Frankenstein's Lobotomized Mistress: Dissecting the Poor Things Discourse
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 15 апр 2024
- Go to dayoneapp.com/finalgirl and use code finalgirl to get a limited-time offer of a two-month free trial with Day One Journal Premium. See why it’s the #1 journaling app out there!
WHERE TO FIND ME
Substack: finalgirlstudios.substack.com/
Instagram: / finalgirldiary
Letterboxd: boxd.it/49rL9
Business Inquiries: TheFinalGirlStudios@gmail.com
SOURCES
Come as You Are, Emily Nagoski, 2021 (Book)
Is Poor Things the Best We Can Do for Female Sexuality Onscreen? Angelica Jade Bastien, 2024
www.vulture.com/article/poor-...
Emma Stone and Yorgos Lanthimos Have Nothing and Everything in Common, 2023
www.nytimes.com/2023/11/29/mo....
Denis Villeneuve Is the Sci-Fi Remake Master with Blade Runner 2049 and the Upcoming Dune
www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/...
tags: born sexy yesterday, poor things, fifth element, film theory
![Shoreline Mafia - HEAT STICK (OHGEESY & FENIX FLEXIN) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/xKEY6THtwuA/mqdefault.jpg)
I hope you enjoyed this video! Remember to go to dayoneapp.com/finalgirl and use code finalgirl to get a limited-time offer of a two-month free trial with Day One Journal Premium.
“Just because a film is self-aware, that doesn’t mean it isn’t perpetuating what it’s self-aware of.”
THIS THANK YOU
Yes.
10000000% this.
Yesssss. The idol, neon genesis evangelion, American beauty, euphoria and so many more of these films attempting to criticise female sexualisation or sexualisation of minors end up perpetuating that very thing.
@@amethyst034 Cuties
Exactly. One of my friends told me "it is supposed to make you feel uncomfortable!" But it didn''t make me feel uncomfortable because it challenged my beliefs, it made me uncomfortable because I have seen way too much of it both in media and real life.
👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾 I love how you phrased this!!
Seriously, we have seen this before. We have done this before. And if we're honest, this film didn't really do anything that different
EXACTLY!
Well, maybe you weren't uncomfortable, but my sister in law, who took her 3 teen sons to see it, was terribly uncomfortable. A simple family night out gone hysterically wrong. LOL, I still like to make her cringe teasing her about it. Context is everything.
Yeah this one made me feel very uncomfortable. Wasn't she was still a child at the end of the movie as well. I was a toddler when a full grown man came into my room. This movie hit very close to home, it brought up a lot of painful memories.
Not weaving the mother/daughter aspect into the story proves that it was nothing more than a male fantasy
It’s always weird to me when “feminist” tales are just about women having sex like lol there’s a lot more to life? I hope??????
I definitely get what you’re saying but that isn’t all what the movie does or says. Sexuality is definitely a major part of the story and themes but it explicitly shows Bella’s growth and interests beyond.
its not that i disagree, but could you please give me some examples? like are these feminist stories from the 60s and 70s, like during the second wave of feminism? or are these stories corresponding to the third wave?
@@AlabasterTen yes I get that, I suppose there’s just the general focus on this aspect of the movie (she does mention this in the video as a point of contention that there isn’t much focus on the other aspect of her character like reading, relationship to motherhood etc) which I can see that a movie about “woman” having relationship to motherhood would also get criticism bc women are more than mothers! It is just I suppose such a small part of life to then take up such a big part of the movie, but also that may just be an issue of discourse bc when Olivia Wilde was talking about don’t worry darling she was like this is about sex! When lol no, not even a little bit?
@@teeayteeayetc I definitely agree with your points. As much as I like the film, there’s a lot I think it fails to do as well (I’m still reevaluating my thoughts after watching the whole video)
@@casir.7407 It’s not really my Genre of Movie (you can prob tell sex is not my bag, and I am no expert on historical feminism) but as I recall it’s a big part of the plot in certain coming of age movies like booksmart and in some queer coming of age (which I understand is different but in the same vane) like bottoms. It’s also highly prevelant in music (there’s several video essays on hypersexualization in “feminist” pop music on RUclips) but in terms of waves of feminism I don’t know, Khadijah Mbowe has a good video on the diminishing returns of sexual “liberation” and feminism dating back to the 70s, and in some discourse by bell hooks, if you are interested
The director erasing the real abused woman in the novel in favor of the fantasy her husband created to make her story palatable to children is peak irony. It's all you need to understand to get why so many women hate this film and feel so disgusted by it.
Honestly so real for making this point
Wait what? Say more
Could you further explain? I don't disagree but I am a little confused:)
@wllyfht The plot of the movie is the fictional autobiography of Bella's new husband (Max from the movie). In letters from the book she calls it fictitious.
Her actual identity is an abused woman who escaped to Godwin and used this fantastical cover-up to survive. It's like the movie writers read the lie and thought that was a better depiction of feminism than the grain of truth in the book.
The movie ignores most of Victoria's adventures and thoughts that aren't based in her enjoying sex and being unaffected by men's abuses on her. Her philanthropy is erased and the fantastical framing of the fantasy world is never revealed to be her husband's simplified and misogynistic version of her life.
Max felt kinda blank to me i guess it is because he was a directer lol
To be a daughter in the body of her mother does have potential to be hauntingly beautiful :/ and yet ….
We already got Freaky Friday, what more do you want?
@@kingtrashpanda1570 you are so right, so valid, and so true about this omg. You truly deserve your title of king, king.
you sound like a predator but alright lil bro 😭
@@Hetalialuver9001 ?? Pardon? What do you mean ?
It’s getting a bit exhausting that feminism and female liberation is so constantly portrayed as sexual freedom, IE having lots of sex with whoever tf you want with no shame. And there is no shame in that, all the power to the people who can do that, but this can’t be the only depiction. Why can’t our choice to be selective about who we have sex with, setting clear boundaries and not forcing ourselves to “put out” or have lots of sex because we’re pressured to, be portrayed as feminist? I just want to see a feminist story where having sex isn’t such a large goal on the path to liberation. I get wanting to break down the walls of prudishness and puritan roots to normalize something natural, but it’s sad to not see myself, a very low sex-driven women, be portrayed as feminist but instead prudish and holding myself back. That or held on a pedestal over other women. Maybe I just don’t want to have a lot of sex, isn’t that my choice as a woman in the face of a society that wants me to be hyper sexual? And not because I think I’m more holy than anyone either, I just don’t want to. It’s simple.
Well said. I keep typing a longer response, but I feel like you already wrote how I feel.
Yup. Apparently you're supposed to be flattered if you're hypersexualized.
Maybe the first thing that I want men to notice about me ISN'T how much sex they want to do on my body.
That makes me uncomfortable, idk...
@@thegodplace7887 exactly. i keep seeing men praise the feminism of this movie (a type of feminism that coincidentally benefits them), but i wonder :
would they be as supportive of feminist media that doesn't center female hyper-sexuality (ripe with the nudity of beautiful female bodies, and not many male ones), phallocentric sex and the dismissal of abuse (that offers them a get-out-of-jail card for their predatory behaviour, because we won't be affected by it anyway in the name of being a 'girlboss')?
Thank you for this wonderful write up and to the commenter above, I completely agree. I think the simple answer is that men wouldn’t benefit from it so they don’t care about it, they care about feminism when it means that they can still use women for themselves or something to objectify.
I agree that sexualization does not always come from a place of empowerment. In fact, oftentimes promiscuity (in both men and women) is directly linked to childhood trauma. Is that what we’re supposed to be celebrating?
As an autistic girl, who was also se*ually abused as a child, this movie felt gross. I can kinda see SOME of the intention of "yay feminist movie" but any good point was completely overshadowed by the uncomfortable implications of "Bella IS A CHILD, she does not understand certain things because her brain is not mature enough to understand these things". She is a child, she cannot consent (specifically to sex), she has a very poor and sheltered view of her surroundings. And yet she is presented to be "sexually liberated" when she is being exploited and never ever realises she was subject of abuse? How is that feminist? I have to say, when watching some specific scenes, my own trauma came back to me and hit me quite hard, which is not a very feminist thing for a movie to do: to make se*ual abused victims see their trauma on a screen. Also, as a disabled person who has so much trouble fitting in socially (autism mainly, but also attention deficit disorder) I felt so invalidated by the fact that Bella never learns how exploited she has been, and how society actually works. Her naivety is portrayed as desirable, her ignorance is seen as attractive and se*y, and her innocence is seen as something men can exploit without the film acknowledging she cannot give consent. As a victim of se*ual abuse when I was a child, this movie made ME feel kind of responsible for what happened to me. Because Bella never looks back to what happened with anger, remorse, shame, fear or frustration, as a victim often does. I was full of disgust with the many uncomfortable sex scenes, not because of the act per se, but because I was aware Bella was mentally a child (while also looking and acting like a neurodivergent person) and yet the movie kept portraying that as liberating and empowering. I didn't feel empowered at all. A person can be feminist without constant sex, or without super high sex drive. A person can be a feminist AND feel negative feelings when realising they have been abused in the past. A person can be feminist AND acknowledging they have had toxic people (or just bad people) in their lives. But Bella has numerous sex partners without protection or fear of pregnancy, STDs, or hygiene, and she is our "feminist empowered protagonist" (also apparently she never menstruates, she doesn't have body hair, she is presented as a doll in cute outlandish outfits). This movie claims to be feminist, but it's also immensely gratifying to men. Bella's nude scenes when she is a toddler could open the discourse of ped*s looking at children in gross ways and not being called out. The man who looks at nude Bella while she sleeps as a baby ends up marrying her, for god's sake! And that is supposed to be a satisfying ending? Also, as Bella grows, she seems to only experience pleasure in many ways, not confusion, discomfort or frustration. Yes she talks like a child for most of the film, but we only get a "haha look, a grown woman who babytalks and acts silly without social etiquette" viewpoint.
This is getting long. Sorry. Anyway, although I can kinda see what the movie wanted to do, it did not deliver in my opinion. It wanted to be self-aware, and yet the main character never gets to be fully self-aware herself. It was aesthetically pleasing with the costumes and backgrounds, but that's about all I can praise. Disappointing but with some potential that could have been good.
Same and well said! I felt like being gaslit into thinking this is anything else apart from what u mentioned.fck this piece of trash movie
Spot on. Thoroughly agreed with this.
@@phoenixdavida8987Thank you. It takes me a lot of effort to state my points and organise my thoughts, it's nice to be heard.
the point you made about her 'always feeling pleasure' reminds me of the fact that men often can't perceive women fully or with much complexity, and so can't handle much emoting from us, outside of constant joy.
PREACH.
Any and all criticism or, more concerningly, praise, should be filtered through the primary fact: BELLA IS A CHILD.
The end.
"the people who are made uncomfortable are the people who are already aware of this phenomenon" SPOT ON
I can technically excuse the lack of menstrual blood by saying it could be a side effect of a crude C-section Bella's mother underwent, or hypothermia in water, or something. But it is awfully convenient, and the lack of body hair is still ridiculous and has no leg to stand on
Especially when the movie points out her hair grows faster than normal.
If she's really so clueless about social expectations, she would have body hair and be pressured into shaving it. It could've been a very interesting point on her journey
She did have a "bush" though and maybe she is the type to not have visible body hair except some fuzz. I am like that. Not everyone's leg hair is visible!
@jacquelineess1141 I could see that more if she didn't have dark black hair and eyebrows. Most of us with that dark of hair have EXTREMELY visible body hair when it is not manicured. I don't know of any woman with dark black hair that's body hair is super blonde all over especially if their pubic hair is dark with maybe the exception of arm hair which tends to usually be still very visible. Of course I cannot speak for everyone but being in the beauty industry you do notice that those with dark hair genes tend to show that everywhere.
@@BB-tq4mm I see your point. Thank you for replying!
The part about sex scenes in film from a female viewers perspective is so relatable, it hurts to watch most sex scenes because of how women are portrayed, and how sick I am of how often women are sexualised in film
I agree, my mind hadnt even concieved that fact until watching this video. Even if I were to attempt to step into the shoes of women to better understand their perspectives, I would still fall short of fully ever understanding as it's not a life that I've lived. Therefore, I'm stuck with the biases of a man and no matter how hard I may try to dull my ignorance, it will never be the same as knowing and learning through women's experiences throughout life. It's an eye-opening moment for me.
@@someblaqguy It doesn't make you less of a person to have biases, but you can build strength of character through questioning and challenging them. Honestly though, I think you're doing enough simply by being receptive to others' experiences.
@@someblaqguyYou can overcome your biases. It takes time and self-awareness, but having an objective perspective in life enriches you like nothing else can.
We can certainly significantly decrease our biases with self awareness, but true objectivity is not possible for human beings bc we inhabit physical bodies that inevitably impose limitations on our perception and cognition. We can take on others’ experiences to a degree through empathy and imagination, but true objectivity is an illusion - one that can sometimes result in serious distortions of perception. For example, believing that we are seeing objectively can lead to the dismissal of others’ perspectives on the grounds that they are not being “objective.” This pattern has played out through much of western intellectual history, where men viewed themselves as rational and objective, while women were by contrast emotional, irrational, etc. As human beings, we must maintain the desire to connect and understand, while still tolerating the fact that that understanding will inevitably be incomplete.
Just once, I want an aRgh scene (and most of the scenes in this movie are that, lets be real, she couldn't understand or consent to most of it, they were NOT S scenes) to put ALL the focus on the man. Instead going "Oh, look at the woman, look at her body and expressions. Look at her cinematic Pain!" I want all the focus to be on HIM. Look at this monster. Look at this repulsive, selfish, foul person. Make it ugly. Make it from the womans perspective for once, what SHE sees when that is happening to her. And instead of letting men see a beautiful woman, let them see the very worst version of what some men are capable of becoming. Let them see what women are afraid, and how much it can look like them. And let women see the monster, and not just themselves, suffering
I LOVED the line Ruffalo has about how she's losing her "adorable way of speaking" as she reads more. A throwaway line but I was glad for the enunciation of why he was so attracted to her re: born sexy yesterday
Also Mary Shelley wrote Frankenstein because of the baby she lost. That’s also why it was so carefully and thoughtfully written out
Mary Shelley was also a homewrecker and a pick-me
@@mittag983 disrespecting and accusing a well-appreciated author without citing sources? How juvenile
Now now, dont say "don't you have hands? Type in google" or such because the burden of proof is always on the accuser.
If you can come up with valid sources, then I'll thank you for introducing me to something i didnt know before
Otherwise...I hope you grow some maturity soon. 😊
@@fictionlover695 It's on her Wikipedia lmao she got with married man go google it it's not worth for me to waste time on you
@@mittag983Mary Shelley was a flawed woman from a very traumatized background.
@@fictionlover695 This is written on every article about her lol
It's actually a very known fact funny you didn't know it
It wasn't to slander her as it's no use the women is long dead just hilarious how you diss Ariana but defend this homewrecker with all your life
'cinema is what you put in front of the mirror' GOES CRAZY OMG
& don't forget: "The truth is 24 frames a second."
I'm baffled by the filmmakers' decision to leave out the book's final twist: that the story as we've seen it is a fabrication by a man, and the woman's true story was quite different and less s3xual.
Funny how films like this are so proud to be "uncomfortable" and yet they take out the parts that make them uncomfortable
They left it out because its a shitty twist that makes the story mean less.
At this point this is Lolita but rendered slightly more digestible; unreliable narrators
Because it’s a sick fantasy of sick people. That’s why they left it out.
@@PattisKarriereKarten 🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️
One thing I will praise about this film- how they were able to depict pedophilia without sexualizing children. Other movies, cough cough, Cuties, was a critique on sexualizing children, that sexualized children. By having the child in question in this film played by an adult woman prevented actual children from being sexualized in the making of the film. Sad that is so uncommon that I need to praise it.
Also adding lolita to that cause of the horrible adaptation
Yeah I hate when directors are trying to make a message but are literally just doing the thing.
Cuties was an abomination and people should be arrested
she and an adult man had sex in front of two young boys that's not normal ! Emma stone produced this crap and if you look at the film they let her make her own choice to go.so if they didn't let her go they are misogynist because the did they are. dam if you do........
@@theoutabodies5653You say that that doesn't happen but if you listen to actual sex workers this is something that happens to them a lot. this movie actually depicted a lot of the traumas that sex workers face on a daily basis. I'm not necessarily defending the movie but I am defending that particular stance because unfortunately that is something that happens and depicting it, In my personal opinion, comes more from, at least Emma Stones point of view, calling out these issues that are IN the SW industry.
that's not pedophilia though, it's not the same as cuties
I was expecting this movie to be much more of a psychological horror than it ended up being. Not that Bella should not have been allowed to explore the world or her sexuality, or to have happy moments throughout, but the idea of a film exploring the idea of the terror of womanhood was so overlooked by the director. For god's sake, she was literally taken out of her mother's womb and transplanted into her head by a man without consent. She is constantly being trapped and controlled by men, but always shrugs it off and escapes, acting totally cavalier about it. I mean, upon finding out her own mother was so horrified to have Blessington's unborn child inside her, calling it a "monster," she ended her own life??? I really thought Bella would go through an identity crisis, but it seemed like she didn't care at all.
i feel like it would be so beneficial to show bella realizing even though she does not feel ashamed, she can feel violated by men in those situations. i relate very much to her attitude towards sex and also assumed i would be immune to feeling used or exploited sexually...but that is not how it works. we have needs and boundaries and sacrificing them has a psychological toll. ask any sex worker. many women who have high sex drives try to fit into that "ideal sexual women" mould and then are hit with the realization that it doesnt work and have a crisis over it. i kept waiting for that moment to happen in the film.. but it didn't.
poor things could have portrayed that perfectly but missed the mark. i still liked some parts but i wish some scenes could be added and removed. then it could have been a great feminist film
The moment when she shrugged off her first bad sexual experience in the brothel with humour is so relatable, I was waiting for the trauma to hit later in the film but it didn't.
@@rebekkahill4664 yes it was in that moment that i could really feel this was written by a man who supports "women's sexual liberation" but does not understand what centering women's pleasure would look like.
bella is the ultimate "chill girl" that those dudes dream of.
We don't all have the same journey in our sexual journey and coming of age, and I related to Bella and loved her questioning, discovering and research. The movie ends, when Bella has just gained independence and has recently formed her family circle. It is unrealistic to expect her to have processed her rapid journey up to that point, she just hasn't lived enough to make certain connections and more importantly she lacked the long conditioning of our girlhoods.
An interview 10 years after the events of the film, with Bella would have been interesting, and revealing. How a kid describes childhood and others, is very different from how a woman views them.
This is a great comment
I kept waiting for Max or God to get some kind of comeuppance or recognition of their wrongdoing from Bella or themselves. Max’s speech could’ve EASILY been punctuated with an “I was wrong. I took advantage of you.” Nope. At least her ex husband got turned into a goat, I guess.
I wish the motherhood/daughterhood angle was explored!!! Your analysis is fascinating and I’m devastated that it’s not the central focus!!
Same.
What gets me is when people (mainly men) deflect with "Its just prudishness, so your criticism doesn't matter". Because, once again, to them it all boils down to the se+ itself. The 'act' is all that matters deep down. And then when women voice their concerns or dissatisfaction or discomfort, they are called prudes and borderline 'ungrateful' for not appreciating the directors (the mans) magnanimity in giving them a movie thats "feminist" and has a "strong female lead" or "shows the horrors of being a woman in a mans world". Because women don't need to see all the voyeu ristic aspects of that. They don't need a front-row seat to a the male gaze. Its like fulfilling that male gaze, those appetites, is the price they need to pay for representation. That, in order for a womans story to be told, she has to provide at least a few moments of titillation for the males in the audience (and, of course, for the director). And I hate that
my god, i literally couldn't have said it any better.. It is SO infuriating.
♥
I knew a little bit about this movie but never knew the plot point that it's actually the brain of the daughter in the body of the mother. That honestly blew me away, and I agree that it's a much more interesting focus. Poor Bella is walking around seeing through the eyes of a person she can never meet, and enjoying life in the body of a person who didn't want to live. I don't know if she would be incredibly thankful or incredibly resentful. Bella would be like a perpetual fetus because the only physical part of the baby that remains after the surgery can't survive outside the mother's body, so she's a person who can never truly be born.
Which just goes to show it's a much more arresting conflict
But no, let's focus on the baby having sex! That's much more interesting! /S
This is a little thing and I don’t want to come off as a “well actually” person but the idea that Mary Shelley wrote Frankenstein as an ugly monster is not really true. In the book, Victor Frankenstein builds his monster to be beautiful. It’s only when he comes alive that victor is scared of the monster, it’s more vibes-based, like he looks beautiful but there is still something viscerally terrifying about him, namely his eyes. I guess you could call this describing the monster as ugly but to me, I thinks it’s more interesting to think of this as who the monster is, his spirit is what makes him ugly. Only in film is he physically ugly. Not really sure if it really pertains to your argument about how frankenstein is allowed to ugly while the bride is not but it’s still an interesting fact.
I remember Angela Carter in the Bloody Chamber talking about a Vampire and how it's "too beautiful" and "symmetrical". With the Creature, he's just a bit "Off". Not ugly, but his arms are a bit too long, his skin is yellowed and translucent, his eyes are milky. He is beautiful yet "Other".
Honestly in our modern day he'd probably be very attractive to a lot of Monster F*c#ers.
I read Frankenstein a while ago, and my memories might be a little off. But I remember the monster being ugly being literaly one of the themes in the book. I don't want to make a "ugh actually" moment either, btw. I just remember that differently.
I don't know if you read it, so if not, spoilers ahead!
But there's a whole sub-plot when the monster is living hidden in the walls of the house of a poor family and the monster starts liking the family and wanting to do things for them, and he even befriends the old-blind grandpa, but once the other members of the family see him, they are instantly frightened by him, his appearence, and fight him out the home without even letting him explain anything... just because of how he looked.
And that's kind of the begining of the downfall of the creature's character (the creature reamins nameless). Because he starts to realize that even if he is good at heart, he's going to be rejected no matter where he goes because of how he looked (of how Victor made him look). And THAT'S what prompt him to go find Dr.Frankenstein, he wanted to be accepted by his creator, but not even Victor could deal with him (and his appearence)... so the monster strikes a deal and asks for a bride, a companion for him, in exchange of letting Victor alone, and there the creature explicitly asks the doctor to make HER beautiful (yeah troubleling, not not the topic rn) and Victor agrees... but then goes back in this word. And there's when the monster starts acting really like a monster and he progresively does worse and worse things after that, to hurt Victor.
So yeah, all thay to say that I think he was meant to be ugly, in both book and movie portrayals 👉👈
@@TheeKaroolyneI remember him being described as attractive as well and after your comment I looked it up. He was built by Victor to be handsome, straight white teeth, flowing black hair, and tall with skin that clings to his muscles and arteries (think body builder) and it's not until the creature wakes up that he is described as fighting or grotesque. Because he is unnaturally tall (presumably not in a good way) with juandus yellowing skin, a sunkin shriveled complexion, yellow wattery eyes and black lips. He was a handsome corpse, but when reanimated rather than coming back to full life he is still made of corpses. So he was intended to be attractive and was an attractive corpse, but an attractive corpse and a living corpse cannot co exist as the nature of the features becoming animated makes them grotesque.
@@grimmsfairytales2224 Thanks for looking it up! I can't remember where I put that book and it's been a while
So it's a little bit of both, like Victor intended the creature to be handsome, and got an atractive corpse, but the final product sadly wasn't, makes sense tbh!
I’m aware, Frankenstein is my favourite book and I’ve read it several times. I agree I actually dislike every film adaptation of Frankenstein for this reason and am always talking about this as well.
However he is still terrifying and “hideous” because he is quite literally a walking corpse of sewn together body parts. It doesn’t matter how hot someone is if you kill them, chop off their limbs, sew them back together, and bring them back to life they’re going to have a terrifying, even “hideous”, uncanny vibe, as that is an inherently terrifying premise.
Whereas Bella is pristine and perfect in a way Frankenstein’s monster is not. She can walk through the world without people screaming in terror at the mere site of her, where Frankensteins monster cannot. Frankenstein’s monster has an incredibly nuanced appearance, and him being sexy isn’t the focus of the story lol. Additionally when I am speaking about how Frankenstein’s monster is permitted to be ugly I am speaking on nearly (if not all) film adaptations of the story, which portray him as “ugly” and terrifying. Especially when contrasted against the bride of Frankenstein we can evidently see how this gendered bias persists.
sorry to be that gfuy but i just realized that steven universe did the "i am my own mom" way better than Oscar nominated poor things
Both also have a lot of Freudian themes so ,, this is interesting
at least he wasn't a sex obsessed toddler and went through every flavour of identity crisis.
Shout-out to the best gender bent Frankenstein. Frankie Stein from G3 Monster High. Absolute legend.
Agreed!! We love you Frankie 🫶🏻
I like imagining that this character is very much from Long Island.
Frankie is such a queennn💜💜
@@nalalalalala9946g3 frankie is nonbinary, so it would be ruler not queen
honestly, what was most shocking to me in the film was no periods? if she has the body of women coming to terms with the mood swings and pain that come with being a woman is so important.
Because men don't like periods
Holy crap! When you noted that women's frontal lobes don't become fully developed until they're about 25 years old, and many men only like women younger than 25... 🤯
It all makes so much sense now!
Creepy, when looking at age gab relationships. I feel like mentioning that the same goes for young guy's frontal lobes though.
@youtubesupportsfascism agreed. I just felt like OP's phrasing could be misunderstood as "only women's frontal lobes etc" People under the age of 25 are equally "developed" and thus dating in your age range there shouldn't be a problem
Nooo.. I'm dead.. I'm gonna throw up..
All humans frontal lobes develop at around 25 not just females
peoples brains keep developing throughout their life, the 25 thing is from one of the first studies that gave up tracking development at that age (so i guess age gaps never stop being weird lol)
Great video! I wanted to make a video just like this. Three things I would've mentioned were her lack of tantrums, how it relates to autistic women and femmes, and the book. If they wanted to make her accurate to "baby brain" and unattractives to p*dos, why isn't she crying from a drop of hat? Babies and toddlers cry because the world is frustrating and unfair. She must be the most emotional mature toddler in the world. This would also be commentary on how women infantized for expressing their emotions and meltdowns.
Also, in the book, it's from the perspective of Bella's and Max's kids. They're being told by Max the story that we see in the movie. HOWEVER, they read a letter from Bella saying it was all made up. I think if it kept the question of whether it's real or not and the male narrator, it would've been a better satire.
Thank you! Oh wow that’s such a good point about the tantrums! You’re so right.
And yes!! I’m not sure if you’ve made it to the end but I do mention that alternative ending in the book☺️
@FinalGirlStudios yeah I just did! Sorry I was in the middle of heading out and thought I won't have time to finish.
She does have a tantrum at the beginning; that was when she was in her baby stage. But throughout the film, you see her aging mentally. She doesn't have those tantrums later on in the film at the “drop of a hat” anymore because she has grown mentally. The film literally follows her from being a baby to a grown woman.
Yes and also, it's not just shame and fear of sexuality that holds women back from "sexual freedom". Many women wouldn't have sex with anyone that comes along because they have preferences, or they're demisexual, etc. And having these sexual experiences, sometimes violently and not always clearly consented like in the movie, can be painful or traumatizing to a lot of women, and that doesn't make them lest feminist or sexually liberated than Bella who seems to never care about what her sexual partners do to her, no matter how bad. There are probably some women like that. But I feel like showing how unaffected Bella is, somehow justifies this behavior from men. That's just too convenient. Just like men exploited the sexual liberation movement in the past, it seems like somehow this new portrayal of "feminism" once again benefits men. And there are women who also develop feelings for men who sometimes take advantage of their lack of experience to access their body. They're not less feminist for that, or less authentic. Sex is not just about shame or no shame, being prude or liberated. I know the movie doesn't criticize "prude women" but men's problematics behaviors would sometimes be taken more seriously if we could see the harsh consequences they can have on a part of the feminine population. Sure, they criticize slut-shaming and that's good. But I feel like they're saying, that if Bella doesn't mind being groomed, manipulated, and taken advantage of for her nativity and lack of experience, because she "an independent woman✨so it's fine", then it would mean that men can do that to other women (as long as they don't try to possess them). And the typical "fuckboy" is not known for wanting to put a ring on the finger of every woman he sleeps with. So it's not like Bella's liberation is going to piss off the whole male population. I feel like because the filmmaker did some things right when it comes to their feminism message and creative world building, it distracted the audience from the things he, I think, did not do right. But it's not that I think the content creators and movie critics missed these things either, but that it still played a role in the general popularity of the movie.
agree with everything you said
I think your arguments have merit, but the difficulty is that exploitative men will use any argument, behaviour or decision a woman makes to back up their own garbage beliefs about us. If they see a s*xually liberated woman, they say "well it's clearly OK to use her like meat because she enjoys it". If they see a more reserved woman, they say "she plays games, so I'll use my pick-up techniques to manipulate her into having s*x with me". If they see a woman who is into other women, they say "aw yeah that's my fantasy, two women together are so hawt and I'm gonna peek through the curtains to watch them do it". There's no safe way to portray womanly s*xuality as long as these men are determined to own it for themselves, but to stop depicting it entirely would also benefit these men because then they can control the narrative.
yes! she didn't care about the men who hurt her but I was the traumatized viewer watching in horror as it all went down
It's like you has read my mind, sex is really not just about being a prude or liberated, some people believe that women cannot have at least one boundarie becouse she's automativaly a prude, or is ashamed, but it's not shame, it's just being able to say the things a woman want to or doesn't want to between the sheets, like men do all the time, they are never called a prude.
Well I'm nothing like Bella but I understand that sexual freedom is always going to be a huge part of feminism. Look at all the controversy surrounding this film, it's 100% centered on the sex. There's a reason that's the only aspect that gets controversy, there's a reason the pornography industry isn't targeted (where most of today's youth get their sex ed btw). Reading through these comments there are so many people who think women can't have sex without it being traumatizing. It seems Bella's behaviour **is** pissing off quite a few people and not just the men
I get that Emma Stone was the producer, but she wasn't the director. She was just one producer surrounded by a ton of men who had a vision of what they considered female sexuality to be.
I don't protect her becouse of that, she still got to chose it.
Exactly. It’s pure male fetish fantasy.
My issue is she chose to take this part, chose to act accurately like a child, and then does sex scenes while still acting like a child... Not the best look
"It makes the wrong people uncomfortable. The people this scene makes uncomfortable are the people who are already aware of this phenomenon" yes. YES! Thank you. You have been able to put into words what I couldn't about how I feel about this movie.
i am a fan of poor thing precisely because i don’t think Bella’s curiosity was primarily sexual in the film. in fact, her early forays into sexuality are very primitive. we are witnessing her come into being always having to deal with the gaze of the men around her (that see the born sexy yesterday as arousing), but as the film progresses we see experience intellectual stimulation, discover poverty, sex work, socialism.
for instance, when Duncan throws away her books, he comments on her losing her “adorable way of speaking”. Duncan is the antagonist of the film because he stands in the way of Bella’s increasingly complex desires. no one after this moment can view him in a good light.
when Bella was younger in the film, all she knew was the sexualized gaze from the men. and my discovery of sexuality was equally primitive: it gives happiness for me. but i grew up and learned about agency, autonomy, companionship. so did Bella. i learned about poverty, about race, about socialism, about sexual exploitation. Bella did as well
that’s what i find compelling about poor things. bella’s curiosity is about sex, and then it isn’t. it’s about music, and dance, and life. that scene where bella stands under the singer is so beautiful.
young girls are sexualized in our culture. Bella is certainly a victim and survivor. tbh it’s valuable to have media that frankly tells stories where sex is as ambivalent as this movie portrays it. i saw this movie as a sort of coming of age because i relate to living in a world where female sexuality is confined to male desires. and yet and still, i found a way to exert my own individuality. something i loved watching Bella do.
i, too, was uncomfy with the early part of the film. i don’t think there’s any reading of the film that makes the men sympathetic at all in the beginning. and also, the film moves on. and i, for one, love the places it went.
You just put my thoughts into words. Glad to see someone with same view on the film
100 %
This is how I view the movie as well.
I agree, and the book highlights this too.
Yesss, i'm AFAB, and with disabilities, i found Bella very true and very comforting, I would've liked that the men that abus3d her would be more condemned and the trauma more talked about, because it's something that happens in our society. I too did sex work when i was underage and was very traumatic, all under the "empowerment" discourse about sex. Overall I think the movie and characters are very good, I just think it could've used more input of the people that are being portrayed, let's not pretend women like this do not exist and are only a product of fantasy
This is the female POV I need for Poor Things. I was so conflicted throughout the film because it did pushed my understanding of sex and questioned how much of ourselves are shaped by the way we grow. It's the ending that got me feel "Is that it?".
I don't feel that what Bella did is a win for herself when she still live in the bubble of her privilege life or a win for women when everyone else still abide by those patriarchal standards. Bella questioned so many wrongs about society, but it led to her creating another type of hierachy within her walls.
After watching this movie alone I went to the park near the cinema. There were people but I lay down on the grass looking at the night sky (something I'd never do because I'm an adult) but this movie made me feel child-like wonder was important to overcome shame. It had a great impact on me and made me think how much humiliation trauma could be fixed if we listen to our playful inner child more.
I also thought the hairless body of emma stone was a mistake.
I think the pedo undertones are unconfortable and the reason why so many men dont like the movie cause it hits too close to home for them cause they tent to like this trope but here is super gross
a lot of women dislike it because of the pedo undertones too. because it doesn't seem like yorgos was trying to critique anything, or if he was, he wasn't doing it explicitly (which is irresponsible on his part, dubious and worth critiquing given the current state of the world.)
Interestingly enough, many men (at least on letterboxd) gave this movie 5 stars, but some of them have Barbie a lower rating 🤔
@@MichelleSmith-gt1pywhen you learn that in the book, Bella has a child and that child asks her about the brain transplant thing.. and Bella herself says men can’t handle sexuality in women, so they assume they are crazy/immature/stupid ie the ‘what a beautiful retard’ comment. It leaves the question open if this even really was her story or it’s just another way men manipulate her.
If anything it seems like most men loved the movie. The majority of critique I've seen has been from women...
@@petalchildi haven’t read a single men on twitter praising it
Beautiful film from a purely aesthetic viewpoint but I appreciate the number of salient points you made about the film's shortcomings. It's incredibly interesting to see how a male portrays this storyline and what milestones were important for the character vs. points women brought up about missing facets like Bella not having a period despite being a fully grown woman.
That was honestly such a missed opportunity for soooooo many reasons. The trauma of experiencing a "first" period with her young brain could have been such an interesting exploration of womanhood, not to mention how it intersects with sexuality, perceived attractiveness and purity by men, pregnancy risks, etc.
Also your points on the intricacies of the mother daughter bond and the missed opportunity to explore the complexities of motherhood, were so touching. Thank you for taking the time to thoroughly dive into this.
I, a queer afab person, went into this movie completely blind and it was an experience. I love the frankenstein type of stories, so when i realized it was sort of that, i was excited. I love watching a character experience and process the world around them for the first time while questioning why people do things. I wasn't a necessarily sheltered kid, but I was very isolated in my childhood, so that kind of thought process is something I understand. I was enraptured with Bella's facinsation with the world around her. The way she wants to just stop and look and talk and absorb is how I feel like acting when I'm in an unfamiliar place. I haven't really found others who relate to that feeling, so seeing a character exhibit that wonder was amazing. My favorite part of the movie was when Bella was on the ship and she met two people who didn't discourage her curiosity. It was just a really joyful bit for me to watch. I found myself coming away from the movie less focused on the sexual elements but rather more focused on her growth, Emma's acting, the characters Bella interacts with, the art direction, the shot composition, and the costume design. The ending did feel off. I was confused as to what the director wanted me to take away from the film by the end.
One of the things that this discourse reminds me of is how easily people jump from nudity to sexualization. There is nudity without sexualisation and sexualisation without nudity. I understand there is a very heavy cultural aspect to this, as a Finn and an American would most likely see a nude body in a film differently, but that can be changed with the context and cinematography. From what I've seen in Lanthimos' films (Dogtooth, Killing of a Sacred Deer, etc), his cinematography is very bare, almost cold, when filming sex, so seeing Poor Things' sex scenes in so vibrant colours, with pleasure, was unexpected, yet it maintained the observing (not voyeuristic) tone.
The ending of the book is WAY better than the film's ending.
I think the reason why Duncan had such a problem with Belle being a sex worker, is because she made that choice. He was no longer able to control her sexuality. So instead he demonized it. For the worst thing a woman can do is have full bodily autonomy.
No, it is because Bella is raped by other men, and not only by him. Bella chooses as “freely” to engage in prostitution as she chooses to be groomed by him. Being in prostitution (with a brain of a child mind you) is not bodily autonomy
but she didn't cause she was owned by a madame so that's where i'm confused
@@n14d14yeah - she was also coerced into it by her impoverished status. That’s not a fully autonomous choice.
@@noname-of2ylright.. i have a hard time understanding how someone can interpret that as fully consensual or “achieving full bodily autonomy” when she wouldn’t have done it in the first place if she had any money.
@n14d14 Sure, but out of all the proletarian jobs she could’ve taken she chose to go that route. She didn’t only do it for the money but also because she found that she enjoyed the actions & result of sex that is where the theme of freedom kept playing in. Duncan really just hated that that allowed other men to be intimate with her
If anyone wants an actuality nuanced take on Frankenstein from a feminine perspective (as Mary Shelley intended before the men took over) please watch Lisa Frankenstein! Not only does it have that beautiful A24 aesthetic but it's also written by Diablo Cody (Jennifer's Body) and is generally a very lovingly made movie.
Also, it's directed by Zelda Williams (her feature filmmaking debut). She is Robin Williams daughter and she posts witty things online.
I watched the movie, and I couldn't help but see it as an extremely promiscuous infant in a woman's body... couldn't get past that fact, and it made me sick to my stomach, and truthully, I question whether or not it was even necessary. I feel that all the good aspects of the movie were tossed aside in my mind, and that took focus for me. Kind of ruined it as a whole for me.
Honestly it reminds me KIND OF, of Claudia from Interview with a Vampire (I think that’s her name) but it’s the little girl Lestat and Luis (I believe that’s his name I’m sorry if it’s not 😭) change.
But she never ages physically but MENTALLY she ages and there is a bit where she struggles with her sexuality and not being desired or desirable because of her age, I did relate to that part since I was a tween when I read it but to swap it is a very..odd thing to do 😳
I hope this made sense 😭😅
@@Thenewboidahlia it did make sense lol.
@@Thenewboidahliaomgggg I literally watched Interview with a Vampire purely for the sake of perhaps writing an essay comparing/contrasting the two characters (Bella and Claudia)!! But ended up scrapping that concept and writing this essay instead.
@@FinalGirlStudios oh I would have loved that concept as well!!! I’m glad I wasn’t totally out of left field so to speak with the comparison!
That is an entirely healthy response to this film.
this movie felt like a bunch of artsy college bros patting each other on the back abt how pro-"sex positive feminist" they are
Thank you for this! I made a critique of poor things that went viral and it had (mostly) good dialogue and I couldn’t agree more that the mother daughter element to Bella’s story was such a missed opportunity, one that I don’t think would have been missed if this story was not told through a man’s lens
How? I found the film really good, and as a mother of daughters, I didn't find the movie needing more exploration of the mother-child relationship. I am neurodivergent and the film gave a satisfying account of Bella's growing up and coming of age. A film that is closer to my experiences and feelings about growing up and sexuality. At my advanced age, I am glad to have watched a film that doesn't dwell in the traumatic experiences or have to include it. A different type of female journey in a movie that is set in a fantastic reality. It is told like an ancient myth of an early civilization's divine creature.
@@Cutieyum4 I dont think the film is bad. Its important to understand I can critique something and still enjoy it. To me, this is a Frankenstein story, one that is looking to add a new perspective by introducing the idea of what if Frankenstein was a woman and in essence was born into a world without society’s rules and judgements. Its about a relationship to self as a woman, as a human, as a creature. And to me, to not explore the most compelling twist of the genre of not only is she a woman, but she is her own mother, just feels like dropping the ball on even more depth we could have had with Bella.
I'm FED UP of people saying this film "was obviously written by a man", because no it wasn't. You people would say that about Frankenstein smh. Harem anime, the Hamilton musical, narratives where all the women fall in love with a mediocre looking man who does them dirty with each other are the actual male fantasies. That is one way the story could have gone, it doesn't mean it was because a man wrote the story.
Controversy is great when you aren’t the person the controversy is about, and honestly Poor Things is a perfect example of that.
I don't like using the term personally but it's just mansplaining by people, as you said, who have honestly no clue what they are talking about but think they do.
"men have an unspoken war on women's prefrontal lobe" is wild it gave me chills
Thank you for tackling this subject. The most important thing I learned in film school is the power- and danger- of the language of film. The average moviegoer is not a film critic and is not thinking deeply about the images they’re internalizing. These images are beautiful, but they are hollow and devoid of a clear message, which allows the audience to let their own imaginations provoked by the film run wild with these false ideas about women and female sexuality. There’s a fundamental ignorance about female sexuality in general, so this film just shows me that we still don’t understand that sexuality is more than a physical exchange with others- it’s our creative drive.
Why don’t we get to see women exploring their sexual drive without a partner? We never see a woman choosing celibacy, choosing to spend time exploring her creative drive in solitude instead of her creative, sexual energy being freely given away to the men in the film for their own entertainment. It’s not empowering to women. It’s empowering to men who will never know the depth of a woman’s sexual power and who get to experience that power by exploiting a woman who does not yet know her own body or what her sexuality is capable of creating beyond childbearing.
The film's agnosticism toward consent really bothered me. When Bella worked as a prostitute, she asked if she would be allowed to pick her client, and she was told no, that her consent was irrelevant. If consent isn't asked for them the intercourse is nonconsensual, because we know for a fact that her saying "no" would not change a single thing in her favor and could end her only employment. So we have a movie about sex and society, all about exploring and challenging both notions through conversation, but the concept of sex being forced upon someone is never mentioned once even as it's happening. It's so frustrating! Only in a movie written by a man.
I'm not even saying Bella has to conclude that what happened to her was abuse. I just want the movie to have put one single sentence towards tackling that topic because the kinds of weird mental gymnastics Bella went through to mock up a simulation of consent were heartbreaking because that's the kinds of things people do when they're trapped in a situation they know they can't control and are just making the most of it to stay sane or feel as if they have control. Like, sure, the way she goes about it is very fantastical because it's larger than life fiction, but formatting an uncontrollable situation until it feels close enough to consent, even though that fiction of consent is realistically powerless, is exactly what people often do in situations like that. It's not consent, it's a person trying to cope! Why does the movie portray that and then never say a word about it, failing to be critical or even acknowledge what just happened at all? Bella refers to herself testing the boundaries of what it means to be ok with someone violating her as just some stuff that she learned from and like, that's it?? She's so curious, articulate, nuanced, opinionated, and critical of so many other things in herself and others and in society, but not consent, the one thing she was just exploring? Nothing to say about it? It's just so, "written by a man" it's sickening. I get the impression the movie doesn't consider those scenes to be dubious consent which is wild to me because "she's not allowed to say no" was the premise.
Btw I'm not saying sex work is inherently unconsensual, it just is when "not allowed to say no" is the basic premise. I don't think her choosing to stay equals consent exactly either because her still having a child's brain is its own problem and beyond that, the conditions of her employment are inherently exploitative and I wish the movie had just contended with that for even just one single sentence! Even just to dismiss the possibility! Because then the audience would remember the word consent exists for a reason and it would a commentary and not just a depiction of something a little too real and tragic to be just left behind like it's "female empowerment via exploring sexuality". Written by a man.
There is no question that working in a Victorian bordello was abusive.
This film was not made to please, or be wholesome, it was meant to agitate. To “ shock the bourgeois”. To artfully address actual social issues. The fact that, every time she liberated herself, she ended up enslaved in someway is very much the female experience in many parts of the world, to this day, as we speak.
When women are depicted only as free, fulfilled, heroic characters that never make mistakes, personally I feel that it is perpetuating an unrealistic myth that most of us cannot live up to.
I know what it’s like to make much more money as a stripper than as a waitress. How else was I going to get myself through college without the enslavement of lifelong debt? But I was free, so I left the country and travelled. And ended up falling in love and married. To a jerk. Then I freed myself from that, but had to raise the children on my own. Ended up having to work 80 hour weeks as a Paramedic. Started Modeling on the side because the pay was much better found the situation abusive. I was always beholden to something that owned me. Children who would never thank me. Men who wanted to control me. It took me until now to live an authentic life, where I don’t live just to work or live in an environment that oppresses me.
But if my life was a film, would it be called anti feminist? Even though I struggled and won, some of it was unpalatable. I wasn’t always treated like a princess.
Brilliant video!!! You’ve really reshaped some of my thoughts around Poor Things.
Particularly your point about the ‘woman’s’ body is so appt. it feels like the born sexy yesterday trope can’t escape girlishness in the characters physicality bc it primes the to be perceived in an endearing, Bambi-like way.
No doubt the film would feel wildly different with an older, larger, less pruned Bella - almost to the point of making the majority of the criticism lobbied against it redundant. And god now i’m wishing we got that film….
Beautiful work x
Thank you so much!!! And thank you again for your contribution to the video 🫶🏻
Who watched this and believed it was about female empowerment? Choice = empowerment. Empowerment does not just mean having free sexual experiences. I find it troublesome that female empowerment always includes an element of being sexually reckless. Saying no is also empowering. Being choosy is empowering. How on earth did she just not get pregnant at all and why was this not a real concern? I didn’t see any of the male sexual partners pull out.
not only did she not get pregnant ( which I guess can be justify by the fact that we never see her menstruate) but the only time the possibility of an STDs is brought up is when Max tells her that she should get tested before they get married ( so when it's for the convenience/safety of a man). This entire movie is about a woman that is apparently mature enough to travel the world just to explore her sexuality while also being too mentally young to consent to sex with any of the grown men she slept with ...how does that work ?
Someone said that it's likely she had a hysterectomy, she had her sexual organs removed. In a real way, she was "de-sexualized" for the convenience of the men around her.
The movie is sloppy in ways that give away its empowerment message.
The body hair issue hints at a range of missed opportunities. As weird as the clothes are, she still dresses feminine to a fault. Kids wear weird stuff or want to walk around naked or less clothed.
At the end with her “ husband” coming. Why would a person like Bella care about traditional marriage and go with this man she doesn’t know?
i just love the passion and research Final Girl Studios puts into her videos! and she has a letterboxd account so you already know she's on top
semi unrelated to the topic at hand but oh the irony of kristen stewart emphasizing the importance of comfort while acting out intimacy when she worked with and defended woody fucking allen of all people. good lord.
Everything about her is fake
Oh, so you get to realize your family friends are weirdos but she can't have flaws or misjudgedments? Like, idk if you realize but she was a child actress and God knows what she felt she had to do and what she will justify happening to even herself. I don't know if she said that about the movie she worked with him on, but if it wasn't, what even is your point? Should I check your brain and find out where you've also been a hypocrite? Bc you're not free of humanity. Everyone says "fake" sht bc you don't feel the exact same way about something or someone your entire life. You can even see here comments of people who saw this movie and liked it at first until it all dawned on them, that can also happen with people you know. If you ask your mother she's probably done something horrible you'd hate another person for, but bc it's your mother you might not even be able to attach it to her
I don't remember if they mention it in the film, but it seems to me that the removal of the child from Victoria's body would go hand in hand with a hysterectomy, and maybe even also a salpingo-oophorectomy (basically a removal of all the reproductive female parts). This would explain the lack of menstruation and I think is quite plausible.
The unnecessary hairlessness is a valid point, though. I think it would do humanity some good to remember that women also have hair lol
I mean, this would be a pretty interesting point to make. She is "de-sexualized" so that she can better pleasure men
If so I’d be really interested in seeing the effects of a hysterectomy then. Why not show things from menopause? A hysterectomy doesn’t just rid you of your uterus and that’s it.
As always…You perfectly articulated all of my confused thoughts on this film. I wanted so badly to love Poor Things but it did not deliver imo 😕
Something to note in Mary Shelly's original book is that Frankenstein's monster was beautiful. He was created to be a man born perfect, an Adam before the fall. It's noted that the only thing physically wrong with Frankenstein's monster was the fact that his eyes were horrifying to look at.
I'm not sure he was beautiful. He couldn't integrate himself into society because people couldn't accept him. The question is how he was ugly. Was he just truly ugly? Was he beautiful but too beautiful? Was he just wrong?
One possible missed opportunity: Godwin has a maid. She could have been shown shaving and grooming Bella so she remains "Beautiful". And you can see her shaving her legs while Bella is struggling and bored. Then, Duncan has to shave her legs much to his chagrin and Mark Ruffalo's hilarious anguish. And when she gets to the brothel, she is taught how to do it herself and is like "I understand this is expected of Bella but it is rather pointless."
I feel like most people watching Poor Things *are* uncomfortable with Duncan's seduction of Bella. The only people who aren't are those that are actual child molesters. As the video itself said, most "Baby Brained" characters aren't literally baby brained. And that's the difference between Bella and Leeloo. Bella is literal and so it's harder to pretend it's not hecked up - so I disagree with you on that part.
I also disagree Joi in BR 2049 is "Born Sexy Yesterday". I also think it's valid for a director to use cinema as a "mirror", and that it can be that. It can also be more. I will have to read the interview myself, as well as rewatching BR 2049.
All in all
this film is weird and I think it could have been done better.
I agree with the maid part!! Like what if the maid and the brothel owner were more of “mother figures” to Bella instead of minor side characters?? It would’ve been an interesting concept to explore!!
Shaving body hair wasn't really a thing during the period the story's set. The exploration you describe couldve excused this aesthetic choice, but they should've just let her have the body hair she would've had
Your videos have been a god sent for me these past two days. You speak on such interesting films and topics and these videos got me out of my film watching slump that I've been in for the past two years! I'm so glad and I'm genuinely in awe of you truly, thank you so much ♡
“Men seem to have a war against a woman’s frontal lobe”. 😅❤❤ Subscribed. I had a very hard time watching this film, as did my mum. I would have chanced a rewatch if it went hard on Bella’s growth instead of her adventures where she was repeatedly exploited.
Oh and all hail intimacy coordinators and more women’s involvement in portrayals and directing of women’s experiences.
I think we do a lot of gender-based stories a disservice when we ask the polarizing question 'is this feminist?'. Mainly because a story doesn't have to be feminist in order to be a relevant and fascination commentary on gender, nor does feminism have a spotless history of perfectly advocating for the people who need it most. Also, such polarizing questions prevent more nuanced thought and discourse as it locks people into one position instead of allowing for more complexity when navigating ideas. Media literacy is difficult, but videos like this one fill in so many gaps for people who need to loosen their grip on binary thinking.
Well said
Interesting, what is your thoughts on film being universal for both genders?
art is inherently political. where gender is, where women are, feminism exists. those are literally the founding objects of feminist study, and the two cannot be disconnected.
how exactly would you propose framing a very clear narrative about female sexual exploration, sexual exploitation and liberation outside of the patriarchy, removed from feminism?
i disagree wholeheartedly with you. using feminism as a starting point for discussions like this gives us a rich and complex tapestry of ideas, among many others, on which to draw from, before expanding elsewhere.
you talk about nuanced discourse and yet present none of your own? can we hear these enlightening thoughts, that feminism is apparently stopping people from having?
@@MichelleSmith-gt1py I see what you are saying, but in a way I do wonder if the yes or no question of "is this feminist" isnt less helpful than the tools and lenses feminist film theory can give us to discuss what potentially worked or didnt work. I dont know if the original poster wanted to remove feminism entirely from the discussion (which I would disagree with) but I think a more specific question of "what message comes across to different people/genders and why" is more interesting than the binary feminism one.
You articulate exactly what I thought of this movie! Bella is a child, she gets r*ped as a baby, and even in the end she doesn't seem to understand the abuse she's been through. I kept thinking by the end she would realize the extent of her abuse and sexualization and choose not to marry the professor's student, but no, she marries him. This is a story about a sexually liberated womanchild, not about abuse. It condones pedophilia imo because it never adresses it correctly, the message is about how great it is that Bella can have control over her own sexuality, even though she is a baby, not a woman! She has sexual consent as a baby and the movie encourages us to think she shouldn't be ashamed of it or be cautious. I personally hated the message, it was not well delivered and even if the movie was aesthetically beautiful it doesn't negate the damage it could have on society. If a pedo watches this he will not feel shame or be uncomfortable, he will be aroused, he could even use this discourse to defend his desires saying that a girl has the right to choose sex with a man, which is very troubling to me.
If they wanted to portray sexual liberation, Bella didn't need to have the brain of an infant, she could just have had the shame part of her brain turned off because of her death or any other explantion...
Yesss, I think with movies like this it’s sooooo important to try and look at it from a male perspective/ from the perspective of someone who only sees things at face value. Like if you don’t directly criticise/challenge the issue you are trying to bring to light, a lot of people might get the wrong idea and that can be super harmful and in a way just make things worse/ further perpetuate the negative stereotype
Like I’ve watched movies with men where there were female characters who were hyper-sexualised, according to the directors in order to bring to light the mistreatment and objectification of women, but the men I was watching the movies with were just like "damn she’s hot"… they totally misunderstood the message the director was trying to send. So by not directly challenging these negative stereotypes and being too implicit/subjective, they ended up causing more harm than good.
@@lottiecheahmccorry4559Yes! And I actually was very worried when I saw the movie at the theater because many men were laughing at some very disturbing scenes.
@@azul9655 yessssss it’s so hurtful when they laugh because they don’t understand, while you’re on the verge of tears because of how much the issue trying to be portrayed has affected you. Like they are just completely clueless, and it’s so dangerous making subjective pieces of media and expecting them to understand. I remember watching a disgusting horror movie where a man exploited women by recording them naked through video chat, and then forced them to do the things by threatening to leak the videos, and the guy I was watching with was fine with the scenes of the women being exploited, but drew the line at the gore/torture scenes, as he yelled, "don’t rip you skin off for him, just pop a tit again"…
She's not a child...
“multiple things can be true at once” is definitely my biggest takeaway from my personal experience of watching the movie and hearings differing opinions from other people
I feel like the whole concept of even acknowledging (as the filmmaker clearly does) the unfair treatment and double-standards women are subjected to by a male dominated society IS feminist- whether it was the intention of the filmmaker or not.
On cinema being a mirror of society and the idea that one must distort the mirror to question society: the commentary on the depictions often is (and arguably should be) up to the individual viewer. I know, interpretation is dangerous. But it’s better for developing critical thought as well as personal character, even if that development ends up revealing ugly things.*
Personally, I felt like I recognized the bad behavior written into Poor Thing’s male characters in the men I’ve encountered my entire life. Not a kind picture, but an accurate one lol.
Duncan is explicitly portrayed as a villain, something that I think is important. If people disagree that he was portrayed as a villain, I think that may be because he was portrayed as a REALISTIC villain (yes despite the flamboyant dramatics) in the sense that he has a charasmatic veneer (how else would him being a womanizer make sense tbh) that attracts people to him.
I think Bella’s sexuality has more to do with the fact that she (as a baby brained lady) doesn’t yet have a concept of all the psychological conditioning adult women are conditioned with (by society, various religions, experiencing traumas, etc.) since birth. Agreed the portrayal has issues though.
Bella’s happy ending, in my opinion, is finally being able to live in her independence with the people she loves around her. She was able to finally explore her intellectual/educational pursuits regarding medicine and she got to have relationships free from predation and free from societal confines of norms/expectations. The fact that her happy ending was being truly herself without compromising her desires, or being dependent on a man, or receiving punishment for her “adventures” was refreshing to me personally since that’s usually not granted to women in film.
*In other words, it’s not important whether the film is feminist or not, whether it’s good or not, etc… what matters is whether YOU view the piece of art or media as such. You can tell a lot about people by the kind of movies they like and dislike, and sometimes those are important indicators and red flags in my opinion.
Yes I discuss how I liked the portrayal of Duncan for the exact reason you expressed. I also repeatedly allude to the fact this film is clearly making a commentary on social conditioning of women and the way that impacts our sexual lives. To me that’s a pretty obvious fact about the film. The question is whether or not it was a good interpretation/exploration of this.
Feminism is when filmmakers sexualise women now
so if we as women weren't conditioned by the patriarchy, we would spend most of our time having phallocentric sex with creepy, repulsive guys??? shot in ways that never depict her subjective attraction towards these men even though it's supposed to be about 'female sexual emancipiation' (creepier still considering she is a baby-brained CHILD)
Sure thing, and personally I feel like if the question is “is it a good exploration of these themes” then my answer would be… maybe?
I think he explored some things better than others and was left quite lacking on more of the female perspective. I thought Emma Stone did an amazing job working with what the filmmaker gave her and interpreting/conveying the emotions of the character to add depth to the story and to Bella. I also can excuse some of the oversight to it being clearly a fantasy version of reality, and probably my own bias towards excusing male mediocrity when it come to writing female characters.
That being said, I feel like the overt focus on nudity came across as more disturbing than empowering in the context of the storyline. I also initially thought that the filmmaker (and maybe the author of the book? Idk I haven’t read it) overlooked a critical element that I think would be present in Bella’s emotional journey with sex and relationships, which is experiencing regret at the choices she made, or struggling with feelings of being victimized by the men that preyed upon her. I’m still kind of wrestling with that idea though since I don’t know if shame is a fundamental element of regret, since the filmmaker was intending to portray a woman without the idea of shame as you mentioned.
also I didn’t even realize that she was first touched by Duncan when blowing bubbles the first time I watched the movie 🤢🤮 super disturbing choice in my opinion, their initial interactions were all super unsettling scenes. I’m not sure that Bella’s “I think Bella not safe with you” observation does much to ease those feelings either, since recognizing danger still doesn’t mean comprehending the consequences, especially for people without fully developed brains.
just an fyi for anyone interested :) the book is actuallly from the fictional perspective of the real author Alasdair Gray.
It's comprised of a foreward from Gray setting up his argument that he believes the story of Bella Baxter to be real. Followed by a memoir by Bella's husband Max where Max claims that his wife was a grown woman with a babys brain, and then a letter from Victoria Baxter revealling that her husband made it all up to make himself be better about being a very average man, where she then tells her real life story.
Gray then goes on to detail the life of Victoria Baxter after the events of her letter, where she was an active campaigner for the rights of women until her death. One of the very last points of the book is an account of Victoria's autopsy, where she's described as having a brain thirty years younger than her body.
In my opinion Gray intended the story to be an exploration of unreliable narrators and the idea that when no version of events are definitive, you're able to pick and choose details to believe from any of them. The whole setting is a lot more grounded than it's film adaptation, perhaps in an effort to make the absurditity of Godwin's experiments a bit more plausible.
It's a fantastic book and a fantastic interpretation of Glasgow where Gray was born. (and where I live lol) The book is a lot more political and philisophical than the movie, with less of a focus on the sexual aspects that Lanthimos chose to focus on. Personally I think he butchered some of the story and characters to tell a far more fantastical tale.
soo glad you made this video. you made great points I hadn't seen anyone else mention
i find it frustrating that a majority of people discussing this film don’t acknowledge that the film can portray some things well while also falling short on others. it’s either a beautiful feminist masterpiece or a garbage disgusting misogyny-fest. i appreciate you mentioning what your conflicting thoughts on it!!
oooo GIRL I BEEN WAITING FOR THIS ONE THANK YOU FOR REVIEIWNG THIS
The original frankenstein the book was actually beautiful.
Agree with the motherhood/daughterhood idea as well as what Emma the actress said about her world being technicolor after having a child. Basically I agree with your take. And honestly I get ped0 vibes from a lot of this movie.
32:34 i think this is a really great point! It also makes me think about the fact that so many people including myself, mature and realize that i need to become my own parent, and a parent who is actually good, which can be so difficult when you were not modeled that at all.
Coming from someone who was a victim of childhood SA I found the beginning of the film so triggering I had to walk out during my first watch. I understand all sides but in the eyes of a victim it's watching the victimization of a childlike women falling into a hypersexulization form of self harm to the point she ends up back in her past abusive relationship. It's a hard watch knowing my experience and others.
Thank you for your nuanced words here and thank you for shouting out Love Lies Bleeding!!!! Loved the intimate scenes in that film, that film has so much genuine passion
There is something to be said about how starkly different the first experience with a partner differs between men and women. This film is a good example of that, and I didn't fully realize it until this video.
When I was a teen, I asked my parents what their first times had been like. My dad explained it by saying he "saw colors differently, they seemed more vibrant." My mom quickly added, "I dont remember it being like that for me at all." The way Bella's world fills with color after her first partner, I think, reflects how it is for men. (This is not meant to be a negative comment on the film. Just my own observation based on conversations.)
You’re so right in saying this would be a much more compelling story if it was about the mother/daughter dynamic of Bella’s existence especially since she has no female role models for the majority of her development until she gets on the cruise
What i find interseting with regards to the argument about the born sexy yesterday is the fact that bella isnt as naive as first initially shown. One point that i noticed when she tells Godwin she is leaving with duncan is the fact she makes it abundantly clear she thinks duncan isnt a good man. She makes mention of his nefarious ways but elects to leave since he is a vehicle to her seeing a larger world outside of her limited view in the home. In most born sexy yesterday tales, there isnt the acknowledgement of true danger of a man until the woman is in need of rescue.
As for the scenes where bella is exploring sexual delights, it is a focus on bella's feelings rather than titilation for male delights. Most times we rarely see women in the throws of self gratification. When such a thing is depicted, a man is usually present and or it is depicted in a flattering way. The closes ups on her face are not only not flattering but they dont involve a man what so ever. A man is not a reason for her desire, it is merely to get release. Also, as a woman who doesnt grow body hair on my legs or arms, i never considered hairless legs as infantiziling. The bush was actually more welcomed surprise, considering in the usa a hairless crotch is more prevelant and pushed onto women. For me at least, a hairless crotch is indicative to infantilizing of a woman.
Watching this movie, i found it more so watching the stages of human development. We see her at her most basic, from infantile antics to self centered desires, before coming to the cruelties of the world which leads to an apathy before reaching the pinnacle of reconcilliation of what Bella desires and what she wants to contribute to the world. We never really see such progress in born sexy yesterday movies. The women in those movies mostly have things done to them. The men guide the women to becoming their romantic interest wheras in the case of Bella, men are props to her story and while they aid her growth, she is active in the shaping of who she is.
You don't grow armpit hair either? Even if she somehow had hairless arms and legs naturally, it's pretty strange for her armpits to be completely bare...
Also her hair is jet black in the film. Pale skin + black hair = bluish cast especially on underarms just from follicles. Haven’t seen the film for very specific reasons but the lack of that follicle shadow is frustrating.
"Most times we rarely see women in the throws of self-gratification" Have you not watched media depicting women's sexuality in the past 20 years?? all we see is closeups of women in pleasure. this is because men seeing other men in pleasure "pulls them out of the mood". also, notice how we see front and backshots of Bella constantly, but we only see 2 seconds worth of a penis in the entire movie?? the framing is not equal, it's still shot within the male gaze
Thank you! I am a hirsute woman, and I freaking love this fable. My complaint or rather desire is for the film to be more graphic and messy, because I found the camera clinical and unwilling to show disgust or disgusting the viewer, which as a woman, I would have totally done.
I really enjoyed that! I think those were some great points. I definitely was taken aback by this film and it made me think critically about what was put in front of me. I appreciate the discussion 💝
This take on Bella's mother's body, and becoming one's mother, it really touched me. My mother died 2 months ago, and I see her in myself now more than ever before. I can still almost hear her sometimes in my own mind's voice. Was it always that way, or is this new? I can't even say, but now I'm sad for the movie this never was.
This was absolutely STELLAR. Thank you for taking such careful consideration of all of the discourse surrounding the film, doing extensive research, and putting it all together. Your work is really phenomenal.
I don’t think the movie is about female empowerment, there’s no empowerment, Bella is abused and groomed. It’s Bella’s life, exploring and growing. It’s not empowering but it’s the life she’s been given and she’s exploring and trying to understanding herself. At the end, Bella is an extraordinary human despite everything she’s been through.
i think i fall on the perspective that... It's such a boomer masculine thing to have your response to people online allegedly saying they hate sex scenes, be to then spend millions of dollars to make a movie with several hyper specific fetishes on scene where the subject HAD TO be a cisgender traumatised woman with multiple points of trauma, call her "beautiful r-word" and make her hairless and quirky.
Ask yourself: would this movie have played out the same way if the only thing changed was that Bella had been a transgender woman and still had a penis, or if Bella was instead Beau, a bisexual man and all these scenes were homoerotic, or if Bella was Blsck or Fat. The discourse would be different as it would have been outside the norm of what /most/ cishet white men find desireable. By making her conventionally attractive, you've managed to make a film that perpetuates the issue of gaze.
I remember when I first started watching this, I said out loud, "he better not fall in love with her."
He did
He didn't, he wanted to own her
@@mysticc6232 nah I meant the doctor. The one who Godwyn hired to study her at the beginning
I don’t think he was really in love with her honestly and I think the film made it pretty clear that he wasn’t. He was more so fascinated by her and confused it for love.
@@user-bn6ht5eg4q still fucking weird
@@user-bn6ht5eg4q yeah that was how I interpreted it aswell, since he was so laid back about the "whoring" and seemed more like he wanted to be with her to study her
Having seen the film, I think it's so divisive because we the audience can see what the director was *trying* to do, but I just personally believe he failed to do so. It really is that simple.
I love your videos so much!! I can't wait to watch this!
the part about being a daughter in your mother's body was so beautiful, I got emotional ❤️ this video is beyond great!
Excellent video ✨
Leaving out the ending of the book really does cast a shadow on the director's intensions IMO.
It could have been like Life of Pi. Two versions of the same story, one true and one fantastical, so that the audience can appreciate both.
honestly, I think discourse will always be so difficult to have when the finished product can both be an accidental commentary, while being so evidently challenged by the real life context of the writers/directors and their previous works. If a director made one movie that shows(or actually just embodies) exploitation of the female form, it could be argued they were trying to comment on it, however successfully. But if the director made more than one work that has similar themes and he's failing at making a convincing statement, I'm starting to feel suspicious. Honestly, I would just like men to do less stories about women and especially women's sexuality
This is such an important discourse to be having! I agree with this perspective, and I find that these issues are SO prevalent in modern media and film. I hope society starts to recognize the problems with films like this.
Thank you for putting so much care and dedication into your videos. I really enjoy your content.
As a woman with a disability i already found the trailer of poor things quite disturbing and I knew the film would be too emotional for me. So I ended up not seeing it. I wish people would also discuss more the aspects of ableism and how it’s used in this film
This is such a refreshing video to watch. I agree that one of the more frustrating things is that this movie could have been so much more. If the director was insistent on the switch to color involving sex with another person, it should have been someone that Bella was emotionally intimate with.
The concept of motherhood and becoming your parents would have been interesting to further explore. Did Bella have some of the same quirks or personality traits as Victoria, despite the two of them never meeting?
There is a content creator I used to admire that summarized all critiques of how sex was depicted in this movie as "Gen-Z being too sensitive and sex-repulsed" and went on to defend the movie Cuties. Normally their takes are much more nuanced than that, so it spoke to how polarizing this movie is.
Bella's existence as a sexual being and Bella's existence as an infantile being are closely related and was part of the reason that my viewing experience was so uncomfortable. Emma Stone's performance as a child was chillingly convincing and the positive depiction of sex and sexuality through a character that is so unmistakably a child made me feel viscerally disgusted. I also felt that this aspect of the film held too much weight.
I understand that the movie was a commentary on the role of the patriarchy in shaping women but almost every relationship Bella has in the film is either sexual or exploitative, if not both at the same time. I wish that Bella's friends on the boat had played a larger role. An older woman who has gone through life and graduated from the sexual desires of men could have brought so much more to the story.
And finally I was so fascinated by the concept of the daughter in the mothers body. I was so interested to see Bella explore the possibility that her mother had committed suicide as a consequence of becoming pregnant and how that would shape her understanding of motherhood, love, and her own right to existence. Completely passed over without a second thought. I cannot explain how disappointed I was when the extent of Bella's understanding of her mother was delivered to us by another exploitative man with no further investigation.
I did enjoy some aspects of the movie, again Emma Stone's performance was amazing, but these were just my main critiques.
This video hit every point I thought of whilst watching Poor Things. I agree 100% with every sentence.
“It’s making the wrong people uncomfortable” is such a good way to put it.
I'm just tired of coddling male directors for acknowledging that patriarchal systems exist and endanger women, in the porn they make about a very real real doll with enough of a veneer to get accolades from other men. Sex is apart of life, but every time this "sex without shame" concept is presented it is only presented as a woman is sex, her body is for sex, her life is only fulfilled by sex, usually by only penetrative sex with a man.
The movie would have been infinitely better if Bella had been cut out of it. The male characters, unsurprisingly, were more interesting and presented a much more of an intelligent deconstruction of gender and systems of power, however incomplete, than the Bella in this movie ever could. Men could make interesting movies on gender and sexuality, but the male directors who have attempted it so far insist on dragging out the corpse of a much more interesting plot to pleasure themselves with. If they want their angsty men are the real monsters movie, then why do they continuously need to fridge a female character to do it? Why must women, even in stories, need continuously to hold the hands of and spoon feed character development to men?
Honestly, I can't even say this movie is offensive, because it would have to be notable among the horde to be offensive. It's just another generic art porn
Edit: I'm so glad you included the ending part of the book in the discussion because it does bring up more conversations.
I know you mentioning slightly about him working from a source material which was also mentioned through the quote slightly I think (the one about the menstration), but I do wonder how you would view the film upon a third viewing after reading the book it was based on. One of the first reviews I watched was actually a comparison between book (which the person in question first and enjoyed for a long time) to the Movie. I haven't watched the movie nor read the book myself but part of me is tempted to read the book first to get an idea of what was changed and if the messages changes from book to movie.
Your thoughts on it is very well thought out, but it would be really cool if you're able to talk about the source material as well in the future because according to the reviwer in question.... one of *two* the *biggests* changes are: Godwin actually created Bella to be an bride who would love him for who he was due to his deformaities (apparently the movie changed this to a more father figure situation), and that at the end of the book Bella's pov is revealed and the majority of the book actually was a fabercation by the assistant because she wouldn't choose him to marry over Godwin, and he created a whole "infiltizing" Narrative to smear her good name. (Which was taken out compleately form the film from what I can tell being discussed?). So I do wonder how that would change your mind upon a third viewing if you were to read the origonal sorce material. The book itself was written by Alasdair Gray, if you're curious to look more into the conversation as well and would be an intresting discussion on that front too, since it was also written by a man (I had to look it up to make sure personally).
This is more of a thought experiment that kept lingering because I've noticed the discourse about the movie doesn't go into looking into the book and if it's actually the issue of the movie or.... if it's also the issue within the book too.
I'm so incredibly glad you brought up the theme of being a daughter inside of your mother. That was something I felt was bubbling just below the surface but also felt like I was reaching bc it wasn't given any proper exploration in the film. I agree that would've been so thought-provoking!
Wow... just wow. I was looking for a more thoughtful and insightful review of this film after just watching it, and here it was. Beyond my expectations. Instant subscribe! Thank you
This is, without a doubt, the best commentary video on Poor Things and the discourse surrounding the movie. I completely agree with every single point you made. The fans always bring up "media literacy" to defend this movie. Almost as soon as the movie started, I knew that this movie is very self-aware and does not condone the men who are trying to take advantage of a woman whom they can easily manipulate. And throughout the movie, those men are ridiculed and mocked while Bella matures and takes control of her body and life at the end. So it is not difficult to see that the movie is trying to criticize those men. Therefore, on the surface, it does seem like a feminist movie about female sexual liberation, like many people claim. However, as this video pointed out, being self-aware does not make a movie bulletproof to the criticism on its execution.
I wholeheartedly believe that Lanthimos and Villeneuve care (or at least try to care) about the portrayal of female characters in their films. However, Villeneuve's response to the criticism about Blade Runner 2049 is not only uncompelling and flat-out lazy, but also just boring and unimaginative. (For example, when Chan Wook Park was criticized for the portrayal of the female characters in Old Boy, he accepted the criticism and started to work with a female writer. They’ve been working together ever since. And together, they made absolute bangers with complex female characters in them. I.e. The Handmaiden, Lady Vengeance, Decision to Leave etc. So yes, Villeneuve, you can still make interesting and multi-faceted female characters in a society that’s inhospitable to women, if you can believe it!) Also, Lanthimos's take on nudity in cinema is so naive and simple-minded, that it's almost embarrassing for a movie director in this time and age to have. I didn't hate sex scenes in Poor Things. Like Maia said, this movie is about sex. So, naturally, the protagonist's experiences regarding sex are crucial. And I think the execution of those scenes was also very fitting to Lanthimos's perspective on sex: showing everything without shame or sexualization. People having sex (with consent, of course) isn't a bad or shameful thing. Women having orgasms or enjoying sex should not be a taboo subject. This is what Lanthimos wanted to convey, which I can agree with. However, at the same time, while they claim the movie to be "subverting" and "not afraid to face the uncomfortable", they couldn't even dare to have a female character who is not physically attractive or perfectly shaved at all times. She doesn't even menstruate with her "adult" body. She's working as a prostitute but never concerned about getting pregnant. Also, her having sex and her getting paid for having sex are two different things, because it means her body becomes a commodity and to some men, it means that they can do whatever they want with her body. Although none of the male visitors didn’t harm her (which is very convenient, might I add), female audience can feel terrified or even traumatized regardless of Bella’s nonchalance. Similarly, her choosing to be a prostitute knowing there are other options, and her choosing to be a prostitute because she doesn't know any other options exist are also two different things. I am not shaming Bella for choosing to be a prostitute. That's her choice. No one has a right to make disparaging remarks about her choice. However, as a person with an adult female body, the pain and the messiness of menstruation, the anxiety of getting pregnant at any given time, and the fear of my body transformation due to childbirth or abortion, these things are what it means to me to have a female adult body. So to me, the movie just comes off as superficial.
I don't think Poor Things is a bad movie, nor it is offensive. (Although I didn't like the depiction of the brothel where Bella worked. It’s so naive and utopian, that it’s almost laughable. And I do think that the part where they unravel Victoria's past and Bella revenges on her ex-husband/father felt a bit hasty.) Still, I can see why some people enjoyed this film. I respect their tastes and opinions. The only thing is I just can't understand how some people think Poor Things is a female-empowering movie, when I don't think Lanthimos himself even intended to. And that's okay! Not all movies have to be female-empowering..
I do think Villenueve did take some lessons from this, if Dune 2 is any indication. But he still has Dune Messiah and I have little hope of that going well when it comes to the female characters, who were problematic from the get-go
@@carlycrays2831 Personally, Dune 2 didn’t seem much of an improvement in terms of female characters. I was especially disappointed in Lea Seydoux’s character. But I do think there’s always room for growth for every director, whether it be male or female, as long as they are open to the criticism.
@@user-kz2ut6jv5u I feel like the problems with Dune stem more from the source material, especially in the later books. I mean, the fact is, the Bene Gesserit are overtly sexual to an extreme.
@@carlycrays2831 You could be right. I haven’t read the book, so I can’t really say whether the source material was the one to blame or not. But I assume you are probably right.
I had such high hopes for the Dune series, because I really liked Arrival by Villeneuve. I didn’t like either Dune 1 or 2 (so much so that I ended up liking Lynch’s Dune more lol), so I was actually quite surprised to see the positive reactions Dune 2 received. Which part did you like or think as an improvement in Dune 2?
@@user-kz2ut6jv5u I think the biggest improvement in Dune 2 was Chani. In the books, Chani is just the most boring character. She is just Paul's pretty helpmate and that is it. It's generally difficult to see why Paul is so obsessed with her because she just is, well, nice and pretty. Her being a sex object would actually be an improvement because it would at least be sort of interesting. But no, she just goes along with Paul's plans.
So giving her something to do was an improvement, especially something that challenges Paul's plans. It also sets up some interesting ideas with Irulan since they can't really reduce her role to being Chani's abused pseudo-rival.
I also liked that while the Bene Gesserit were sexualized, they were actually fairly toned down in that regard. That's just sort of how they operate. And as we see, they have different methods for different people. I also sort of liked Jessica's relationship with Alia. It was creepy, but also rather sweet to see her build this bond with her daughter.
Now, Jessica was one change I had trouble with. In the book, her personality changed, but I wouldn't say it was that drastic. But then they also did the same thing with Paul, which made it a little better.
I didn't care for them removing the most patriarchal aspects of Fremen culture. It's sort of a big thing in the book that Paul receives Jamis's widow and her children. It really shows how our of his depth Paul is, but also how committed Paul is to Fremen culture. I understand why it was removed, but removing it just feels like they didn't want to offend anyone.
I would hate the book ending in the movie to me it feels a lot like "it was a dream all along" And I like when surreal metaphors keep being surreal metaphors
LOL wait so true
"I think we should normalize taking our time to digest a piece of art before rushing to give our opinions." Yes, please!
Thank you sm for this video you just explained every of my thoughts about this movie in such a good way
I loved this take on poor things. For me I did recognize the care that went into the film and appreciated it but particularly the jump from oh shes a toddler to a s*x scene just never sat right with me.
I found it interesting what you said about body hair and they definitely missed out on that one.
I didn't like the creative choice where colour came into the world when she has s*x with a men at all not cause its anti feminist just cause it derails the entire tone of the film- not in a good way. Is a story interesting only if its cantered around the sexualisation by men? They definitely could've done better on that part.
love your videos!
I saw the whole colour coming into the film thing as a symbol to Bella successfully making her own decision for the very first time (defying god and running away with ruffalo's character). I thought the film was following stages of development, her maturing in mind over the course of the film.
@@Nice-sz4ee but its maturing centered around Sexualität desire, I dont know what thats supposed to be symbolic off. And being "brave" enough to sexualise a toddler brain but not to give a grown woman leg hair is just ridiculous and explains it all for me.
Great video and incredible points!
The movie suggesting that Bella’s unabashed sexuality exists because she literally has a baby’s brain is honestly disturbing to me. It’s saying what’s holding women back is their cognizance of their objectification, not that the objectification itself is the problem. It would’ve been far more challenged if it was made clear Bella, who is a child, actually cannot consent.