I am not a film critic, so I would like to start by apologizing in advance for my artistic crimes.
Yet, I could not help but say a couple of words on Yorgos Lanthimos’ "Poor Things" (2024).
[Spoilers ahead]
(Image: polygon.com)
"Poor Things" tells the story of Bella Baxter (Emma Stone), the subject of a Frankenstein-like experiment—a baby living inside the body of a woman discovering life in Victorian-era London.
I try to watch all the Oscar-nominated films each year, so, of course, with all the hype it delivered, I went to see "Poor Things" when it first opened. The cinematography, costumes, and how Lanthimos’ extraordinary world—detached from time and linearity—was delivered on screen were incredible.
Nevertheless, I didn’t like the film. In fact, I am flabbergasted by all the hype and acclaim it has received so far.
The film opens, and we see a baby or a woman with intellectual disabilities (we are not sure as the audience what is going on yet) in a house, alone, looking for attention from a father figure (Willem Dafoe).
As time goes by, the baby—now acting like a toddler—starts discovering her sexuality. She comes across different men, one that is in love with her (reminder: Bella is still a child), and the other one tries to exploit her more explicitly.
During all of these scenes, I couldn't help but think that Bella is still a child despite being trapped in Emma Stone’s body. Strangely, these were the parts that received the loudest laughs from the audience. Seeing a theatre full of people not minding that also made me realize how confused everyone is with the meaning of “consent.” So, I watched this whole movie as the story of a child, and that changed everything.
We then move on with Bella’s journey of self-discovery, including a lot of “furious jumping.” The film was marketed everywhere as a story of a woman’s liberation and taking down the patriarchy. It cannot be further away from that. The so-called sexual encounters where we see Bella enjoy a lot and be the “receiving” end do not even speak to the feminine reality. You cannot convince me that Emma Stone turned into an intellectually disabled/naive girl mixed with an unprejudiced Lolita, discovering her sexuality is not a male fantasy.
A journey people joyfully watched and laughed was a series of depressive episodes for me that I had to sit through for two hours and twenty-one minutes. Not only because it was disgusting (for the reasons I mentioned above), but also the text did not give us any mystery to think about or perceive with our own eyes. Everything the director wanted us to know was plainly on the screen, leaving no room for interpretation. That’s why I felt like I was taken hostage by a man who wanted badly to explain to me his ideas about feminism and female sexuality for two hours.
As Zizek explains: “Contrary to the commonplace according to which, in pornography, the other (the person shown on the screen) is degraded to an object of our voyeuristic pleasure, we must stress that it is the spectator himself who effectively occupies the position of the object.
The real subjects are the actors on the screen trying to rouse us sexually, while we, the spectators, are reduced to a paralyzed object-gaze.”[1] That’s exactly how Poor Things made me feel.
(Image: Vanity Fair)
Finally, in her journey with her lover, Bella goes to Egypt and witnesses the horrors of the third world, where children die from hunger in the pits of terror. She then immediately realizes the unjust distribution of wealth in the world and goes to give out all the money to those who need it. She meets like-minded strangers on that trip who also see the world as it is. She then goes ahead and accuses this new friend of running away from these adversities despite the fact that he could roll up his sleeves and take action.
This was the only part that slightly moved me. I got excited thinking I would see this as Bella’s real journey because she is not like other people. She could now use her uniqueness and valour to fight injustice.
Instead, she voluntarily becomes a sex worker. Because only a man could think that a woman who reached out to her nirvana of sexual liberation would willingly start sex work. I am aware of the fact that a destitute woman in that era might struggle to find any other type of work, but the director makes a choice at this point: He depicts this "adventure" as another experimentation of Bella which she finds compatible with her nature.
She continues witnessing the injustice there and at some point mumbles about joining the socialist movement. We do not see anything about this later at any point. One more time, the neoliberal perception of socialism as a “phase” that everyone goes through once in their youth and after facing the “realities” of the world, gives up those “utopian dreams”, is underlined. Thank you. This is outstandingly original and necessary to point out (!)
Don’t get me wrong. I don’t expect Lanthimos to turn Bella into a socialist warrior. However, if you won’t follow through, why introduce this concept to us? If Bella falls into the same mindset that her creator Dr. Goodwin or her lover Duncan, or any other average man in the world does, what makes her unique?
The story continues with female genital mutilation because apparently the writers thought that should be the final frontier that a woman who seeks her independence would fight. Though this part, too, gave the audience a good laugh, so if it was what the director was seeking, he did well, I guess?
Long story short, "Poor Things" by Yorgos Lanthimos is one of the most problematic and contextually disappointing films I have ever seen. I felt the urge to write this review as I was astonished to see how Hollywood elites and many other cinema enthusiasts find it a masterpiece, where a handful of critics pointed out the controversy and obsolete ideas. As a female audience, I find this “story of a woman’s liberation,” a story that veiled age-old misogynistic beliefs to serve them as revolutionary cinema.
[1] Zizek, Slavoj. Looking Awry: An introduction to Jacques Lacan through popular culture. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1991
Комментарии