trying to tell. And what does it have to say about social inequality? That it exists. And is bad. Anything more would detract from Naked Bella Time.
Other, minor issues. What was the point of Max, a character with no personality whatsoever beyond "surprisingly willing to do whatever a mad scientist tells him to"? Why save the husband from bleeding to death only to then, for all intents and purposes, immediately murder him? What was that about? Honestly, I doubt it was about anything. I doubt it was given any thought beyond the immediate potential for a single gag.
These are not issues of "realism". These are issues of character and theme. Fables still have characters and themes. You can say, you grade fables on a different scale, and didn't care about these things. That's fine. You can do that. I'm glad you enjoyed it. I didn't. I thought it was shallow.
I think fables are still about something, and as far as I can tell, this one was about, "What if there was a woman who was free from the strictures placed on her by a patriarchal society? Well... I bet she'd be totally DTF! Just sex with everybody! Sex all the time! And she'd be hot! Yeah! I bet she'd become a prostitute! And bone everybody! Just always naked! Oh, and, um, social inequality and stuff."
You can disagree. That's OK. You can think I'm totally wrong. That's OK, too. I don't think you're an idiot for having a different reaction to the movie. But please stop implying that the reason I didn't like it was that I somehow did not notice that the stylized steampunk brain-transplant movie wasn't going for realism.
I've now spent way too much time writing about a movie I didn't even like, so I'll leave it at this.
posted by kyrademon at 6:40 PM on January 29 [19 favorites]
So, OK. I'll try to be clear. about what I didn't like. It's a bildungsroman where 95% of the story solely depicts the main character in terms of her relationships to men. Almost always men who want to have sex with her. Daughter to fiancee to lover to prostitute to wife. The film takes no time whatsoever to have her, say, go off and study philosophy with the woman she meets on the boat, and her time spent learning about socialism with her friend from the brothel happens entirely offscreen. Presumably because actually depicting any of that would take away from yet more Naked Bella Time. To me, that makes it a rather crappy, limited bildungsroman, and also a rather boring one.
Speaking of the socialism aspect. The film spends a fair bit thematic time on the issue of social inequality. In fact, I'd venture to say it seemed like a key aspect of the fable it was trying to tell. And what does it have to say about social inequality? That it exists. And is bad. Anything more would detract from Naked Bella Time.
Other, minor issues. What was the point of Max, a character with no personality whatsoever beyond "surprisingly willing to do whatever a mad scientist tells him to"? Why save the husband from bleeding to death only to then, for all intents and purposes, immediately murder him? What was that about? Honestly, I doubt it was about anything. I doubt it was given any thought beyond the immediate potential for a single gag.
These are not issues of "realism". These are issues of character and theme. Fables still have characters and themes. You can say, you grade fables on a different scale, and didn't care about these things. That's fine. You can do that. I'm glad you enjoyed it. I didn't. I thought it was shallow.
I think fables are still about something, and as far as I can tell, this one was about, "What if there was a woman who was free from the strictures placed on her by a patriarchal society? Well... I bet she'd be totally DTF! Just sex with everybody! Sex all the time! And she'd be hot! Yeah! I bet she'd become a prostitute! And bone everybody! Just always naked! Oh, and, um, social inequality and stuff."
You can disagree. That's OK. You can think I'm totally wrong. That's OK, too. I don't think you're an idiot for having a different reaction to the movie. But please stop implying that the reason I didn't like it was that I somehow did not notice that the stylized steampunk brain-transplant movie wasn't going for realism.
I've now spent way too much time writing about a movie I didn't even like, so I'll leave it at this.
posted by kyrademon at 6:40 PM on January 29 [19 favorites]
For the record, I had no preconceived notion of what the film should be. It does seem odd to take issue with the idea that Bella has a baby brain, since the brain of a baby is literally put in her skull, but, having not seen the film - only the trailer, and also I read the full synopsis - it is clear my opinion is of no value. It has, however, sparked a large number of responses pointing out how unreal the whole movie is in service of debunking charges of it being kind of creepy and exploitative, or at least a very man-centric view of a woman's sexual awakening.
posted by grumpybear69 at 6:46 PM on January 29 [1 favorite]
posted by grumpybear69 at 6:46 PM on January 29 [1 favorite]
it is clear my opinion is of no value
Not at all. It's that until you watch the movie, you don't really have one.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 7:01 PM on January 29 [8 favorites]
Not at all. It's that until you watch the movie, you don't really have one.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 7:01 PM on January 29 [8 favorites]
Back to fables though... To make a fable is to sketch out a limited but complete world so that you can explore certain themes in a controlled environment while being free to leave others out. The simplification, the elemental quality is a feature, not a bug.
I think Emma Stone (a producer in this as well as its star) did really good work here about id, about the joys of the flesh, about learning, about empathy... all of which would have been swallowed whole by a narrative that also tried to take on feminism. And why shouldn't she get to do that?
I get "It didn't work for me." I struggle with "The film was obviously trying and failing to do [thing it definitely wasn't doing]."
As mentioned above, there's a similar argument in the thread for Snowpiercer.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 7:31 PM on January 29 [3 favorites]
I think Emma Stone (a producer in this as well as its star) did really good work here about id, about the joys of the flesh, about learning, about empathy... all of which would have been swallowed whole by a narrative that also tried to take on feminism. And why shouldn't she get to do that?
I get "It didn't work for me." I struggle with "The film was obviously trying and failing to do [thing it definitely wasn't doing]."
As mentioned above, there's a similar argument in the thread for Snowpiercer.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 7:31 PM on January 29 [3 favorites]
But yeah, I'm getting mouthy here.
I will shut up and make room for other people... who want to share their opinions after watching this movie.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 7:32 PM on January 29 [1 favorite]
I will shut up and make room for other people... who want to share their opinions after watching this movie.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 7:32 PM on January 29 [1 favorite]
Mod note: Several comments removed. Please avoid arguing what a movie is about if you haven't seen it and everyone please avoid sending digs at other members, thanks
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 6:42 AM on January 30
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 6:42 AM on January 30
Poor Things’ intimacy coordinator on consent, orgies and Emma Stone.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 7:53 AM on January 30 [5 favorites]
posted by TheophileEscargot at 7:53 AM on January 30 [5 favorites]
For what it's worth I'm not trying to argue that this is a perfect film or anything. I was mildly surprised that it landed in the Best Picture category, even. But I'm really happy to see risk-taking in films rewarded in this age of reboots and I am much fonder of Lanthimos when he's having fun, which clearly he is in this picture.
Additionally I was surprised at how much I viscerally enjoyed seeing a movie with colors and shapes in it! It really showed up how much of the media I take in these days is graywashed and dim and fuzzy at the edges.
Is it a perfect bildungsroman, a My Antonia but with fucking? No, it's not. But I loved a lot of the ways in which Bella's development was plotted out and especially the ways the film underscores the motivations of her various "teachers," with really Martha being the only person whose interest in Bella is purely selfless. In particular, the scene in which Harry the Cynic admits that he didn't show Bella suffering and poverty to help her, but because he wanted to hurt her, stuck with me. That lesson in a coming-of-age vehicle usually goes implied or is denied outright but it's such a huge part of humanity.
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 11:00 AM on January 30 [7 favorites]
Additionally I was surprised at how much I viscerally enjoyed seeing a movie with colors and shapes in it! It really showed up how much of the media I take in these days is graywashed and dim and fuzzy at the edges.
Is it a perfect bildungsroman, a My Antonia but with fucking? No, it's not. But I loved a lot of the ways in which Bella's development was plotted out and especially the ways the film underscores the motivations of her various "teachers," with really Martha being the only person whose interest in Bella is purely selfless. In particular, the scene in which Harry the Cynic admits that he didn't show Bella suffering and poverty to help her, but because he wanted to hurt her, stuck with me. That lesson in a coming-of-age vehicle usually goes implied or is denied outright but it's such a huge part of humanity.
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 11:00 AM on January 30 [7 favorites]
I think fables are still about something, and as far as I can tell, this one was about, "What if there was a woman who was free from the strictures placed on her by a patriarchal society? Well... I bet she'd be totally DTF! Just sex with everybody! Sex all the time! And she'd be hot! Yeah! I bet she'd become a prostitute! And bone everybody! Just always naked! Oh, and, um, social inequality and stuff."
Except she was clothed most of the time, definitely wasn't always DTF (she easily sours on the men she meets), only becomes a prostitute because it's the only option she can find to make money and she's broke, and ultimately determines what makes her really happy is scientific experimentation.
posted by coffeecat at 5:25 PM on January 30 [5 favorites]
Except she was clothed most of the time, definitely wasn't always DTF (she easily sours on the men she meets), only becomes a prostitute because it's the only option she can find to make money and she's broke, and ultimately determines what makes her really happy is scientific experimentation.
posted by coffeecat at 5:25 PM on January 30 [5 favorites]
Yeah, the comments about her always being naked are way off. The costumes were really a big and creative part of this movie! There is nudity. I have no problem with nudity, unless it was being exploitative. This was not exploitative at all. It was just her body. And the film was made that way intentionally. The sex scenes weren't even sexy! Nor was the nudity. Her body was the machine she uses to navigate the world. Showing her body performing these actions, having sex, eating, walking, etc is a big part of the movie. All of her movements are done in an interesting, creative way.
I don't think it was a super-great film. I give it a 7 out of 10 maybe. At least it was a different idea, executed in an interesting and beautiful way. It was the story of what happened to this unusual, stylized, fairy-tale kind of character. A little like Pinocchio. Part of the story is she happened find out that she really, really enjoyed sex, particularly penetrative sex with men. But she enjoys other kinds of sex in this movie, too.
Some posters here are implying this film was a j***-off fantasy for straight men about Emma Stone, and that's really insulting to the movie and to Emma Stone! I saw the movie. I'm astonished that anyone could watch this movie and come away with an opinion such as that.
posted by SoberHighland at 2:02 PM on January 31 [9 favorites]
I don't think it was a super-great film. I give it a 7 out of 10 maybe. At least it was a different idea, executed in an interesting and beautiful way. It was the story of what happened to this unusual, stylized, fairy-tale kind of character. A little like Pinocchio. Part of the story is she happened find out that she really, really enjoyed sex, particularly penetrative sex with men. But she enjoys other kinds of sex in this movie, too.
Some posters here are implying this film was a j***-off fantasy for straight men about Emma Stone, and that's really insulting to the movie and to Emma Stone! I saw the movie. I'm astonished that anyone could watch this movie and come away with an opinion such as that.
posted by SoberHighland at 2:02 PM on January 31 [9 favorites]
> Man puts baby's brain in dead woman, brings woman back to life with baby brain, men find baby woman sexy, do sex to her, something something the proletariat, a brothel, and then she goes back to work for a man.
See like 70% of this statement is just a factually inaccurate description of the plot by someone who refuses to see the film because they dislike a 70% inaccurate description of the plot.
...Er, I did see the movie, and that description actually doesn't sound that far off. And I'm saying that as someone who liked the damn thing.
I wasn't super-dupes in love with it, but I didn't hate it either. I am not sure I buy the "feminist manifesto" angle, either. A couple reviews I've heard actually compare it to Barbie - one says that it would be what Barbie would be like if it was about "Weird Barbie", and another said it was "like Barbie on absinthe". (Not "on acid", because absinthe was more appropriately steampunk.)
It was fine. Emma Stone is fantastic - even the reviews I've read that hated it all said she did her job well (they just hated the nature of the job). And this thing better get a shit-ton of art direction awards. But I'm more content to be a sort of happy medium rather than get all het up and dug in to either side of the "it's a masterwork/it's dogshit" argument.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 11:33 AM on February 1 [2 favorites]
See like 70% of this statement is just a factually inaccurate description of the plot by someone who refuses to see the film because they dislike a 70% inaccurate description of the plot.
...Er, I did see the movie, and that description actually doesn't sound that far off. And I'm saying that as someone who liked the damn thing.
I wasn't super-dupes in love with it, but I didn't hate it either. I am not sure I buy the "feminist manifesto" angle, either. A couple reviews I've heard actually compare it to Barbie - one says that it would be what Barbie would be like if it was about "Weird Barbie", and another said it was "like Barbie on absinthe". (Not "on acid", because absinthe was more appropriately steampunk.)
It was fine. Emma Stone is fantastic - even the reviews I've read that hated it all said she did her job well (they just hated the nature of the job). And this thing better get a shit-ton of art direction awards. But I'm more content to be a sort of happy medium rather than get all het up and dug in to either side of the "it's a masterwork/it's dogshit" argument.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 11:33 AM on February 1 [2 favorites]
men find baby woman sexy
What's so fun about this part in particular is that both within the context of the plot of the movie and also in real life, the men who find the baby woman sexy are the problem. The more Bella grows into her own person, gains thoughts, opinions, and autonomy, the only ones who are shown unable to cope with this are those problematic men. They are sad and gross and make Bella bored.
posted by phunniemee at 12:19 PM on February 1 [12 favorites]
What's so fun about this part in particular is that both within the context of the plot of the movie and also in real life, the men who find the baby woman sexy are the problem. The more Bella grows into her own person, gains thoughts, opinions, and autonomy, the only ones who are shown unable to cope with this are those problematic men. They are sad and gross and make Bella bored.
posted by phunniemee at 12:19 PM on February 1 [12 favorites]
and then she goes back to work for a man.
this is ... not how the movie ends.
posted by chavenet at 8:43 AM on February 4 [8 favorites]
this is ... not how the movie ends.
posted by chavenet at 8:43 AM on February 4 [8 favorites]
Wow, I absolutely loved it. I was very on the fence beforehand. I read the Guardian debate and thought I would probably be on he nay side but oh my god I LOVED it! So surprising and ridiculous and hilarious and gorgeous and warm. There were definitely bum notes, poor Toinette was massively short-changed in the character stakes, the focus on a particularly slender, conventionally feminine and youthful physicality got some side eye from me and the brothel scenes went on a bit but overall, a win.
I am deeply, deeply cynical about the male gaze in cinema, and I also would have loved to see how a female director would have handled this but honestly no complaints. It was a total treat to me. Yay Emma Stone!
posted by freya_lamb at 3:41 PM on February 6 [2 favorites]
I am deeply, deeply cynical about the male gaze in cinema, and I also would have loved to see how a female director would have handled this but honestly no complaints. It was a total treat to me. Yay Emma Stone!
posted by freya_lamb at 3:41 PM on February 6 [2 favorites]
Based on the above conversation, I doubt that I was meant to find Bella Baxter relatable, but her navigation of society and sex and romance as a teenager/young adult felt pretty accurate. That realization that you've been working off instinct and guesswork, and apparently there is a rulebook and subclauses you agreed to by accident, and extricating yourself is going to be awkward?
Also those precious times when you stumble across fellow weirdos you can talk to. I'm curious about the book just to see what Martha and Toinette were like there.
(Bella is a reanimated corpse and beyond rules, and also lacks the shame and a dread of permanent consequences that were part of my personal experience. Also, the narrative was not about punishing Bella for these deficits or anything else, which made the film less realistic and more fun.)
The brothel felt like pure wish-fulfillment: wouldn't it be great if there were a way to make sex simple, with explicit rules, someone to enforce said rules, the money part out in the open? Turns out, no, even soft-pedaled sex work is not ideal. But going in that direction made sense to me. So did the focus on sex with men: if you are female-shaped and not making a specific effort, those are the offers you are most likely to get.
And the film was beautiful: the people and the sets and the costumes and everything. I enjoyed it more than I was expecting.
posted by mersen at 7:58 PM on February 6 [2 favorites]
Also those precious times when you stumble across fellow weirdos you can talk to. I'm curious about the book just to see what Martha and Toinette were like there.
(Bella is a reanimated corpse and beyond rules, and also lacks the shame and a dread of permanent consequences that were part of my personal experience. Also, the narrative was not about punishing Bella for these deficits or anything else, which made the film less realistic and more fun.)
The brothel felt like pure wish-fulfillment: wouldn't it be great if there were a way to make sex simple, with explicit rules, someone to enforce said rules, the money part out in the open? Turns out, no, even soft-pedaled sex work is not ideal. But going in that direction made sense to me. So did the focus on sex with men: if you are female-shaped and not making a specific effort, those are the offers you are most likely to get.
And the film was beautiful: the people and the sets and the costumes and everything. I enjoyed it more than I was expecting.
posted by mersen at 7:58 PM on February 6 [2 favorites]
do sex to her
This also isn't an accurate depiction of the film - she is the one doing the sex to them (and herself) as much as they are doing it to her.
I think it's worth mentioning that Stone and Lanthimos planned those scenes together - so I don't quite buy the idea they are a man's view of sex, nor do I think they aim to be a depiction of "how sex works" generally - again, Bella isn't an average woman. I also agree that they really weren't sexy, especially the scenes with Ruffalo - I think that was intentional, given they have the rudimentary quality you'd expect from a baby being involved! Even Ruffalo's character is a bit put off by Bella's approach to sex.
I also didn't find it to be Lanthimos' best - some parts lagged and I suspect it might have benefited from a tighter edit - but it's now been a few weeks since I saw it, and a lot of the imagery is still with me - I'd say it's solid B+ film for the score and visuals alone.
posted by coffeecat at 7:49 AM on February 7 [2 favorites]
This also isn't an accurate depiction of the film - she is the one doing the sex to them (and herself) as much as they are doing it to her.
I think it's worth mentioning that Stone and Lanthimos planned those scenes together - so I don't quite buy the idea they are a man's view of sex, nor do I think they aim to be a depiction of "how sex works" generally - again, Bella isn't an average woman. I also agree that they really weren't sexy, especially the scenes with Ruffalo - I think that was intentional, given they have the rudimentary quality you'd expect from a baby being involved! Even Ruffalo's character is a bit put off by Bella's approach to sex.
I also didn't find it to be Lanthimos' best - some parts lagged and I suspect it might have benefited from a tighter edit - but it's now been a few weeks since I saw it, and a lot of the imagery is still with me - I'd say it's solid B+ film for the score and visuals alone.
posted by coffeecat at 7:49 AM on February 7 [2 favorites]
I really enjoyed this movie, but by contrast I didn't like Snowpiercer very much. I was thinking about this given DirtyOldTown's comments that they're the same sort of thing. Like, yeah, neither is what you'd call realistic, but I think that Poor Things is a lot more internally consistent than Snowpiercer.
I think that Snowpiercer started with it's general arc, and then did whatever was needed to get the story to those points, regardless of whether it really made any sense or not. Poor Things, on the other hand, is a lot more sfnal to me. It sets up rules for it's world, and then it explores that space. Like... if you set up fantastic elements of your story at the start, that's totally fine. Encouraged, even; that's what I'm here for. But Snowpiecer's resolution depended on introducing new fantastic elements which didn't flow from the original premise and which the audience had no way of knowing until it was shown on the screen at the climax. It was certainly *thematically* consistent, but it wasn't logically consistent.
I think Poor Things is both thematically and logically self-consistent. I can understand why some people might not find that distinction important, but painting Poor Things and Snowpiecer as parables engaging in the same mode of story-telling doesn't ring true for me.
posted by vibratory manner of working at 11:24 AM on February 10 [1 favorite]
I think that Snowpiercer started with it's general arc, and then did whatever was needed to get the story to those points, regardless of whether it really made any sense or not. Poor Things, on the other hand, is a lot more sfnal to me. It sets up rules for it's world, and then it explores that space. Like... if you set up fantastic elements of your story at the start, that's totally fine. Encouraged, even; that's what I'm here for. But Snowpiecer's resolution depended on introducing new fantastic elements which didn't flow from the original premise and which the audience had no way of knowing until it was shown on the screen at the climax. It was certainly *thematically* consistent, but it wasn't logically consistent.
I think Poor Things is both thematically and logically self-consistent. I can understand why some people might not find that distinction important, but painting Poor Things and Snowpiecer as parables engaging in the same mode of story-telling doesn't ring true for me.
posted by vibratory manner of working at 11:24 AM on February 10 [1 favorite]
I only compared the discussions about the films, not the films themselves.
Each discussion is full of people refusing to accept the film's parameters and asks and then choosing to evaluate the film by rules it does not attempt to play by.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 2:19 PM on February 10
Each discussion is full of people refusing to accept the film's parameters and asks and then choosing to evaluate the film by rules it does not attempt to play by.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 2:19 PM on February 10
DirtyOldTown, I didn't mean to single you out, and I don't want to speak for you, but when you wrote "I recall now from our talks about Snowpiercer that MetaFilter rankles a bit at filmic parables", that seems to me to be saying that both movies are alike in a particular way, and that that shared aspect explains the similarities in discussion.
So that made me think about why I personally had a very different reaction to the two films. You could certainly say that my feelings about Snowpiecer are "refusing to accept the film's parameters". I'd probably have to agree with you, although I'd quibble that it's a case where what the "film's parameters" are isn't especially clear until late in the game. But it's more interesting to go further than that, and consider what elements make fantastic elements more or less readily accepted by someone. Sometimes that can be a failure on the film's part, not just a stubbornness on the part of the viewer.
Evaluating a movie by rules other than it's own can be an important part of film discussion, because ultimately no matter what rules govern a movie internally, that movie also is viewed in the context of the world that we inhabit, and things that may be understandable within the context of the movie can still be objectionable in the context of the viewer, even for a viewer with full understanding. That's generally the tenor of the criticism of this movie, and dismissing that as just "refusing to accept the film's parameters" can prevent a more nuanced conversation from happening.
I think this discussion has been difficult because the weight of the criticisms can carry an implicit (or explicit) moral judgement of those who enjoyed the film. And some of the comments here are have been simply dismissive of the movie, or those who like it. So it's easy to react defensively. But I think there's a useful discussion to be had here still.
posted by vibratory manner of working at 4:04 PM on February 10 [1 favorite]
So that made me think about why I personally had a very different reaction to the two films. You could certainly say that my feelings about Snowpiecer are "refusing to accept the film's parameters". I'd probably have to agree with you, although I'd quibble that it's a case where what the "film's parameters" are isn't especially clear until late in the game. But it's more interesting to go further than that, and consider what elements make fantastic elements more or less readily accepted by someone. Sometimes that can be a failure on the film's part, not just a stubbornness on the part of the viewer.
Evaluating a movie by rules other than it's own can be an important part of film discussion, because ultimately no matter what rules govern a movie internally, that movie also is viewed in the context of the world that we inhabit, and things that may be understandable within the context of the movie can still be objectionable in the context of the viewer, even for a viewer with full understanding. That's generally the tenor of the criticism of this movie, and dismissing that as just "refusing to accept the film's parameters" can prevent a more nuanced conversation from happening.
I think this discussion has been difficult because the weight of the criticisms can carry an implicit (or explicit) moral judgement of those who enjoyed the film. And some of the comments here are have been simply dismissive of the movie, or those who like it. So it's easy to react defensively. But I think there's a useful discussion to be had here still.
posted by vibratory manner of working at 4:04 PM on February 10 [1 favorite]
I really enjoyed this movie and did find Bella relatable and inspiring. Sorry if that makes me a weirdo. She starts out as a cat--her favorite hobby is knocking stuff onto the floor and she doesn't understand why her protectors won't let her outside. I laughed when God tells her she can't go outside because of "poisonous grass seeds" because that's a primary reason my cat can't go outside--she'll eat all the grasses including the poisonous ones! I also thought, "thank god my cat is neutered." I've worked in schools and teaching children, especially ones whose physical and mental ages don't match up, that they are not allowed to touch themselves in public is a real challenge, especially given that you are not allowed to talk to children about sex. You have to teach them not to do a thing you can't mention, which leads to you teaching the child a general shame rather than specifics.
After the cat phase, Bella leaves home and it turns into a bildungsroman where she creates herself. The overly verbose moody adolescent phase is obviously the part I sympathized with the most. And then at the end, when she leans over the edge of the bridge, but then chooses life. Then chooses not to impart the same life onto Godwin.
posted by tofu_crouton at 6:42 AM on February 14 [7 favorites]
After the cat phase, Bella leaves home and it turns into a bildungsroman where she creates herself. The overly verbose moody adolescent phase is obviously the part I sympathized with the most. And then at the end, when she leans over the edge of the bridge, but then chooses life. Then chooses not to impart the same life onto Godwin.
posted by tofu_crouton at 6:42 AM on February 14 [7 favorites]
this is the best movie i've seen in years. it slices crossways across the consensual hallucination that is society. or really it cuts twice — god cuts with a brutal clumsy hatchet, and then bella goes in and cuts what's left with a diamond-edged knife.
thought 1:
posted by bombastic lowercase pronouncements at 8:36 AM on March 2 [4 favorites]
thought 1:
- yes, candide, candide is a great touchpoint. but candide never really seems embodied to me, but instead seems more like an abstract mind piloting a body, and bella's philosophical development is always always always inextricable from her embodiment
- okay this is sort of a lame pun but sort of not: is it fair to say that this is a work of theodicy?
- if so, is it a successful one? is it even possible to justify god and the things that god does?
posted by bombastic lowercase pronouncements at 8:36 AM on March 2 [4 favorites]
so on the one hand that "thought 1" there is an editing error, but on the other hand i've decided to roll with it: thought 1 is a list of three semi-distinct thoughts. i'll get back to you if i find out what thought 2 is.
posted by bombastic lowercase pronouncements at 9:06 AM on March 2 [3 favorites]
posted by bombastic lowercase pronouncements at 9:06 AM on March 2 [3 favorites]
Went into this film blind, not knowing what to expect. First of all, fabulous use of a posh British accent ("furious jumping?"). I thought it paralleled the recent PT Anderson film Licorice Pizza in the way a female protagonist was gathering experience with a collection of useless men before, maybe, settling on the most promising partner. Seemed to me that Max, since he apologised, had reflected, rejected the no-consent contract, and didn't try to control her body or be clingy, was this film's supposed counterexample.
(btw I could not get enough of the first bad guy's comeuppance.)
Some folk in the Barbie thread mentioned that Barbie perhaps stopped short before the physical power imbalance question against a male. So, unpleasant as the final chapter of Bella's was, I thought at least it posed that question - with the protagonist up against the General as a "final boss of shitty men". I am definitely a weirdo but the film didn't so much titillate me as make me feel some empathy and hope for people's self-actualisation.
I also would have wished for more adventuring, I thought it would be more of a globetrotting romp .
posted by yoHighness at 4:23 AM on March 3 [3 favorites]
(btw I could not get enough of the first bad guy's comeuppance.)
Some folk in the Barbie thread mentioned that Barbie perhaps stopped short before the physical power imbalance question against a male. So, unpleasant as the final chapter of Bella's was, I thought at least it posed that question - with the protagonist up against the General as a "final boss of shitty men". I am definitely a weirdo but the film didn't so much titillate me as make me feel some empathy and hope for people's self-actualisation.
I also would have wished for more adventuring, I thought it would be more of a globetrotting romp .
posted by yoHighness at 4:23 AM on March 3 [3 favorites]
i had this whole thing typed up where i attempted to put together "thought 2", but then i deleted it because eh who cares.
so in lieu of thought 2, here's a couple of questions:
posted by bombastic lowercase pronouncements at 1:42 PM on March 3 [2 favorites]
so in lieu of thought 2, here's a couple of questions:
- is bella, in the end, good?
- if bella-the-daughter is good, does her goodness thereby justify the acts of god-the-father?
posted by bombastic lowercase pronouncements at 1:42 PM on March 3 [2 favorites]
There is an interview with the screenwriter Tony McNamara on the Script Apart podcast, where he talks a bit about the themes of the movie.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 8:36 PM on March 3
posted by TheophileEscargot at 8:36 PM on March 3
Just got to see this, and thought it was ridiculously fun. It's neither feminist nor anti-feminist. I just think it's neat! The question of "what would this have been like if a woman wrote it" is pretty weird, though, because we already had that. It's called Frankenstein! It's pretty good!
posted by phooky at 7:16 AM on March 7 [4 favorites]
posted by phooky at 7:16 AM on March 7 [4 favorites]
Okay, now that I've had a little processing time:
posted by phooky at 8:41 AM on March 7 [4 favorites]
- A lot of the Peter Greenaway vibe I got here stemmed from the soundtrack, which sounded like a detuned Michael Nyman after an evening of shrooms with Mark Mothersbaugh.
- Every single character was a caricature. That's not a criticism! That, and the surreal sets and locations, really nailed it into place as a fable. It allowed for some outrageous moments which couldn't possibly work otherwise, like Swiney's hilarious "but who will feed this poor innocent baby?" reveal.
- I didn't connect Stone's first-half stumbling gait with Boris Karloff until just this moment, and now it's even funnier.
- The decision not to put Brain A into Body B is the crux and climax of the film, and it's never even mentioned aloud. The entire movie builds to this point that's entirely made by its omission. It works. It's almost like a punch in the face. Magic.
- Aaaand I just discovered that Kathryn Hunter, who plays Swiney, was also in Greenaway's The Baby of Mâcon, the best film that I will never recommend. That's a pretty deep cut.
- "Weee!" "Yes, it's very exciting!"
posted by phooky at 8:41 AM on March 7 [4 favorites]
I think between this movie and the recent Nathan Fielder series, The Curse, Emma Stone has made it clear that she doesn't give a fuck what you think about how she portrays sex in the projects she chooses.
posted by Stanczyk at 3:53 PM on March 9 [3 favorites]
posted by Stanczyk at 3:53 PM on March 9 [3 favorites]
This movie starts out a lot like Alita: Battle Angel but has less motor ball, despite being longer.
posted by paper chromatographologist at 7:42 AM on March 11
posted by paper chromatographologist at 7:42 AM on March 11
Last night Poor Things won 4 Oscars: Emma Stone Best Actress in a Leading Role, Best Production Design, Best Costume Design, Best Makeup and Hairstyling.
I'm not a fan of Lanthimos, but I did enjoy the design aspects of the film as well as performances.
posted by miss-lapin at 11:10 PM on March 11
I'm not a fan of Lanthimos, but I did enjoy the design aspects of the film as well as performances.
posted by miss-lapin at 11:10 PM on March 11
Harry Astley's character on the boat, says that humans are cruel savage creatures (to that effect) and while Bella refutes him, I think the ending of the film actually circles back and underlines that statement. Since that line seems to counter the intended final evolution of Bella, the fact the ending points back to it, perhaps unintentionally, soured much of the good will that had been generated up to that point.
I overall liked the film, the sets, the costumes, and the acting was superb from almost everyone involved. The premise, while messed up (I don't think Baxter ever indicated the baby wasn't viable on its own, so he basically stole a normal life from the baby), was different and entertainingly unique. There was a lot of sex in the film and I'm not sure if it really served a purpose outside of the theory that one needs a lot of sex to become a fully matured adult. While Bella begins the process of working in a brothel under the premise of "I need money, and a scientific approach to evaluating sex across different partners is interesting," it just seemed like a lot. As much as some might say that Emma Stone wasn't sexualized, she was implicitly sexualized in that part of the film, in part because she was attired in a way to appeal to the sexual nature of the customers coming to the brothel. Arguably, there's also something inherently sexualizing depicting anyone engaging in sex work, positively or not. But this is just a quarter of the film, I suppose?
The film seemed to say a lot less about women as much as it said about men. In the film men are sexually attracted to a woman who hasn't fully developed a mental maturity. It reminded me of Stepford Wives in that regard (not that Bella is one, but the men's desire for such a woman). While McCandles is the first one to fall in love, I suppose, unlike Ruffalo's character, his attraction grows to include the mature Bella, which while good, still doesn't answer the initial attraction. Then you have Baxter, who uses women (notably) as his experiments, not men (was it ever clear the second subject was also a pregnant woman at the time?), and clearly the victim of horrid physical abuse by his father. Bella is offered women friendship, but it's mostly fleeting but for her final relationship with Toinette.
But the end, the end is where I blinked because it didn't make any sense and the contradiction was extremely close in proximity to the events of the film. When Bella meets the new experiment (Felicity?) she calls both Baxter and McCandles "monsters." She has decided that the act that bore her into the world is one that only someone without humanity would perpetrate.
The general appears and it isn't surprising that Bella agrees to go with him to learn about her body's former life, but Bella is smart enough to appreciate that it wasn't her life, and in fact, according to the General, her mother could be cruel as her father. The General, likewise, while threatening to kill Bella, is also torturing and threatening to kill his staff. He's a terrible person. So when he's shot in the foot by accident (not necessarily a life threatening wound, but okay), Bella somehow brings him to McCandles and explains, "I couldn't let him die!" Then seconds later, we see them preparing to conduct surgery on the General, and in short time, we learn that Bella has removed the General's brain and swapped it for a goat's. It's treated as the funniest joke, everyone laughs, the end. Like WTF?
Bella is smart enough to know that she is killing the General by removing his brain. We don't see it transplanted anywhere else, and even if somehow the goat's brain is grafted onto his brain, there's no indication that what remains is human in identity. It bleats like a goat, it eats leaves like a goat (and presumably, will die as the human digestive system is not designed to handle food that goats eat, but I digress). For all intents and purposes, Bella killed the General. And not only did she kill the General, but she chose to use the same procedure that was used to give birth to her and Felicity (Granted, it is a goat and not an infant this time?). For all that the General was evil, wicked and terrible, it was a cruel thing she did.
It felt like someone thought it would be a funny way to end the film, but for me, it undermined Bella's character - who, as far as I'm aware, had actually not been cruel purposefully to anyone throughout the film. Was this supposed to represent a final level of adulthood? It took a film I was generally enjoying and knocked it down a peg. Just a weird choice.
posted by Atreides at 7:51 AM on March 12 [3 favorites]
I overall liked the film, the sets, the costumes, and the acting was superb from almost everyone involved. The premise, while messed up (I don't think Baxter ever indicated the baby wasn't viable on its own, so he basically stole a normal life from the baby), was different and entertainingly unique. There was a lot of sex in the film and I'm not sure if it really served a purpose outside of the theory that one needs a lot of sex to become a fully matured adult. While Bella begins the process of working in a brothel under the premise of "I need money, and a scientific approach to evaluating sex across different partners is interesting," it just seemed like a lot. As much as some might say that Emma Stone wasn't sexualized, she was implicitly sexualized in that part of the film, in part because she was attired in a way to appeal to the sexual nature of the customers coming to the brothel. Arguably, there's also something inherently sexualizing depicting anyone engaging in sex work, positively or not. But this is just a quarter of the film, I suppose?
The film seemed to say a lot less about women as much as it said about men. In the film men are sexually attracted to a woman who hasn't fully developed a mental maturity. It reminded me of Stepford Wives in that regard (not that Bella is one, but the men's desire for such a woman). While McCandles is the first one to fall in love, I suppose, unlike Ruffalo's character, his attraction grows to include the mature Bella, which while good, still doesn't answer the initial attraction. Then you have Baxter, who uses women (notably) as his experiments, not men (was it ever clear the second subject was also a pregnant woman at the time?), and clearly the victim of horrid physical abuse by his father. Bella is offered women friendship, but it's mostly fleeting but for her final relationship with Toinette.
But the end, the end is where I blinked because it didn't make any sense and the contradiction was extremely close in proximity to the events of the film. When Bella meets the new experiment (Felicity?) she calls both Baxter and McCandles "monsters." She has decided that the act that bore her into the world is one that only someone without humanity would perpetrate.
The general appears and it isn't surprising that Bella agrees to go with him to learn about her body's former life, but Bella is smart enough to appreciate that it wasn't her life, and in fact, according to the General, her mother could be cruel as her father. The General, likewise, while threatening to kill Bella, is also torturing and threatening to kill his staff. He's a terrible person. So when he's shot in the foot by accident (not necessarily a life threatening wound, but okay), Bella somehow brings him to McCandles and explains, "I couldn't let him die!" Then seconds later, we see them preparing to conduct surgery on the General, and in short time, we learn that Bella has removed the General's brain and swapped it for a goat's. It's treated as the funniest joke, everyone laughs, the end. Like WTF?
Bella is smart enough to know that she is killing the General by removing his brain. We don't see it transplanted anywhere else, and even if somehow the goat's brain is grafted onto his brain, there's no indication that what remains is human in identity. It bleats like a goat, it eats leaves like a goat (and presumably, will die as the human digestive system is not designed to handle food that goats eat, but I digress). For all intents and purposes, Bella killed the General. And not only did she kill the General, but she chose to use the same procedure that was used to give birth to her and Felicity (Granted, it is a goat and not an infant this time?). For all that the General was evil, wicked and terrible, it was a cruel thing she did.
It felt like someone thought it would be a funny way to end the film, but for me, it undermined Bella's character - who, as far as I'm aware, had actually not been cruel purposefully to anyone throughout the film. Was this supposed to represent a final level of adulthood? It took a film I was generally enjoying and knocked it down a peg. Just a weird choice.
posted by Atreides at 7:51 AM on March 12 [3 favorites]
> [...] Emma Stone wasn't sexualized, she was implicitly sexualized in that part of the film
okay but it might be fun to reword the above so that it's active voice rather than passive voice, because doing so will present certain puzzles that must be solved and the solutions one finds to those puzzles may work to clarify one's sense of what the hell is going on in this movie
> Then you have Baxter
god. his name is god. like, calling this character "baxter" requires glossing over the main fact about him.
> it undermined Bella's character - who, as far as I'm aware, had actually not been cruel purposefully to anyone throughout the film.
is cruelty necessarily bad? additionally: is bella good?
like, cruel or not cruel is kind of beside the point, since (as i see it) both bella and god float blissfully above the world's sense of what is or is not moral, and both of them are overwhelmingly confident in their ability and their right to squeeze all the information they can from the world and then use it to remake that world to fit their specifications. like, under it all though both bella and god have no problem treating the world as raw material to be explored and then sculpted, it's just that bella's vision for the world is on the whole more pleasant than god's.
but also, and this cannot be stressed highly enough, it is good to kill bad people, particularly people as bad as the bad person she put a goat's brain into. but also: the goat didn't do anything wrong and now it's stuck in a dude because it's funny. but also, is bella good? should bella be good? nah. for my part i think that subsequent to taking over the surgery bella devotes herself to a full and pleasurable life of playing god and i am here for it, but that may be because i'm in my small way a power-mad lunatic and so identify positively with power-mad lunatics when i see them on a screen.
tl;dr moral complexity on film good
and also killing bad people good
posted by bombastic lowercase pronouncements at 11:39 AM on March 12 [1 favorite]
okay but it might be fun to reword the above so that it's active voice rather than passive voice, because doing so will present certain puzzles that must be solved and the solutions one finds to those puzzles may work to clarify one's sense of what the hell is going on in this movie
> Then you have Baxter
god. his name is god. like, calling this character "baxter" requires glossing over the main fact about him.
> it undermined Bella's character - who, as far as I'm aware, had actually not been cruel purposefully to anyone throughout the film.
is cruelty necessarily bad? additionally: is bella good?
like, cruel or not cruel is kind of beside the point, since (as i see it) both bella and god float blissfully above the world's sense of what is or is not moral, and both of them are overwhelmingly confident in their ability and their right to squeeze all the information they can from the world and then use it to remake that world to fit their specifications. like, under it all though both bella and god have no problem treating the world as raw material to be explored and then sculpted, it's just that bella's vision for the world is on the whole more pleasant than god's.
but also, and this cannot be stressed highly enough, it is good to kill bad people, particularly people as bad as the bad person she put a goat's brain into. but also: the goat didn't do anything wrong and now it's stuck in a dude because it's funny. but also, is bella good? should bella be good? nah. for my part i think that subsequent to taking over the surgery bella devotes herself to a full and pleasurable life of playing god and i am here for it, but that may be because i'm in my small way a power-mad lunatic and so identify positively with power-mad lunatics when i see them on a screen.
tl;dr moral complexity on film good
and also killing bad people good
posted by bombastic lowercase pronouncements at 11:39 AM on March 12 [1 favorite]
You'll never guess what General Blessington looks like today.
posted by phunniemee at 12:52 PM on March 12 [5 favorites]
posted by phunniemee at 12:52 PM on March 12 [5 favorites]
I posted Yorgos Lanthimos' first feature, Kinetta to FF.
I've heard it's not great, but I'll probably watch it anyway.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 2:09 PM on March 12 [1 favorite]
I've heard it's not great, but I'll probably watch it anyway.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 2:09 PM on March 12 [1 favorite]
I finally saw this on Hulu last night and I feel like an utter idiot for not catching it in the theaters. Since it got a nice handful of Oscars I'm hoping it will get a re-release.
I could not stop laughing at Mark Ruffalo's perfect Lolita/Georgy Girl-era James Mason impersonation. That actually felt like a very conscious decision to me.
posted by queensissy at 2:44 PM on March 12 [3 favorites]
I could not stop laughing at Mark Ruffalo's perfect Lolita/Georgy Girl-era James Mason impersonation. That actually felt like a very conscious decision to me.
posted by queensissy at 2:44 PM on March 12 [3 favorites]
but also, and this cannot be stressed highly enough, it is good to kill bad people, particularly people as bad as the bad person she put a goat's brain into. but also: the goat didn't do anything wrong and now it's stuck in a dude because it's funny. but also, is bella good? should bella be good? nah.
The problem isn't that a bad person is killed in the film, it's that Bella makes a specific statement that she could not leave him to die. If she had quantified it with something akin to, "Because I have plans to use his body as a host for a goat brain!" then it would have made more sense even. Hell, if she had even said, "I couldn't let his body die," it would make more sense because it indicates her seeing the body as valuable, not the General's life. There's no revenge or punishment here other than on the cosmic scale because the General is unconscious and never made aware that his life is going to end when his brain is yanked out, thrown in the bin, and his body given over to a goat.
This isn't a morality question. It's a writing question. There is no build up to the moment where the question of "is Bella's morality changing here" is asked or raised. Nor is there a question of "Has her experience with the General lead her to developing ideas about revenge, justice, and so on." She simply brings him back to the surgery because she couldn't let him die and then a few pages go missing in the script and a second writer suddenly steps in, without caring very much for what had been written up to that point, and thought, "Wouldn't this be a funny way to end the film?"
That's my issue with the ending.
posted by Atreides at 8:57 AM on March 13 [5 favorites]
The problem isn't that a bad person is killed in the film, it's that Bella makes a specific statement that she could not leave him to die. If she had quantified it with something akin to, "Because I have plans to use his body as a host for a goat brain!" then it would have made more sense even. Hell, if she had even said, "I couldn't let his body die," it would make more sense because it indicates her seeing the body as valuable, not the General's life. There's no revenge or punishment here other than on the cosmic scale because the General is unconscious and never made aware that his life is going to end when his brain is yanked out, thrown in the bin, and his body given over to a goat.
This isn't a morality question. It's a writing question. There is no build up to the moment where the question of "is Bella's morality changing here" is asked or raised. Nor is there a question of "Has her experience with the General lead her to developing ideas about revenge, justice, and so on." She simply brings him back to the surgery because she couldn't let him die and then a few pages go missing in the script and a second writer suddenly steps in, without caring very much for what had been written up to that point, and thought, "Wouldn't this be a funny way to end the film?"
That's my issue with the ending.
posted by Atreides at 8:57 AM on March 13 [5 favorites]
In the interview I linked above, the screenwriter Tony McNamara seems quite proud of what he calls the "goat joke". It didn't really work that well for me, but it does seem to have been part of his intention all along. It wasn't a last-minute change or another writer coming in.
Humour is a personal thing, maybe it worked better for some people.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 1:27 PM on March 13
Humour is a personal thing, maybe it worked better for some people.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 1:27 PM on March 13
"I couldn't let him die!"
Bella couldn't let him die; whether he bled out or the mutinous staff who had little love for Mrs. Blessington finished him off, Wedderburn would undoubtedly see to it that she be held responsible.
But she couldn't let him live, either.
I'm not smart enough to speak about the Feminism, but it is funny turnabout, after Bella being constantly objectified and exploited, that the story ends with a man's value being derived solely from his body for a change, and everyone is the better for it.
(I also thought perhaps Godwin would get a brain transplant, but to simply die in quiet peace, embraced by loved ones, was one of the few natural experiences he ever had in his cruel, sad life. The Dad Themes in this hit me pretty hard.)
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 12:04 AM on March 26 [1 favorite]
Bella couldn't let him die; whether he bled out or the mutinous staff who had little love for Mrs. Blessington finished him off, Wedderburn would undoubtedly see to it that she be held responsible.
But she couldn't let him live, either.
I'm not smart enough to speak about the Feminism, but it is funny turnabout, after Bella being constantly objectified and exploited, that the story ends with a man's value being derived solely from his body for a change, and everyone is the better for it.
(I also thought perhaps Godwin would get a brain transplant, but to simply die in quiet peace, embraced by loved ones, was one of the few natural experiences he ever had in his cruel, sad life. The Dad Themes in this hit me pretty hard.)
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 12:04 AM on March 26 [1 favorite]
Huh, I liked this a lot more than I expected. (Tbh if I realized Tony McNamara wrote it, I would've watched it earlier!) I loved The Favorite, and I...didn't regret watching The Killing of a Sacred Deer and The Lobster. The middle part of the film is staggeringly lovely to look at, and I thought the scenes with Jerrod Carmichael were excellent. I agree that the final, uh, joke with the psycho husband doesn't really work? It's a genuine off note that sours everything a bit, so I'm just trying to forget that part.
posted by grandiloquiet at 7:02 PM on March 28 [1 favorite]
posted by grandiloquiet at 7:02 PM on March 28 [1 favorite]
Just saw it last night and thought it was pretty solid. I will say the sets and costuming blew me away. I haven't had time to interrogate, but I wonder if the strength of those elements carried me through even the stuff that didn't quite work
posted by Carillon at 12:52 PM on March 31 [3 favorites]
posted by Carillon at 12:52 PM on March 31 [3 favorites]
The Corridor Crew YouTube channel just had a segment about the Poor Things visual effects.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 11:11 PM on April 20
posted by TheophileEscargot at 11:11 PM on April 20
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
Definitely recommend seeing this in the theater if you can, 1) for the overwhelming cinematography and 2) because you can make a pretty accurate guess to the variety of useless men your fellow attendees have dated by listening for which laugh at what parts.
posted by phunniemee at 7:22 PM on December 26, 2023 [14 favorites]