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!

in the movie when Duncan said he misses the innocent way she spoke i literally had chills going down my spine what a disgusting person

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.

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

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!

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 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 📚🎬

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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 😮‍💨

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))

Finally, someone who points out the major themes of this book and movie. So many analysts ( men ) of this movie just miss all these themes.

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.

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.

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!

This is my first video of yours, love this video! You;ve made me want to read and watch the story.

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, 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.

This review discussion was an excellent supplement to the film. I just got home from the theater. I went on whim without having seen a trailer or even read a synopsis, and this provided all the additional context I didn't know I needed. Thanks!

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 :)

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.

Thank you so much for your take. So glad I found your channel

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.

this was such a phenomenal movie emma stone really captured the naivity the character wassuppose to be in the beginning and how she grew wiser

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

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.

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"...

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

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.

Thank you for the video, I always enjoy hearing your thoughts. I was going to wait to watch this video because I saw the movie (and loved it! - am going to see it, again) and just started the book, but I just couldn't stay away. I will be happy to let you know what I think after I read it, if you like.😊

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!

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.

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 agree this had way way way too many graphic sex scenes. Not necessary.

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.

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.

I wish they added the twist would’ve excused the weird premise, great review

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.

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.

Great breakdown as usual. The book seems to be the best option for this one.

I just saw this movie. I wasn't aware it was based on a book. I found the video for the most part articulate & thought provoking - except the few times where you seem to confuse yourself on which version you are referencing, and thusly confused me. 😅 Anyway, it was still interesting to hear & read different perspectives on the movie's themes & execution of them. 😎👍

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!

Wow! You are very good comunicator. Hi from Mexico

Loved this movie, I have never heard of the book! Thanks for your dissection of both, one of my favorite movies of the year. Bella's perspective from the book is very interesting, it's a meta aspect that would've been interesting to see in the movie. I think Lanthimos tried to solve this "perspective" issue by presenting it in such a dreamlike world. Also definitely check out The Favorite, it's more grounded than Poor things but it's fantastic. Lanthimos' other movies are amazing too.

This is the best review so far

Excellent video. Thank you.

I didn't think that there was that many sex scenes. They mostly lasted a few seconds each.

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.

First, I really like your reviews from the Book to Movie perspective. It's very interesting and highly informative, too. I also agree on your comment regarding the highly sexual aspect of this film. Although I'm certainly no prude, it easily borders on softcore porn and I wouldn't want my grandchildren watching this, for sure. I think that audience members should be made well aware of this fact, straightaway, and so far your review is the ONLY one that's even mentioned it. For although I highly enjoyed it, this is an "Adults Only" movie, in my estimation.

Have you considered making a video about 2001: A Space Odyssey?

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.

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 just got the book and the movie is released today! will I spoil the book if I watch the movie first? help!

Perhaps one day we will have a nice story about human self discovery and empowerment.

I totally agree on the sex scenes! I mean, we get it. I also agree with the your take on the introduction. I had to go back and re-read the intro.

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?

One thing I wish they did was explored Bella’s menstrual cycle like it could’ve been a way Bella and Archie got closer and more intimate with each other

The movie starts very slow but gets better and better as it progresses. I guess maybe i jusr preferred adult Bella to brat Bella. Amazing and unique visually throughout. Worth a second watch I think.

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.

the fish eye lens is doing a lot of heavy lifting in the production design

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.

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

Hated the movie, was excited to see it because I loved The Favourite but this movie was smug and smutty and put me off.

I was disappointed that you didn't stretch your double review beyond the plot and character level. There's a level of _presentation_ where Gray and Lanthimos are very close. Gray does his utmost to stretch the novel form to its limit. He uses narrator choice, type font, narrative format, and, radically, for a novel with an adult audience, illustration, to (at times literally) paint his story. Lanthimos likewise is willing to use every trick in the book of film to present his narrative. I suspect that this is why Gray gave Lanthimos freedom to adapt his story at will. Gray's son, I hear, is also happy with the film.

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!

Fisheye lens. It's called fisheye lens.

I agree; the book wins. I read it about three weeks before I saw the film. So many layers to the book which couldn't be explored in the same way in rhe film. ALSO: 1) I absolutley HATED that "second woman" thing. Not necessary: like, what exactly was the point? 2) I also absolutety HATED the final tableaux - with the inclusion of Blessington - and that's all I'll say about that... And yes, I agree (having read the book) that there were way too many sex scenes in the film ; they could've done with half of those to get the point across. Maybe even less than half! I did still enjoy the film though.... but the book wins!

Just watched the movie and I’m running through all the reviews and analysis to learn more about the story and it’s adaption. I think the context of Godwin (edit: AND McCandle!) in the books is incredibly insightful. Both in the book and the film I kind of see it a feminism from the view of a man. Flawed but earnest, where the critique is that of society’s exploitation of women while understanding your place in participating in it. It’s as much a feminist story as it is a critique of masculinity. All the men are evil and scoundrel in the story, but Bella represents unbridled optimism and curiosity. The author sets Bella our to learn for herself and the world like many epics do while maintaining some of nativity of man who’s knowledge of women’s plight is second hand. This creates the circumstances where Bella is objectively exploited, which works as commentary and satire of the male gaze and machismo, but it’s her earnest journey to learn and reconcile this that shows that the author understands that an emancipated woman is stronger and wiser than the men who try to stomp them down. She’s tempered by her journey and it’s hardships, not insulated from it like a damsel in the high tower. This coupled with The Curse shows an interesting world view from Emma Stone. She has a profound sense of humor about humanity and culture, both the show and film being blistering satires. Very much the yang to bubblegum feminism ying of Barbie (a film a also adored). Can’t wait to see what she does next.

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

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

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!

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.

There Are two moments in the movie in have questions about 1: when we realise its a babies brain in a grown womans body ( litteraly) how old is that brain when we see her on screen? 2: the ending when the ashole dad gets a goat brain Isnt that punishment for the goat and not the dad because the goat brain now has to live in a human body not fit for goat life seems cruel to the goat an not a happy ending punishment for the ashole dad

Spoiler-free section and yet you spoil the ending in it...

Great review! 👍 oh, if you're still interested in the lens used, there was a video from Variety that interviews Robbie Ryan that goes into some detail about the lens and film stock - link below! kzfaq.info/get/bejne/gpOjjb2r2LzbYHU.htmlsi=1Us4AEitbLqmbuwj

Frankenstein meets Lolita/ kinseys chart

The book will always win - unbelievably brilliant ❤

With a book you create the movie, the characters, the music etc. This is why the book always wins.

I interpreted her baby brain as hypothetical - what would happen if a woman grew up without the pressures of an oppressive society. I wasnt thinking of her as a literal baby, just "untouched" and untainted. I had a huge sexual appetite growing up, so i identified with Bella quite a bit.

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 don't think Victoria is Bella's "old self". I think of Victoria as Bella's mother; Alfie is her father, not her husband. I enjoyed the story that I heard, so the 'never mind, all of it was fake' addendum is actually no fun.

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....

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.

We should just ask the author these questions.

Sexual liberation is a big part of the movie, so the movie was trying to normalize explicit sex scenes, rightly so. If the movie showed restrain in the sex scenes and the amount of it, it would have gone against its own message i think.

Nah, the movie is also an easy 4.5/5 for me. Such a brilliantly-told and directed movie with probably the best performance of the whole year.

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

***No hate to anyone who worships/interprets God diffently*** The discourse of Adam and Eve eating the fruit and wether that act was “gods proudest moment” really got my attention. I think it’s great and empowering to interpret the bible and God’s actions in your own way. However as someone who questions the moral goodness of God(Yahweh/YHWH), I am incline to agree with Baxter’s statement “only bad religions depend on mysteries”. YHWH is a god that demands you to worship him and him alone. To listen and trust only in him; “you shall worship no other god” “him only shall you serve” “have no other gods before me” these phrases are repeated countlessly throughout the bible. There is no other (non-abrahamic) religion which god(s) demand this level of blind worship. Not to mention YHWH claims to be the creator of life yet this is directly contradicted by the fact that YHWH originated from an ancient Semitic pantheon of gods; including his (ex)wife Asherah, the goddess of fertility. Asherah is even mentioned over 30 times in the bible in relation to the sacred trees as they were hers, just as birthing human life was hers. And yet YHWH, this selfish patriarchal god, turns his back on the pantheon he came from and the wife who created their people and not only claims it all as his, but demands that everyone worship him alone. I mention this all because I think this section of the book is alluding to Baxter being a sort of deconstruction of YHWH. He “makes” Bella and wants her as his own yet instead of holding fast in his selfishness he realizes she should and could not be controlled as the little he did to “make” her does not erase her own autonomy.

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.

In general i see 2 different things book and movie

I agree with you the sex scence were too much. It is a good movie because of Emma.

THE MOVIE WALKS A FINE LINE as CLUMSILY as BELLA's first baby steps. I left so let down & feeling like the poor thing was me having gone to see it! I view the mainstream praise as a reflection of our times where superficiality vs substance has become the norm. If there's enough surface glitter, lip filler, butt padding & marketing ferocity then there's a good chance of success. Like a Frankenstein monster, Poor Things was a series of pieced-together events that touched on several deep social issues yet followed through on none of them. Like a Frankenstein who's threads are were loose vs sewn tight., much of her character was just plain contradictory. For one, her performance seemed to be retarded at first rather than a newborn innocently becoming aware while her unrestrained bluntness & unfettered reactions seemed too cold & cruel and lacking any sweet naive childlike innocence or wide-eyed curiosity. She was often emotionally one dimensional & distant, IMO. Later attempts were made to humanize her but by then the story had already begun to drag & the many narrative ideas remained unresolved. SO MANY CRITICS HAVE HAD THE EXACT SAME REACTIONS to the film so I know I'm not just being purely subjective. EITHER YOU CAN IGNORE ALL THE BROKEN PIECES of the Story or they stand out like a sore thumb. Maybe the pretty nature on the surface camouflaged the holes in the film or the quirkiness but it was far from the best thing since sliced bread. In fact it ended up being mostly just icing without much cake! I find it interesting that people care less about seamless intricate complex storytelling & more about surface decoration. Some directors can do both. Although there were a few funs scenes, none of them validate the flaws of the overall film. At times her actions are CONTRADICTORY & hypocritical to a Story that was CONVOLUTED in it's exploration of many social themes which were never resolved. Many scenes were pretty but ARBITRARY and did little to progress the narrative! Her FRANKENHOOKER phase was wild & a bit intense but it was mostly contrary to her strong free-willed independent nature. Concepts of misogyny, pedophilia, prostitution, abuse only serve to SHOCK rather than reveal any true insight, empathy or heroic sentiment. For all the men bashing she then freely allows a woman, the Madame Dwarf, to use & abuse her. Saying nothing about contraception and STD's. Often I was just confused to whether or not to laugh or frown. Nevertheless the IMAGERY is stimulating to watch but the STORY just gets SLOW around 3/4 the way through. After all the controversial SEX, when it should become full of intrigue, conflict resolution or drama it stalls when her new found "ENLIGHTENMENT" BOAT TOUR tries to get Political, to no successful conclusion except to END with a GOAT SACRIFICE & sick operation to show REVENGE towards her estranged Father, a stranger to us & her the entire film only with her return to a non-romantic relationship with a FEEBLE wannabe Frankenstein Scientist Husband who unsuccessfully did to that poor girl exactly what was done to Bella. WTF?!!! I LEFT UNINSPIRED, unsympathetic, irritated over the whole experiences! > Please GO WATCH any TERRY GILLIAM film * or PIERRE JUENET's "Amelie" or 'City of Lost Children" (in French) or even DEL TORO'S "The Shape of Water" to experience truly strange, VISIONARY, eclectic, quirky, enriched, yet fascinatingly cohesive FAIRYTALE STORYTELLING. Heck you can even rewatch the classic "The WIZARD of OZ" to experience a film of this style, done EXCELLENTLY in 1939!

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.

Don’t get me wrong I like the movie but after reading the book I kinda look at the irony because they could’ve just made the movie out of Bella/Victoria’s letter but instead they do what Archie did in the book but they make it seem like it’s Bella’s story even though it’s not movie is a 4/5 and the book will always be better for example in the letter after the goodbye chapter the housekeeper ms.dinwity is Godwin’s mother he’s not a monster he’s just a big wired guy that has daddy issues he didn’t want victoria to love him she doesn’t mention working at a brothel Godwin took her to hospital and medical lecturers she learned about sexual hygiene( we need men like him) and birth control and he tried to push her away people actually liked god Archie only saw her as god’s female part but he was in love with god but god didn’t feel the same Bella Baxter is not real 💀 it was only Victoria MCcandless she stayed with god to get away from blesinton she was naive she doesn’t believe in monogamy she had a relationship with Duncan god was afraid of love Duncan was in the mental hospital and she saw him often god called her Bella but there was no last name there’s not a lot of sex in the book surprisingly she never said that Duncan was mean to her the fact that the whole book is great but the epilogue is beautiful the fact that it wasn’t the movie we got hurts

Remember to bring your family to see the movie.. it’s for children. According to Emma Stone.

I was wondering if the sex scenes would be earned (add to and push forward the plot) or gratuitous. I hate gratuitous sex scenes. It’s usually an excuse to show a woman naked. Given what you’re saying, it sounds like some could have been included to service the plot, but then Yorgos went into gratuitous by adding more sex scenes than were necessary. I still haven’t watched the movie, so I don’t have an opinion yet.