The Empty Brilliance of Poor Things | in-depth film review

I can't be the only one who thought that something was off with the film poor things and I'm not talking about the explicit scenes I think it goes way deeper than that again not talking about the explicit scenes get your head out the gutter now listen poor things is always going to be a difficult movie to adapt for the most part I am of the opinion that certain aspects of the story are inevitably going to change when adapted into film I also don't believe you have to read the origal book to watch the film adaption the film should be able to stand on its own Merit when I watched poor things my initial expectation for a confidently smart visually eccentric film were instantly met but as the film went on I sensed a strange lack the feeling continued throughout the film there was something missing something off so I did seek out the book both the film and the book are unabashedly political that itself its own conversation and the film invites the audience to consider the politics of the film as an element of The film's Virtue I thought some vital context some particular characterization maybe had been altered from the original to the point that the film's overall political message of supposed feminism equality and Independence reads instead as veiled support of self-centeredness mandry and shallow G bossy which I don't think was the director yorgos loss's goal though I may be wrong on this long story short I can say with certainty that outside of its care for Fantastical details and its visuals which are no less than Exquisite I would not hesitate to say poor things the movie has a very opposite message than what is found in the book The issue being I don't think the film's message is very effective by itself as so I think context of the the original book is important and I'll be referencing back to it when I explain how the differences made in the film utterly corrupts how convincing the film's political message is ultimately communicated to the audience but before that quick rundown of what the film is about poor things follows Bella Baxter played by Emma Stone a young woman who after being brought to life by an unconventional Frankenstein esque scientist played by William defo is a mental tabularasa or blank slave without any sense of prejudice or shame that permites the Fantastical Victorian society that the movie is set she runs off with Mark ruffalo's character a raish lawyer called Duncan wedderburn and in her travels gathers more knowledge of the world around her and supposedly if the synopsis is anything to go by grows steadfast in her purpose to stand for equality and Liberation more on that assertion later first the brilliant alluded to in the title of this video the beauty of the film is undeniable the 35 mm film provides a luscious and Rich atmosphere and the stylistic choices are made confidently and where such style might not be to everyone's taste it certainly is to mine the set design is outrageously Fantastical and yet classical to me it is a realm that crosses the classic historicism of a sergeant painting with the lightess and vividness of a piece done by by Lawrence Alma TOA especially when we're in Alexandria and the sheer wild fantas mang gorical Madness of a anonomous Bosch the costuming is a character in and of itself and like the set design it is as postmodern as the original material the inspiration for Bella's dresses were taken from both authentic Victorian sources as well as yed and pilfered across time thus utilizing the method of eclecticism M A keenly post-modern preoccupation you should look at house and Garden's really interesting article on the conception of poor things' set design showcasing a very similar application of eclecticism within their process the film is not only beautiful but at least ostensibly clever to beyond the action the main character gets and believe me the Resurgence of explicit scenes in recent Cinema is a conversation I am planning to have just not today poor things is mostly a thinking film this is shown through the narrative Bella's character motive is to expand her limited knowledge about the world it is completely in line within the story for Bella to have intellectual conversations about human cruelty and to see Bella going to Parisian lectures the cinematography leans heavily on the representation of differing perspectives using for example extreme wide angle lenses and black and white film especially at the start to emphasize Bella's primitive mental state poor things' desire to be seen as a thinking film is also seen in the film's multitude of literary references and symbolisms from Frankenstein to Eve in the Garden of Eden along with the clear tretis of feminist Liberation that underpins the storyline altogether the film encourages the audience to view it as more than simple entertainment it is inviting you to consider what it has to say in terms of its underpinning politics as a mark of the film's quality this means that the way the film communicates its message also becomes important to examine it is unfortunate the message it communicates unwittingly paints its political message as ugly as Dr Godwin back to himself let's talk about the characterization of Bella since it is through her that the film's underlying politics hinges on emerstone acted her iteration of Bella wonderfully like it is incredibly well done the the main issue is the Bella backer of the film is not the Bella backer of the book this is very important when it is on her character and how the plot uses her that implies the type of feminism and Liberation that the film supports Bella Baxter of the book is as free and without shame as the film's iteration and in fact Freer well the main difference is that Bella Baxter of the book is anely joyful kind and sweet yeah she is as unknowing and naive as a child and petulent at times too similarly like a child but is described to have a radiant happiness such Frank Glee and friendship B of the film is innately cruel she yells screams breaks things and goes on un repentant on that note Dr Godwin Baxter is a far better Father Figure and more sympathetic character in the book but that is also another story we will not get into must go punch that baby though it is a funny moment I can say with certainty that Bella of the book would never wish to punch a baby she only bites another person after Extreme emotional provocation and is sincerely remorseful afterwards Bella of the film's symbolic connection to the biblical Eve is nothing more than shallow and crude and she's even worse than Shell's creature at least the creature wished to be good before it was scorned this obviously reflects the perspective of the author against that of the director great clearly has a more optimistic positive understanding of human nature when it is without the societal prejudices learned from birth Lanos obviously has a darker more cynical impression of human nature it seems that for Lanos humans are innately terrible and self-interested to a fault no wonder Harry Ashley says in the film deep down we are all cruel beasts though Bella refutes this assessment it rings nonsensical when the whole catalog of her behavior before this self assured rebuttal seems to completely concur with the cynical assessment of Harry asley the difference in characterization might not be that big of a change at the surface but it has a profound effect on the film's underlying politics in the Angelic perspective of Bella of the book socialism Liberation and equality is the obvious conclusion that she comes to after her good loving nature leads her to wish to do good in the world Bella of the film also desires Liberation and equality but the desire is either insensible or insincere since Bell of the film does not want to do good not if it goes at all against her self-interest and radical Independence thus the drive towards her Liberation is simplified to overcoming oppression her independence is devoid of love and devoted partnership and her equality is a type of feminism that removes men entirely from the equation this expression of misandrist feminism is supported by how little character Max mandals has in this film in the book he is called archal mandalis and he is the main narrator so that's one big change there he is Solem envious socially awkward and at times very jealous though he is ultimately accepting of Bella's need for sexual autonomy and though Bella does not follow monogamy at all in the book as well as in the film in the book she is shown again and again to be deeply loyal to meles's proposal for marriage and his inclusion in her plans to do good in the world she desires them to do it together as equal Partners the suggestion that love and loyalty can exist without being enforced by monogamy is not a debate I have the time for here but in the book it at least argues it with an earnestness let's be honest mandles is a wimp in the film without his jealousy mandal's acceptance of Bella's sexual Liberation goes from arguing enlightened liberalism to becoming dumb weak simpering wimpish in the end as he has been adapted mandles is a useless accessory for the film and spoiler I suppose so go to this time if you don't want to hear it um but I suppose within this type of feminism proposed in the film The only men that are wanted and are allowed to survive are the ones who have a slave likee disposition and are weak Beyond Compare I could talk for an hour more about all the good and bad aspects of poor things of which they are many you can't imagine how much I've been thinking about the movie and the book for the last week and a half honestly but since others are likely to relieve me of that job I think I can conclude with this poor things may have a clever brain and of course has a beautiful Supple skin to Clove that intellect but it lacks what the Tin Man Lacks in The Wizard of Oz another Fantastical tale with an underlying message of a girl self-discovery and quest for truth I think it lacks heart and without that vital heart the film at best lacks what that glittering exterior of metal did it is hollow of the kindness and Goodwill that the original book had at its worst the film is actively malicious in its messaging where Independence is a byword for self-interest and feminism a dog whistle for missandry in that case like other entities that should be considered pitiable in their mistakes the film though unintentionally does perfectly embody its title as one of the world's many and always increasing poor things [Music]

Channel: Up in the Air ft. Zürich

Views: 17,599

Keywords: Poor Things, film review, new movies, film, cinema, Emma Stone, video essay

Id: Mu-t2-fupaw

Length: 12min 10sec (730 seconds)

Published: Fri Feb 02 2024