I have since watched this movie again and there are opinions on the movie I share in this video that I no longer agree with lol. I don't feel that Bella doesn't struggle or suffer enough, and I have no issues with Duncan being so obsessed with Bella. Those ideas came from another person’s video and I kind of latched on to that as a way to try and make sense of my conflicted feelings on the movie. But I have since realized my issue with the movie really comes down to them not including the book reveal of us seeing that her story has been told from the male perspective. As I say in this video, at the end of the book we get Bella/Victoria sharing her own perspective on things and also goes into all she has accomplished. Sharing what she wants to be remembered for when all is said and done. The movie gives us the story at face value and removed the depth we had in the book. We get extended scenes in the brothel, which yes are funny, but that was prioritized above showing her impact in other ways- ways that book Bella wanted emphasized like her work helping women as one of the few female doctors at the time. I would still give the movie 4 out of 5 stars and think it makes for a nice companion piece to the book, but it's unfortunate that most people won't read the book and like I said, will just take the movie's male perspective version of the story at face value. Being on the Ink to Film youtube channel to discuss was really cool and I will link to the discussion I had with them in the description of this video!
I want to point out the movie messed up in the ending the meaning of Bella having to go thru all these life experiences in order to become a full functioning adult. The ending of the movie proved that Bella had become after all, just like the people she had been running away from, who had tried to own her and restrict her world view in every possible way. The ending of the movie clearly showed in this adapted story she was never allowed to fully grow up, because she went out of her way to replace Alfies brain with that of a goat, and kept the goat in her garden as a sort of an ownership amusement.
Remember this is a Scottish book by a Scot with some themes related to issues in Scotland at the time of it's publishing. It's set in Glasgow, the characters are all Scottish with Scottish names and a core theme is the treatment of women in Glasgow during the late Victorian period by the legal and medical authorities. The so called Glasgow system allowed the police to arrest any unmarried mothers and women with venereal diseases, label them prostitutes. They could be then imprisoned in the Lock Hospital next to the Rotten Row Maternity hospital. Here they were subjected to abusive medical treatments which could have fatal results. One such treatment involved mercury baths supposed to cure venereal disease. Those who did not die often went insane from toxic shock. Along with a high child mortality rate this led to a constant stream of bodies which were often used for disection by medical students in an adjoining mortuary for the nearby Glasgow Royal Infirmary. Christian churches frequently refused to bury the victims and the city dumped them in mass graves. Burial in a nearby site was common for a time. A woman or girl could be arrested and spend what remained of her short life in an area a couple of hundred yards across before final burial in the same spot. Many at the time thought Gary had written a fantasy of escape in the mad mind of a female victim imprisoned in the Lock Hospital. One where the woman infected by her husband after he visited prostitues regularly. A common cause of the arrest of married women who ended up in the Lock Hospital. Legally it was claimed men could ONLY be infected by women and men could NOT infect women. If a woman had a venereal disease she was deemed to have been of unclean habits and sexually promiscuous or a secret prostitue herself. I have heard some Americans talk about the book calling the book "English" or British which in American usage also essentially means English.
Very interesting as to why they didnt even go this route? She works in a brothel, but it's never learned if she has a disease or not? Instead of the constant, repeated scenes of her doing someone over and over again, in different positions, why couldn't we have seen her explore the consequences of too much sex, often with men you do not know? I feel like if we would have seen her get a STD, more than half the movie wouldn't have needed to exist. 😂😂Instead we see her explore a lot of fetishes. The student guy who helps Defoe's character and who wanted to marry her tells her that she should probably get tested, but they kind of wrote it and deliever it to be humorous. We learn that Bella's body was suicidal before "Bella," and that her mother, whose now her, was cruel and very vindictive. That she was also very, very rich. So, we could have gotten a story where her body was used in life, then in death by Defoe's character, only to be brought back to life again, to be groomed and used by men again? Which, is what it's supposed to be but instead we got "rich woman whose unhappy with her life jumps off a bridge, then gets reborn as her unborn child, who goes on this boring charade of finding her sexuality and that, or course, is what mostly matures her?" I loved the scenes where she learns of classism and poverty, and when she discovers reading books and bearing the violin for the first time. Unfortunately, you'd forget those scenes if you didnt force yourself to remember, because they're then diluted with various, graphic sex scenes that they already showed again and again. It's like it became the very thing you're supposed to point out and critique. I was so bored in that movie theater, and I also had to pee because for some reason, its 2 1/2 hours long.
A man’s depiction of women (mentally young girl?) sexual awakening is always going to be ‘sus’ to me. It sucks that it seems the movie cuts off the ending and questioning the story, per Bella’s own words. It kind of reminds me of It, where the male author thinks an abused girl would choose the have an orgy with her friends as a way to grow up/ confront reality/ take control of herself. Like men took the sexually liberated part of feminism and were like: “what if you were mentally 12 yrs old and having orgies?” LOL my god fellas, this obsession goes back to antiquity. Interesting that the director basically proves Bella’s point by using only Candles side of the story, and we the public are validating that choice by praising this male fantasy of women’s liberation as revolutionary. Hurray- everyone missed the point of the book!
Well said! The movie still does show the evolution of Bella as she matures into her own self. But yeah, skipping the end section changes things for sure.
I really enjoyed the movie, but i agree! I even feel like it did a decent job of criticizing that mentality to a degree… just wish Candle didnt get a pass from that. He was just as predatory as the other men, if not moreso considering he KNEW she literally had a child’s brain from the start..
Well said. It really felt like they wanted the plot to be about a girl turning into a woman(not sure why everyone thinks that this trope is original when they're praising the seemingly "brave and inspiring" plot but whatever), but instead of focusing on that....they added more scenes of repetitive sex. Why did we need to see Stone & Ruffalo constantly? We get it. Why did we need a montage of her in the brothel, exploring multiple fetishes? We get it. It was so repetitive! Once or twice was enough. I understand that she's horny, and then learns that sex is not always pleasurable, usually for the sake of men enjoying their perversions that are often abusive and demeaning. Why the scene with the dad showing his kids how to please a woman? Was that supposed to be funny? What does that add to the story? It felt like they were no longer pointing out the dangers of the story and making you critique it, but became apart of the very gray area they were trying to dissect and expose. It started off as a commentary one could find to analyze and even feel for, what it's like to be used. Very quickly, though, it became something that I would use as an example of the very thing that they were trying to "artistically" critique. They try to make up for it with big names and pretty set and costume design, but nothing fixes horrid, repetitive, edgy story telling. This is a movie that youd like if you were 14, and feeling horny for the first time. Every French film ever made has the same amount of sex, and "woman using sex to grow and feel pretty and desirable until she realizes that she no longer needs to do any of that and is now content with her existentialist views that often make her nihilistic and sad, but at least now understands that her femininity doesn't have to depend on her want to feel desired and to 'feel good.'"
@@rachel5399 The director point of the movie is that "sex sells", therefore he focused the entire message on Bella experiencing as the only Road to to maturity and growing up as an adult, hence your well put comment of why the Dad was showing "how to sexually please a woman" to his kids, or possibly the movie director showing the same to all the male audience watching the movie. LoL I agree with you this movie with those inexcusable sex scenes was an insult to one intelligence.
By definition, this story is 100% male gaze. In the book we learn this in the first few pages. The entire story is told from the perspective of Max McCandles, and we see a letter from Bella, who calls herself Victoria McCandles MD, saying his account is "full of lies" to make himself feel better about his own ego. She even says she "shudders" at his account and burned his manuscripts, but decided to keep the one bound copy bc it was the only mark he made upon the world - and the only evidence "the poor fool" existed. The movie omits this completely, only showing us McCandle's perspective. Yorgos (and/or the male screenwriter Tony McNamara) becomes the unreliable, limited, and importantly, false storyteller, and by omitting Bella's own account, he erases her voice from her own story. In the book, Bella is also "born" menstruating, she's taught about sex and pregnancy and disease by Godwin, and Godwin takes her on the cruise where she sees the world and sleeps with many lovers, but notably, she never has PIV sex with men because she doesn't want babies. She is already quite experienced sexually, primarily with women whom she chose, and more mentally mature by the time the lawyer finds her and kidnaps her. In fact, she probably had more lovers than him at this point in the timeline. His grooming is not her sexual awakening in the book, as it is portrayed in the problematic film. He's only one in a sea of sexual experiences she's already had of her own free will and with full knowledge of potential consequences. This version would at least prove she understands consent to some degree because she says no to PIV sex with men bc of the consequences. She also initially lies to the lawyer about having to "do something terrible" to get the money, when really she just pockets some of his winnings to save him from his gambling addiction. It's a funny turn because he then feels consumed with guilt that he forced her into prostitution, and she does this knowingly to manipulate him. The movie made her even more infantilized than the book. Which is... a choice. The film shoots her in the sex scenes, and in general, in a way that objectifies and shows off her body for the benefit of the male/female-desiring gaze. We are seeing Bella through that peephole - not her point of view. The sex scenes are more similar to heteronormative p0rn than real life sex. It made me laugh when the lawyer declared himself the best lover on Earth. He treats her like a blow up doll and she seems to love it. But this feels like a pedophilic, male fantasy. It does not express her experience of sex from her POV, and there was no consideration of the mechanics of female/AFAB pleasure or orgasm - namely everything but PIV sex. In other words, less phallocentric and more clitorocentric. It was more about acrobatic positions and PIV almost exclusively. "Furious jumping." Yorgos essentially called us prudes, but the issue is not about sex scenes or even problematic sex scenes, it's the POV of the filmmakers/writers, esp a male filmmaker, male screenwriter and male author trying to explain female desire in a way that very much feels like a severely reductive male fantasy. And these sex scenes do take up over an hour of the 2 hour 21 min running time, so yeah I think they not only equated self-actualization to sexual awakening, but prioritized it as the most significant aspect of her life and identity. Then they slapped on a faux feminist ending, using a strawman, cartoon villain of a husband to absolve themselves. In the book, Godwin actually does teach her about contraception and sex, she knows about pregnancy and she was "born" menstruating. She specifically doesn't have sex with men, only women, bc she doesn't want to get pregnant, and has many lovers before ever meeting the skeezy lawyer, implying she's already matured quite a bit past where we find Bella in this adaptation. In the movie, there's no discussion of pregnancy, assault, disease, menstruation, consent of any kind, psychological trauma, emotion, female pleasure or even her own erotic fantasies or desires. Almost all of her erotic experiences are driven by the men around her and their fantasies, not hers, she's just a receptacle, and surprise! She loves them all. At least according to the three men who brought this monstrosity to life. I don't think the film is critical about the issue of consent at all and it practically applauds Bella, as do the critics, for being so "brave" to explore her sexuality, with whomever, doing whatever, because hey, it's an experience, and we should all be so lucky as to accept with gusto all life has to offer, good or bad. Except she isn't exploring her sexuality as a woman, a male writer, a male cinematographer and a male director are. And she doesn't have to be a sex worker, but she chooses to, and then continues to despite voicing her disgust with her clients and the general experience. At one point in the film she says, "if it is disgusting, why should I keep it in my mouth?" as she spits out food she does not like. Why does this logic not apply to her awful experiences in the brothel? Why does she say she does not want to sleep with someone, but then does so anyway, indefinitely, until Godwin's illness calls her home? Why would she keep doing it if she could have left at any time and the experiences are not just unsatisfying sexually, but barely consensual and even painful (she cannot pick the man, the man picks her, she cannot control the experience, the Madame controls her w physical and psychological violence etc... and god knows what age she is at this point, maybe a preteen, teen at most?) And if we truly want to have a conversation about sex work, how about talking about all the risks, and how women who wind up on the street are often taken in and trafficked, and how the patriarchal system pushes women into this oftentimes traumatizing work that is a last resort, not a plush luxury resort for a guilt-ridden, upper-class white woman after a brief glimpse at poverty porn island, who can leave anytime she wishes. And sure you could say the point is to make us angry at how Bella is taken advantage of by patriarchy, but largely this has been deemed a "feminist fantasy" and in interviews etc... they discuss Bella as liberated, not victimized. So even if I give them the benefit of the doubt and believe they want to critique, not celebrate these problematic sexual encounters that make up more than half her journey to enlightenment, then they have failed to deliver that message, and the critics are celebrating it as 'brave" not decrying the patriarchy. The book isn't that much better, but at least it openly acknowledges it's flawed point of view from page one, whereas horrifyingly, this is being called a "feminist fantasy." Something Bella herself would "shudder" at and "burn" because she hated it so much. I've loved every other Yorgos film since Dogtooth, but this is a huge disappointment and missed opportunity. If you want female gaze and female desire (a male-desiring gaze), take a gander at the female-directed and written Saltburn and lmk how many female nude scenes you count. That the academy ignored Saltburn, but lauded Poor Things proves that it views the sexualized female body as high art and the sexualized male body as debasement. It's just another case of male gaze masking itself as "empowering" and using every cinematic gimmick to distract us from the central issues at hand. I will say, this is Emma Stone's career-defining performance, and the score was perfect. I only wish the story was more deserving of her talents. And tbh, Yorgos's talents. I love him and I hate that I hate this film.
Wow thank you for writing such a well thought out comment, there is so much to respond to! But I love your interpretation of the male director and writer being the McCandless in this scenario, they are the men telling Bella's story through the male gaze/male fantasy. Your part about comparing her spitting out the good she hated, yet sticking with a job she doesn't like was an interesting comparison as well. In some ways that could come to her having matured a bit by that point and instead of just "spitting out" what she doesn't like, she now is trying to come up with creative ideas to make it better. Even though I do like the movie, I am with the people that feel the sex scenes were too much and too male gazey. And Hollywood's view of female nudity vs male nudity has always been very sexist. It seems directors are often looking for ways to get their female leads naked, whereas male actors rarely have to deal with being full frontal nude. (I did love that dance scene in the end of Saltburn lol it was very fitting and was the perfect end. While I didn't love that movie as much as others, but there were certain aspects I liked a lot). Thank you again for such a great indepth comment!
This was a very insightful critique thank you. As a male spectator, it can be hard to grasp these themes and I found myself wondering if there were some deeper aspects of female coming-of-age and sexual liberation presented in the movie that I was not catching, but was disillusioned when I found out this wasn’t written or directed by someone who has lived the female experience. Understanding that in the book, it is exposed at the end by Bella that the male narrator is unreliable, it seems to me it was a deliberate and honest auto-critique by the male author. This makes me appreciate this story in an unexpected way, but disappointingly not in the way the movie presents itself. I still love the performances from these talented actors, and am curious to see Yorgos’ previous movies. I’ll also have to check out Saltburn, thank you for the suggestion.
We would be best friends. You mentioned almost everything that I too, found frustrating, confusing, problematical, and stale. I never even thought about her menstruating! Or how she never displays a want of a kink! It's always just her wanting "furious jumping." But of course, if they showed her having to deal with her period, we would have had 10 minutes without a sex scene. 🙃 Menstrating is such a pivotal experience in sexuality. How scary it is, how men want us to the point of crime, but can't bare to be around us when we're going through one of the most natural phases our bodies can go through. A lot of grown ass men still feel very uncomfortable about the topic, and are very rude and misogynistic about it! "Oh, you're upset, are you on your period?" It really awakens our young minds to how objectified we really are. Not to mention how it starts with puberty, so a slew of other body developments such as rounder hips and the growth of breat tissue, and hormones that come with thoughts we don't understand. How we know about sex before boys because we have to. Ugh. Of course none of that was explored. The closest we get to her wanting something kinky is her getting oral from another woman, which is like every guy's top 5 fantasy moments. God. I fucking hated this movie!
100% agree with everything except this being Emma Stone's career defining performance. she was great, no doubt, but it would make me so sad if history remembers this role over all others
I think she's just getting started so hopefully not. But so far, this is only really rivaled by her role in The Favourite, imo. But I'm not a big LA LA LAND fan. @@saml302
It definitely seems very much like the born sexy yesterday trope, but framing predatory men taking advantage of a woman with a child's brain as a sexually liberated woman. I get that her brain is aging faster than normal, but still, it's literally infantilizing a woman and making her a sexual object and the movie did have the opportunity to explore that in a different way with the new woman they created and Bella could have seen how men had treated her while in that same childlike state with new eyes and how predatory that is, but it never really addresses that. It just stays the male fantasy of what feminism looks like. No twist, no critique of that perspective like the book had, just McCandless' account presented as fact, essentially.
I didn’t read the book so when I saw the film I was getting the “born sexy yesterday” trope. It was a little frustrating her character/story was so reliant on men and then the $ex scenes were more than I expected. That might just be a movie pet peeve of mine tho 😂. Absolutely stunning visuals and Emma stone is so talented. Love your content 📚🎬
I always thought her sexuality was hyper, as a coping mechanism of trauma (which was a HUGE problem for men) combined with chid-like discovery of being able to achieve orgasm and to “feel good” whenever they want, which touches on sexuality as a feminine discovery of “freedom”
This is such an incredible dissection of both works. IMO this channel has some of the most detailed and nuanced discussions of the film and book. For me, Bella exists in the film as an observer of Victorian ideals who refuses to participate in them (especially the symbolism of "Victoria" dying so that she can be reborn). Of course, so much more to it than that, but that's definitely one of my main takeaways.
Kinda ironic that there are two versions of Bella in the book, Bella who was given freedom to explore her childlike innocence, and Victoria who was sheltered BUT BOTH had gone through a lot of trauma and manipulation for being a woman AND BOTH still sought freedom and sexual liberation by the end. Wish that was more clear in the movie
That’s very clear in the movie. I haven’t read the book but I definitely got that from the film. Just because it doesn’t spell it out doesn’t mean it wasn’t clear or the message wasn’t well-executed, movies are able to get away with subtlety and displaying its themes visually rather than literally.
I remember someone telling me that if the repeated sex scenes made me uncomfortable, it was because the movie wanted to make a certain group of the audience uncomfortable, specifically opportunistic men who approach innocent girls. But the reality is that I didn't see a single man uncomfortable about it, on the contrary, only women. Coming out of the theater, my partner told me how strange it felt to see the clean image of the protagonist, how the repeated scenes presented her as something positive, empowering, even, but still tied to the visual characteristics reinforced by pornographic productions of modern times. Poor Bella didn't even have any body hair. I love the cast and the production is impeccable, but it's such a beautiful movie that if its message was female empowerment and criticism of how sexually liberated women who move away from the male gaze are judged, it failed miserably. *Also, english is my third language, sorry if I make mistakes.*
This was a great discussion of both, the book and the movie, and I really enjoyed hearing your thoughts on it! Tbh, I don't see it mainly as a woman's liberation story, which I've noticed quite a few reviews focus on (though I understand where that interpretation comes from) - I see it much more along the lines of a "what if" story, exploring how much of our behavior is conditioned and how society reacts to lack of that conditioning. IMO, this is why any extensive section of Bella's suffering would have disturbed the narrative - the movie and the book aren't commenting on a specific person, but on coming-of-age and adulthood as a concept in society, with the book also adding a layer of nobody's story being 100% objective. As for Duncan being unable to let go of Bella in the movie - from the very beginning, her complete freedom is what he is obsessed with, what he finds so unusual and fascinating, and being with a person like that is the closest he can get to personal freedom. But anyway, the best thing is that you could talk about this movie/novel for hours, which is always a great sign))
That's a fair point! And a this can definitely be seen as a story more universal than a woman's liberation, but society as a whole. And true too that Duncan's obsession does make sense. I'm definitely liking this movie the more I think about it! Thank you so much for commenting! You always have such great insight and are so eloquent!
According to this movie, social conditioning is important because, without it, you are apt to make decisions that will adversely affect your life like thinking it's perfectly acceptable for a middle-aged man to make sexual moves on your childlike self as well as working in a 19th-century brothel.
so ur telling me that Tony McNamara read that novel and decided to completely ignore the female perspective and sell us the male perspective as female liberation?
I read Alastair Gray's book "Laanark" when I was young and 20 years old and just moved to NYC. It helped me. navigate....My own Mom was a bookworm and passed that addiction to me. Books are a threshold to imagination, but movies sometimes are limiting .. .Thank you so much for your posts.
@@WhytheBookWinsyou should. I discovered Alistair grey over 20 years ago and have been championing him ever since. I'm sad the movie doesn't have the twist at the end.
I 90% prefer book versions to movie versions. A book allows a person to interact with their own personality/experiences. A movie overwhelms with images and loud sounds. No room for pausing and thoughtful reflection. You inspired me to get this book from my local public library.. Thank you!
@@WhytheBookWinsI am in line with reserving from the local public library. I will get the movie (hopefully) in 3 or 4 months also from the library. Saw some clips of the movie. Looks interesting and creative, both with the book and movie interpretation. You have a particularly well-honed Critical Sense.
I find it upsetting that a film portraying graphic sex with a childlike person and with children watching is getting any praise or Award buzz. I am even iffy at the prospect of her having brain damage and not able to really understand and consent. I don't think it is prudish to want hollywood to only promote consentual passion.
Her brain develops faster than normal though. It only takes her about 2 years (I don't remember the exact timeline that is said in the book) for her brain to reach adult levels. But regardless, she has a very young brain still by the time she leaves with Duncan.
@@WhytheBookWinsi think thats where the ick comes from tho… lots of pedophiles groom their victims by telling them “your mind is beyond your age” “Youre an old soul” “Youre more mature than other people your age” etc…
!!!!!!! They get away with it, too, because they're like "uh, ACTUALLY, you're supposed to be uncomfortable, so we succeeded in our mission!" & it's like, no....I'm uncomfortable because you had a childlike character repeatedly showed in very sexual manners, in graphic positions that one could find in most p0rns. It felt more like a p0rno more than it did about a woman maturing, which isn't even an original concept, like people are pretending it is. I'm uncomfortable because your movie sucked. You can't have montage after montage of sex like that, so heavily drenched in obvious male gaze, and then be like "she killed her husband who was previously the reason as to why she killed herself! Even though you meet the husband in the last 20 minutes of the 2 1/2 movie, it's rewarding to see him "get his!!! Go feminism!" Eye roll!
I wanted to see the movie but, now that you’ve mentioned it I’m grateful for knowing because I wanted to watch it with my mom. But, probably it won’t happen 😂.
So, I finished reading Poor Things - twice - to get a firm grasp on the book as a whole, so here are my thoughts, as promised: To start, I will say that I like both the book and the movie equally, for different reasons. For one, the fact the book is a 'found footage' type of discovery, then debunked in a letter by Victoria 'Bella' to her grandsons/great grandsons, then finally supported by the 'editor' author in that last sentence, was a nice touch, I really enjoyed that the author allows you the room to take it all in, from all sides, and not just through the eyes of Bella Baxter, in the movie. The book is a cavalcade of characters, more so than in the movie, which added so much to the eccentricity of the overall book. We are left with, who is more compelling to support who is telling the truth? I very much enjoyed the book. For the movie, what I loved more than the book was Emma Stone's portrayal of Bell(a) Baxter. She brought out the childness of her much better than I think the book did. While God and Candle tell us that she has grown in her brain, and Bell's letters show a progression of learning, I think Ms. Stone brought such an innocence and lust (no pun intended) for life that was more implied, or subdued in the book. (probably because it was, after all, written by a man - no offence to the author!) The changes from the book to the movie I liked: 1. I could see that the movie could not be made in the way the book is written, in epistolary way (the same reason we will - probably - never get a definitive Dracula movie), so I am happy with the way Lanthimos made this into a fantasy, rather than base it in the 'real' world. I think adds to the charm, especially with such bright colors being used to enforce a child's wonder of the world. 2. I really did prefer the relationship between God and Bella being more parent-forward, rather than in the book God makes Bell especially for him, to be his mate. I felt if Lanthimos had made the relationship as in the book it would have been too creepy. 3. Much the same reason I enjoyed the relationship between God and Candle better in the movie. 4. The ship voyage. I much preferred the relationship Bella forms with Martha Von Kurtzroc, than Dr. Hooker in the book. That was an absolutely charming relationship that I wished could have kept going. The changes I didn't like: 1. I much more enjoyed the scene in the book where Lord Blessington comes to God's house and they discuss the issue of Victoria. It was much more supported on a logical, legal, philosophical, moral and emotional way than just the blunt way it was handled in the movie. So many wonderful characters in that scene, alone, including his Doctor and, (which made me laugh out loud) when we are 'introduced' to Blessington's solicitor, 'Harker' 😂, his obvious, heavy-handed nod to Dracula. I enjoyed that better than the movie version of Blessington, where is is just a sadist, to where Bella places a goat's brain in his body at the end. That was the main thing I did not like about the ending of the movie, so I much prefer the ending of the book. 2. The French whorehouse. I preferred the owner from the book, rather than the movie. It was a quaint chapter in Bell's life, whereas in the movie it was just unnecessarily creepy, and the Madame was totally unsympathetic. 3. The dynamic between God and his ever-dutiful, but always frustrated housekeeper, Mrs. Prim (in the movie)/ Mrs. Dinwiddie (in the book). In the book she is inferred to be his real mother, as there was no birth certificate, and his father had a penchant for illicit affairs. The fact he is the bastard son to where Sir Colin felt justified to experiment on his son makes him a more tragic/sympathetic character, although Willem Dafoe portrayed Baxter gloriously. It would have explained better why she stayed with him in the movie, when being so 'abused'. What I didn't like about the movie: so many sex scenes. We get it: Bella has a lust for life. But I don't need that shoved down my throat. I much prefer the book version, where it is heavily implied, but not THE major factor that the movie makes it. Forgive me for rambling. Bottom line: I can't say which wins for me. I enjoyed them both as much, if not equally for their similarities as well as their differences, which made sense to both, and made them both separate, unique visions. I very much enjoyed the layout, writing style and the satire of the book, whereas I enjoyed the charming, fantastic whimsy of the movie. I can see watching the film, as well as reading the book again, and enjoying each without harm to my thoughts of the other. If you get all the way through this, thank you! 😁 I would love to hear your thoughts on my thoughts.
Thank you so much for sharing! I agree with many of your thoughts. I didn't mention the housekeeper in the video, but I liked when we find out she was Godwin's mother. I also loved the friendship with the woman on the ship so much. The book has so many layers, and so many fascinating characters! But the movie is a fantastic adaptation with incredible performances by all. I think I still prefer the book, but it is a *very* close call because as you said, they each have their difference pros and cons.
@@WhytheBookWins I agree, both are good, and both have little flaws. So, any closer to a Remains of the Day comparison? 🤭 I just gave my copy to a friend and she is falling in love with the book. I have The Buried Giant lined up to read, soon. I just love the way Ishiguro writes.
7:15 "[Dunkin] is a gambler and he ends up losing his money, all of his savings-" He actually gambled and won an enormous amount of money but Bella being naive and seeing the way poverty is hurting the people after Harry takes her to see the dying people who live near the port, takes all of his money winnings while he's asleep and gives them to the ship dock workers who tell her that they'll pass the money on to the poor (heavily implied that they keep it for themselves "well EVERYONE needs money, miss"). He didn't gamble away all his money.
My feminist reading of the book and the film, is that it is easier for Bella because she's positioned as separate to the societal conditioning of women. It's demonstrated in the quote about her being born with her period ("in full blood" might be the quote) and therefore never learning to feel shame about her body. She was never taught to shrink herself. In the book, the author Gray also uses this frame to observe politics, religion, and society at large.
Yeah that is definitely clearly stated in the book! And while we never hear that exactly in the movie, I would agree that it is implied. Thanks for commenting!
I thought they intentionally directed the movie to be in Bella's perspective because the director was so intrigued by her character in the book and wanted to focus on that more than framing the narrative through the male characters. I think all the details of her character's growth and the final shot of the movie really put into perspective that this was HER story.
This review made me really want to read the book! I loved the movie so much, it was so fun and beautiful to watch. I get that some people are put off by the sex scenes, but honestly as a bit of a hypersexual woman myself, I thought it was great and refreshing to have a very positive take on it, and basically have nothing bad happen to Bella as a result of her actions (as much as I enjoyed the Nymphomaniac I and II it was really depressing to see sex only as undoing). I like Godwin's line in the movie about sexuality being amoral, and how the different men in the movie react and treat her differently because of her practical approach to sex and sex work, because it was really a reflection of their insecurities.
I would love to hear more about this story's author as he is an important facet of this story. I gasped to see Kathryn Hunter appear as I saw her last year playing King Lear at The Globe (London), she's also on film in Macbeth, so a stellar actor.
I think the s3x work aspect is a bit unfair to judge (in the movie) because the only person enjoyed the work was Bella. We clearly see that the other women aren’t having a good time.
I *loved* this book and I was super stoked to find out it was being adapted into a film. I haven’t seen all your videos, so forgive me if you covered any of these. Anyway, there was an amazing run of books similar to Poor Things in the 70s/80s/90s that are all re-readings of Victorian literature and use interesting feminist angles to tackle and critique the historical era (and by extension, our own). A couple have been made into excellent films, including The French Lieutenant’s Woman (mind blowingly great adaptation *and* book-they’re almost apples and oranges, and I believe Harold Pinter did the adaptation, so there’s that-and Jeremy Irons and Meryl Streep are at the height of their powers and hotness, so there’s that) and AS Byatt’s Morpho Eugenia, which was gorgeously adapted into Angels and Insects (with Mark Rylance, Patsy Kensit, and Kristen Scott Thomas-less complex and well known than TFLW, but amazing nonetheless. AS Byatt does this kind of thing really well in all her work IMO). I dunno if a young YT audience would be turned on by discussions of either of these, but I’d love to hear your thoughts). I really love the epistolary style of Poor Things, as it feels authentically Victorian, with a distinctive 90s postmodern twist. The framing device is incredibly sophisticated and I really hoped for a touch of that in the film, but YL went for a more direct approach. I get the ick factor of Bella’s being essentially a child and the “born sexy” trope, and I really wanted the film to yank the rug out of all that in the same way the book did. I still think it’s a heck of a film; I need to sit with the film’s sexuality for longer before I reallly know how I feel about it. Anyway, thanks for creating this channel-and apologies for the looong comment! I’ll be watching some of your other stuff (Scanner Darkly! Yay!) today and eventually probably work through it all. Subscribing!
I covered Three Thousand Years of Longing which was based on a book by A.S. Byatt and I've been wanting to read more of her! Thank you so much for the suggestions and for subscribing! (A Scanner Darkly was one of the first episodes I ever did and have been wanting to return to that and film a new video for it. I don't know how good that older episode is lol). And I felt very similar with needing to sit with Poor Things the movie got a bit to decide how I felt about it all! It is streaming soon and I will definitely be rewatching it!
Almost forgot-for some reason, I put The Age of Innocence in a similar box, although in that case the adaptation doesn’t really differ from the book. Nevertheless, both the film and the book explore similar themes as these other books (male expectations/female stereotypes and the blindlness to women and their needs that impoverishes the experience of both men and women in these situations) that and movies (and, for once, we get a female author-and a quite sympathetic director; Scorsese really surprised me with this film, and It’s still my favorite of all his films).
Ruffalo 's pursuit-of (+ checking /complementing) Stone at the outset of her erratic /to-wit impulse-driven 'overture' on a posh Lisbon dance-floor --- indeed assimilating his step & timing w/ Emma 's crass 'foray' of-sorts (+ w/ aplomb, no less) --- is unprecedented in cinema; ...if 'nt sheer magic withal! A 'neat contemporary-dance 'precedent' (video-short) would be 'To Get Her' (by 'Jukstapoz Dance Co.') from a decade back. Inasfar as their (overall) prowess as 'accomplished thespians' is an issue, I find Emma & Mark (+ Wilhelm) quite convincing --- given the abject complexities exacted by the plot 's (abstruse?) roles, as such --- + inasmuch as the scenario allows for any & all juvenile(-or-no) propensities (vis a vis one another) free reign thruout! ***THAT SAID, + irrespective of how said protagonists are ever intriguing, enthralling + what-have-you (thruout); ...i 'm NOT comfortable w/ the crass, to-wit unnecessary 'porn' (for lack of a better word) this flick 's riddled-w/ during it 's 2nd-half! Just 'cause others (incl. Emma; as fellow producer) are funding one 's ambitions-on-screen should 'nt give an abjectly 'irreverent' director 'carte blanche' to screw w/ convention!
There is nothing said about an autopsy at the end of the book. It simply says: 'Reckoning from the birth of her brain in the Humane Society mortuary on Glasgow Green, 18th February 1880, she was exactly sixty-six years, forty weeks and four days old. Reckoning from the birth of her body in a Manchester slum in 1854, she was ninety-two'. So it's not a fact but a comment from a man who is biased about women to such an extent that he can believe Candle's nonsense work of fiction. And I think this is a crucial moment in understanding the story. Candle, an unreliable narrator, presents us with a story that claims the following, 'Such an independent, openminded and unconventional woman can only be made by a man through some weird unknown procedure closer to magic than to science. ' And a man one hundred years later also so biased in understanding women that he prefers a story about some advanced beyond-belief surgery done in the previous century that is still unknown to science over believing that a regular woman can be and live this way. Through this, the author shows us that there is still a lot of sexism, even a hundred years later. Moreover, it's a sexism test for the reader. The reader sees one unbelievable point presented by two men and a very simple and realistic point offered by a woman. And it seems many readers are still inclined to find a man's point much more convincing than a woman's point, even if a man's point is 100% nonsense. This is proved by the film, which completely omits this detail.
The sex scenes might seem too much, but I think it's kind of the point. It's meant to make us feel uncomfortable. It's part of what builds that weird, maniac mood the movie has. I think it was great. I left the cinema completely satisfied, and that doesn't happen often
What did they add, past a certain point, though? It was way too repetitive and they heavily relied on them as a storytelling crutch. I wasn't uncomfortable as nearly as much as I was annoyed at the staleness of plot. The problem is that Bella is too heavy of a "male gaze," portrayal of feminism. No mention of menstruation. A big, pivotal turn for young girls becoming women, and how scary that can be, as it comes with huge hormonal changes within our thinking and obvious bodily development that we have to learn how to navigate and cover up so we don't become even more objectified. No mention of her kinks. She just conveniently gets to enjoy all of the mens. The closest thing we get is her receiving oral from another woman. That is like in the top 5 of male sexual fantasies. Then they slap on a tacky ending to make up for it. You meet her husband who turns out to be cruel and evil, and then his death isnt even rewarding to see because there was absolute no buildup. She gets feminine retribution by sticking it to this villain that we meet in the last half hour of the 2 1/2 p0rn fest. Terrible writing. Horrid repetitious use of male orientated sexual desire, mockingly masquerading as explored feminism.
Hello. You're referring to Bella as another self of Victoria. I find this statement totally uncorrect . Actually she's going with Alfie to know about her mother. Thanks for your video, btw!
As a sex worker, who used to escort, I really liked the depiction of the work. It mirrored my experience in a lot of ways. I also didn't find that it romanticized it, only showed the reality, at least as I saw it. For me most sessions included a lot of banter. Sitting on the couch, talking and telling jokes, and getting to know one another. The movie also showed the less enjoyable parts like having s** with a rough, ugly man and the disassociation that comes with that. Also the pleasure of having a client who was handsome. I was lucky to never experience violence so perhaps that's why I felt her experience was similar to mine. I like that she was shown as a whole human, because sw are rarely depicted that way in media.
I just ordered this book. I saw the film and I loved it. I actually liked that the sex scenes were a bit too much. I read some of the book online and it was so well written. I immediately ordered the book. I’m so excited to get it in my mail.
The main point of the "found footage" style is to undermine the story that is being told. In the typical postmodern style of historiographic metafiction, you are first confronted with a highly unreliable "editor" who is providing a very flawed introduction and unreliable notes that constantly undermine what he is saying, you then have the main story, which is told by a highly unreliable narrator, then there's Victoria's unreliable letter, which pulls McCandless' story into doubt while at the same time often sounding like the Bella from the narrative. There's the erratum slip which further undermines the story by correcting some obvious errors while at the same time changing some points in the narrative to suit the "editor's" claims. The whole novel is so full of contradictions - we even get two different death dates for McCandless - that the further you read, the more it becomes obvious that the real author, Gray, has been playing the reader the entire time. Lanthimos tries to compensate for this with his clever use of surreal visuals, but the film still mostly comes across as a fantasy tale of sorts that seems to have a "message", whereas Gray is undermining the notion of a "message" from the very first page.
12:14 I love the section about Adam and Eve. I’ve never thought of the idea that God ought to be proud of them for eating the fruit, but I like it very much. Since I first became able to start thinking for myself, it seemed clear to me that, since he allegedly knows everything, God knew they’d eat the fruit and basically set up a trap for them for some cruel reason. Obviously it’s a made up story and doesn’t depict whatever God is like in real life (sidenote: I’m not sure if God exists but, I’m pretty sure we shouldn’t make assumptions on God’s pronouns lol). Anyway, good video, thanks for making it
Bella is not victoria she is victorias daughter and at least in the litteral sense Blessington is Bellas biological FATHER Victoria doesnt exist anymore in the movie
I loved and hated the movie. I loved the performances, the unique was it was filmed, i loved the premise. However it was obvious a man made this movie by the way the “women empowerment” came thru has hollow and as you said, a male fantasy. I wish a woman like Greta Gerwig would have directed this film I feel it would have been less exploitive of women sexuality and more real of Bella experience in the brothel
Actually the thing is that yes, the man holding the camera was *a man*, but the producer (which is the actual executive "staff" during the filming, is the actual person who puts money in the project so has most power in the final decisions) it's actually Emma Stone herself. So no, the film was not "made by a man". Also the empowering process comes with a subtle but still very clearly portrayed suffering for her, she ends up becoming a prostitute because she needed money and had no other chance, she is interested in that job only at first, claiming it was an experiment. When she realized what came with it, she expressed discomfort, she is not living it as an empowerment but as a sickening condition, for example there's a scene where the mistress knocks Bella's door and she says she's not in service, as she had no other reason to be there or to receive someone if not for her job. For what are the filmmaking rules, the scenes in the brothel are very clearly portraying how she was very soon disillusioned by the idea that it was a form of empowerment, and also it's in very large contrast with the initial sex scenes with Duncan where she is more childish and sex is her only way of expression. Then i have to say that every man that comes in the brothel is portrayed as disgusting or depraved (such as the mistress is manipulative and attached to money) so the critic is obvious.
@@ivana_adamo Not true. In the movie the brothel job was the easiest way for her to make money...not the only way. When smelly, off putting customer treated her "rough" she said she was strangely turned on by it. Latimos shows her brothel period as some kind of exciting, curious experiment and maybe a way to gain power/control over men (somehow??). It's where the movie totally lost me.
It sounds like the book has a lot more going on than the movie, which makes sense since it is difficult to do multiple points of view with unreliable narrators in a movie. I think The Last Duel does it well, but that movie had fewer events to explore. Some of Bella's story does come through in the movie IMO like marrying Candles because he is weak willed. At the end it looks like she has more control in the relationship as she brings her lesbian lover to live with her as well as framing them sitting down leisurely while he is standing.
With Mccandless in the movie I see him more as supportive, accepting, and not manipulative- unlike all the other men in her life. So not necessarily as the weak, spineless man he is said to be in the book. But you definitely have a point about how that last scene shows him. I have The Last Duel on my list for future episodes! I've heard great things about that movie.
@@WhytheBookWins Yeah, I wouldn't say he is spineless, just not assertive enough to take control of his own life. He is introduced as kind of a Godwin fanboy who does whatever the Dr wants him to do.
Hey! I loved this breakdown of the movie and the book :D I loved the book and I've been trying to discuss an aspect of it that I find very confusing. I would love to know your opinion. ***BOOK SPOILER COMING*** So, this is a very empowering story. I love how the author keeps mentioning the importance of women in many aspects, including the work of nurses in the field of medicine (knowing how even to this day, nurses are seen as low-quality doctors) so I find it very confusing when the author decides to give Bella such a horrible ending. After she becomes a very prolific and innovative doctor, spreading the word about safe abortion, sexual health, etc, she ends up being totally dismissed by the community and also ends up in poverty and thought of as a crazy person. I love the turn the book has when it suddenly becomes not only Bella's story but the history of mankind and the failed economic and social systems that create war, hunger, poverty, and basically everything wrong with this world. So I was crushed to see Bella/Victoria end up like this...our hero who represented modern thought and progress becomes a fanatic in a way. Why would the author take away all her power? I wonder if he really thought a woman could never be that clever and powerful without being crazy, or if it was his sarcastic way of protesting how women can never be taken seriously and always end up being considered witches/lunatics/neurotic? What do you think?
Glad you liked the video! I hadn't interpreted that last part as him demeaning her character, but then again I can't say I know what he was going for with it. The book deals a lot with politics in Scotland, so maybe it was his way of addressing some bigger issues? It was an interesting aspect to her overall story, but yeah unfortunately I personally don't have much of an answer to your question.
So wouldn’t the story being told by an unreliable male narrator and Bella exposing that be an effective and honest auto-critique from the author? This part you mention in the book feels very important to understanding the intended message and seems to me like the movie sorely misses that point, seeing as it is also directed and written by men.
Yes definitely. Another commenter said the writer and director could be seen as McCandless here- the men telling a woman's story through their own male gaze/ male fantasy. I don't think that's what they intended but it definitely comes across that way. I really wish they would have included that from the book though because it was such a key part of the story!
I loved the book so much. Even before the twist at the end I felt there was a humor and a sarcasm that made the men look silly and the metaphors enjoyable. The male fantasy of creating a beautiful woman for yourself to control except she leaves and doesn't care what you want from her. I loved the socialist themes and how important reproductive health care was to Bella in the book. The movie is visually amazing and it's still an interesting story but it's a shame it missed so much context from the book. Bella is so young when she leaves with Duncan in both but in the book we know that's she's old enough to read Wuthering Heights and have seen the world and to desire sexuality. In the movie Duncan takes Bella. In the book Bella is also taking Duncan.
Nope, you lost me praising Ruffalo. I wonder why he got so lazy (probably those insipid comic cosplays he was miscast in as Banner/Hulk yet full of himself re income and sick personal politics7) and gets away with his usual mumbling and pisspoor wandering accent especially when narcissist Yorgos nixed Glasgow for generic English town.
i would consider myself someone who is not a huge prude when it comes to s3x in movies but i also agree this movie just had too much s3x. and I think that bc it always made me uncomfortable in a way that say, the s3x scenes in Game of Thrones never did. I was so grateful to be watching this movie at home when i did so i could skip through those scenes when I felt too uncomfortable (which was a lot). When the main character is so infantilized.... we dont need such long, detailed s3x scenes....
Thank you very much for this video. I haven't watched the movie, and since I knew the plot I wasn't interested, and it was really because of the exploitation of the born sexy yesterday trope taken to its crassest. I had been obsessing for weeks until I found your video, and my obsession was how do people praise something that clearly brings up this trope under trivializing lenses? It bothered me to think that something as bizarre as the sexualization of a woman with a girl's mind would be such an 'artistic' thing. Unfortunately, I'm not open-minded enough to say 'oh, stupid, it's just a movie'. Clearly there was something that didn't fit, or rather something missing. So I can't accept people praising this film as a masterpiece (when it comes to the plot) when it's clearly another cultural product made with prejudice. And look, a big difference is made by a simple omission. The omission of the true purpose of the book. New subscriber, hugs!
22:20 Expected more from the sex scenes, humor was no where near raunchy enough but the rising question of what cruelty means to Bella is there, and I felt I could have used an extra couple minutes to tempt her in those later scenes of learning her past.
Interesting compare and contrast review, Both novel and the movie have heavy doses of Gnostic beliefs/symbolism, maybe Mrs. Blessington unalived herself and her child because of her “sexual hysteria” as a way covering up the scandal or simply as a way of escape from Mr. Blessington
I have yet to see the movie but, having just finished the book, feel it’s less about female empowerment or a feminist story and more of a commentary of it, as well as a commentary on child exploitation and the exploitation of woman, abuse, classism, racism, imperialism, religion. I feel as if both Candle’s and Bella’s respective povs are correct. It is very believable she wouldn’t buy the child brain story when Godwin hasn’t told her of it. Or the bunnies for that matter. Idk but great video, helped with my own analysis
I think a lot of reviewers get the book and movie wrong, or don't pay attention to the "keys" of interpretation the author gives. If the protagonist was a man, I think you would get it. But the fact that the protagonist is a woman fogs the eyes. The book and movie are not about man vs woman, are tales of creation, it is about "God" and the rise of morality and social norms.
He passed away in 2019, but Lanthimos met him when he got the rights to Poor Things and Gray gave his approval. But ultimately we will never know what he would have thought of the finished product.
@@WhytheBookWins dang. I like books that make you think but I also like to know the definitive story. I think the movie did a great job with the artistic liberties it took that I think enhanced the work.
Yeah for me personally if I were an actor my one no go would probably be sex scenes and the reason for me would be I personally believe sex is a intimate and loving act and esp if ur already married its a breaking of a sacred trust to have a actual sex scene in the film and tv show etc as it portrays sex as no big deal and personally i think sex is a big deal because its a symbol of the love between u and ur wife or u and ur husband whether that's straight or gay or queer relationship and I dont think Hollywood should be making it look like its no big deal.
@user-pq4fc1mc7q oh my apoligies if u thought I was judgingg actors. Im not. Just for me personally I wouldnt want to do it. I disagree with Hollywood the industry for making sex seem like no big deal but if the individual actors themselves are fine with it that's their prerogative.
This was a great, fair review! I would kindly ask you to refrain from using the term "prostitute" and rather use "sex worker" Thank you 🙏 Love this video
So the books story is of a woman who narrative is being written by a man someone who is not her, then she regains her narrative and tells her story, and then at the end a man takes back the narrative of her life story. That how it sounds to me atleast.
The guy at the end commenting on her death isn't exactly taking over her narrative the way Candle did throughout, but it does make you question things.
@@WhytheBookWins true, a researchers job is to gather information and try to tell the closest thing to absolute truth about historical events, I just find it sad that her narrative would "theoretical in that universe" be put into question.
About the sexual awakening and the exploitation of innocence i felt it wasnt just about women but about everyone who was once innocent and goes through these things
It makes sense to me that you preferred the book but still have a similar level of appreciation for the movie. A book relies only on plot (obviously) while a movie-- this movie in particular-- can never execute a plot in the same way (if for no other reason than time constraints), nor rarely does it seek to do exactly so. Even if plot changes in a book adaptation are imperfect, they are only half the story. Filmmaking, at its most sophisticated, result in visuals that vie will the the plot in importance.
I think this is a fairly surface level analysis. As much as it is a critique of certain male fantasies, it at least depicts them negatively. It is also a female fantasy of freedom from accountability. At no time does she face anything resembling consequences for her actions, whether they be insulting people, assaulting a baby, engaging in prostitution, or even her own suicide. She’s protected by her “pretty privilege”, as well as lowered expectations. Had bella’s brain been transplanted into a male body, she would have wound up behind bars or dead. But moving past the obvious themes of sexual liberation, I find it more to be about the horrors of innocence. A child is innocent, but would pull the wings off of flies because they simply don’t know any better. Godwin is in many ways still a child, still possessing a childlike curiosity, imagination, and an amoral framework. He also engages in self delusion about his abuse and trauma at the hands of his father. Ruffalo’s character (whose name escapes me at the moment) is urbane, but for all his sophistication is still capable of infantile behavior and childish outbursts. I thought the madam’s shrunken form suggested a mature woman’s mind in a child’s body, making her an interesting foil to bella.
Yeah she definitely has "pretty privilege" as well as rich privilege. Dafoe's character in the movie was interesting too how he saw his father's experiments on him as proof that he had loved him. Which is very twisted and shows how in denial and messed up Godwin is lol. Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
@@WhytheBookWins come to think of it, her previous husband’s cruel psychopathy is also reminiscent of a poorly behaved and maladjusted child. I think it’s something all the major characters have in common, with the possible exception of Max, who seems relatively well integrated all things considered. Even the cynical tourist who confronts her with some of the horrors of the world is accused of his attitude stemming from being a “scared boy”. I’m not sure I agree with the line of reasoning but I think it’s supposed to include him in the overall theme of innocence vs. evil and how they might not be altogether different.
@@WhytheBookWins Another reading is about societal restraints vs unfettered human nature. The characters all fall somewhere on a spectrum with regard to their philosophies. Bella is obviously completely unbound from all the psychological shackles that restrict people’s behavior, and this is clearly a mixed bag. On the far end of the spectrum is probably the tyrannical Alphie, but there’s something of a horseshoe effect where despite being a very controlling character, he doesn’t have much moral self restraint. Godwin occupies a strange place where he represents science gone past the point of reason. He’s an idealist, and believes human nature can be improved upon, or at least changed for changes sake. By flouring natural law, he is in his own way, civilization unbound. Ruffalo is superficiality civilized, but in his own way is a creature of pure id at least as much as Bella is. Max is overly bound by manner, custom, and self denial to the point where he’s become completely passive. I think the story asks the question where to draw the line, and whether or not a healthy balance can be struck. In the end, Bella is happy, so perhaps she found it, or at least what works for her.
i dont see how she would have ended behind bars if she was put in a male body considering all the illegal shit the men in the story partake in and not once are they arrested or even judged.
The book is structured the way it is--in bits and pieces--to reflect the bits and pieces of the creatures Godwin makes (form reflects function). Not very mysterious. The film is similarly structured. As for Bella's voracious sexual appetite, she's hungry for everything; she wants to experience everything in the world, good and bad, easy and hard, bearable and unbearable, and that's how she grows into a whole person. American audiences need to grow up and stop acting as though sex is a shameful thing. It's that attitude that renders sex creepy, and sexual desire something that men and women need to curtail and be ashamed about. Millenials seem particularly horrified by it. You got so many things just plain wrong about this story, book and movie. Godwin may have had an idea of bringing the woman to life as a companion, but once she was there, his feelings were fatherly, not sexual. And he does care about her agency! She can't be let out free until she has matured, and of course Godwin knows she could be recognized. Again, not very mysterious. He is enormously pleased and impressed by who she is when she returns to see him because of his illness. He admires her. The commenters below obviously haven't seen the film, but they're freaking out anyway, about "predatory men," as though they can't imagine a woman choosing to take advantage of a man's desire for her to learn about and experience her own sexuality. And she desires him back (shock! horror! If a man desires you, he's a predator, and if you desire him back, you are doubly his victim!). And she's "really" a baby, so these men are having sex with a child. Except that by the time she discovers her own sexual feelings (her "happy" experience), she's obviously way past babyhood. Her hair grows several inches per day, because her maturing process is accelerated because of the way she's been created. This means she's a woman, having sex with men. But let's not let the actual story get in the way of shallow internet outrage. The film is an experience of pure cinema at its most glorious. It's so much more than this very superficial summing up.
You make a lot of great points! Thanks for sharing! I have already replied to other comments on the fact that her having a child's brain isn't as weird as people are saying because, like you said, it grows at an accelerated rate. And just because I prefer not to see multiple graphic sex scenes doesn't mean I think sex is shameful or creepy. Bella discovering her sexuality is a huge part of the book as well and I wanted the movie to include that. I just think there were times when it didn't need to be shown as explicitly as it was. Obviously that is personal preference because plenty of others have no issue with it. And I agree the film certainly is so much more than my summary.
I'm like, really curious, about the fact that, like reading books, is supposed to like help you expand your vocabulary and means of expression and whatnot, right? So how can, like, someone whose channel is about literature, like be using the word "like", like every two sentences, being a native speaker nonetheless, who should be able not only to have an adequate vocabulary but also use at least some form of complex grammar structures even orally. I'm sorry for the negative and mean spirited nature of this comment, but this is a sad example of the Infantilization of language - your own language. I can expect that from Jake Paul, but from a content creator focused on literary criticism, this seems.... Embarrassing at best, alarming at worst. Once again, this is not an expression of hate, but a sincere sense of alarm.
Novels and films are two entirely different media with their own specific "language" each. Movies ADAPT novels. There are no grounds for any comparisons. It's oranges and watermelons. 🙄
If that were true, art would have advanced nowhere since prehistoric cave paintings. Of course you can compare two different media to get a better understanding of the meaning of the story, the choices a director or novelist made, or the shortcomings revealed in either by that comparison (even small children can reasonably compare oranges and watermelons based on taste, texture, colour...).
@@WhytheBookWins And then there's this, from the Merriam Webster Page: "A pronunciation \mis-ˈchē-vē-əs\ and a consequent spelling mischievious are of long standing: evidence for the spelling goes back to the 16th century. Our pronunciation files contain modern attestations ranging from dialect speakers to Herbert Hoover. But both the pronunciation and the spelling are still considered nonstandard." Just because it's "nonstandard" *doesn't* mean it's wrong!
I had a hard time getting past the fact that Bella is still technically a child just in the body of an adult. And then on top of that it’s never addressed that the men she meets are so predatory, rather she is just portrayed as “free”. The entirety of the movie to me felt like some sick fantasy that some man wrote out, veneered in phenomenal performances, design and score.
Yeah that's where the book has the upper hand in a way, because we find out it was all written by a man. The movie does show the "born sexy yesterday" trope like I talk about though and how Bella out grows it.
Interesting that there are multiple feminism, sexual and female empowerment articles that forget this film is about an adult female with a newborns brain. She’s taken advantage and is not matured mentally even by the end of the movie. This is what has made it disturbing. It’s a world where the man let Bella know she is now an “adult” who is free but is just abused by all the creepy adults. She doesn’t even understand this when given the truth of her experiment. Instead of this soul crushing reality she’s still supposed to be praised for being a liberating and sexual female with the brain of a child. Weird.
I love both Alasdair Gray's and Yorgos Lanthimos' work - but I hate this film based on how much it deviates from the plot and atmosphere of the novel. I can't picture it set anywhere outside of a smoggy and dark Victorian Glasgow. Willem Defoe is great in everything but completely miscast as the vast, monstrous Baxter (with a voice so horrible that McCandless needs to put cotton in his ears just to listen to him). And the fact that the movie skips the crucial twist that it might all be McCandless' crude fantasy has lost me completely. Did they think audiences would only be able to handle the dumb-dumb 'I'm Bella and I'm cool and ain't no man gonna tell me what to do!' Barbie version of feminism as opposed to the high-level one the book sets out where 'Bella' herself is (probably) a male fantasy? A real shame as I think if Lanthimos had made the film in his usual style, kept the Scottish themes and setting, and stuck a little more closely to the plot, it could've been great, and something even more visually unique than it turned out to be.
Very well put! I thought Dafoe was great in the role but I can see where you're coming from. And I agree with being disappointed in the change to the ending. Thanks for sharing!
I largely agree with you. When it comes to Lanthimos' work, I absolutely hated his first 3 movies; thought they were nonsense and vowed to stop seeing his work. However... 'The Favourite' pulled me in with the female cast (and for a change Lanthimos didn't write the script!) and I saw it and loved it. Fast forward to Gray's novel... which I absolutely loved (except for the last section; unnecessary). Hearing that Lanthimos was working with his 'Favourite' screenwriter and seeing his cast.... I got really excited! Then... I saw the film. Overall... I found it to be Style Over Substance. The book just sort of seemed to wither away. The movie even sort of made me sleepy (and I wasn't tired). Part of me thought, 'Maybe it was just too large a book to adapt.' Another part of me thought 'They might have been able to do a better job instead of a vague one - and ending up with a missed opportunity.'
@@im1ru122 The difference is Tony McNamara. He wrote both scripts, along with The Great. He's still a man (hence the titties), but then, so's Gray. Leaving out the framing story and Bella's corrective account can be attributed to the needs of film. A movie that gave the present movie's attention to all three narratives would be 3 1/2 hours long.
Would you recommend reading the book?? This is an interesting concept with which to see gender in the late Victorian Era but does the author handle this subject matter better than the director did?
I didn’t read the book but the question I had the whole movie was how old she was mentally. It through me off her sexual curiosity when I was assuming she was only like 10 mentally. Then another layer is she’s in a grown women’s body so ofc she has those physical feelings😭 mind scrabble 😮💨
I don't think it does a lot of good to question the rules of fiction by comparing it to our reality. (Pixar's Cars my god). But if I had to guess why Bella's maturity progressed so quickly, it was because of her mother's body that she inherited. We only think it takes decades for babies to develop into adults because that's what occurs naturally. Maybe if our body development was faster, we would also mature faster, like dogs do. No sane doctor would ever test this theory though.
One thing I thought that was interesting while watching the movie, was that I was super uncomfortable with the sex scenes ... partly due to the fact that I was watching with my family. But it made me question, am I comfortable with the sex scenes because of a societal norms, or am I uncomfortable because sex itself is uncomfortable. I'm leaning toward the societal norm thing, which came across as meta given some of the movies messaging. Anyways, I really enjoyed your video. I'm going to consider reading the book now :)
Glad you like the video! The book is def worth checking out :) And yeah, it is interesting to think about the reasons behind why we feel the way we due about it.
In the movie Bella is cruel and amused by cruelty such as wanting to bunch the baby and throw the old lady overboard. Maybe that is a nod to her old self and not just to immaturity
With her wanting to see Duncan throw the woman overboard, I see that as Bella knowing Duncan would not succeed and she just wanted to see what would happen as he failed lol. But the part with the baby makes more sense as to her old self.
In the beginning of the movie she also tries to squish a frog. And there are some nods about the food that she does not like as a "child" but the husband said that she "loved" - found it fascinating.
Wow, first of all, I wish I was as eloquent with my thoughts as you are. What an excellent depiction of this story in general. New subscriber here :) I watched this movie yesterday and I did love it right away but I remember feeling a bit annoyed once we move towards the women's empowerment part because I immediately remembered this was written and directed by men (I didn't know this was based on a book... also written by a man lol) and yes, it does feel like a male fantasy of how it should look. Now that I know the book acknowledges it, I wish Yorgos would've found a way to incorporate this into the movie, it would've made it perfect. I started reading reviews to try to help me put my thoughts in order and your video is the only one that blew my mind not only because of the plot twist of the book but, because you are the kind of people with the intelligence and sensibility necessary to debate about the problematic side of the story and also point out the complexity of its brilliance. The movie is beyond gorgeous and Emma Stone should get all the recognition as the great artist she is.
Thank you so much!! I'm not a screenwriter so I don't know how they would have incorporated the book ending, but I know there has to be a way it could have been done! Overall I still really liked the movie though, even with my conflicted feelings. And I totally agree that Stone deserves all of the awards! Thank you for commenting and subscribing 😊
There is a great article in Vulture that critiques the movie's female empowerment message that I highly recommend! Link in description. I still think I would give the movie 4 out of 5 stars, but am curious to watch it again and see how I feel.
I was excited to see this movie~I'm sure its done tastefully avoiding the weirdness of her being an infant in an adult body-because that is pedophilia. I love Yorgos Lanthimos' other movies. Especially The Lobster! Thanks for the review and your voice sounds clear and just fine!~
@grainofsand4176 her brain develops more quickly, so I think people who are bothered by her having the brain of a child don't realize that. It only takes her like 2 or so years for her brain to reach adult levels.
@@WhytheBookWins There's a disquiet from disability advocates and child-safeguarding experts on the resulting messaging of these scenes and combined with the excitement of aroused men talking about how much they enjoyed this film, my spidy-sense is tingling... It's one of the many reasons I think that the film is a bad adaptation of the book. It's taken the context of Scottish history completely out of it because the director didn't feel comfortable addressing those themes. Regardless of the supposed intent of her "maturity" she's the product of an infant's brain being placed inside the dead body of her own mothers - against their consent - and then sexually exploited by men for a significant length of the film. I have noticed male reviewers are very enthusiastic about how bizarre/surreal/hilarious that is, compared to the more nuanced reviews of women, who see the realism of this before the surrealism. I don't include Rex Reed's review in this however.
I was really conflicted watching the movie, because I think it actually kind of nails (metaphorically) my experience as a very horny, sex-positive teenager - being taken advantage by men but also enjoying some experiences and using them to grow. On the other hand, the whole "untouched by the neuroses of society" thing does come off in some ways as not much more than a male fantasy. Though it is also potentially a really fascinating exploration of how society "gentles" women's sexuality - it was super interesting to see a woman encounter accusations of being a slut and a whore, etc., and just kind of being confused and genuinely brushing them off - it does also make Bella's story just a smidge too far removed from reality, and Bella becomes far too invulnerable, considering how vulnerable she would actually be in the real world. So there's some huge potential there for telling the stories of women who really do discover their sexuality early and want to revel in it, but it doesn't fully explore why exactly it remains so dangerous to do stuff like that when you have no experience.
Honestly, I kinda forgot about this movie, which is rare when it comes to Emma Stone. She's one of my all-time favorites actress, just so skilled, gorgeous, and never fails to make me laugh with her humor. I'll admit, her outfit/design for this movie didn't do it for me, gave me the impression of a dry period piece, but now learning that it's similar to a Frankenstein story, I'm super curious to check this out now when I get the chance! Amazing review as always 😁
Wow. Wow....this is the 21st century version of a "book club" discussion group from my mother's and grandmother's time, but with the added ingredient/interpretation of cinema...not just talkin' bout Bronte Sisters' novels or Steinbeck, etc ....Nice! ...Gray's writing, like Shakespeare's, often gave other characters' points of view both villains and heroes, so some people use for quotes and think that the author themselves believe everything their characters believe....It's about inhabiting their character/creations, to understand motivations. " No villain thinks that they are unjustified in their actions"...
In the movie Godwin was not yet dead when she returned with blessington. We thought she was going to put Godwin's brain inside Blessington so that he could live a grown life as a full and healthy man.
I absolutely thought that was going to happen too, and I thought the goat she looks at when she talks about "improving him" was just misdirection. Then it turned out that what I thought was misdirection was actually the direction!
That’s what I thought would happen too!! I thought it was a missed opportunity. There could be another full movie of him learning about pretty privilege and understanding that beauty comes from within as he finally finds love.
It's kind of a Frankenstein thing. How did an innocent child with a mature body, born as a result of transplanting the fetal brain of a woman who committed suicide, learn about 19th century society and grow up? Alternatively, it is a story about how he came to sexual maturity, and this is a novel typical of Gray in that it refuses to be summarized in one way. I read it after reading Lanark, and it expresses the excess and laughter that was also present in Lanark more directly, and compared to Lanark, it feels a little lighter and brighter. This is probably why it is recommended as an introduction to Gray. Although there is a metafictional device from the beginning, it is a relaxing read until the middle. However, there is a part at the end that turns everything upside down, and even the reality within the fiction loses its foundation. It seems to be very Gray-like. And a very warm and empathetic perspective on the characters. It's not a difficult novel. It's not a novel that draws the reader into the story like Lanark, but it's easy to read without breaking the bank. Anyway, why isn't Gray translated? I think I can get a certain number of readers. Updated in Jan 2024 I never dreamed that it would be made into a movie, but I hope that more people will become interested in Gray.
Would you consider doing a comparison of The Piano Teacher (book by Elfriede Jelinek), and Under the Skin. I’d genuinely be curious to hear your thoughts, especially since the book Under the Skin, is commentary on how livestock are treated.
Oh I didn't know The piano Teacher was based on a book! And I have Inder the Skin on my list but haven't gotten around to it. Thanks for the suggestions!
Elfriede Jelinek won the Nobel Prize in literature. The novel is just as amazing as the film, I don't know which I prefer. I did my thesis on the film through a psychoanalytic (specifically Lacanian via Butler) lens. BTW - another film that does a MUCH better job at depicting female desire, even though the lovely Haneke is male - probably because the book was *written by a woman* - funny how that works! lol @@WhytheBookWins
