More Poor Things About ‘Poor Things’

• Directed by Yorgos Lanthimos
• September 1, 2023 (Venice) / December 8, 2023 (United States) / January 12, 2024 (Ireland and UK)
• Based on the 1992 novel Poor Things: Episodes from the Early Life of Archibald McCandless M.D., Scottish Public Health Officer by Alasdair Gray

A woman in Victorian London is brought back to life via a brain transplant from a baby and a strong helping of superscience. Sounds awesome but it’s not.

After posting some of my thoughts on the film Poor Things it was stated that I either didn’t get it or didn’t see the subtext or in some cases had not even watched the movie. A few even questioned my intelligence. It got rather personal. The thing is I cannot convince myself that something was there when in reality there was nothing there.

In an effort to be pithy and to the point as well as avoiding appearing nitpicky I eliminated some stuff from my previous posting. Clearly I should not have. Bad movie deniers need a maximum number of reasons from an individual poking holes in their delusion. So here are some removed reasons as well as new ones that came to me once I had a little more perspective. But first…

I go into everything I watch wanting to enjoy it since I am investing my time. If I don’t like it on some level then I’m going to be upset. By the time the credits came I was confused why anyone had any praise for this film. Poor Things was all flash and no bang. It’s a beautiful book jacket wrapped around a bad dime store novel. It’s a gorgeous car with a bad engine. I hope you get the point.

I have made mention previously about how boring this movie was. That all comes down to the excessive dialogue that frequently leads to absolutely nothing. I’m not against dialogue heavy films. But if it exists just to justify the presence of the actors or for the actors to show off rather than tell the narrative and move things forward I hate it. The dialogue is long and boring and occasionally stilted. And truthfully I tuned out in scenes because these characters would not shut up and keep things going. Maybe because of that I did miss something but failing to hold the attention of the viewer is on the director as well as the actors. It is their job to make a worthwhile project.

Our main protagonist Bella Baxter (Emma Stone) leaves Max McCandles (Ramy Youssef), the man that she is supposed to marry in what amounts to an arranged marriage by Dr. Godwin Baxter (Willem Dafoe), at home as she goes around the world with Duncan Wedderburn (Mark Ruffalo) and-to use modern language-has her fun. Usually with Wedderburn but occasionally without him. Yay? That seems a bit like a parallel to modern hook up culture.

You sow as many wild oats as you can with as many partners as you can before finding that one guy who is not like any of those people and settle down to some extent. At least that’s what people believe can and will happen. At some point you’ll just decide to stop having fun and take on the more serious aspects of life like commitment and maybe even starting a family. Was this movie some kind of parallel to that? If so then her big commitment was to a cucked guy and career which does not sound to fulfilling.

Which brings me to something else. Despite her long journey and all the things she sees Bella ends geographically as well as personally pretty much right back where she started. And despite the journey the character of Bella experiences virtually no character growth and her life changes in no discernible way other than a decision on career. What really is different for Bella at the end of the movie beyond deciding to become a skilled wage slave?

This movie is designed to be a critical and awards darling. Visually stunning with lots of artistry put into the cinematography but as a substantive film it’s not. What exactly is the subtext or the deeper meaning of anything we see here? Is it supposed to be a theme of sexual empowerment? Is the moral supposed to be that you can go out and have your fun but you always magically find someone waiting for you? Nice idea but that’s not how life works. 

What do you think about the possible subtext of a child’s brain in an adult body? An adult with the mind of a child is having sex with mature men who are clearly taking advantage of her but she’s not knowledgeable enough to realize that. We should all be a little creeped out by that.

The problem is that this movie is devoid of anything definitive. It vaguely hints possibly at some things intentionally (and at others clearly by accident) but never really takes sure aim. Yorgos Lanthimos crafts a film on the cusp of several meanings of some type and I fervently believe people are projecting much deeper meaning onto something that is just shy of being an empty shell. What they are seeing is a reflection of themselves and not anything that was put into the movie by Lanthimos.

You may scoff at that, but it’s happened elsewhere. The example that comes to mind is the insistence of some that characters in the book The Outsiders are gay despite the author S.E. Hinton (who should know best) saying otherwise. They are gay and see romantic love when it is really a depiction of close personal bonds and platonic love. The point being people can put things into any work elements that really are not there. With Poor Things some viewers and critics have added a plethora that never really was. There is just enough to trigger the subconscious for some serious projection but there is nothing seriously deep.

Previously I did make much about Emma Stone’s nudity in it. It doesn’t take up much of the film though the concept and allusions to the act of sex does. And some individuals see this as sexual empowerment or sexual awakening. I’m not sure where that exactly came from, but if a mentally juvenile adult woman who is tricked into sex is your idea of empowerment you might have a problem. 

I was drawn in by the movies clearly weird personality and interesting visuals. I like a movie with a personality, and this certainly does have one but it’s a superficial personality with not much behind it. It’s a personality without intelligence or consistent wit. A personality that leaves you asking, “Why am I hanging out with them?”

I have said there are movies out there you could turn the sound off and watch because they look so nice. You wouldn’t want to though because they are fabulous films beyond the artistic visuals. Poor Things is a movie you certainly should turn the sound off and watch. It’s a visually stunning movie, but ultimately empty.