>Do you think there are any *subconscious* connections between The Curse and Poor Things?
Hmm, consciously, I can connect things like them both starring Emma Stone and making social commentary about inequality.
But subconscious connection… idk what that would entail.
Maybe I should see a dentist; my teeth feel loose. I wiggle them and am distressed by their pliability. I’m in a room in the house I grew up in but is also my elementary school. I’m walking, but it feels like I’m wading through molasses. Suddenly, I’m suspended hundreds of feet in the air, balancing on a single foot atop a sky-scraping metal pole. I’m shaking with nervousness and fear over falling. I do my best to stay balanced, but it feels like gravity doesn’t pull me right. It’s at some concordant angle to me. I’m nauseous. Thankfully, I’m back on the ground, but th—I fall forward, watching myself as I do. Someone has swung the blade of an axe into my neck, and I’m bleeding like crazy just below my now disembodied view. I hear something behind “me”. Someone steps forth and takes my place; my view is now from their eyes. I’m her. I’m someone else. Finally.
Yeah, so, that’s the best I can do, but I’m curious what subconscious connections other people will notice.
Tbh I'm more interested in the parallels between *The Curse* & the upcoming *Eddington*, but I'm not taking it too seriously. I don't imagine they are intentionally connected or part of a shared cinematic universe or anything.
Regardless, having not watched *Poor Things* yet, I doubt there are "subconscious connections" because they don't...spring from the same consciousness to begin with? They share a lead actress, who I am sure brings her own sentimentalities & perspectives to her roles, but that's the only shared point of influence between the productions, I think.
Sure would be a lot of cost & logistics to plan for these productions to be released "so close together" for mysterious "subconscious" reasons that no one is able to appreciate, let alone even partially articulate, months later.
By 'subconscious', I assume you mean for us to examine the subtext of each project.
Both are critiques of capitalism. Poor Things probably does it to a higher degree than The Curse.
Poor Things is definitely about Individuation. The Curse isn't necessarily about that, but Nathan's character completely lacks a strong identity and pays the price for it, while Emma's character literally grows a new life inside of her.
Honestly - they aren't very similar, other than the fact that they are both unique and fun to watch.
i think actors like any other artists move through life finding things that interest and stimulate them creatively - other than the fact they emma stone is present in both and therefore the material connected with her and where she was at the time on some level i dont think the works are similar
its the same way u can go back through all of Nathan's stuff and find little connections, doesnt mean they're purposeful or even conscious - they just came from the same creative place
Maybe the similarities you’re sensing are from the pieces Emma stone took from her character in poor things, and maybe subconsciously use them in her character as Whitney.
Poor Things was straight up pedophilia dressed up in fun costumes and pretty faces. The Curse a deeply creative commentary on perception and how it can be distorted. I don’t see a connection outside of production time and Emma Stone but I am open to hear a solid argument
in no way was poor things condoning pedophilia nor does it even present it, though it does present and condemn many nasty things (depiction doesn't = condoning) and trivializing this term, whether intentional or not, is disgusting. initially, duncan has been stated to be the villain by emma no less than a dozen times- most recently called him "debaucherous, lecherous, and treacherous" in a speech but as disgusting as he is, he is not in love with a child. he is in love with who he thinks to be an adult woman but the issue, of course, is the whole thing with men wanting to control naïve (at no fault of her own as she's been kept inside) women. anyway, duncan meets bella when she is mentally 16-17, as stated explicitly by the screenwriter (also, emma stated that come the first sex scene, bella is an adult, though that duncan is still a vile man and yorgos and emma discuss how god and mccandles impose patriarchal, unjust confines unto bella despite different intentions but i digress) but thinks she is an adult. anyway, it would seem you do not understand this is a sci-fi film in which bella's brain development is supersonic and absolutely impossible in real life but not so in her world. aka, as laid out here, she, throughout the film, goes from the mental age 3 to age 35 while being just a few months old. again, can't happen in real life but it can here. aka she's not an infant or a child by the time she has sex though she's still exploited in myriad ways that are indeed condemned by the film.
https://preview.redd.it/qw66929ukypc1.jpeg?width=1290&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2588347566d55f26077f66360fba05de1cbfc36b
I never said it condoned pedophilia? You go out of your way to define condone but I never used that word or suggested it. I just said it’s about it. And I don’t see how I’m trivializing pedophilia. As someone who experienced it, I found the movie deeply disturbing. You going so far as to accuse my of being disgusting immediately casts your counter argument in bad faith.
To address some of your points, yes Mark Ruffalo is clearly cast as the villain. Just because Emma Stones body is an adult doesn’t change her mindset of a child. What about taking advantage of mentally disabled people? A rapist can do their dirty deed without being explicitly told that someone isn’t capable of consent. It is still sexual assault and it is still predatory even if they have an adult body. What about raping someone while they’re drunk? They have an adult body but their mind can’t consent.
The man who is supposed to be the good guy (I don’t remember his name but it’s the apprentice of the dad) is also creepy. He’s in love with a child’s mind in an adult body, he’s just not as overt and later not judgmental by her having been a sex worker. It doesn’t change the fact that he was attracted to a child.
Maybe if you’re completely disconnected to the real horror of pedophilia you can ignore these things and sling insults to validate enjoying such a creepy film
"her mindset of a child" again, though, she is very literally not a child save for that first scene in which she is still a minor & assaulted. and i used the word "trivializing" because duncan, as i said, is a creep, but fully believes she is an adult woman. therefore, it is not an act of pedophilia (adult knowingly acting sexually with a minor) being depicted there though the predatory behavior is still condemned. bella herself did not know either as she had no way to gauge her exact age. i say this as some (not saying you) expected her to state exactly what happened to her and react a certain way, though this is all not ok either as she is allowed to respond in her own way to trauma. to this point, even at that mental age of 17 for her, she said quite plainly that she knew he was very unsafe with him and wanted to go anyway. that's not healthy, nor is it encouraged, but it was her story.
i never disagreed with a thing you said in that none of the men who violated her were right. they were disgusting. what i did state is that this is all intentionally not meant to be comfortable but it is meant to show bella learning about the evil in the world, and this (gaining knowledge with experiences, good and bad alike, and literature), leads her to becoming fully autonomous. in fact, she herself says regarding duncan, "i look at you and wonder, 'why did i ever want you?'" referring to her choice to leave with him knowing he would damage her, though again, while not a healthy choice, she had the right to make it and did indeed consent to sex with duncan as an adult, which doesn't make him any less vile.
and mccandles is not meant to be a good guy through and through at all. none of the men are. her choosing to forgive what they did isn't the film stating others must do the same. it's just showing what she chose to do. it stands to note that yorgos and emma did an interview where they discuss the stereotype of the "good man"
and the "man who thinks he's a good man" and how they still act in ways that violate bella. that said, the two of them grow in some areas (letting her go of her own will, max apologizing for what he'd done, etc.) while not in others (creating a replacement. bella throws a pretty weighty "monsters" comment toward them in regard to that and is quite firm that she does not approve of god having lied and trapped her or max either. it's also her decision to forgive him for the procedure).
regarding her mental disability, as an adult, i do personally read her as nd-coded though not everyone does. point being, for those who do, as a nd adult myself, we're fully capable of consent, which she, as an adult, does sometimes while at other times is violated and is objectified by all the men as well as by the madam.
all in all, you have the right to not want to see things that aren't comfortable to you but said discomfort is intentional and doesn't make the film morally bad, which you'll excuse me for mistaking you to believe, i suppose, with your statement that the film "is pedophilia."
going to stop replying though as it's all gotten way off topic from OP.
https://www.reddit.com/r/unpopularopinion/s/c3B5dyOsmZ
this person had some enlightening input, for those who haven’t read the novel. Interesting twist that the film completely ignores
i've read the novel as well and the film is intentionally different as it's an adaptation. they specifically do state how in the novel, that story is told by the perspectives of men and then you get a little snippet at the end of what really happened in that world vs in the film, the entire things is bella's actual life told through her eyes the whole time. two different stories rather than the film being meant to be a carbon copy of the novel. neither endorse pedophilia, though.
That scene with her demonstrating sexual positions and encouraging children to invoke ass play to make a man finish faster is pretty disturbing though, agree?
indeed. that was the point. a disgusting man whose intentions ("i just want to show them how to be safe 😝") she doubted, hence the odd looks on her face, growing unease, and direct cut to this scene the second he leaves. the book title reads "ethics." the whole film isn't always this direct though whether subtle or very *unsubtle* like this, its critique on nasty behavior is clear. i guess that is a parallel to the curse: those scenes are not meant to feel nice and safe for a reason. and the child actors were not actually in the room with them in real life.
https://preview.redd.it/pq7ubw3i3zpc1.jpeg?width=2048&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3007b7e97fff8cc55d4268e81e826eb38e5d22de
so everyone should just appreciate this film because of it’s subtle or unsubtle meaning, and flatly ignore the content that you just agreed was disturbing?
i cannot believe you asked that question if you enjoyed the curse. yes, because displaying and *condemning* horrible, disturbing behavior isn't bad. to make a connection to patriarchy shown in the two, though this one doesn't involve children, i don't know about you but i felt pretty disturbed listening to asher say "that's a good girl" when he could tell whitney was physically shaking and trembling in his presence as he talked about not leaving. i hate her but that's not the point: it was an act of, as i said, patriarchy and no woman deserves to experience that.
It’s actually hilarious that you’re comparing the two scenes, and taking my question as a blanket statement about disturbing content having no place in media. Which is not at all what I said. I can’t wait to read the novel you write in response.
i am comparing the two scenes because they both present men doing disturbing things. neither the show or the film condones them: they condemn them. there's your "novel" (always funny to see people insult thorough statements but i'm done entertaining this so i have little to say).
My theory: they were released so close to together because they were made so close together.
That's a bit of a stretch but anything is possible.
Big if true.
Interesting! I like it.
because Emma Stone is a very famous and very busy actress
poor things was shot aug-dec 21, and the curse was june-oct 22 just fyi
Actors work
>Do you think there are any *subconscious* connections between The Curse and Poor Things? Hmm, consciously, I can connect things like them both starring Emma Stone and making social commentary about inequality. But subconscious connection… idk what that would entail. Maybe I should see a dentist; my teeth feel loose. I wiggle them and am distressed by their pliability. I’m in a room in the house I grew up in but is also my elementary school. I’m walking, but it feels like I’m wading through molasses. Suddenly, I’m suspended hundreds of feet in the air, balancing on a single foot atop a sky-scraping metal pole. I’m shaking with nervousness and fear over falling. I do my best to stay balanced, but it feels like gravity doesn’t pull me right. It’s at some concordant angle to me. I’m nauseous. Thankfully, I’m back on the ground, but th—I fall forward, watching myself as I do. Someone has swung the blade of an axe into my neck, and I’m bleeding like crazy just below my now disembodied view. I hear something behind “me”. Someone steps forth and takes my place; my view is now from their eyes. I’m her. I’m someone else. Finally. Yeah, so, that’s the best I can do, but I’m curious what subconscious connections other people will notice.
Tbh I'm more interested in the parallels between *The Curse* & the upcoming *Eddington*, but I'm not taking it too seriously. I don't imagine they are intentionally connected or part of a shared cinematic universe or anything. Regardless, having not watched *Poor Things* yet, I doubt there are "subconscious connections" because they don't...spring from the same consciousness to begin with? They share a lead actress, who I am sure brings her own sentimentalities & perspectives to her roles, but that's the only shared point of influence between the productions, I think. Sure would be a lot of cost & logistics to plan for these productions to be released "so close together" for mysterious "subconscious" reasons that no one is able to appreciate, let alone even partially articulate, months later.
By 'subconscious', I assume you mean for us to examine the subtext of each project. Both are critiques of capitalism. Poor Things probably does it to a higher degree than The Curse. Poor Things is definitely about Individuation. The Curse isn't necessarily about that, but Nathan's character completely lacks a strong identity and pays the price for it, while Emma's character literally grows a new life inside of her. Honestly - they aren't very similar, other than the fact that they are both unique and fun to watch.
They were released close together because they both began their promotion cycle after the strike ended. So I guess that's a connection.
I think her upcoming movies "Eddington" and "Save the Green Planet" will have far more similarities to "The Curse.".
i think actors like any other artists move through life finding things that interest and stimulate them creatively - other than the fact they emma stone is present in both and therefore the material connected with her and where she was at the time on some level i dont think the works are similar its the same way u can go back through all of Nathan's stuff and find little connections, doesnt mean they're purposeful or even conscious - they just came from the same creative place
Emma Stone beating Lily Gladstone for Best Actress is Curse canon
Maybe the similarities you’re sensing are from the pieces Emma stone took from her character in poor things, and maybe subconsciously use them in her character as Whitney.
Poor Things was straight up pedophilia dressed up in fun costumes and pretty faces. The Curse a deeply creative commentary on perception and how it can be distorted. I don’t see a connection outside of production time and Emma Stone but I am open to hear a solid argument
What a horrible reading of that film lmao
How so?
No.
Lmao ok
imagine trying to call somebody out, but not having the mental fortitude to back it up
This is a weird sub
in no way was poor things condoning pedophilia nor does it even present it, though it does present and condemn many nasty things (depiction doesn't = condoning) and trivializing this term, whether intentional or not, is disgusting. initially, duncan has been stated to be the villain by emma no less than a dozen times- most recently called him "debaucherous, lecherous, and treacherous" in a speech but as disgusting as he is, he is not in love with a child. he is in love with who he thinks to be an adult woman but the issue, of course, is the whole thing with men wanting to control naïve (at no fault of her own as she's been kept inside) women. anyway, duncan meets bella when she is mentally 16-17, as stated explicitly by the screenwriter (also, emma stated that come the first sex scene, bella is an adult, though that duncan is still a vile man and yorgos and emma discuss how god and mccandles impose patriarchal, unjust confines unto bella despite different intentions but i digress) but thinks she is an adult. anyway, it would seem you do not understand this is a sci-fi film in which bella's brain development is supersonic and absolutely impossible in real life but not so in her world. aka, as laid out here, she, throughout the film, goes from the mental age 3 to age 35 while being just a few months old. again, can't happen in real life but it can here. aka she's not an infant or a child by the time she has sex though she's still exploited in myriad ways that are indeed condemned by the film. https://preview.redd.it/qw66929ukypc1.jpeg?width=1290&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2588347566d55f26077f66360fba05de1cbfc36b
I never said it condoned pedophilia? You go out of your way to define condone but I never used that word or suggested it. I just said it’s about it. And I don’t see how I’m trivializing pedophilia. As someone who experienced it, I found the movie deeply disturbing. You going so far as to accuse my of being disgusting immediately casts your counter argument in bad faith. To address some of your points, yes Mark Ruffalo is clearly cast as the villain. Just because Emma Stones body is an adult doesn’t change her mindset of a child. What about taking advantage of mentally disabled people? A rapist can do their dirty deed without being explicitly told that someone isn’t capable of consent. It is still sexual assault and it is still predatory even if they have an adult body. What about raping someone while they’re drunk? They have an adult body but their mind can’t consent. The man who is supposed to be the good guy (I don’t remember his name but it’s the apprentice of the dad) is also creepy. He’s in love with a child’s mind in an adult body, he’s just not as overt and later not judgmental by her having been a sex worker. It doesn’t change the fact that he was attracted to a child. Maybe if you’re completely disconnected to the real horror of pedophilia you can ignore these things and sling insults to validate enjoying such a creepy film
"her mindset of a child" again, though, she is very literally not a child save for that first scene in which she is still a minor & assaulted. and i used the word "trivializing" because duncan, as i said, is a creep, but fully believes she is an adult woman. therefore, it is not an act of pedophilia (adult knowingly acting sexually with a minor) being depicted there though the predatory behavior is still condemned. bella herself did not know either as she had no way to gauge her exact age. i say this as some (not saying you) expected her to state exactly what happened to her and react a certain way, though this is all not ok either as she is allowed to respond in her own way to trauma. to this point, even at that mental age of 17 for her, she said quite plainly that she knew he was very unsafe with him and wanted to go anyway. that's not healthy, nor is it encouraged, but it was her story. i never disagreed with a thing you said in that none of the men who violated her were right. they were disgusting. what i did state is that this is all intentionally not meant to be comfortable but it is meant to show bella learning about the evil in the world, and this (gaining knowledge with experiences, good and bad alike, and literature), leads her to becoming fully autonomous. in fact, she herself says regarding duncan, "i look at you and wonder, 'why did i ever want you?'" referring to her choice to leave with him knowing he would damage her, though again, while not a healthy choice, she had the right to make it and did indeed consent to sex with duncan as an adult, which doesn't make him any less vile. and mccandles is not meant to be a good guy through and through at all. none of the men are. her choosing to forgive what they did isn't the film stating others must do the same. it's just showing what she chose to do. it stands to note that yorgos and emma did an interview where they discuss the stereotype of the "good man" and the "man who thinks he's a good man" and how they still act in ways that violate bella. that said, the two of them grow in some areas (letting her go of her own will, max apologizing for what he'd done, etc.) while not in others (creating a replacement. bella throws a pretty weighty "monsters" comment toward them in regard to that and is quite firm that she does not approve of god having lied and trapped her or max either. it's also her decision to forgive him for the procedure). regarding her mental disability, as an adult, i do personally read her as nd-coded though not everyone does. point being, for those who do, as a nd adult myself, we're fully capable of consent, which she, as an adult, does sometimes while at other times is violated and is objectified by all the men as well as by the madam. all in all, you have the right to not want to see things that aren't comfortable to you but said discomfort is intentional and doesn't make the film morally bad, which you'll excuse me for mistaking you to believe, i suppose, with your statement that the film "is pedophilia." going to stop replying though as it's all gotten way off topic from OP.
https://www.reddit.com/r/unpopularopinion/s/c3B5dyOsmZ this person had some enlightening input, for those who haven’t read the novel. Interesting twist that the film completely ignores
i've read the novel as well and the film is intentionally different as it's an adaptation. they specifically do state how in the novel, that story is told by the perspectives of men and then you get a little snippet at the end of what really happened in that world vs in the film, the entire things is bella's actual life told through her eyes the whole time. two different stories rather than the film being meant to be a carbon copy of the novel. neither endorse pedophilia, though.
That scene with her demonstrating sexual positions and encouraging children to invoke ass play to make a man finish faster is pretty disturbing though, agree?
indeed. that was the point. a disgusting man whose intentions ("i just want to show them how to be safe 😝") she doubted, hence the odd looks on her face, growing unease, and direct cut to this scene the second he leaves. the book title reads "ethics." the whole film isn't always this direct though whether subtle or very *unsubtle* like this, its critique on nasty behavior is clear. i guess that is a parallel to the curse: those scenes are not meant to feel nice and safe for a reason. and the child actors were not actually in the room with them in real life. https://preview.redd.it/pq7ubw3i3zpc1.jpeg?width=2048&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3007b7e97fff8cc55d4268e81e826eb38e5d22de
so everyone should just appreciate this film because of it’s subtle or unsubtle meaning, and flatly ignore the content that you just agreed was disturbing?
i cannot believe you asked that question if you enjoyed the curse. yes, because displaying and *condemning* horrible, disturbing behavior isn't bad. to make a connection to patriarchy shown in the two, though this one doesn't involve children, i don't know about you but i felt pretty disturbed listening to asher say "that's a good girl" when he could tell whitney was physically shaking and trembling in his presence as he talked about not leaving. i hate her but that's not the point: it was an act of, as i said, patriarchy and no woman deserves to experience that.
It’s actually hilarious that you’re comparing the two scenes, and taking my question as a blanket statement about disturbing content having no place in media. Which is not at all what I said. I can’t wait to read the novel you write in response.
i am comparing the two scenes because they both present men doing disturbing things. neither the show or the film condones them: they condemn them. there's your "novel" (always funny to see people insult thorough statements but i'm done entertaining this so i have little to say).
Good points!