The Empty Brilliance of Poor Things | in-depth film review
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 1 фев 2024
- Poor Things (2023) has taken award season by storm. Artistic and clever...it never the less lacks something very important, something the original book had in spades. This creates a bit of an issue in the film portrays its underlying feminist message.
Chapters.
Part 1. Synopsis and general observations
Part 2. The [redacted] brilliance of Poor Things - Beauty
Part 2. cont. The [redacted] brilliance of Poor Things - Brains
Part 3. The empty brilliance of Poor Things
Conclusion
.
.
.
.
.
If you watched the video, then THANK YOU FOR WATCHING! Plz Consider the SUBSCRIBE BUTTON, haha, so I can make more videos about culture, movies, literature, art etc.! You don't have to press it, per se...but at least consider it, you know?
----
Become an Airhead and follow ma socials:
Instagram: @upintheairft.zurich (book reviews, art and films - if you like my yt content then Instagram has similar content I don't publish anywhere else)
Twitter: @uitaftzurich (nothing really there, lol)
---
About me:
I am a 20-somethin’ y.o intellectual crackhead, who like books, poetry, and anything else I like to get into (art, films, philosophy, culture, social commentary etc.). Talking books, I like classics, literary fiction, and sci-fi, but will read anything if it’s bad-funny enough.
---
Articles mentioned.
- Aimée Lutkin, 'Emma Stone Explains the Controversial Sex Scenes in ‘Poor Things'', Elle [20/1/24]
- Rachel Davies, 'Inside Poor Things' surreal universe', House and Garden [23/1/24]
- Katie Spencer, Gemma Peplow, 'Poor Things, Saltburn, All Of Us Strangers: Get ready for [redacted for YT algorithm] on screen in 2024Sky News', Sky News [14/1/24]
----
Films mentioned.
- Poor Things (2023), dir. Yorgos Lanthimos
- Wizard of Oz (1939), dir. Norman Taurog, Richard Thorpe, George Cukor, Mervyn LeRoy, Victor Fleming, and King Vidor
----
Music used.
- Piano Sonata in A minor - Edvard Grieg
#filmreview #culture #videoessay #cinema #poorthings #emmastone #cinema #yorgoslanthimos #movies #arthouse #a24 #socialcommentary #commentary 
Развлечения
Thanks for watching! Planning on watching Poor Things? And do you think it supports self-centredness and misandry?
I've seen a ton of ads for it in local artsy theaters and was VERY interested to hear how it turns out... I'm psyched to not have to waste the money on a movie ticket to discover your incredibly well told take!
Please. It supports free will and self discovery.
No, there was no misandry but found plenty of misogynistic subversive exploitation with Bella's often artistically & unnecessarily exhaustive "furious jumping" which robbed the film of its thematic continuity. Excellent review: "The Empty Brilliance of Poor Things" indeed!. If only the book adaptation considered Victoria McCandless, the heroine of Alisdair Gray's book, were faithful to the original, Bella would have been "humanized". But, really, with an "edgy" absurdist director like Lanthimos I didn't expect less "self-centredness" and misogyny in that film! Thank you for a great review.
@alcom7697 All men in the movie are one dimensional caricatures that are painted in the worst light possible as straw men easily pushed over. Yet the movie doesn't criticise their weak male minds or their inability to properly recognise the contradictions of what the story has given them... nah! The only thing wrong with them according to the story is that they are not liberal and degenerate enough. They had the audacity to stop halfway through and reconsider where all of this selfish exploration is even going? What are the logical consequence of unrestrained liberalism? The story just doesn't want us to think about that too hard though as it continues to assume that a liberal woman is a perfect flawless creature if she wasn't held down by the patriarchy
I think Yorgos decision to give Bela a nasty edge was the correct choice. A child like mind that is shown no boundaries will instantly become narcissistic and tyrannical. The book glosses over this well known fact to preserve and protect its political message as to not risk that the reader might think too much about it
I found Bella's cruelty natural, as young kids are mostly self serving, and sometimes quite cruel. This empathy is developed over time, and it made sense that for her a big moment was when she realised how unfair the world was. Maybe her empathy didn't extend to Duncan for exmaple, because of their relationship, but I wouldn't expect Bella to be that emotionally intelligent at that point in the story.
Children can be very cruel, but they also can be very kind. Bella is never kind to anyone but herself - not really even to those she likes. Also the Alexandria event is isolated. It is like an erruption of emotion, and then it is not revisited in any signicant way other than wanting liberation and equality - for herself. After Alexandria, she is only seen to deliberate and act on her own oppression and not the oppression of others. I didn't think her ways of thinking or her character changed sufficiently after such a response to suffering. She still made a certain someone into a goat...😂
@@UpintheAirft.Zurich I understand, maybe her character didn't feel fully fledged at the end, but the goat part felt like a cartoonishly evil fate for a cartoonishly evil character, more like a payoff for the audience then a characterization of Bella
Exactly. As an experienced aunt of two, I'd like to see these "kind" children. They do not exist.
@@MsTriangle Kids are selfish assholes, that's why I don't want them, I'm inpatient, some might learn and grow out of it, some don't.
@@UpintheAirft.Zurich How was she supposed to stand up for the oppression of others?????????????????? She did go to that socialist lessons and got rid of that military asset at the end. I guess if the movie could cover her entire life we might have seen her turn into la madre Teresa or some shit... I personally would rather not
I've never read the book, nor had I even heard of it before watching this film. I have to say, I actually really enjoyed the lack of heart in the story. It detached the story and characters from what we accept as a society and I believe it worked perfectly with the style of the film. We expect everyone to have some sort of heart or empathy in order to be considered human, and this film challenged that, played on that even. Out of the entire film, I thought that when she found the poor of the world and had such a tremendous reaction to it, it was a little too extreme and ill-fitting to her previous starkly heartless nature, but at the same time it fit her emotional instability. I just thought the film was wonderful in every possible way, being one of the best new films to have come out in a long, long time. The extravagant decadence it portrayed really hijacks your mind, trying to disect all the intricacies it presented days after. I adore this film
It obviously didnt impact her.much since she forgot about the dead poor people five minutes later and ended up at thd isolated estate. The audience was supposed to think that this scene was the start of her thinking about class inequality but I didn't buy it.
I loved it as well
Children are not kind nor unkind. They are like blank papers. Children can perfectly be missing empathy without being psychologically ill. The child doesn’t have to love the frog nor kill the frog intentionally instead of accidentally. She did literally say, “kill it”. A child just plays for fun WITHOUT the intention of killing. That’s a psychopath there. Children are not heartless, as a matter of fact.
And another problem, the inconsistency makes it even less convincing. It’s rather made for exaggeration. I don’t buy it.
@@maryjaneshoe-fm4yrshe gained agency at the end of the film and decided to become a doctor. We are seeing her adolescent maturity into becoming an adult. The movie doesn't tell you what Bella will do next. Will she become a Socialist politician? Will she become a doctor? Will she make a charity to help the poor? We don't know and I applaud movies that do not hold your hand and tell the audience directly "she will do x".
Making a statement like "wonderful in every possible way" makes it hard to take your review seriously.
I think there is a conflation of sociology and philosophy. Its not an overtly feminist message, but a humanist one. This is an existential film, not necessarily a political one. I think the scope of the message is much wider than just feminism.
🎯
I did not see the men as weak or submissive. Their behavior shifts once a woman they admire and find value in unapologetically shares her opinion. They initially find value in her because they feel that they can groom her because she is the sexy born again yesterday trope (as seen in the fifth element) but in this instance they can’t control her and instead they want to watch what she can do because it’s better than anything they could’ve come up with themselves. It’s not that women are better than men and they don’t need them, it is equality in listening to what a woman would say when they are allowed to speak.
I don't agree with your take but I do think it's well-considered and thoughtful. I don't think any of the men really change their mind about Bella. Duncan loses his sanity in trying to consider a woman as free as Bella (which I'm okay with lol), and Blessington is turned into a goat 😂. The only two who do accept her is Godwin, who treats her more as an experiment than someone who sincerely accepts her opinion and desires like a father would a child (somewhat like it is in the book). Only McCandles is ultimately fully accepting. However without the realistic angst of someone whose fiancée had decided to travel the world and be happily non-monogamous, his character seems not only wooden and weak, but also seems more like a practical puppet with the chief purpose to example a man who simply accepts Bella's choices. It is not the fact that McCandles accepts Bella for who she is. To me, McCandles lacks the human agency to internally wrestle with her radical ways before accepting it, which is a more realistic depiction (especially since McCandles is not at all portrayed as being non-monogamous himself - if that was the case, I would accept that he could simply be on board with her lifestyle and ideas.)
Agree with your insightful comment!
@@UpintheAirft.Zurich Blessington is not turned into a goat for christs sake. He is beheaded and his head transplanted on a body far more befitting his intellect. It is one of the most beautiful endings in all of cinema. But it takes a special kind of viewer. One who is of the conviction that the world is not organised and run like it should.
This is just YOUR interpretation of the book/movie version Bella. To me, in the film, she was joyful like a child, carefree and free-spirited. Nowhere near being CONSCIOUSLY cruel.
Clearly, it is HER interpretation...it's HER video about the movie, what else would you expect?
Her “cruelty” and “selfishness” comes from childlike innocence and immaturity, as children don’t fully understand good and evil and therefore CANT purposely act maliciously as they aren’t even aware enough to fully understand the consequences of their actions. Bella matures to the point where she doesn’t misbehave at the end of the film because she AGES over the course of the film so it does not promote an immature idea of feminism
Just because one doesn't fully understand the consequences of one's actions does not mean one cannot therefore act cruelly. Certainly anyone who has ever experienced childhood bullying understands the virulence of childhood cruelty. Cruelty itself can be defined as "one simply not giving a shit about the consequences of one's actions", which Bella seldom if ever does - except the movie lets her off the hook for this due to her unique circumstances.
@@dstarks360 - This! Childrwn often know when they are being cruel. They will get a certain look in their eye-that I did something bad, and I am kind of peoud of that gleam in their eyes. Or they will do something bad then ttry to hide it when confronted by their parents. Why? Because they know they did something bad. Children are more clever than they are given credit for.
@@dstarks360yeah but children have normal parents that told the child what is good and what is wrong in the case of Bella she is just a experiment, she doesn’t have a father that care to explain the consequences of their actions, she learns that over the time but it makes sense why she is so selfish
i think story-wise, the main issue for me was that there was no innate need in bella established at the beginning that could be discovered as she progresses. her progress as a character is more of a straight line rather than a circle. also the written by a man energy was so strong
What do you mean with "written by a man" energy?
If Greta Gerwig had directed this, or Jennifer Kent or the director who made We Need To Talk About Kevin, how do you think they would've done it?
if you don't like man energy, you have a real problem. please learn the world is not a fantasy queer story.
@@alltheserobotsshallfall If you don't like queer energy, you have a real problem. Please learn the world is not a fantasy male story.
@@l.s.d.5863this reads: I know you are but what am I!!?Energy. Your comment is a non-sequitur, and one does not equal the other. Saying someone who hates 'man energy' is in for a rude awakening in the real world bc it reflects misandry and scapegoating and hypocrisy, that seems to be prevalent in the 'queer fantasy' many with this limiting mindset possess, is NOT the same as saying 'they HATE queer energy' it's meant to represent the fallacy in that kind of black and white tribal type thinking and mirror it back to the individual who doesn't seem to understand the flaws nature of a comment like the one that started this thread. Logical fallacies are very interesting and useful topic to look into if u wanna up your comeback game from recess at preschool to mature constructive logical discourse, but we all have the full right to keep doing whatever we please and/but we also have the capacity to pause ask ourselves if we are simply triggered and reactive and comforted by indulging impulses, or if we want to look deeper and take more into consideration than we may have previously. Either or; highly revealing which route individuals take in these minuet but telling scenarios. For clarity this (my) comment here is purely observational and in no way hateful, we are all on our own journeys and every one is valid and has a right to be heard and be who they are and where they are at, the merit and weight is necessarily going to stand on its own tho for all of us as we go and grow along in our merry many ways, anyways lol x
No, you’re not the only one.
I have only seen the film and have no intention to read the book, so I can only speak about Lanthimos’ creation. For all its flaws, I will at least say that a film that keeps me thinking - even about its negative aspects - has done something right.
I’m more or less on the same page as you. The visuals are incredible, from the cinematography, the sets, the costume designs, the surreal effects, the colours; Lanthimos had a unique vision and language that he wanted to use to tell the story in which he succeeded fully - the problem being that the story itself doesn’t nearly come close to the brilliance of its cinematic language. There seemed to be only two times when I felt Bella becoming human. First when she hears the Portuguese balcony singer, which was a beautiful scene that allowed for immersion and for the audience to feel what the main character does. Second, when she discovers inequality in Alexandria, I didn’t expect to share her pain like that.
It lacked something more profound, a more existential theme rather than its relatively cheap message of agency and independence. That’s what the premise has potential for, so reminiscent of Frankenstein. Dafoe’s character says he got too emotionally connected to Bella and that this destroyed the scientific project - well, let us see that! The point it wanted to make about her being an entirely new life through experiences separate from her late mother is much less interesting than delving into how connected they are, of a relationship between child and parent which could’ve been compared to Bella’s relationship to God. Also, its inclusion of hardly touched-upon political ideologies was also shoehorned in just to appeal to current trends. The film’s messaging was as unimaginative as the visuals were the opposite.
I don’t know about straight up misandry but it does indeed take very little heed of what men think and believe. And thank you for calling out McCandles’ simp whimp ass, he had no agency at all, it seemed like. When Bella asked him if her previous promiscuity hurt “men’s feelings of possession”, he could straight up have said yes. That’s not to say that that would have been correct, but it would have been an invitation for Bella to understand other’s perspectives and feelings - something she, despite growing as a person, rarely does other than when put in the caged position of her mother or in a broader, societal way.
Cool to see someone share my thoughts on the film. It seemed like most either really loved it, or many hated it for being sexist towards women (based on reading some Letterboxd reviews, the premier source for audience reception). Sorry for the wall of text. Great video.
No, thank you for such a detailed response! I really appreciate your considered thoughts, it makes my day!
"tak(ing) very little heed of what men think and believe" IS Misandry. EVERY Male character in the film is either weak, cruel, self-absorbed or corrupt - or a combination of these.
Thank you! I really enjoyed this analysis. I also enjoyed how much I've have thought about the film since watching it, but there is an absense or potential incoherence in it that has evaded my ability to define it, I think you've come close here and now I feel I have to go ahead and read the book too!
Thank you! And you're so right, it is in the very least a really thought-provoking movie. The book is similarly thought-provoking haha 👍
Disagree! I felt this was a film full of brilliance, and loved it! I didn’t read the book, and would never compare it to the movie. It’s why films have categories for adapted screenplays. They should be judged separately. However, based on the points mentioned, I don’t think Bella is innately cruel, and found her progression to show that she actually develops from child-like cruelness (like punching Max in the nose for no reason upon first meeting or yelling in Godwin’s face when they’re in the carriage and he doesn’t allow a stop at the outdoor market) to disliking/despising people who are actually selfish and cruel, like Duncan Wedderburn and General Blessington. I found her to be joyfully curious like a child would be, but not of child-like mind, from trying all the food & drink to dancing to meeting new people to discovering her sexuality. The symbolism of transporting a baby’s brain isn’t that she is literally a child, but that there’s an adult with a clean slate. And secondly, you don’t have to repeat your parents’ mistakes and can break chains. McCandles’ observation notes even state that the experiment and reanimation accelerated her development from her hair growing an inch every several days and the way she picked up speech and language so quickly. One can read between the lines and extrapolate that her development as a human being is also accelerated and all that comes with that. She is also kind in other regards where she calls Godwin “lovely” even though most people would probably avoid eye contact or do the opposite and stare due to his appearance/deformities. Kindness also comes in the form of forgiveness, and she forgives Godwin and Max for lying to her about her origins and she understands why they did it because she herself has developed an appreciation for science and surgery. I strongly disagree about there being any misandry except towards men who actually deserve to be despised, like Blessington. McCandles is not a weak wimp. He’s a man of science and tells and accepts the truth, because that’s what science is in search of. He takes information in as it develops, like in science. People of science don't really think in binary or absolutes - they understand there's a spectrum of behaviors and ways of being. He allows himself to be himself and other people to be who they are and accepts them as they are. No point in trying to be something you're not, or exert control over another person. Same goes for Godwin, man of science. This movie is about free will, self discovery, pursuit of knowledge, and individuation. If that's considered self-centered, so be it. Thanks for the review, it helps me understand where people who didn’t quite like the movie are coming from.
Thanks for your comment, I like to hear where other people are coming from as well 😁
thank you so much for this review!! i've seen multiple takes on this movie, some positive some negative and each one has left me feeling weird and kind of unsatisfied. your review however summed up my thoughts exactly and gave me that final opinion i couldn't quite express myself. amazing video!
Thank you!!
Very well done and thank you for saying it! Bella is supposed to challenge the idea of social graces, but with her constant cruelty and inconsideration of others, she actually provides a good argument for why we have manners and some social mores. The idea of impendence is an easy sell to an audience. Who does not want that? But the moment my actions negatively impact someone else, I am treading on that person's rights, and there needs to be a conversation on which person's desires, if any, supersedes the other's.
Anyway, I am glad that RUclips directed me to your channel, and I look forward to more of your content.
Ah, thank you! and very well said, yourself!
I strongly disagree with basically most of what you said, but still don't regret watching this as your opinion puts me in the process of thinking more about a film that I already deeply admire
I wasn't expecting such a well constructed analysis in a 12 minute video, but it pleasantly surprised me! I don't agree with all your points, but I do see where you're coming from. This also makes me want to read the books and form a complete opinion for myself.
I mostly agree with some people in the comments about how Bella could be read as "cruel" or "self-absorbed", but I think ultimately she really grows as a person in her journey. The impression I got is that everyone is born with the capacity for empathy, but you have to seek out how to exercise that "muscle" yourself.
I also didn't find the men to be inferior or weaker, not at all. In fact, I see Harry Astley as the one who truly moved Bella out of her privileged point of view and her comfort zone. And Max McCandless reads to me as a sweet, inteligent, but essentially misguided by "polite society". I didn't get the misandrist message at all.
I agree that the political themes like socialism could have been better explored, instead of just name dropped. Watching Poor Things, I get an amazing existentialist debate, but a weaker political one (I like how they went about gender and sex, but I think they missed the mark while talking about class). Maybe the writers bit a lot more than they could chew in a 3 hour movie.
Even so, I love this film. A lot.
I recently made a video about how weird it is (to me) that so many people are screaming feminism with Bella's story when I believe is the clearest example of how white feminism is DESTROYING female characters. The only plot and characteristics Hollywood currently accept ad "progressive" and "positive" for female characters to have is when (like Bella) they are able to do whatever they want or they wield power the same way men do (economical, corporate, physical, etc), not to mention that the only obstacles for these characters men and "society" (society also being a concept barely mentioned in these stories).
The way Bella scapes every single obstacle so easily just by basically not caring is insane because it makes the audience feel like "women are not free because morals but if they were like Bella they would be fine cus they can easily use the power of their sexuality to thrive" which is... stupid (add to that the most non sensical portrait not just a very unrealistic depiction of sex work in general but sex work IN THE VICTORIAN ERA). That being said Bella literally embodies white feminism in the way she only seeks to improve things that affect HER or makes her feel guilty. When she "donates" their money to the poor I literally rolled my eyes and when people defended her saying "she learned" something in this scene I wanted to scream, because this is the most basic way in which rich people (LIKE BELLA) avoid feeling guilty about others. The fast that in the end she ends up continuing God's father of not giving a care about anyone's physicality BUT HERS and just goes back to her house to live as rich as always while claiming to be a socialist kills me.
An then the man who directed this said it wouldn't be intelligent to dive into the themes of this story because it would be too simple after destroying a story where the social critique was THE MAIN POINT and is praised for having this incoherent narrative... I could go FOR DAYS on how this movie from it's bare bones to the reaction and defending points of the audience is one of the most incoherent things I have ever seen in media.
This is so thought-provoking, you make a lot of good arguments 👀
What's really wrong is thinking feminism is the main theme, when it's only a small piece. It's so much broader, like freedom vs morality, man vs beast, elders vs the young, class, and biological vs conditioning of gender (don't know if the baby was originally boy or girl before the brain transplant). Can't overlook the fact that Godwin was also a victim of suppression and control like Bella by his father, and his assistant was also suppressed by other men in a superior position, therefore forcing him twice to give up on being with Bella until the finale.
Bella is not a young woman. She has a brain of a child. I feel like I’m in another world when people are loving this film. She was exploited and manipulated by the men in her life, with the exception of Ramy’s character. How can a child consent to sex and really understand what is happening? A child can’t
Cmon. She ain't really understanding. What the movie depicts is exactly that, an exploited child. It doesn't romanticize that, it only shows it. It's very reductionist to think that just by depicting some reality a movie or book is romanticizing certain fact.
Mary Godwin Shelley (born 1797) wrote Frankenstein in reaction to her father's mechanical perspective and 'neglect' of her humanity. There are boundaries that shouldn't be crossed and Godwin's "creation" ignored the ethical implications of the consequences of his "child" to her future life. Mary's mother died at childbirth and wrote novel when she felt neglected and depressed as one of very few women writers of the period and was accused by her contemporaries as being "too liberal" in her life's habits. She, apparently, fell in love with Percy Byshee Shelley when she was 16 and he 21 and married and, reportedly, had made love with young Shelley on her mother's grave which she had been visiting daily (she had died at Mary's birth). Her mother was the unconventional, famous Mary Wollstonecraft, famous writer, philosopher and advocate of women's rights.
A chicken can't survive with the head of a pig, but that also happens in the film.
Many things that everyone knows are impossible nonetheless take place in the story.
It is almost as if someone just... made it all up.
@@ahobimo732 Ask ChatGPT: The logical fallacy of avoiding the topics of debate in the case of a film review by saying, "it's only a movie" and "it's not real"
Chat GPT reply: "The statements "it's only a movie" and "it's not real" can be seen as an attempt to dismiss or avoid engaging with the topics of debate in the context of a film review. This is an example of the logical fallacy known as the "appeal to ridicule" or "appeal to triviality."
Instead of addressing the specific points or criticisms raised about the film, the person making these statements is attempting to undermine the importance or relevance of the discussion by implying that because the film is fictional, its content or themes don't warrant serious consideration.
However, this approach fails to recognize that films often reflect and comment on real-world issues, and audiences engage with them for various reasons beyond mere entertainment. Therefore, while it's true that films are works of fiction, it doesn't necessarily mean that they are exempt from analysis or critique.
In constructive discourse, it's important to address the specific points raised in a review or discussion, even if the subject matter is fictional, rather than dismissing them outright with appeals to triviality."
I enjoyed the film, because it was diferent and provocative, and the way Bella show the hipocresy of Duncan, i found it funny and clever but since they get to París the movie lost me. I start wonder why the director was so obssesed with showing Emma Stone nude, and as you say, the way they give their message it's cuestionable. Maccandels in this movie it's nothing more than a tool, to make us buy the message, but i found it artificial. The ending also i found it very inverosimil.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts although I deeply disagree with most of your sentiments especially your comment about the film not having "heart". I strongly feel like it did have heart in places that needed it and came across as heartless (or as others put it "clinical" in other parts) especially when it came to sex and science. I thoroughly enjoyed it for being so brave, raw, and beautiful. Not once did the thought of Max being a wimp cross my mind, to me, he was a gentle yet powerful safe space for Bella. Godwin was also a strong male character in the film without being overbearing and the typical tyrannical father figure which was refreshing. I absolutely loved the ending and how Bella became her own person and choose to acknowledge her past but carve out her future.
I really enjoyed this review and explanation. Thank you! Keep making these! Really cool style
Thank you, will do!!
My quick capsule review it's Emmanuelle Scissorhands. It's as if one those 70s soft core porn films where a young girl goes on an exotic journey of self discovery via the medium of prolonged full frontal nudity was directed by early 90s Tim Burton. With those films there was an understanding that the shallowly explored empowerment stuff was just there to put a bow on the t&a so to speak, here it sincerely is attempting to do that empowerment stuff - but it's shallow 'aren't men bad' messaging without ever really getting below the surface of even Bella herself.
Don't get me wrong, titillation has its place in cinema, aren't men bad messaging is fine...it just needed to go deeper, it has very little to say.
It's a real pity because it's beautiful to look at and Stone's performance is one of the most fun capital A Acting roles for a good while. It's laugh at loud funny too. I also admire that Lanthimos managed to somehow make his most mainstream friendly movie by upping the weirdness and perversity instead of reducing it, frankly I have no idea how he did that.
Deeply frustrating film though.
Great video. The visual content is absolutely delighting.
I'm so glad, that was my hope!!
Although I don’t agree with your arguments, I do agree with your conclusion: Bella doesn’t have a heart. I believe Lanthimos wanted to avoid the Snow White-type character for Bella, and I can see why: women are expected to be inherently kind and compassionate. However, he never gives her that possibility either: imagine how much more powerful it could’ve been if he made her learn compassion beyond the comedic bit of her giving all the money away. It’s always men who learn about compassion from women in films, now imagine it switched?
Masterpiece of a movie
Its nice to see that critics are discovering Brechtian alienation after 100 years: *good jobs critics* (pinches cheek)
Can you do a video about ANATOMY OF A FALL ? PLEASE.
Good suggestion!
i
I truly enjoyed this review and honestly don't disagree with it in substance, though I'm not sure I can agree with the ultimate conclusion. I would simply add more substance. I didn't read the book and have not compared it to the book. But here's what I got from and how I watched the film that I would add to the reviewers valid and useful thoughts: I didn't see it as a feminist playbook of what should be, but an alternative expression of what is. As much as I believe in kindness and goodness, and as much as I strive toward those characteristics in myself, kindness and goodness is not all that I am and not all my experiences in life have been marked by kindness and goodness. Likewise, as much as I appreciate complicated, thinking men with moral agency; that is not always how they behave or how I experience them. What thrilled me about this film is that it allowed me to see that other truth of what is instead of leading me to what should be, which is and has been: a man who takes action and gets what he wants and a woman (if she is even part of the story) "winning" by being what that man wants (good and kind, pretty, sweet, pleasing, etc.). I also honestly did not see Bella as cruel. I see her as a human animal. When she wants to kill the frog it is not because she wishes the frog to suffer or because she is trying to manipulate the frog by getting it to do what she wants with the threat of death hanging over its head: No, she really does just like the sensory experience of hearing the "splat" and "squish" and seeing the juices run out of it. No more sadistic than my kids playing with a bottle of slime. The humour comes from us watching what a three-year-old might find fun in the body of an adult woman. I don't see the film advocating self-centeredness. But unlike most films, it allows us to see a woman who knows what she wants and has the agency to go for it, particularly because she lacks the social training that tells her she cannot and that her job is to be kind and good so that men can have what they want.
It's only a disgusting and a pointless money making movie. So sad for Emma Stone!
great analysis. do you think a lot of material was cut to make the movie's runtime under 3 hours? I know its a movie but its probably worth mentioning that the girls doing onlyfans today aren't using their earnings to pay for medical school at johns hopkins and becoming neurosurgeons
i don't think you could possibly know what onlyfans girls are doing with their money and this seems more borne of stereotypes than anything else. i had an old girlfriend that put herself through school stripping. she is indeed now a happily married doctor.
This was my exact thought as I left the cinema. The movies theme and it's message just seemed shallow. Glossed over several gaping holes in terms of it's political ideas. It was funny at first but at the end I was just a bit confused. No doubt it's a beautiful film with great acting, sure. But thought-provoking, not even close. It's a Wes Anderson movie with "depth". It left me a bit disappointed since I guess I expected more.
Definitely my thinking, too!
@@UpintheAirft.Zurich I think a great example is the entire brothel bit. That could serve as an excellent arena to discover and explore human suffering, exploitation and in a sense capitalism, further driving Bella toward socialism. Who in their right mind thinks a brothel is a place where you get picked once a day and can take the rest of the day of for going to your lectures in medical school. It's human slavery on an industrial scale where women throw away their unborn babies in the back of the locale, especially in the victorian era. But hey, how about we have the brothel mistress just quickly explain it, and then nibble Bellas ear roughly. "Owwieeee, stooop eeet *tee-hee*". It honestly made me feel a bit icky, like the entire part was an excuse to see more Emma Stones nude body.
love your analysis and i would love to hear from you even more about Poor Things book vs. movie. pls consider!
Thank you, I'll put it on the video essay to do list, great idea 😆
Thank you for selecting the amazing Piano Sonata in A minor by Edvard Grieg
It's such a beautiful piece, only fitting 😍
This is the best review of this film I have yet seen (and I have watched A LOT, both Pro and Con).
Thank's for this video! I felt a lot of cacophony in the film... The beautiful imagery and careful cinematography clashing with a message and plot that was pretty hollow. The music itself cacophonous, seemingly meant to inspire that feeling of something is off but too blatant and overpowering... I didn't read the book but I can see how a little bit of kindness or even empathy for others might have rounded it out a bit more. I'm not sure she was entirely man hating but certainly self interested in a sort of psychopathic way. I felt like the creators of this film wanted us to like Bella but all of her choices seemed to work against that. The part that angers me about this movie is that people seem to like it because it looks pretty and is doing something different and that to me is as hollow a reason to like something as the character of Bella herself.
👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻 fantastic as always!
I saw the movie at the end of last year and really really enjoyed it. I was considering reading the book since I hadn’t yet and now I really think I will to do my own cross analysis. Interesting to hear about the subtle differences you saw in Bella’s nature in the movie vs the book!
Thank you, Reba! It's pretty fun to see the differences, so I recommend it 👍👍
I sincerely could listen to you talk about anything for ages
You are very welcome to!! 😤🤗
Great review, though I disagree with most I thought it was.a great movie. I also disagree with your idea that McCandles was weak and slave like. To me he had two choices, have Bella stay home and sign herself away to a life with him under gods will. Or, let her explore the world all be it with a strange (and let's face it more handsome) man. Don't forget in the film he had to be subdued with a chloroform cloth. Once he learned of her departure he was upset but understood.
I think that after she returned and she asked to marry him he had a sense of trust, that allowed her to find out more about her past life.
To me McCandles is an understanding and loyal fella, who is an exaggeration of what should be expected of men, much like the colour and sets of the film. No man should put up with a woman who they are engaged to, running away with another man, and then becoming a sex worker.
But if a man sees his/their partner distance themselves and then find out they have eyes for someone else. they according to the movie (and to me ) - should be entitled to kick up a fuss. but if after the end of the (non violent or emotionally abusive) ( I do believe the partner has a right to be angry here) fuss; be they're told "if that's what they want; then they can leave".
Then I think it takes great strength within a man to be able to say that.
This is an interesting and very well thought out analysis. I do agree with you regarding a sort of emptiness that occurs somewhere in the middle of the movie however i think you have to view this project through the lens and the general philosophy of the Director, Lanthimos, without paying too much attention to the source novel and instead try to really understand the psyche of the artist at work: If you watch the film, The Lobster, I think you will see how extremely critical Lanthimos is about modern romantic relationships and generally the inherent primal evil of human nature. I think it was intentional to make Belle self-centered and somewhat solipsistic because it reflects the personal views of the Director. Rather than approach the film from the lens of Feminism vs Misogyny. Think of it more as a visual experiment of nihilism vs absurdism. Whereby Belle represents how innocence and naivety that collides head on with the cruelty of humanity. Rather than portraying Belle as a "hero" that overcomes these challenges, she actually succumbs in such a way by using her talent, skills and cunning. All of which she has learned from life lessons (eg. she becomes a prostitute to survive. She becomes a doctor to continue the legacy of her "father". Her attempt to "improve" humanity). She even considers marriage. Not because she is in love but because it will help her achieve her personal goals of survival and success in a modern world. Try and remember that the Director points out that she and her former husband shared a cruel characteristics that they would take out on the hired help from time to time. It all lines up with Lanthimos' very critical view of human nature. Belle is not excluded from this.
I couldn’t agree with you more! Thanks for this insightful review.
Costume and set design are impressive tho
I have to disagree with the conclusion here. I think the film draws on The Adventures of Pinocchio (the book, not the movie). Bella is drawn to different experiences & we see a change in the experiences she is drawn to as she matures. She is also easily led astray & quickly wanders from her commitments to do good at the first opportunity. As it relates the religious themes brought up in the film, Bella is portrayed as selfish, or "sinful" by nature, but then we are also presented with challenges to those societal perceptions. Bella lives without shame, without self-judgement. We are left to consider the limitations we put on ourselves & others.
While there is some commentary on how women are treated & how women's sexuality is viewed differently to men's, I think the larger themes in the film relate to humanity as a whole. To say, this is a woman in the primary role & so everything must be about feminism is fairly short-sighted I think. There are plenty of stories where a male character is meant to represent mankind, why can a woman not represent humanity & not just women?
Ultimately, I wouldn't say the film lacks heart, but I would say that it's not absolutely clear in its message. But perhaps that's the point. It doesn't want to beat the viewer over the head with a message, it wants to make them think. It wants to start conversations. It makes me want to search out different opinions, like the one in this video, in order to understand the film better.
I wholeheartedly agree with evything! You've articulated something I couldn't put into words for weeks.
This! Comments section doesn’t seem to agree tho 😂
Actively malicious...that's what i thought of the film too
The problem is, that as high-functional autist and somehow person walking in her shoes for last 7 years - I can say, it is actually more correct to depict her as "cruel" person, because in the basis we are lacking... Mirror synopsis, which leads to lower empathy, that leads to random cruelty. Yeee
"Bella in the iflm is innately cruel". I don't think so. It perfectly showcases how naturally (excuse my language) dumb toddlers are. To me, this part asks the audience to dig empatetically as we go along with her journey of understanding, as we see in Alexandria. I think it would be so boring if we just see Bella being this joyful nice character throughout the film. That's somehow just wouldn't be so human.
She is supposed to be a toddler, that's why I could n0t stomach the sex scenes. This is evidently another Epstein-esque progressive propaganda normalizing pedophilia in a subversive manner. But that's how they do it, they start where we're meant to be only half aware of how young the character actually is, but also allow for her exploitation and sexualization.
Interesting idea, I appreciate your opinion! I agree that if Bella was just a joyful, angelic person, that wouldn't be as interesting a watch for the audience (or realistic). But having worked with toddlers, I find that their mentality are like the extreme of adults - they lack empathy until they are taught but they also have an innate kindness and wish to please (maybe due to a biological desire to be loved, or more practically, looked after). Bella in the book has that dumb, childish compassion, I don't this Bella does. As so, I think the Alexandria event seems very isolated and seperate from her character development. Even more so due to no effort to help others are made after seeing the suffering in of the poor. In the book, Bella's efforts to help animals first, and then humans is made clear. The movie removing this element may have streamlined the storyline, but I find that it had the consequence of making her character development incoherent....But that's just a theory, a film theory 😂
100% agree. plus it's important to remember that bella was a baby who had spent her entire life being treated as little else but a science experiment by people who didn't really care about her humanity, & would've kept her trapped at home forever if she hadn't run away. she'd never been taught or shown any real examples of empathy or kindness, only that people were things to 'use' or experiment with for novelty or personal gain. no infant growing up in such a terrible environment could be expected to understand empathy & behave properly - it's something we are all taught. of course she didn't know how to treat people
Children are not kind nor unkind. They are like blank papers. Children can perfectly be missing empathy without being psychologically ill. The child doesn’t have to love the frog nor kill the frog intentionally instead of accidentally. She did literally say, “kill it”. A child just plays for fun WITHOUT the intention of killing. That’s a psychopath there. We don’t demand a joyful child from fairy tales, but we also don’t need a child with psychological disorder. This is even less real than a joyful child.
what a waste this movie was. It reminded me of a meal in a restaurant that uses delicate ingredients that are delicious but they load them on top of each other then overcook it. Plus it was just unpleasant to endure with too much sex (boring) and too much slicing open of flesh (yuck). Unpleasant and over done.
I am surprised this many people saw this review and commented on it...
Keep up the good work! Greetings from Brazil
Thanks!!!
Omg THANK YOU!!
For me the movie had a heart and film’s Bella’s quest for equality was not merely selfish, it was interesting ti hear your thoughts though, since I have not read the book
You are spot on, and this unintentional-ness that u mention, I believe is in fact INTENTIONAL. This is raw and real about where a lot of people are at rn in society, especially (Gen Z and some Millennials vs previous generations and the world in their era's) not as a means to influence or sway or idealize, but to simply reflect it back. The beautiful surrealism and artistsry set a tone for the idealized experience of the protagonist. I could go A LOT more in depth with labels and references, but it's arbitrary to my point. The thing is our views and opinions of what's around us and how we digest and interpret those things are shaped by a litany of things most of us are unconscious of, but you are thinking and are digging and balancing those complex somewhat contradictory and unsettling yet oddly addicting feelings and processing and reflecting and rejecting and second guessing and accepting and vacillating (as we do and must for our own growth, and from a rudimentary standpoint because it's automatic due our design and wiring as human beings, what people take away from films like this is verrrry instructive on understanding who someone is and where they are at in their level of consciousness and awareness, so in that alone it's brilliant as a mechanism to unveil those things in a person, and quite fascinating to see the myriad of responses to this film other really compelling and profound works others have put out recently, art reflects life :) against many other echos and Russian nesting dolls of concepts and culture and rightness or wrongness and intent and homage and reality as we'd like it to be vs reality as is vs our singular reality and experience vs others singular reality and experience's vs the collective collision within its parts and the collective as humanity as a whole. Very intelligent and insightful and well done review tho lovely, I enjoyed your video and hearing your perspective :)
Such a insightful comment, thank you!
This is so great!
ahh, thank you!
I just finished it, and I feel exactly the same about it, I even felt it was downright manipulative and misandrius. It wasn't bad by any means but the last half of the movie fell flat. The ending didn't feel earned at all, and from what you exlpain about Bella's character arc from the book and her interactions with other characters it slashes all that out and makes Bella a flat character. At the begginig she does learn from all the experiences she faces (a little too much predatorial for my taste, it wouldhave been more interesting to explore other ways to discover the world around her through all her senses) but in the end she becomes the "smartes" character of all, and it is implied that she should be applauded for all her actions no matter what. Missed potential! But oh well, I loved your video. You should make a more in depth analysis!
You pourposely avoid talking about scenes where Bella learns about humanity's suffering and becomes deeply affected by it, the juxtaposition of her point of view from Harry's and how she chooses to not lose hope for humanity, she's not portraid as evil or crueal at all, she's rude to Duncan because he showed the most ugly an annoying sides of man, but was mostly just blunt to most other characters, she's portraid as having joy and empaty just not the type of perfomative empaty our society teach us, at least the director's view of what that might look like
In general, kindness, sentiment, gentleness, compassion, empathy aren't cool in cool things these days. Or rather their complexity and depth. These sentiments today are simplified, dumbed down, made artificial, rather stupid, greeting card calling cards for Hallmark-think. I was gratified to hear your distinction here. I haven't seen this film... so of course my opinion can't matter much... but what you said rang a bell. I yearn for more than clever. Shock is so often the thing now, being arch. A distinction of superiority. And all this takes great style and intelligence but... it's the but. I yearn for that lost "but." I'm older. I'm in the arts. I generally avoid clever... have seen so much of it over they years. What lasts... as you explained so well... comes from "the heart." Sounds corny but take it from an old gal who's been around, read a lot, seen a great deal... including thousands of hours of cinema. Without the heart it's anemic, lacks pulse, is a shell of it's intention. Something Mary Shelly implied. Have you all read Frankenstein? Great manifesto on the birth of the modern world and our modern problems. I recommend it. Thanks for this review.
Yet another movie attacking men. This one snuck up on me. Great performances, redundant, ridiculous messaging.. Category: woke
Yeah! always attacking men: this so trendy nowadays!!! A fucking bloody misandric movie
I don't prefer Lanthimos movies because of this "lack of heart"
What was the gender of the two fetus's brains? This is never explored.
I felt it was all surface and very little depth - def a win for Production Design. But the theme of women should control their bodies and narrative/ men are evil seems a bit overdone at this point in so much contemporary art. I did not see anything new in the intellectual themes - all text and no subtext. Def visually striking and beautiful .... I do believe this could have been a much tighter film at 2 hours- creatively edited montages of the brothel scenes would have been much more effective.
Wow good way to end a review
I do try 😆
Fantastic analysis!! You have articulated so well what I have been thinking since seeing this movie. My personal rule of thumb to figure out whether a book or movie is feminist (i.e. preaches equality) vs misandry is - if the genders of the characters are interchanged, would it still be showcasing equality. In this movie (haven't read the book) - if Bella were a man and McCandles were a woman, would it be ok. My personal opinion is... i would hate to see such a slavish, wimpish woman.... and i equally hate seeing a slavish, wimpish man being portrayed as some kind of enlightened being...
So yes, as you say, this movie lacks heart and character. But visually, it is absolutely gorgeous!
It is clever and pretty, but ultimately hollow.
I would call this movie a fairy tale for the 2020s... just like Pretty Woman was for the 1990s...
visually good: I agree , however only on that!
It's so sad to see so many US movies with good premises these days devolve into stories of hate and supremacy.
this our Brave New World!
This analysis was better than the film.
Why does Bella reject the nihilism proposed by Harry Astley?
What basis does the film provide for her commitment to optimism?
This was a completely arbitrary narrative decision. For me, it rendered any potential political or ideological "messages" totally irrelevant.
Bella discovered that the world is a cruel lie, but still chose to actively participate in, and thereby, perpetuate it.
I hate that clicking noise
The Empty Dullness of this review.
So many stories to tell and in so many ways. This one aint my style.
Honey lack of heart?! It is a Lanthimos movie.
It's rather misandric garbadge
Spot on!
i can’t take the misandry part of the video seriously,, otherwise love the video
holy shit how tf do u have less than 1k subs
I just found it extremely, incredibly obnoxious. Everyone is tryharding so much it's enough to make you throw up.
Wow....this was an eye opener. I watched Poor Things and I do think the film supports both self-centeredness and misandry unfortunately. I feel these days that misandry is more and more prevalent (especially in the queer community), so I have almost been completely desensitized to it sadly. If I mention that most of my close friends are straight men, I am supposedly a walking red flag. I have learned to just not say anything and think the misandry is a-ok in order to fit in these days :) It seems the film had the same sort of vibe to it, almost like a 2024 genz type of vibe to it just to get more people to agree that it is such "an incredible film because of it's incredible messages". It went a bit too extreme by supporting self-centeredness and misandry in my opinion, which killed its potential for me. I mean don't get me wrong, I really enjoyed watching the film, but ugh I really felt like it lacked. From what you have stated about the book, the book seems like a much better kind of story to tell compared to the film (just my opinion). Would have died to see the film be just like the book.
It's maddening when a culture doesn't learn its lessons of bigotry and just continues it in a different way towards different people.
Yep....kinda gross
bizzare review lol. why should bell be well disposed to any one of the men in the film when they all behave appalingly? thats not remotely misandrist. i have many critiques of this film but thats not one of them
also she has loads of empathy towards innocent people in the film, this is so clearly demonstrated i dont know how you could miss it, she is quite explicit about having cruel feelings towards bad people and empathy toward the suffering of less fortunate others and even says she desires to work on this cruelty
overall this review reads like its by someone who has spent too much time on manosphere and 'divine feminine/masculine energy' youtube
Am I the only one that didn’t pick up on anything political? It felt like such an independent story to me
Independent? It's about misandric feminism from the start to the end. Rather outdated and disgusting too!
wrong
I don't agree with this reading of the film. Nature is not really what is on display or on trial but the cruelty inherent to the structure of society and how that is interacted with specifically from a feminine perspective. "We are all cruel beasts" is such a strong line that I can understand how her refutation can ring hollow. Her actions however lead me to think of a different line. Later we found out Victoria loved cruelty but she was still enacted upon and oppressed by her husband despite her acquiescence to the structure and rewards of society. She was still to be victim. Bella in not allowing herself to be victimized to have come out of "the dark period" and to self actualize asks a question. "Can anyone improve?"
The film at least in my read, is about the road to betterment and knowledge and how while there is horror along that path and how cruelty may be a part of society, we can be better. I think the marketing for the film muddied the actual thing the text is saying.
I fully disagree with your interpetation of the film. Seems like you don't want to understand the film at its core. You seem to project a lot of your issues with misandry on to a film that is empirically (hah) not misandrist. It's a fairy tale showing caricatures of men through the eyes of a child who slowly matures into a woman. Of course the characters will be one-dimensional and with Duncanc's character that works magnificently because we the audience get pleasure from his deconstruction.
As for Max, you completely misunderstood his point in the film. He is a flawed man who wanted Bella due to her beauty but knew that she was not able to give consent. At the end when she is mature and he can talk to him as an equal that is the pint Max truly falls in love with her. This time, not for her beauty, but for her mind which was something every man in her life (except Harry) chose to ignore. Duncan wanted a sex toy, the men at the brothel wanted a sex worker and the General wanted his flower to hide away in his mansion. Max was the only one who wanted Bella as she is, not what they wanted.
The fact that you even brought up misandry while critiquing the film informs me a lot of your world view. As the old saying goes when one is a hammer, they can't help but see nails.
It seems we disagree, but I appreciate your comment, considered and interesting to read your perspective
You really think to be the only one who has correctly interpreted this utterly disgusting movie?
@@marcob4630no but when people use subjective words like "disgusting" I know I can ignore any criticisms you can muster. We're all just stating our opinions and some people have opinions that I disagree with.
Feel free to disagree with me. I don't really care.
OK, we live for now in a democracy, however....@@MistaZULE
@@marcob4630not sure I get your point. Video maker has an opinion, I disagree with opinion. We talk and agree to disagree.She thanks me for my opinion and we are done.
I thought that was a pretty civil exchange between two people who disagree. Democracy manifest.
How come you didn’t mention her distress in Alexandria when she sees all the poor people? She is so upset about the inequality she sees that she gives Duncan’s money away to help them? You can call her cruel because she wanted to punch a baby. That is a basic human reaction that I have felt many a time. While I commend you for putting this video together I think you’ve missed the point of this masterpiece.
because this person has no idea what she's talking about. it's such a bad take i honestly wonder if she actually watched it.
It looks so boring.
It is BORING above all!
This is a dark, nihilistic satire about female empowerment along the line of 'Showgirls' updated for 2020's sensibilities.
A bad, bad disgusting and useless story!
Why the subtitles? Made it unwatchable for me.
great symbolisms, meaning, pretty funny and emotional too and the movie looked stunning. i think you missed everything the movie was trying to say. imagine quoting the nihilist guy as to why bella is cruel when that dude was the one bella was most opposed to, even going as far as to instantly rejecting him even before she saw the world through his lens. maybe lay off the conservatard juice so you don't come up with laughable takes like this.
Wait what? Bella is the hero of the story. She represents the positive side of the human nature. Wtf are you on. Are you projecting your own mysandrist views onto this?
VIdeo title "in-depth film review". Also video: 12:10 min.
this was an impressively bad take. yikes.