#and using the r-slur in 2023 is A Choice also

[team-lionheart7]

You are so retarded to be deceived into being part of a cannon fodder nation for the Christians' end goals it's humiliating to us true Jews that reach every corner of the globe; Kill yourself as soon as possible

[meloncolliemovies]

POOR THINGS (2023)

Director: Yorgos Lanthimos

Emma Stone (Bella), Mark Ruffalo (Duncan Wedderburn) ,Godwin Baxter (Willem Dafoe)

2.5/5

REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS

TW// SEX, RAPE, RACISM (?)

The primary discourse I've heard about this film has been due to an inaccurate perspective on female empowerment through a cis male's eye, which I completely agree with. This film does miss the mark on what could be a truly empowering piece of art. However, in terms of cinematography, performance and mise en scene, it is stunning, visually interesting and quirky. I am always excited by steampunk stylistic choices, and Lanthimos creates a strange reality through this style. I especially give props to the costume design, it is really great in this film. I also really did enjoy the use of CGI, and that is unusual for me as I often prefer practical effects.

I would like to say this film was successful with it's ideas on feminism, which I'm sure many of you are talking about, but it also has a weak narrative ending, which unfortunately brings down my review and leads me to believe it is not successfully empowering. Viewers are led to believe that Bella Baxter will go on to become a doctor as soon as she quite literally declares to Godwin her interest in science and health. We are also led to believe that she goes on to become highly educated, finding joy in reading and studying, however, one thing that Lanthimos forgot to portray was the viewers actually being able to see this? By the end, we simply hear about her anatomy exam, she is not shown to do anything scientifically phenomenal, as we believe she will. The fact it is a film portraying feminism means it is important we see female success, but we don't. Another thing that makes this film fail on the womanhood mark is her final joys, she only finds happiness in a domestic setting or during sex, and her eventual happiness is set in an idyllic household where she orders other women about, and simply watches in domestic bliss, which just furthers the idea that women will not be successful unless they use their body or are told what to do. In terms of this film as a queer piece of art, I think Lanthimos was unsuccessful in showing the power of female on female sexuality, as despite Bella clearly enjoying her sex with Toinette, it is barely touched upon, and empowerment is not just found in pleasurable sex, despite what Lanthimos shows.

Another thing I would like to mention in 'Poor Things', is the lack of successful representation. I found the two black characters to be very two-dimensional, with Harry being an extreme pessimist, and Toinette being an extreme socialist who is just used for Bella's empowerment, suggesting that women can only have successful sex with other women, which in ways is accurate, but not entirely true. There is also a lack of successful representation of disability within this film, with unnecessary use of the r slur, and the one other disabled character we see, the man with a hook for his hand, his only plot device being that he gets beaten up by Duncan, a straight white man.

However, Mark Ruffalo and Emma Stone do an incredible job of portraying an exaggerated character, which made it much more interesting to witness as a film. As well as this, anyone with any media literacy can make judgement towards the Frankenstein allusions, and I believed them to be pretty successful, especially in the portraying of Wedderburn as Victor Frankenstein, and Godwin as well, God, which twisted the usual narrative of what is may I mention, an amazing book which stands the test of time, written by a woman. :)

My first reaction to this movie by the end, was that "it seemed like a film aimed for women, but made by a man." and it holds true. Bella is a wonderfully eccentric character to watch, however she continues to be infantilised throughout her sexual journey, and the fact she has a newborn brain is not touched upon well enough as a sensitive and difficult issue to navigate in her relationship with Wedderburn and with sex. Furthermore, the movie makes no attempts to make her seem like an adult woman apart from the physical appearance of her body. She has no menstrual cycle, she doesn't get pregnant, she doesn't get an STI and she has minimal body hair, which just further infantilises her, even into her prostitution journey, and is unrealistic. When I first watched this part of the movie, I thought that portrayal of her choice in sex work was successful. It was an empowering way of portraying sex work, however now I have thought about it more I believe that Lanthimos fails to give her any other choice, she is raised around sex and sexual nature, and gets no choice in the matter realistically.

This movie was an unfortunate failure for me, as I was excited. I find Lanthimos style constantly hot or cold, and I often think his narratives and ideas are unique in a way which is perhaps lost on me and many alike. Poor Things was unfortunately, not for me.