Poor Things (new Yorgos Lanthimos film)

[greenman]

You could argue sex positivity isn't that unusual these days, but I thought it's probably one of best executions of not judging the character at all, usually there's some judgement there either on behalf of the characters (that you're not supposed to align with), or they sort of knowingly corral you into a position of positivity or knowingly-guilty negativity. In this I don't think there was anything there at all.

I think you could argue "sex positive" took a bit of a knock post #metoo fallout and there was a bit of a tendency IMHO to jump from "sexualised" to "objectified" rather too easily. Equally of course this film does comment on that as well though being full of characters who claim to offer Stone some kind of sexual awakening but are really driven by selfishness.

I think you could argue thats perhaps the main shift in this film relative to his previous work, it does actually have a protagonist who were sposed to get behind more who has catharsis by the end of the film. Previously the films tended to be total satire including the protagonist as well were as this time that is more limited to the supporting roles.

[Mister Six]

point taken - personally I didn't cringe too much at the more on the nose dialogue in that direction because I felt like it was largely being played for comedy - but what would it take to be actually transgressive, in comparison?

One or both of:

• Have protagonists that are somewhere on the spectrum of flawed to outright shits but don't have the film judge them, punish them or force them to have a Damascus conversion onto "the right side of history" (eg. 48hrs)
• Present moral complexity and ambiguity without signalling to the audience that you're a goodie and you know that these people are bad (these days young people's media literacy is so bad you can probably still signal this in the subtext without them licking up on it)

And/or, obviously,

• Be openly, enthusiastically approving of fascism, racism, general far-right shit
• Or even just push socially conservative values - women belong at home, queer people are degenerate etc

Obviously I'm more enthusiastic about some of those than others.

Other than what looked like a family (all adults, two older than the others) walking out during the sex education scene, the only real audible moment of shock among our fairly busy NYC audience (which appeared to be all middle-aged adults or older) was McCandles' casual use of the word "retard".

Young people can probably also be made uncomfortable by scenes of open sexuality, but I imagine Poor Things gets away with that by clearly being pro-female empowerment and Emma Stone being game for anything.

[Oosp]

It reads well if you imagine him wearing a leather jacket and nothing else.

A leather straitjacket!!!!

[Lewman]

My wife's father lives in the Netherlands and is visiting this weekend. He's been feeling down lately so my wife wanted to cheer him up with a 'funny' film at the cinema

I've booked tickets at the Everyman cinema in Bristol. A 2 seat sofa and a 1 seat chair next to each other.

Are the sex scenes awkward enough that I should be sat furthest away?

[Pink Gregory]

Are the sex scenes awkward enough that I should be sat furthest away?

I don't know about awkward but there are a *lot* of them

[Lewman]

I don't know about awkward but there are a *lot* of them

Then it's decided -

[ME | WIFE] [FATHER]

[Sebastian Cobb]

My parents aren't really all that squeamish but I did regret making them watch The Lobster. I don't think there's any actual sex scenes in it, but the maid rubbing up on Farell and Weisz explaining the signals they made at each other about wanting it up the arse was a bit awks.

[Tiggles]

Are the sex scenes awkward enough that I should be sat furthest away?

I think the sex in it is very funny and very occasionally (and intentionally) a bit depressing. Sex is a huge part of the film, it kind of stops being "SEX" after a bit and is just "sex". You'd have to really try to find it titillating. I watched the film with a family member who I'd normally cringe at watching sexy film stuff with and once the comedic tone was set we were giggling together.

[Noodle Lizard]

They're pretty graphic for an A-list film, but if he's living in the Netherlands it won't be anything he doesn't see on his way to the shops!!!1

[Oosp]

Finally got to watch it today (hi, it's your pal Oosp, the OP). Tremendous. Reminded me in a strange way of O Lucky Man! - anyone else?

Emma Stone is phenomenal. Mark Ruffalo is a madman, love it. Up for anything, those two. Dafoe is wonderful, as per. How is that we can tell exactly who it is just by seeing his silhouette enter the frame? Truly one of a kind. I enjoyed all the bit parts* - e.g. Margaret Qualley did so much with very little screen time.

*except

Spoiler alert

there weren't enough dangly ones

[close]

The sex was great; I spaffed onto the bubbles at the end of my bubble tea, so no mess and no waste

[twosclues]

I saw this in the Light House in Dublin on 35mm. I liked it with some reservations, but I think I was distracted by the possibility that it wasn't projected particularly well. Was hard to make out certain shots, but that could just be me being accustomed to digital. Saw Priscilla on 35mm at the same venue and had no such issues though.

[Mobbd]

I enjoyed this very much today. Maybe I found it a tad underwhelming if I'm honest? Perhaps not the fault of the film itself; maybe I was looking forward to it a bit too much.

Ruffalo was my fave. Hilarious and brilliant. Stone and Dafoe absolutely marvellous too. Big shout out to Kathryn Hunter who I love in everything (first noticed her in Flowers) and is a true original.

I can't believe this bothered me (it certainly didn't concern me going in) but I'm actually a bit pissed off that they didn't use Glasgow. London was used so sparingly it could practically have been anywhere. So if it doesn't matter, why not Glasgow? And imagine how a fantasy Glasgow, all spires and turrets and that, would have looked in those scenes on the roof. Would have been remarkable. Gray would have liked to see Glasgow elevated too and I am certain the filmmakers would know this so it feels like a slightly disrespectful tomb raid to me (saying "slightly" in that there's obviously been worse). They used Gaudi-inspired architecture (in Paris oddly) so why not use Mackintosh or Greek Thompson for some Glasgow scenes? Mackintosh is just as recognisable and odd as Gaudi. Bah.

Baxter and his maid were presented as Scottish so I wonder if the decision to use London instead of Glasgow came late in production?

[Sebastian Cobb]

I saw this in the Light House in Dublin on 35mm. I liked it with some reservations, but I think I was distracted by the possibility that it wasn't projected particularly well. Was hard to make out certain shots, but that could just be me being accustomed to digital. Saw Priscilla on 35mm at the same venue and had no such issues though.

I happened to see Priscilla on 35mm and was quite impressed, what you describe with Poor Things is my usual experience with actual film screenings, either poorly aligned, out of focus or if it's not a new film completely fucked and faded prints. I think it's a mixture of it being a forgotten skill (to the point a bored teenage projectionist who was doing it all the time was probably more skilled than someone doing it infrequently today) plus a lack of servicing on the equipment now, which fucks the prints much quicker.

Put simply, I think the projector is probably the last place film needs to be these days, dcp is fine.

[Mobbd]

Something I liked was the clinical/surgical feeling running through the film. It practically smelled of chloroform and formaldehyde.

[Clownbaby]

Saw this the other day. Absolutely loved it. I want every single one of Bella's deranged outfits.

[twosclues]

I happened to see Priscilla on 35mm and was quite impressed, what you describe with Poor Things is my usual experience with actual film screenings, either poorly aligned, out of focus or if it's not a new film completely fucked and faded prints. I think it's a mixture of it being a forgotten skill (to the point a bored teenage projectionist who was doing it all the time was probably more skilled than someone doing it infrequently today) plus a lack of servicing on the equipment now, which fucks the prints much quicker.

Put simply, I think the projector is probably the last place film needs to be these days, dcp is fine.

Yeah the thing is, this cinema prides itself on being a real film lover's cinema (they have the actual cinematographer of Poor Things in for a Q&A next weekend), that it's strange the quality would actually be so poor. But maybe I just had a bad screening.

[Sebastian Cobb]

Yeah the thing is, this cinema prides itself on being a real film lover's cinema (they have the actual cinematographer of Poor Things in for a Q&A next weekend), that it's strange the quality would actually be so poor. But maybe I just had a bad screening.

Yeah the GFT is the same, in practice I mostly try and swerve the film screenings.

[Waking Life]

I enjoyed this very much today. Maybe I found it a tad underwhelming if I'm honest? Perhaps not the fault of the film itself; maybe I was looking forward to it a bit too much.

Ruffalo was my fave. Hilarious and brilliant. Stone and Dafoe absolutely marvellous too. Big shout out to Kathryn Hunter who I love in everything (first noticed her in Flowers) and is a true original.

I can't believe this bothered me (it certainly didn't concern me going in) but I'm actually a bit pissed off that they didn't use Glasgow. London was used so sparingly it could practically have been anywhere. So if it doesn't matter, why not Glasgow? And imagine how a fantasy Glasgow, all spires and turrets and that, would have looked in those scenes on the roof. Would have been remarkable. Gray would have liked to see Glasgow elevated too and I am certain the filmmakers would know this so it feels like a slightly disrespectful tomb raid to me (saying "slightly" in that there's obviously been worse). They used Gaudi-inspired architecture (in Paris oddly) so why not use Mackintosh or Greek Thompson for some Glasgow scenes? Mackintosh is just as recognisable and odd as Gaudi. Bah.

Baxter and his maid were presented as Scottish so I wonder if the decision to use London instead of Glasgow came late in production?

He met with Gray to discuss the film before he died (it's been in gestation for a long time) and discussed how he'd present the film, although this might have changed over time. Gray gave him a tour of Glasgow and the places that inspired the book.

I haven't read the book but will do soon.

I loved this film and have watched (or rewatched) some of Lanthimos's others this weekend. I prefer the slight shift in style with The Favourite and this from the more clinical feel of his earlier films. Apparently Ruffalo - who was great - had a lot of doubt about his performance and casting (they even fooled him at one point of having Oscar Isaac replacing him). It sort of shows that he's uneasy and I think he possibly could have gone a bit bigger with it.

[wasp_f15ting]

I had no expectations going into see this, pleasantly surprised. I really liked the whacky universe quite a bit.

[Mister Six]

I had no expectations going into see this, pleasantly surprised. I really liked the whacky universe quite a bit.

Welcome back! Glad you're still around.

Also that you liked this incredible film.

[Sebastian Cobb]

I posted this as an aside in the Saltburn thread, but it's interesting to see the odd person try and slag this well liked film as regressive, actually.

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2024/jan/24/bound-gagged-poor-things-feminist-masterpiece-male-sex-fantasy-oscar-emma-stone-ruffalo?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Opinion is divided there, but as another poster pointed out

Fucking hell, I gave up after five or so but the way the Poor Thing enthusiasts unwittingly deflated or defused the voices coming before or after them suggested to me that the subs were on the filmmaker's side.

Lovely writing by Charlotte Higgins and David Thomson, though.

I usually like Samira Ahmed, I don't agree with her appraisal at all but fair enough she's entitled to her opinion and I respect that, but what riled me up a bit was I came to the article through her posting:

Apparently us laydeez need to explain what feminism is and is not. Again. But glad the Guardian thought to ask me.

Which reeks of skinnernothechildrenarewrong.jpg given the fairly reasonable range of opinions in the article, many refuting her.

[greenman]

Really "is it feminist" is obviously going to come down a lot to your view of feminism, most obviously in this case sex positive/negative.

I felt the idea it was glamorising prostitution was simply wrong though, seems to be more that like exposing Ruffalo's self serving claims of offering "sexual awakening" we see Kathryn Hunter's Madame is ultimately exploitative.

[Sebastian Cobb]

Mmm and the best reviews in there sort of go along the lines of 'well maybe not but I enjoyed it'.

I'd agree the ones pillorying Yorgos and some of the other crew do Stone a disservice both from an acting and producer POV. Airbrushing her out doesn't seem very good.

[Small Man Big Horse]

Caught this today in a half full but very quiet cinema in Camden, it took some of the audience a lot of time to realise it was okay to laugh in places. Absolutely loved it myself, it would have been my film of the year if I'd seen it last year, and thought Stone was stunning throughout, while Mark Ruffalo was pleasingly deranged, his shouting cunt a lot had me laughing a good deal. 9.0/10

[sevendaughters]

The prostitution is a political and economic awakening, Bella's rhetoric around her actions should not be taken as consistently good or bad.

[Blinder Data]

this was pretty brilliant. stone carried the film. i enjoyed ruffalo's performance, uneven though it was.

i couldn't see what jerrod Carmichael and Hanna Schygulla were attempting with their oddly flat performances. i guess it might have been poor/sentimental casting (i don't know schygulla's work but clearly a European arthouse legend).

erasure of Glasgow in this is a bit odd. the book is SO Glaswegian maybe they felt the only way to reference it is to go the whole hog, so only nods and winks would suffice - or maybe producers thought it would make it too "parochial" and better to go for European capitals.

overall though it was a good adaptation, effective plotting and  bringing to the fore the feminism that was pretty indirect in the novel since we rarely heard from bella baxter herself. (correct me if i'm wrong, but i think the goat brain transplant of the general didn't happen in the book?)

re: projection/visuals, i saw a digital version today and some shots' outer edges were blurry, which i put down to a deliberate artistic choice. you could see it clearly with some wide shots (e.g. bridge, general's mansion), as if they were models and viewed up close - it's a common trick but fucked if it know what it's called

[holyzombiejesus]

I'm on the way to see this now but stupid late bus will mean I miss the first 10 minutes. If anyone reads this in the next few minutes, can they give me a quick recap of what I'll miss?

[Pink Gregory]

I'm on the way to see this now but stupid late bus will mean I miss the first 10 minutes. If anyone reads this in the next few minutes, can they give me a quick recap of what I'll miss?

lady go off bridge, doctor finds her, little nerdy man becomes doctor's assistant, lady is a bit odd

[Glebe]

Saw this during the week, crikey, that was great! Gruesome and graphic but inventive and moving with it. Emma Stone terrific, in fact the whole cast were great. Some absolutely beautiful sets... there were a couple of moments that definitely screamed Kubrick. In any case a memorable experience!

The only other Yorgos Lanthimos film I'd seen prior to this was The Killing of a Sacred Deer which was decent but a bit mannered (local star Barry Keoghan is great in it, mind), The Favourite is on Netflix at the mo so that's getting a watch! Also wanna check out The Lobster. Lanthimos seems to have a thing about animals, doesn't he?!

[Mister Six]

The Favourite is great, and I believe written by the same person as Poor Things (ie. not Lanthimos). I watched Sacred Deer the other day and it left me cold - one of those movies where I just can't believe in the motivations or actions of anyone in it, which makes the fantastical elements even harder to swallow.