A heterosexual man in his middle years’ daydream about being with a woman who is excessively sexual.
Samira Ahmed is the host of Front Row, a show on BBC Radio 4. She is also a member of the Centre for Women’s Justice board.
I was looking forward to watching Poor Things. Emma Stone’s performance was fantastic and Mark Ruffalo did a great job portraying a good-hearted activist who ends up being deceitful. It was hilarious! However, Bella, the character played by Stone, has a childlike mentality which is concerning when it comes to the issue of consent for someone with learning disabilities. She goes on a journey of self-discovery which quickly turns into a desire for promiscuous sex with multiple partners, perpetuating the harmful myth that abusers use to justify their actions. In the 1970s, pornographers latched onto the women’s liberation movement, promoting the idea that sexual freedom meant never saying no.
Poor Things, as a fictional work, has the freedom to explore any topic, but it cannot be considered feminist. The fact that a woman makes a choice does not automatically make it feminist. True feminism challenges the patriarchal system that limits women’s choices. In fiction, men often romanticize prostitution, but in reality, it is a form of male exploitation of vulnerable women’s bodies. The male characters, typically much older and sometimes visually impaired, use Bella’s body for their own pleasure without any regard for her feelings. In one scene, she is even bound and gagged, portrayed as comedic rather than degrading.
A father compels his adolescent sons to witness him engaging in sexual intercourse with Bella. While this scene was edited due to the BBFC’s recommendation that it violated the 1978 Protection of Children Act, it still feels like it lasts for an eternity.
The acclaimed French film-maker Céline Sciamma, who made the genuinely erotic drama Portrait of a Lady on Fire, once told me about the battle for female actors, writers and directors to be treated with respect by European cinema’s enduringly sexist male establishment. The feting of Poor Things – a heterosexual middle-aged man’s fantasy about nymphomania, with the flimsiest covering of “satire” and a tagged-on message about female genital mutilation being “bad” – merely confirms that feminism still has a long way to go.
This is not endorsing pedophilia.
Charlotte Higgins, Guardian chief culture writer
Asking if “Poor Things” is a feminist film seems like a mistake in categorization. I do not believe that I will use this movie as inspiration for my feminist beliefs. It would be like considering Medea, the powerful figure from Greek mythology who murders her own children, as a role model for achieving power. “Poor Things”, based on Alasdair Gray’s 1992 novel which is a retelling of Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein”, is a fable.
This is not a guide promoting the transfer of a newborn’s brain into the head of a recently deceased adult woman, nor does it support pedophilia as some have suggested. Its connection to reality is clearly indicated from the beginning, as it is quite far-fetched. You have never encountered someone like Bella Baxter, and you have never witnessed a living being made up of half goose and half dog.
Similar to the tale of Medea, this film presents something valuable that goes beyond its superficial components. In Bella, we witness a portrayal of a woman who is sexually liberated and unapologetically satisfies her desires without any repercussions or feelings of shame dictated by traditional religious or male-dominated societal norms. It may not accurately depict reality, but it is an exhilarating concept that may be seen as intimidating by certain groups.
The term “male gaze” has been associated with the movie, due to the collaboration of Gray, screenwriter Tony McNamara, and director Yorgos Lanthimos. However, unless informed otherwise, I see Stone as an individual artist who has chosen to embody Bella in her own unique and delightful ways. It should be noted that this character is not just a physical being, but also a thoughtful one (a particularly enjoyable moment involves her, a book, and an older woman played by screen legend Hanna Schygulla). Is Poor Things a feminist work? The story is too unpredictable and whimsical to be defined by such a label, and that is what makes it all the more magnificent.
The men are akin to used condoms.
and historian, was born on July 4, 1941.
The birth date of David Thomson, a renowned film critic and historian, is July 4, 1941.
In Poor Things, Bella ponders why people do not engage in sexual activity more often, as it has consumed the Frankenstein’s bride. I shared this sentiment while being captivated by the passion of the filmmaking and the excitement it generated among the audience. The film effectively merges production design with the use of lenses to manipulate space. This reminded me of my experience watching Citizen Kane, where the black-and-white visuals pulsated with narcissism and guilt. Poor Things is alive and captures Bella’s arousal and her awakening.
The discovery of both sex and film can be difficult for some individuals to separate from the genetic splicing that occurs in marriage. This reminded me of the film Barbarella, a sci-fi comic book adaptation in which director Roger Vadim commented on the potential to have actress Jane Fonda as the lead. Even in 1968, the film had a slightly smarmy tone of male dominance. As I watched Poor Things, I couldn’t help but wonder if there would be any new objections to the male-centered display. However, I put those thoughts aside and focused on Sharon Stone’s enthusiastic dedication to the film, both on screen and in her discussions about it.
This movie depicts female pleasure where the men are portrayed as disposable objects, remnants of outdated transactions, focused more on dominance than enjoyment. This is what makes “Poor Things” feel contemporary. It explores the idea of embracing primal energy and its release. It suggests that perhaps we, as a society, will eventually become nothing more than machines driven by sensations. Is this the direction we have been heading towards all this time? Why bother with anything else?
The film industry has instilled in us a fixation on special effects. This mindset allows us to dismiss many ideologies, including feminism and humanism. Why are these ideologies seen as inferior? It could be because we start to realize that we are reduced to binary options – either on or off. This may not be as significant as the fate of Anna Karenina, but Bella Baxter aspires to be “on” and we see how film helps her achieve that. This movie reflects a world on the brink of collapse, where our final ideologies will be convulsions.
‘Desire, will, interest, passion – expressed by constant sex’
Columnist Zoe Williams from The Guardian
The concept of Poor Things is to envision a female sexuality that is not influenced by society’s strict guidelines, hidden expectations, blatant aggression, and underlying shame. Similarly, imagine the absence of these factors in male sexuality. Step back and observe if they can coexist peacefully.
I want to say that, even if I’d hated the politics, I still would have loved the experimental conviction of Stone’s performance, the virtuoso disintegration of Ruffalo, the pitch-perfect everyman Ramy Youssef – and who doesn’t love Willem Dafoe when he’s missing digits (English Patient klaxon!). But it’s impossible to disaggregate, just as it wouldn’t be possible to separate the meaning from the aesthetic, or its humour from its heart.
After discovering the act of self-pleasure at the dinner table, Stone proceeds to suggest it to a grumpy maid. Her spirited and captivating performance is a manifestation of her Jungian desire, will, interest, and passion, portrayed through the lens of Cosmopolitan’s interpretation (frequent sexual activity). In terms of structure, Willem Dafoe’s character, a transplant surgeon, can be compared to Frankenstein, but with a more scandalous past. Believing he holds the power of a deity (possibly influenced by Bella calling him “God”), he is ultimately destroyed by his creation – or is he? Bella can be likened to a fire rather than a monster – consuming, reckless, purifying, and warming. She is a delight to watch, especially in a chaotic tango with Ruffalo’s character, Duncan Wedderburn. Her time spent in a brothel offers a sincere exploration of the question, “What does the world of sex work look like without internalized shame?” This is one of the most genuine depictions I have seen in quite some time.
The movie starts off with a strong and controversial scene: the respected professor and his obedient assistant objectify Bella based on her sexuality, even though she cannot speak. Some viewers may interpret this as a symbolic representation, while others may view it as a problematic portrayal of a dominant patriarchy (a grown woman with a blank mind, the ideal version of a woman). This creates a significant level of uncertainty and tension.
If this were a popular movie, I would be hesitant and question whether viewers would interpret it as a story about indulgence and restraint or as a disturbing fixation on children. In that case, I would distance myself and focus on remaking “National Velvet”. Perhaps I am overthinking it, but the boldness of the film as it confidently navigated sensitive gender issues impressed me as a sign of cultural progress.
I had reached a point where I no longer had the desire to continue living.
Viv Groskop, writer
This movie, Poor Things, is a remarkable work of cinema and a visually stunning display. Stone’s portrayal is outstanding, completely free of self-importance and self-interest, and deserving of all accolades. However, this is not a feminist film.
At the beginning of the story, we discover that Bella was made by a deranged scientist. This scientist, Godwin Baxter, played by Dafoe, obtained the body of a pregnant woman who had jumped off a bridge and performs a caesarean section to transfer the baby’s brain into the adult female’s body. The mother “dies” but is brought back to life with her own baby’s brain. Godwin then takes in this unsteady combination of a toddler and woman and raises her as his daughter. This premise may seem absurd, but it sets the stage for the rest of the story.
The situation changes when baby Bella asks for a cucumber while at the dining table. (I know.) This child is very comfortable in her own skin! She has no concept of boundaries or social norms! She is uninhibited and carefree! Bella discovers the pleasure of being in her body. She learns how to read. And then she discovers the satisfaction of working in a brothel in Paris, where she confidently tells clients that they smell bad. But don’t worry, she still enjoys having sex with them! At this point, I had completely lost interest.
The undeniable surreal and grotesque humor in this movie raises the question of whether it is truly “funny” when Bella, who is essentially still a child, is taken by a creepy person to Lisbon for custard tarts and consensual “furious jumping” (as Bella refers to sex). Just moments ago, she was portrayed as a young child who could barely speak or walk. The gender of the implanted infant brain is unknown and we are never given an explanation for what happened to her womb. The possibility of Bella menstruating or getting pregnant is also not addressed. However, in a world where transplants, hybrid animals, and gastric juice bubbles are shown in great detail, the mundane realities of a sexually active child-woman are deemed too uninteresting to explain.
The movie’s theme is centered on self-discovery and breaking free from shame, which is commendable. However, it’s difficult to understand why, in 2024, it’s still considered shocking and unexpected for a woman to embrace her sexuality. Furthermore, is it truly empowering to have a baby’s brain implanted into oneself and then engage in sex work? This thought is disheartening.
It is expected for you to make a pained expression towards the men who desire her.
Tshepo Mokoena, journalist
I enjoyed watching Poor Things, including the jokes about STD tests. While the film is not flawless, it is a captivating and humorous depiction of how the patriarchy negatively impacts both men and women. Seeing Bella’s journey reminded me of my own teenage years, when I was also focused on my own pleasure rather than my partner’s. It all felt so new and exciting at the time. I have seen criticism of Poor Things for reducing womanhood to purely sexual scenes. However, sexuality is a significant aspect of our development as adults, and it has not always been accepted for women to explore sex for their own enjoyment, regardless of whether it involves penetration or not.
The main character in the film, Stone, is a traditionally beautiful, young Caucasian woman who is often shown nude through the camera’s lens. However, this does not address the accusations of catering to the male gaze. But does this aspect of the film make the entire story unworthy? It’s impossible for the film to please everyone or fully encompass the experience of female growth. The director, Lanthimos, made the decision to include sexual elements, which is within his rights as the director, and Stone’s rights as a producer.
Even though it may be difficult to talk about, our bodies are naturally wired to experience pleasure from our genitals. Sometimes, this can be explored in a safe and private manner before reaching puberty, without involving sexual intercourse or abuse. While it may be seen as unconventional, the fact that Bella began masturbating before her body reached a certain age should not discredit the message of the film. The audience is meant to be appalled by how quickly men desire and objectify her, potentially taking advantage of her innocence. This further highlights the influence of patriarchy.
However, the idea that engaging in sex work out of desperation can be a form of empowerment – where one’s body becomes their means of production, as Bella suggests – is a bit of a stretch. It would require the involvement of actual sex workers in the creative process to fully flesh out this concept. As I watched, I braced myself for a depiction of sexual violence, which is unfortunately experienced by about one in three adult women. Perhaps Bella is one of the fortunate 70%.
In the end, she is a woman who was born with financial advantages.
Ione Gamble, writer
Declaring Poor Things as feminist would diminish both feminism and the film. Although Bella engages in frequent sexual activity, she is liberated from patriarchal expectations and does not assign moral value to her actions. Instead, she prioritizes her own pleasure. While traveling through Europe, she avoids men who seek to dominate her, further supporting the argument that Poor Things can be seen as a feminist work.
However, while some viewers found inspiration in her story being portrayed on screen, others felt that it did not accurately represent the female experience. The excessive amount of sexual content on screen may have perpetuated a male-centric view of womanhood, as the film was directed and written by a man and catered to the male gaze.
In the end, Bella is more than just a woman navigating society; she was born into a life of financial advantage. Some may also interpret her as having a disability or being neurodivergent, and there has been much online discussion about whether “Poor Things” is ableist. Ignoring these aspects in order to make a feminist or anti-feminist argument is to overlook the film and Bella’s character as a complete entity.
To paraphrase Rachel Sennott’s character in Shiva Baby, feminism is a lens to see the world through. As is class analysis, or discussion around the depiction of disability in Poor Things. The way she learns to move through the world with such freedom is inspiring, but would she be allowed the same freedoms if she wasn’t wealthy and running in upper-class circles? What would it look like to accept some of Bella’s more unconventional behaviours in all people, or does she simply represent the acceptable face of difference?
I am left with these inquiries after viewing the film, rather than finding definitive solutions. While the discussions and perspectives fall within the realm of social politics, the movie itself is not specifically feminist. We cannot simply label media as feminist based on our own moral beliefs. I prefer a complex and thought-provoking story that challenges our perceptions of society over a neatly packaged feminist tale.
‘It’s like a Campari ad directed by Willy Wonka’
Mamata Bidisha, host and announcer
Is Poor Things a tale of inflated sexual desires or a simple coming-of-age story? It is both. The story follows Frankenstein as he creates a charming yet complex character – a socialist PhD student who works as a prostitute, a modern and fashionable woman who is emotionally detached and highly intelligent, and a nymphomaniac without any trace of jealousy. With her unique perspective and stunning appearance, she captivates men with her boldness and natural instincts. However, these men only seek to dominate her.
Bella’s experiences primarily revolve around heterosexual intercourse, with only a small portion dedicated to conversation. I appreciated her exploration into the world of brothels, as many male authors tend to only see women as prostitutes and then boast about the philosophical depth of it all, while also having female characters spout off their own self-indulgent justifications. But what do I know? Like Bella at the beginning of the story, I am simply a foolish and brainless individual, lacking her combination of intense sexuality and innocent beauty.
Unfortunately, this is a difficult text to reword as it contains descriptions of specific scenes from movies. However, I can provide a general summary: The writer mentions that the director, Lanthimos, has a tendency to focus on young female bodies in his films, including shots of nipples, pubic hair, and sleeping faces. This has been observed in previous films such as “The Lobster” and “The Killing of a Sacred Deer.”
The film Poor Things was written by McNamara, filmed by Robbie Ryan, adapted from the novel by Gray, and produced by Daniel Battsek and Ollie Madden. I would like to express my gratitude to all of them for clarifying.
The city of Lisbon is depicted as stunning, while Alexandria is described as a filthy place.
Jason Okundaye, writer
I believe that the film effectively portrays the various ways in which men try to limit and manipulate women. The main male characters in Poor Things may have different personalities, but they all share a desire to control Bella. This is evident in Godwin’s fatherly attempts to confine her for her own protection, as well as Duncan’s disturbing behavior of throwing her books into the sea when she starts to become more intellectually aware. However, Bella remains steadfast in following her own desires, such as masturbation, rejecting societal norms, and reading, which ultimately overpowers and dismantles any efforts to suppress her.
However, the movie does have its flaws. Although Lisbon is portrayed as a stunning city, Alexandria is shown as a filthy and impoverished area, only serving as a backdrop for Bella to reflect on the “pitiful” state of Egypt and her futile attempts to help them. The locals she encounters are also depicted as individuals who would resort to violence and assault if given the opportunity, sending a message about the harsh realities of human nature but also perpetuating harmful stereotypes about these people as savages.
Although Bella successfully resists patriarchal oppression and those who try to control her, the portrayal of sex work in the story is too nonchalant. Some have argued that the male perspective is challenged in Poor Things because there are also explicit shots of naked men, but the scenes of Bella engaging in sexual acts with repulsive clients appear to serve no real purpose aside from satisfying curiosity about such encounters.
Bella undoubtedly experiences freedom through her sexuality. She and her colleagues in the sex industry view their work as using their bodies as a tool for productivity. However, given Bella’s situation, prostitution is primarily a means of survival and labor rather than a source of empowerment.
“Why is Bella unable to use her body in accordance with her desires?”
Imogen Tilden, Guardian writer
There is no need to mention the male author, director, and mostly male production team behind this film. The main character is created by a man through the process of being stitched together and brought back to life. Bella’s body may appear mature, but her mind is that of a child, fulfilling the male fantasy. She also openly embraces and desires sex.
If the use of a fish-eye lens, the sudden shift from black and white to oversaturated colors, and the obvious artificiality of every aspect of the film including the sets, costumes, and props do not hint at the fact that this is a movie that should not be taken too seriously, then perhaps the outlandish science portrayed will? Personally, I thoroughly enjoyed Lanthimos’s film and found it to be rebellious and thrilling.
Bella does not feel burdened by feelings of guilt and disgust when it comes to masturbation, unlike the societal norm that teaches girls to be ashamed of their bodies and enjoyment of sex. She is confident and at ease when communicating her desires and needs regarding sexual activity. The character played by Ruffalo is attempting to manipulate her, but instead becomes weakened and stripped of his perceived masculinity. He is unable to exert control or fulfill her desires, much like Godwin was unable to contain her.
Can Bella, the happy hooker, use her body as she pleases in this Toulouse-Lautrec-meets-Moulin Rouge-meets-Tank Girl fantasy brothel in Paris? She is not unhappy and sees sex as purely physical. It is her means to financial independence. Is she taking advantage of her clients, who all seem foolish? In a tender scene, she is shown in bed with another sex worker, Toinette.
As Bella reaches a state of mental maturity, she desires to utilize her mind rather than her physical appearance. The tale concludes with our protagonist not in a joyful marriage or carefree escapades, but instead fully dressed and pursuing medical school. The abusive and domineering husband from her past life receives retribution in the form of a goat’s brain. In terms of feminist fantasies, this one appears satisfactory to me.
Its false representation of feminist ideals brought to mind the iconic doll, Barbie.
and journalist,
Shaad D’Souza is a writer and journalist.
I felt a sense of familiarity while watching Poor Things – hadn’t this movie already bombarded me with its fake-feminist values during the summer? Oh wait, I was actually thinking of Greta Gerwig’s Barbie, which had a similar storyline, relied heavily on fish-out-of-water humor, and preached simplistic moral lessons. In both films, a woman created by men embarks on a journey for independence and purpose, only to realize she despises the harsh realities of the world and settles for a slightly enlightened version of her sheltered past. I was amazed by the excessive praise given to the shallow nods towards feminist ideas in both movies.
Poor Things reminded me of the Tumblr-level gender politics of my high school years, which dictated that a woman’s power is inherently linked to her anatomy and fucking as much as you can is a source of uncomplicated liberation. There’s nothing particularly wrong with those ideas, but Poor Things makes no effort at all to complicate or question them: “furious jumping” becomes Bella’s raison d’etre and, for a period, her vocation. But it’s only ever a backdrop to her studies of philosophy and socialism, rather than something that interacts with them directly.
Some of my favourite films are women’s stories by men. But Poor Things struck me as self-congratulatory and fake deep, obsessed with its own radical approach to a female coming-of-age story. It feels like Barbie for people who thought they were a little too smart for Barbie, but still want their discussions of gender politics served up to them in neat little inspirational speeches. At least Barbie could, theoretically, provide a child with some basic level of feminist literacy. Poor Things, I fear, only serves to reaffirm the values of smug adults.
“Exceptional attire, particularly the large, empowering sleeves.”
Jess Cartner-Morley is the fashion editor for The Guardian.
“Let’s not be so serious, everyone. It would be disheartening to completely reject the idea of a woman finding pleasure in sex as a mere male fantasy. This not only paints a bleak picture, but also denies young women the belief that they should find enjoyment in the act. A productive discussion about consent begins with the understanding that if anyone is not having a good time, there is an issue.”
The clothing choices in Poor Things reflect the film’s origins. In scenes set in the brothel, Bella and the other girls wear light blue, yellow, and pink underwear. There is no use of black stockings or red lace, which suggests a rejection of the male perspective. This aligns with the film’s celebratory and empowering depiction of female sexuality. When Bella experiences sex for the first time, she does not conform to a stereotypical seductress. Instead, she remains true to her awkward, funny, and playful self, while also enthusiastically embracing sexual activity. This is a wonderful portrayal.
In the movie, there is a significant amount of exposed stone, but there are also impressive garments, particularly the large leg o’mutton sleeves. According to Holly Waddington, the designer of the costumes, the sleeves were intended to convey a strong sense of empowerment. Throughout history, when women have embraced oversized sleeves, such as during the Elizabethan era, the 1940s, and the 1980s, it has often signaled a positive state for women.
The offensive parts can be discomforting at times. There are instances where the focus on Bella’s naive inexperience seems to clash with her sexual desires. The soft pastel tones are reminiscent of Alice in Wonderland. Bella’s innocent and straightforward demeanor is similar to Alice’s, who is a child after all. This may seem strange, but it works because Bella is unapologetic about her own physical enjoyment.
‘Bella is as eager to punch annoying babies as do sex work’
for Variety
Variety’s film critic is Leslie Felperin.
This movie has different meanings for different viewers. Some see it as a story of a woman’s coming-of-age, with elements of dark humor and tasteful yet steamy arthouse sex. Others view it as a feminist film, using the portrayal of women in a positive light to deflect accusations of sexism. However, I don’t think this is the most accurate interpretation, as the main character Bella doesn’t actively confront patriarchy but rather goes on her own adventures, disregarding its influence.
Due to the discrepancy between Bella’s mental maturity and physical appearance, she is not burdened by the societal restraints typically imposed on women during her era. This allows her to freely explore a diverse range of interests and pursue ambitions, such as trying pasteis de nata and oysters, engaging in physical altercations, participating in sex work, and pursuing medical training with equal enthusiasm.
A traditional feminist may have concerns with the fact that the author Gray, screenwriter McNamara, and director Lanthimos have crafted a character who resembles more of a sex object than a matryoshka doll. However, in the later parts of the film, this character, Bella, is incredibly articulate and enjoys reading philosophical books. Thanks to Stone’s skillful portrayal, Bella comes to life in a heartfelt manner. She utilizes the resources given to her by the book, script, direction, and costuming to transform into a unique and captivating being through the magic of her performance.
The focal point of the film is Bella’s perspective. This unique focus, where the entire captivating world is seen through one woman’s thoughts, is what sets this film apart and nearly perfect.
I began to feel increasingly uneasy.
Ann Lee, Guardian writer
This lively and bizarre interpretation of Frankenstein offers many delights. One of the highlights is Stone’s fierce performance, which has rightfully garnered an Oscar nomination. The unconventional visuals, the wonderfully gothic portrayal of a steampunk Victorian England, and the beautiful costumes are also noteworthy.
I enjoyed all of these events until the part where Bella becomes a sex worker in Paris after being abandoned and left with no money by her controlling partner, Ruffalo. In her young mind, it seems like a reasonable solution to her financial problems. She enjoys sex, so it makes sense for her to take on this job. However, this may seem obvious only to men, as the director, adaptor, and writer are.
As Bella enthusiastically embraces her new profession, she even playfully teaches a father how to satisfy a woman. However, I began to feel uneasy as I realized that what I was witnessing may be a man’s idealized version of a woman’s journey of self-discovery. There are numerous ways for a woman to explore her sexuality without being subjected to humiliation, degradation, or violence. Unfortunately, Bella seems unaware of this as her time at the brothel is portrayed as a carefree sexual experiment with no consequences. I highly doubt a female filmmaker would have depicted it in such a positive light.
Significantly, in the original book, Bella rejects all events, stating that they were merely the delusions of her naive husband, whose perspective we have been following. Therefore, it is understandable that the story may seem like a male fantasy, as that was the author’s intention and commentary on how these fantasies are imposed on women. However, this condemnation from Bella is not portrayed on screen. For a genuine portrayal of unashamed female sexuality, it would be more beneficial to watch The Favourite.
Source: theguardian.com
