Poor Things is a surrealist love-poem written for Rationalists that almost works, except it totally flubs the ending. The protag is basically an autistic Rationalist girl, and she's delightful and hilarious to watch the whole way through. It's very much done with love in a "our people laughing at ourselves" sort of way. Not a "normies mocking us" way.
Hard disagree. The generational trauma ebbs with another generation. Bells is kinder than Godwin who is kinder than his father. Bella brings together a motley family at the end: ethically non-monogamous, complete with a black socialist, an improving Felicity (implied to be improving because Prim LIKES HER), and General Goat, shown mercy he did not deserve.
No need to let perfect be the enemy of good. I did however, think Godwin would live on in Alfie's body too. I don't mind what happened instead. Bella likely questioned the ethics of such a transmutation.
We see just the beginning of her life. Suggesting she become an uberfrau overnight instead of improving what she can is looking a gift horse-cat in the mouth.
I agree -- not noticing the option to transplant her father's brain when she has a suitable body, in a universe where transplanting brains is *easy*, is just stupid and doesn't fit the rest of the movie.
(Sometimes directors make several endings to the movie, show them to different audiences, and choose the most popular one. I wonder if this was possibly one of those cases, and maybe the test audience was full of normies. If yes, I would like to see the other ending.)
Just watched it. Got about halfway through before I started looking up bad reviews to commiserate with.
"The title of Poor Things betrays the fundamental smugness of artists working from a vantage of cozy superiority who believe simple, lazy role reversal—that is, men reduced to sweaty, pearl-clutching hysterics—is tantamount to genuine gender parody (or parity). Everything goes down easily: Even in her primitive early state, Bella grunts a certain truth to power, and in case we’re not sure about her blossoming social and political radicalism, she’s aligned with a pair of acerbic, perceptic Black characters (Jerrod Carmichael and Suzy Bemba) whose sole function is to reinforce and cheerlead her evolution." - Adam Nayman
About sums it up.
Also, you have the strangest interpretations of movies sometimes- I assume you don't really believe this movie is about rationalists? Is reinterpretation a policy you take for creative exercise, mental health or to try and influence culture?
While I also noted quite the amount of similarities between Bella's demeanor and modern depictions of autism, I question whether the purpose of the movie (which was about a woman with a baby brain) was to depict this woman as a symbol for autists in real life or if it happened to be more of a coincidence. Part of the reason I'm not so sure that this parallel was intended was because infantilizing those with autism is not a very kind nor preferable way to depict autism and by creating a character who is literally a baby in a woman's body would most likely be considered infantilizing.
Personally, I saw the intention of the movie to be more of an exploration of self-actualization through a female lens and a point of view that had not been conditioned by society. Throughout the film, we are able to watch what self-actualizing can look like-- or at least one very quicky journey of self-actualization.
Hard disagree. The generational trauma ebbs with another generation. Bells is kinder than Godwin who is kinder than his father. Bella brings together a motley family at the end: ethically non-monogamous, complete with a black socialist, an improving Felicity (implied to be improving because Prim LIKES HER), and General Goat, shown mercy he did not deserve.
No need to let perfect be the enemy of good. I did however, think Godwin would live on in Alfie's body too. I don't mind what happened instead. Bella likely questioned the ethics of such a transmutation.
We see just the beginning of her life. Suggesting she become an uberfrau overnight instead of improving what she can is looking a gift horse-cat in the mouth.
I agree -- not noticing the option to transplant her father's brain when she has a suitable body, in a universe where transplanting brains is *easy*, is just stupid and doesn't fit the rest of the movie.
(Sometimes directors make several endings to the movie, show them to different audiences, and choose the most popular one. I wonder if this was possibly one of those cases, and maybe the test audience was full of normies. If yes, I would like to see the other ending.)
Just watched it. Got about halfway through before I started looking up bad reviews to commiserate with.
"The title of Poor Things betrays the fundamental smugness of artists working from a vantage of cozy superiority who believe simple, lazy role reversal—that is, men reduced to sweaty, pearl-clutching hysterics—is tantamount to genuine gender parody (or parity). Everything goes down easily: Even in her primitive early state, Bella grunts a certain truth to power, and in case we’re not sure about her blossoming social and political radicalism, she’s aligned with a pair of acerbic, perceptic Black characters (Jerrod Carmichael and Suzy Bemba) whose sole function is to reinforce and cheerlead her evolution." - Adam Nayman
About sums it up.
Also, you have the strangest interpretations of movies sometimes- I assume you don't really believe this movie is about rationalists? Is reinterpretation a policy you take for creative exercise, mental health or to try and influence culture?
While I also noted quite the amount of similarities between Bella's demeanor and modern depictions of autism, I question whether the purpose of the movie (which was about a woman with a baby brain) was to depict this woman as a symbol for autists in real life or if it happened to be more of a coincidence. Part of the reason I'm not so sure that this parallel was intended was because infantilizing those with autism is not a very kind nor preferable way to depict autism and by creating a character who is literally a baby in a woman's body would most likely be considered infantilizing.
Personally, I saw the intention of the movie to be more of an exploration of self-actualization through a female lens and a point of view that had not been conditioned by society. Throughout the film, we are able to watch what self-actualizing can look like-- or at least one very quicky journey of self-actualization.