I said the same thing! Even if we could get away from the fact that she is a child and so this is the rape of a child we could go to the other issue okay maybe she's an adult but she's a developmentally disabled adult which is also rape. Either way we have an issue of capacity to consent

Thanks, we aren’t really focusing on the review aspect, but that does come up. We are trying to talk more about the filmmaking aspects, story elements, and things that aren’t just our opinions. In this case there was a lot to discuss about the psychology as well as some of the more disturbing elements. Thanks for watching! Our other videos are similar if you want to check out some of them.

As with all creative mediums, not only is their meaning and emotional impact highly subjective, but contextually what that imparts is wholly dependent on the individuals frame of reference. Ergo - our reactions often times say more about our own life experiences than the message of the medium itself. Provided one has actually taken the time to experience said medium. Which you did not. So, in the end, from a purely psychological viewpoint, one might ask what compels a person to get on a very public soap box and bang on about a film they haven’t actually seen?

I felt the same way which is why it's clearly grooming. You do not have those kind of traumatic experiences with an undeveloped brain whether it be disabled or by Youth and grow into a full functioning, self-satisfied adult. But that's what they want us to believe because if they can say that it doesn't harm children by having sex with them emotionally or mentally they can take out the argument how wide is wrong. Along with the fact that children are sexual beings that can consent which is why they had the masturbation scene and had her be the aggressor that way they've covered to birds with one stone and can usher in the agenda

It surprised me that people ignored that, when it was something I couldn't see past. You would think that the fact that she didn't even have a name for sex other than calling it "furious jumping", should have been a pretty undeniable reference to her very early mental development.

You make a lot of really good points. I can’t explain the socialism thing, it doesn’t really fit into the storyline. I think it was intentional that sex was never about having a connection with who she was having sex with, and that was supposed to be the liberating part… but that isn’t reality. It does bug me that it is being hailed as this great story, but her mental age is all over the place, and there are tons of problematic aspects to the story, which probably could have been resolved by more careful scriptwriting. I’m also all for female empowerment, but it seems to me that this is nothing like actual female empowerment. There were just a lot of things wrong with the story and whatever message it was supposed to be delivering.

These are all great questions, and a lot of it I feel is represented through a Freudian-Jungian duality of psychoanalysis. There's so many Easter eggs overflowing thru the entire film directly from philosophical and psychoanalytic text in european scholarly history, which is also very very misogynistic in thought (although Jung did take a much diff approach in his later years - which presents itself at the end of the movie). I don't believe this film has a specific point or a direct message, but rather bringing up the disturbing perspectives of the male gaze and ego, crafted by our patriarchal structure, and inviting us to ask questions about where our motives stem from & what wholeness or self actualization truly means in the pursuit of pleasure.

I think that you need to listen to your gut because you're exactly spot on and not listen to other people's intellectualism about what you saw period you know what you saw and it was exactly how you felt Exclamation mark It was grooming Disguised as art

Yeah, I have mixed feelings about a lot of the story, but there was a lot to talk about other than story.

That’s a good point. I had forgotten about the scene where she was stabbing the corpse in the eyes with the scalpel. Godwin had to remind her only to stab the corpses, not the live bodies. But I’m pretty sure that still isn’t normal behavior for a child, whether they were raised around death or not.

​@@CinemaTechnicathis was specifically put in there to desensitize people / children to the idea of being tortured because mind control is not only about sexual abuse it is also about The Descent that ization of physical torture to others and yourself. The guys it as empowering but really it's about disassociation

Woman body with a baby brain(unknown sex). It's really a fucked up plot point. You just could give her a brain disease that give her a childish behavior or something like that. The baby brain is very problematic, you could easy fix this point

Right, or brain damage, amnesia, or something. Baby brain should be your last choice when trying to make a movie extolling the virtues of commitment free sex.

The book this is based on is a collection of journal entries and letters and things, Dracula style, all compiled and with in between bits written by Candle (McCandlis). There is a final twist passage written by Bella that essentially says ‘What a load of Horse-shit. I never died at all. My brain is my own. This is pure fantasy of the sort of man who wants a woman who is grown in the body but naive so he can teach her. Noe it’s true Godwin saved my life when I tried to kill myself, but the rest of this is pure fantasy-a circumstance Candle has made up to put us on even footing because my money and lived experience made him feel inadequate”

Interesting, if it’s true that her brain was never replaced, it changes everything.

Yes, I agree about the ending. I’m all for a movie with some bizarreness in it, but the story is nonsensical. Everything it is supposed to be, it fails at miserably. It’s like they had an idea and thought they were being clever and came up with some unique way of showing what it would be like if a woman wasn’t put into a box by the patriarchy, and could just experience sex without shame the way some men do. But failed to consider that the way they were doing this with a baby brain, causes all sorts of other moral issues, or that working as a prostitute is the opposite of female empowerment. It’s ridiculous. The movie reminds me of when everyone is telling you how brilliant something is, and then you see it, and you’re wondering how everyone praising it missed all of the things wrong with it.

I absolutely could see your cartoon reference happening. Funny! Like an old Popeye or Little Rascals episode.

Definitely a lot to observe in this film. So many weird aspects to discuss, but very interesting when it comes to production and filmmaking as a whole.

There is a lot to discuss. I wish I could say I liked it, and while editing, I realized that there were several funny parts, but the direction it took ruined it for me.

I simply didn't find it impactful as a complete story with depth and intrigued to be considered as best film nor best performance by an actor. And the odd turn of events was a bit empty and vacuous.

@@wendellwiggins3776 I actually can appreciate it from a filmmaking standpoint. The use of camera, lenses, miniatures, color, etc, all added up, which I find fascinating. The story for any film can always be picked apart. I think Emma Stone and the director took some chances. People are talking about this film, so that fact that it inspired a conversation is also interesting.

Thanks!

Makes Godwin a lot darker if he didn’t just happen upon another suicide victim with an unborn child at just the right time. What are the chances of that. But if he found a young mother or expectant mother, I suppose that would work too. If he isn’t burdened by a conscience. If he believes science is king and he doesn’t really have anything to lose if he gets caught because he is dying anyway, so he could potentially justify it, believing the value of scientific discovery outweighs any potential consequences.

I wonder if the book provides details? You really could see this film from any of the character’s perspectives.

I haven’t read the book, but I’ve been reviewing summaries. I believe the book takes a very different approach. As I understand it, she develops to an adult mental maturity under Godwin’s care, but owing to trauma from experiments McCandles performed, and regaining memories from her pre-suicide life, (don’t ask me how this is possible with a brain swap), she suffers a mental regression, to a more childlike state. This is where she goes adventuring with Duncan. I honestly am much less bothered by the idea of a mentally mature person who has reverted to a childlike mentality because of a mental break, than I am of the idea of a undeveloped child brain experiencing sexual revolution. So I probably wouldn’t have liked that storyline much either, but it is far less disturbing that the story this movie gives us.

I don’t know, I think there are elements of it that are unique… at least initially, but it devolves into something I certainly couldn’t appreciate, and the parts others seem to think are brilliant, had so many problems on virtually every level, that any message is so buried in problematic elements that it makes you wonder if Yorgos was really trying to make a case for female empowerment, or just appeasing his own desire to seem deep while convincing Emma Stone to spend months running around naked on set, in the name of “art”. To me it feels very voyeuristic.

That’s funny. It is definitely NOT for everyone.

Thanks! I’m not sure on doing older videos. We’re open to suggestions, but right now the videos are really time intensive to do, and often depend on our ability to interview the people making them, so older movies that were released a year ago aren’t really on our radar, but we’ll consider it. I do want to do a video on Dune part 2.

Thanks! Glad you like it.

*Sigh* I can't say I'm surprised. I get Production Design and Costume Design, but the adaptation of the screenplay made the story more disturbing, as did the directing, and the final movie certainly isn't something we should be promoting because of the problems with the baby brain. I hated the cinematography. If choosing irritating angles, and crappy lenses makes for great cinematography, then I guess I did a disservice to my first year film students by trying to teach them things like framing, and why we generally avoid dutch angles, and why we want good optics. Hollywood is broken.

@@CinemaTechnica In defense of this film, perhaps it’s the mis-use of best practices that makes the cinematography so disturbing? All of the uncomfortable angles and lenses go right along with Godwin’s unethical medical practices. It definitely leaves the viewer feeling uncomfortable, along with all the disturbing story angles.

@@postpublishing6377I agree that the cinematic choices were intentional, and when it wasn’t trying to be weird, it looked good. But I don’t think that intentionally bad equals good, and certainly not great, as an academy award nomination would suggest. But you do make good points about it adding to the disturbing aspect of the film in the same way the music and story did.

Yes, or at least that was Godwin’s intention. He admits that he developed paternal feeling for her, which he thinks was a mistake.

We try to read and reply to all comments. I'm glad some of what we said was valuable to you. I have been surprised how few people had issues with the baby brain thing. I think people focus only on this idea of being free to say and do whatever you want, as an ultimately freeing and empowered position, but it's really not, because there are real consequences for actions. Other people are often hurt when we make decisions based only on what we want with no regard for others, and there are real consequences for ourselves as well. I anticipated liking this highly visual and odd film, but I can't just turn off my brain and ignore things that are wrong on so many levels. I also have a hard time understanding why the actors didn't seem to see it in that way. Clearly Emma Stone is embracing the idea of having an undeveloped baby or small child brain... how could she be oblivious to the fact that she is being sexualized and taken advantage of in a way that no child should. You make a good point about her forgiving Godwin so easily. I haven't read the book, but from synopses I read suggested that this was more fully developed in book, where I think she did have issues, but as I understand it, she was having trauma from experiments they were performing on her as well as remembering bits of her former life, which makes no sense if her brain had been replaced. It's a fantasy where logic doesn't apply. I think people like the surface level ideas of freedom, but don't look any deeper. There is also controversy over the scene which had to be edited for UK release, because a man hires Bella so that he can teach his young sons how to have sex with a woman, by watching him. The scene would have contravened the UK’s Protection of Children Act 1978. I had actually forgotten about that scene, because there was so much else in that film that something like that didn't even stand out. The more I think about it, the more I think I should have been harsher in my criticism of the film.

Bella Baxter was not fully forgiving of what had been done to create her. She hated the lies and the deceptions made by Dr Baxter; however, she relished her new life. I did not like what happened to Alfie; however, I understand the necessity of doing something to protect the person who had become Bella Baxter. He saw her as territory to be captured and owned. Finally, I was not troubled by the father bringing his sons to the “sex education”. This is the 1800s and I am pretty sure this did happen. I just did a quick check online about this and it would appear to be something that is still happening nowadays.

@@memphis7742 Ignorance of the how's of sexual acts among the pre-teen and teen boys, and girls, is ubiquitous. Imagine the improvement of first and forward sexual union after being exposed in a safe setting. The approach in this movie is missionary in idea and act.

​@@rubytuesday4564By being forced to watch your own parent have sex?

More like Alice in sex-land. This movie did nothing for the feminist view, other than to insult every ones intelligence. It can only be looked at as a comedy at best with colorful overtones.

It took me a while to figure out what you meant, but when it hit me, I couldn’t help but laugh. I admit I never would have made that connection. Thanks for the laugh.

Maybe we should do a video on Gran Turismo. ;)

I agree that there was some good acting in the film, I just wish the story was something I could get behind, but I really can’t. I agree that the unnecessary focus on over sexualization of the character not only undermined any female empowerment message, but the child brain caused morality issues, and the excessive nudity didn’t really serve the story in any way I could see. I’d much rather see best actress go to Lily Gladstone. My only concern about her being considered was that we didn’t get to see as much of her as I would have liked because she was drugged for a large portion of the movie.

Agree completely. Again this tries to be a feminine empowerment film but again it's obviously done with a man's perspective on what female sexuality is. I did walk out with my girlfriend leading the way.

Emma Stone won a Golden Globe (correction: Critics Choice and BAFTA) and that is often a precursor to the Oscars, so you are right in thinking she might win for this role. Yorgos, Emma, Willem and a few others are working together on another film that is expected to be released in 2024.

Good for you!@@davidmartinook2976

Agreed. This is a middle-aged male auteur's fantasy of infantalizing women and Hollywood's life-long obsession with treating women in film as "bodies" and not fully human. Poor things is the triumph of style over substance--at the expense of hypersexualizing young women and conflating hypersexualization with emotional maturity.

That’s a good question. The colors are really over saturated, and the clothing is kind of over the top. Even the hairstyle of the woman on the ship, all are things you might see in Alice in Wonderland. So it certainly could have drawn inspiration from that. If you are looking for a bizarre look, Alice in Wonderland would be a great place to start looking for ideas of how to accomplish that. There is definitely something that reminds me of Tim Burton, but somewhat darker, and mix in the Indy film strange camera angles and use of weird,impractical lenses, and you have the look of Poor Things.

Funny you ask that because Alice in Wonderland is an MK Ultra mind controlling device often used while sexually abusing and torturing children into dissociative mind breaks. Yes, it was intentional

It's one of those films that kind of looks interesting, but if you don't like that weird, Alice In Wonderland kind of thing, then it probably isn't your kind of movie. I sometimes like some of that surrealistic stuff, but in this case, the story got in the way of my enjoyment.

It definitely is not a main stream movie. Each character has oddities to them, which kinda makes the film interesting, in my opinion. I actually enjoy films that make me think and question the storyline, etc.

That’s a valid point. I was thinking about the same thing. Is weird really original? You see what looks like influences from Alice In Wonderland, Tim Burton, etc. but is it really original, or just weird? I can do weird angles and pointlessly use fisheye lenses, and call it art, but is it art? In case anybody questions that, make it a bit darker, throw in some gratuitous, voyeuristic sex scenes, and some controversial themes that push against societal norms, and a dash pretension, then no one dares question its artistic value, for fear of being thought a prude, close minded, or just not able to understand true art.

@@CinemaTechnica I can make it even more succinct. The movie is sh*t.

@@mysticmouse7261 lol, that is succinct, and will probably be the consensus with a broader audience, but to look at the Rotten Tomatoes scores, you would think it was a masterpiece. Maybe that’s why they only released it in nine theaters initially. Keep it to fans only until it gets a bunch of positive hype.

The budget was reportedly $35M. It’s only made back $11M so far. It does have top talent and a decent budget, but didn’t get distribution by a major studio (Searchlight). In fact, it had extremely limited release its first week. The word indie does span a lot of ground. There are filmmakers with literally no budget or known talent, and it may not be fair to compare them to an Emma Stone film.

Marc beat me to it, but here are my thoughts: There are several things that qualify this as an independent film, primarily that it was made outside of the studio system. It had a decent, (but still considered low) budget of 35 million dollars. It did not have traditional distribution, and made the festival rounds first. When it was released, it was only in 8 theaters initially, then 80, then eventually 800, but since a standard release is usually 2000-3000 theaters, it is still a fairly limited release. It was mostly shot in Hungary, and was clearly not intended for a large audience, aimed at an art house crowd. Often films like this are popular with critics and get nominated for Oscars and other awards, but do not have a widespread appeal. The fact that it has only earned $11 million so far, means it probably won’t come even close to breaking even, but it will probably be nominated for a ton of Oscars, which goes to show you that a film’s popularity often has little to do with its Oscar worthiness. I didn’t like the film, but as you can see on Rotten Tomatoes, I am in the minority.

@@CinemaTechnica Might you have missed the growing interest of the public after the movie and the top actress won best and best? Because of those, I attended, drawn in by Emma's presence. The movies she acted in have been excellent protrayals of their intentions. I had no idea there would be a significant and repeating show of Emma's nudity. The money will grow, me being the exemplar. It will not pour in; Mean Girls, an idiots' show, is top money maker. We wait for the Oscars to decide if break even or not.

Thanks for the insight into the differences between it and the book. I certainly didn’t call it pornographic. I did say that some of it was graphic, but that was for the purpose of letting the audience know what they are in for, in case that was a deal breaker for them. It is my understanding that in the book, she developed to a more adult brain while still with Godwin and then reverted to a more childlike state because of trauma. If that is correct (I haven’t read the book, and found online summaries lacking in important details), then that would have changed some of how I viewed the film. As far as the Felicity character, I agree, it causes problems with the story as well, because where did she and her undeveloped brain come from?

@@CinemaTechnica Oh read the book! Gray is to print as Lanthimos is to film. There's an entire narrative that was ignored in the film. The movie recreates McCandles's story of Bella, while the last 1/3 of the book is Bella's own narrative (with surprises).

@@CinemaTechnica I know you didn't call it pornographic, but some comments have, as well as pearl-clutching reviewers such as Rex Reed. I feel much more comfortable with this movie's sex than the "hide the salami" in Zemeckis's "Beowulf."

Consider this: the author as well as the filmmaker have embrace Very on the nose symbolism, if you can even call that because it is so obvious it can barely be given that lofty description. Her creator she calls "God" and so this character named "Felicity"is happiness. This cements the assertion the filmmaker as well as the author are promoting that this Transhumans perversion, embracing instant gratification and psychopathic tendencies such as animal cruelty are the keys to happiness. Sorry if that was a spoiler but that is clear to me. If it is not clear to you, open your eyes and see the truth. Then stop poisoning yourself with this kind of garbage. The world needs uplifting art, not perverse disgusting pathological propaganda such as this.

Thanks for tuning in David! We appreciate it. Let us know what you think about this film.

Thanks! I’m curious what you would have thought. Let me know if you see it. BTW, “The Creator” comes out on Hulu on the 20th.

The sex of the baby brain is something I thought about too. It might change the whole women empowerment thing if the brain is male.

It definitely wasn't needed, and didn't serve the story, but I don't it was for shock value, I think it was intended to draw more people into the theater.

Thanks!

We appreciate you tuning in! Great to see that people are enjoying these discussions.

It's hard to identify exactly where she is mentally. In the scene where she first meets the madame, she has no real understanding of money and is very naive. She still calls sex furious jumping, even though she did read a little Hemingway on the ship until her books were thrown overboard. Just prior to her meeting the madame, they had no money because she gave everything away without considering that they would need money to survive. But she went out and was paid for sex to correct that, which was unnecessary because she had a bunch of money that Godwin had given her. I misspoke by calling her a toddler at that point, when she was more like a young child. But her understanding of basic things like money were extremely lacking. While at the brothel, she eventually starts to study philosophy, but that isn't right away, and it would be hard to argue that when she first started working there, that she was fully developed mentally. There was very little consistency, and her accelerated brain development had huge holes in development and experience, which is a lot of what is needed to develop mentally. But regardless, the actual baby brain couldn't have been more than a few years old, and it isn't just the brain growing, (which I guess could somehow be explained by something Godwin had done), but experience and learning are what shape the brain. Even a physically developed adult brain, with no experience, would need experiences and learning to be able to function and make intelligent decisions. I realize the idea of the book at least, is to explore the idea of a woman who wasn't raised with any societal or patriarchal rules and limitations, and how freeing that would be, and that in itself is interesting. But the two areas where this fails, is in it being a baby brain, which just happens to reside in an adult body, bringing up a lot of potential moral issues, and secondly, making out the idea that working in a brothel is somehow liberating, when there is probably not a better example of objectifying women, then to make them objects that can be bought or sold. It is the opposite of female empowerment.

She was reading Emerson on the boat and Aristotle’s Ethics in the brothel. For many women in the 1800s, there weren’t many career opportunities and Bella needed money so she went where she could get money. She didn’t use the money from Dr. Baxter as she thought her adventuring companion would be resourceful and she thought of it as an experiment.

​@@CinemaTechnicaAgreed with everything you wrote! Thank you for wording this so well.

@@petalchild thanks!

Agreed

I agree with most of your points. I didn’t develop a connection to any of the characters either. Her development was inconsistent and all over the place, but never reached a point where I saw her as having any emotional maturity. It had some interesting visuals, but that doesn’t make a movie good. Honestly I’m not impressed with the writing or directing. It doesn’t have the depth that critics or the filmmakers want to think is there. As soon as you start to dissect it you realize it is just a husk with no real substance.

Well I don’t see the point she would reach that emotional maturity, she was nerve put into any institution to break her spirit so kept child like perspective towards life. What I’m trying to say no one really thought her life in a way as we know… so of course her development was inconsistent and that’s the whole point! She is just beyond all the rules and system and categories! Pretty fascinating! Great watch

@@plushannah just watching her evolve still wasn't enough to build a complete interesting story. After 2 hrs. I was thinking. "OK cute & pretty but now where's the plot, conflict, intrigue, drama. Her husband finding her was never a concern and was of little shock or consequence. Not that it wasn't entertaining, but as BEST FILM and Acting Performance, I absolutely beg to differ.

There are definitely signs of some kind of antisocial personality disorder. I think people are looking at us as refreshing not to have any societal restrictions, but she also lacks any social awareness or conscience, at least initially. Near the end, seems to recognize that some of her actions might make her less desirable to a potential mate, but again she makes decisions without really considering or caring about how it affects others. Again, everyone seems completely cool with that, and she really never faces any real consequences for her actions; which is disturbing, but people seem to feel is innocent and refreshing. In reality, her lack of concern for anything other than what she wants to do would cause havoc to everyone around her, and her life in general.

She caused havoc to her traveling companion. She drove him to bouts of hysteria and into believing she was a demon. And we did see the negative reactions of people she was dining with in Lisbon.

@@CinemaTechnica she shows the normal inquisitiveness and ignorance of a small child, with no one around to teach her what is right or wrong.

Or stories that are primarily concerned with being different and trying to be edgy, but are actually more messed up than probably intended when you start breaking down what they really mean in a larger context. Unless it was intentional, in which case it makes you wonder why so many people are celebrating a mental child being exploited sexually.

There's a lot of story here though. And in "Favorite".

@@ktom5262there actually is a story here. I just didn’t like the second act. With its length, I was wondering, what wound happen if you cut out the entire brothel part of the story? There might be almost enough movie left that it could stand on its own, with only the need to film something different about what her experiences could have been in the world if it wasn’t obsessed with the idea of her sexual revolution. Of course I think that would gut Yorgos’s primary interest in making the film.

@@CinemaTechnica Well, I think he wanted to show sex as something natural and joyous, and far from detrimental to a person's intellectual and psychologic development. It's also an important part of the book. I can also cite below two opinions about it I've read online. One of them is from the director himself: Poor Things is about a person who, initially, has a physical form and brain that are alien to one another. Sex allows her mind and body to meet. It's through sex that she can understand the peculiarity of her species, and herself as well. "It’s weird, isn’t it? Why is there no sex in movies?" the director said after a screening at the Venice Film Festival. "First of all, it was an intrinsic part of the novel itself - her freedom about everything, including sexuality. And secondly, it was very important for me to not make a film which was going to be prude because that would be completely betraying the main character."

​@@ktom5262 I understand that was what he was going for. I don't have a problem with sex in movies, and I'm not a prude, but the problems I had were initially with the idea that this is portrayed as the underdeveloped brain of a young child in a woman's body, who is still learning words, and concepts like money, yet goes off on a sexual adventure because it feels good. If this were a young child doing this, we would be horrified. Then it doubles down on this idea of freedom and empowerment through meaningless sex, which long term psychological studies have shown has negative implications. Originally the idea of sexual liberation was to tear down societal expectations of women, and give them the same freedoms that many men enjoy of sex with no attachment. But women bear a greater consequence with regard to sex if they become pregnant. The pill was supposed to remove that, but biology is more complicated than that. Because of biology, we are hard wired to from attachments with our sexual partners, presumably to the benefit of our offspring. Because of this, three times as much oxytocin is released in women during orgasm, as in men. While the hormone makes you feel good, it also has a powerful effect on making people feel bonded to their sexual partner. Additionally, there is a psychological benefit to women being more selective with their partners, because of the potential for a more long term connection, in that requiring intimacy also prompts suitors to raise themselves up and prove that they are a worthy mate. We see this in nature, which doesn't have any sort of oppressive patriarchy or societal expectations. With hook up culture, women still have that oxytocin burst, and often feel that strong connection after sex, but in reality, often have a negative impact to their self esteem when the feeling isn't reciprocated because there was never any intention of longer term intimacy. So this thing that was supposed to empower women, often leads to the opposite. So, this movie focuses on a precept that has actually proven not to be all that is was promised to be. More of an issue, however is the entire brothel segment. I don't agree that working in the sex trade is empowering for women, in any way. The main problem with this, is that whenever sex becomes something that can be paid for, it completely objectifies women, by literally making them an object that can be bought. It can be argued that some of the negative aspects of that industry were brought up, but the madame constantly tells her how empowering it is, and at some point she will have control of her universe. Bella doesn't leave the profession because she became wiser about it, but only left because Godwin was dying. It seems like the entire movie is about a brain that never had any direction, or consequences for actions, that was able to explore everything without restriction, or again, consequence; which had to learn everything through experience only, often without enough context to benefit from any actual wisdom gained from the experience. I do agree that there is something refreshing about the idea of no shame, but I have a hard time appreciating things that contradict what I have learned through my experience and studies. I am especially bothered when I think about the long term psychological effects of someone in that situation, or more importantly those who might be impacted by this and might model themselves after Bella, thinking that they want to be more free and empowered, when the reality of this would likely lead to a worse mental experience for the person inspired by it. Filmmakers have a responsibility to their audience. Yorgos may feel like he is freeing people from the constraints of societal expectations, but what he is selling, is a lie.

So, stabbing a corpse in the eyes (it would have been a live person if Godwin didn’t redirect her, and indicated that was a problem in the past, as well as delighting in squashing a toad, is whimsical? These are classic symptoms of antisocial personality disorder. They were also very intentional in trying to demonstrate who the character is. So, those were creatively inspired decisions, which are pretty much textbook examples. If anything, I think they were trying to say how freeing a lack of any restrictions on actions through either societal boundaries or personal morality, would be. And I’m sure it is freeing. But is also the hallmark of antisocial behavior. But I admit it isn’t the lightest take on the film, and doesn’t make for the most entertaining conversations. Still, as I said before, we are shaped by our own experiences, and view the world through that lens, which sometimes makes it difficult for us to enjoy something as just being fun, if we’ve had experience with sociopathic people, and see the hallmark traits when they are being displayed. So I’m glad your experiences have been such that it doesn’t impede your ability to enjoy it in a way that I couldn’t.

@@CinemaTechnica it is a metaphorical story set in a fantasy sci-fi universe. If anything, I’d say it was more about what our lives would look like if we questioned some of the boundaries society places on us as women. Or what our lives would look like if we grew up without the shame society places on women’s sexuality and self empowerment. Yes, it was dark. Yes, it was bizarre. But it was also beautiful, artistically inspired, and one of those creative vehicles that takes you places you never expected to go. Definitely one of those movies I will need to see again. Sorry you had a lot of unfortunate associations with it.

@@asgeitz204 You are absolutely right, it is a metaphorical story in a sci-fi fantasy universe. Those aspects I really liked. I also love the idea of a film with female empowerment, and am all for exploring the idea of a world where women are not shamed for their sexuality. I also liked the bizarre and even dark elements of it. Those were all of the things that would have made the movie really interesting to me. The problem was the execution of some of those ideas, which actually go against those ideas in a weird way. In an idealized world where women weren't suppressed sexually, you would hope that they also wouldn't be objectified, and working in a brothel, where the woman doesn't have any say in who she has sex with, and can effectively, be bought for a man's pleasure, is the epitome of objectifying women. So that is problematic thematically if you are trying to lift women up and empower them. And the idea of the baby brain that hasn't fully developed was also problematic, when you talk about sexualizing that undeveloped brain, it muddies the waters and makes it about something different than just a woman without societal sexual expectations or restrictions. The points I made about antisocial traits, are more of an observation than a critique of the character. That's not the part that ruined the film for me, it was the baby brain and the brothel as empowerment aspects that I couldn't get past.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. It seems this individual struggles with differentiating between fact and fiction, which makes it challenging to comprehend why they choose to critique films primarily rooted in fiction. "The Lobster" isn't grounded in reality; it transports viewers to a world with its own unique rules and expectations. If world-building, a hallmark of Yorgos Lanthimos's work, proves difficult to grasp, then perhaps exploring something more profoundly disturbing like "Dogtooth" would offer a clearer perspective. Lanthimos's filmography is consistently unsettling, as he adeptly navigates the unsettling territories of human behavior and societal norms.

@@CinemaTechnicaquite literally this is the least disturbing film of his collection. Killing of a Sacred Deer is more disturbing.

It wasn’t a clear progression. McNamara said that in the scene on the ship where she was going to punch a baby, it was inspired by watching one of his toddlers, who said exactly that. When she started working in the brothel, she had just given away all of their money with no real understanding that they would need money to pay their way or survive. She was also still calling it furious jumping when she was getting paid for sex. Granted she was reading and starting to understand some philosophy, but in many ways she was very childish and undeveloped mentally.

The screaming in the carriage was a small child who was throwing a tantrum because she had never been denied what she wanted, and the parent finally put a restriction on her. That wasn’t teen angst.

It was UNEVEN Progression. You see this all the time with Professors who can't tie a necktie, or musicians who can't use cutlery. You Learn what you HAVE to Learn, if there are no Consequences to not Learning something you probably WON'T. ​@@CinemaTechnica

It was never established that somehow she had a miracle brain that would develop faster than a normal child's would. She had the brain taken from the fetus of her own baby so unless that was some miracle Superman baby, why would it develop any faster then a normal babies would? And by the time she was having sex with that guy in portugal, she was still walking and dressing and dancing as though she was too spitting out her food and wanting to punch out a child that's not five or six year old behavior that it was still toddler like Behavior. Her growth wasn't seen until she was enlightened by the people on the boat with the books and then we're to believe she suddenly went through a growth spurt two and three year olds don't suddenly go through an electrical gross Birds just because they're introduced to Nietzsche

See more movies.

@@myytchanneldinakoha8498 that's hilarious and I agree!