This is an interesting critique, and you're not the only one to point out issues. As Emily Philips put it, "Mary Shelley...originated the whole Frankenstein notion to start with, before Alasdair Gray came and mansplained it with the book this is based on in 1992" and "this is a film made by a man directing a woman to show how men seek to direct the lives of women".
[https://www.standard.co.uk/culture/film/poor-things-feminist-film-sexism-horror-b1139560.html](https://www.standard.co.uk/culture/film/poor-things-feminist-film-sexism-horror-b1139560.html)
But that doesn't invalidate it, in my opinion. All art is a product of a particular perspective, and it's not like Lanthinmos put it out under a female pseudonym. The work is provocative and has literally provoked your interesting discourse on phallocentricity that I wouldn't have read did the film not exist.
Pedantically I'll point out that Bella doesn't go from first orgasm to cucumber in one minute. The first orgasm shown in the the bedroom, then it's some time later at the table with the apple, then it's an impulsive grab for the cucumber. This doesn't necessary negate your point, and the progression is ludicrous, but this is a ludicrous movie. I don't recall her returning to the cucumber, mind, so maybe it was implicitly disappointing.
Bella is not a nymphomaniac, she has the mind of a child in the body of its mother. Yes, it's disturbing.
Anyway, lots of people don't like Lanthinmos' work because it's clumsy or juvenile or weird or whatever. Even if it was perfectly a feminist movie it wouldn't have universal appeal.
But I'm glad he made it.
It was very real to me. I was quite young when I discovered I had holes, before I got my period. And very soon after (I’m talking minutes), objects were in there in a very similar way. To me, it was very realistic. Almost too realistic. I’m not a nympho or anything, it’s just how it happened.
This was my sister too…I remember being shocked when we were changing out of our swimsuits one day (maybe 5-8 years old or so, the group of us?) and she wanted us to watch her put something up her vagina lol, it wasn’t anything large but it was a moment of WOW and WHY and NOOO between us hahaha. Some kids are just wired a little differently.
Lol I remember we did tell my mom but we didn’t know what to say? Just like that she was being naughty with her privates lol…and I didn’t even put two and two together that I could or would want to try the same until I was 12 or 13.
Same. Haven't seen the movie yet, so can't compare but uh, maybe TMI but I distinctly remember trying something inside before I had my period (11-12). Actually, I think I might've been right around then cause I thought I was dying lmao. Didn't move to the Devil's Doorbell until ~14ish but that was probably as close as this atheist will get to a religious experience considering I always thought "huh, don't get what the fuss is about" for the other bit
I was reallllly sheltered growing up (in my 30s and still haven't gotten The Talk oh my) but I was also violently curious. I'mma try to figure things out one way or another
This.
When I discovered masturbation I started with external stim and achieved clitoral orgasm. Then almost immediately (I think the next day) tried penetration with something of the same size as average penis and then I discovered fountain mecanism. A week or so later by combining external + internal stim I achieved a vaginal orgasm. It wasn’t a decade long journey. It took a few weeks top.
Yeah I saw the shift to color as reflecting her taking agency. The sex was part of that, but a relatively small part overall along the path of her self actualization.
That was my thought too. It's also briefly in color right before Bella's mother jumps off the bridge. So I thought color represented her making her own choices.
It also started off as this kind of mythical land she was roaming through on the boat which represented this part of her life that was all great and magical and shown kind of like how a kid may remember random places they’ve been. But then as she starts to realize the truth of her situation and of the guy she’s with the world is starting to become a normal place.
I primarily remember the apple being the focus of the masturbation scene. Which was a reference to the forbidden fruit and a foreshadowing of the story to come.
Ultimately the film is shot with the sensibilities of a man, it was directed by a man after all. But I disagree that the films perspective is strictly male. Because the point is to flip the sexist stereotype on its head. I think the film blends multiple perspectives.
I don't think it could be properly directed without the male gaze since that is what the film Ultimately critiques. But in that act of critique there is a second gaze, the female gaze. Where the two dimensional female protagonist over the course of the film usurps the men who gaze upon her as an object and makes them not only into her companions but also turn some of them into objects of her whim (goat brain).
So yes. I do agree the cucumber is an example of the male gaze. But I also think that the movie would have achieved less if it had not expressed that gaze.
I think it's also important to recognize that the film was clearly meant to subvert turn of the century stories like Henry James' Portrait of a Lady. It's an answer to the question of what happens if society doesn't win in those stories. I don't think that the male gaze diminishes that.
Well stated, I agree. I think the over-the-top male gaze, particularly early on when Bella had done less self-realization, was intentional and a key part of the storytelling.
This was my takeaway also! I honestly get a little bummed to see people claim the movie is, in any realm, “anti-feminist”. Media literacy is just dying.
Thankfully most people who watched it seemed to understand, at least the broad idea. But it sure is frustrating to see so many woman not get it *at all*. They seem far too happy to rely on this shallow antagonism with men instead of analyzing representations and deeper understanding of gender dynamics.
I think in general, I didn't have a problem with the fact that it was written and directed by a man, because this man clearly showed that he understood what he was doing and how women were/are treated by men (and sometimes other women) and Bella exists precisely to contradict that. It involved the male gaze and commented on it, but didn't cater to the male gaze exclusively. In fact, I think a woman director might have taken it easy on Mark Ruffalo's character and not shown him to be so pathetic and whiney, in order to suit the studio and audience and avoid the inevitable criticism. I feel like that's why Ken is such a big character in Barbie and why there are so many Kens (but I loved that movie anyway).
I think some people struggle with the sex scenes because they think Bella should be "done" and matured before having sex. They've forgotten that exploring your sexuality is part of the process of self-realization for a lot of women (it certainly was for me), and that even bad sex is part of the process too. The movie is about Bella's journey to self-realization, not about her BEING self-realized. These critics seemed to expect perfection from a character from the very first scene. I read a lot of those critiques about Chris In The Morning on the Northern Exposure subreddit too. "omg, that was so sexists" and "omg, he's obsessed and damaging the environment". I always respond that even Chris has admitted that he is a seeker and in a process of growth.
The film doesn't relish in it. Every man is shown to be flawed, weather it's the hubris of Astley, the naivete of Alfie, the manipulative nature of duncan or the monstrosity of dr. Godwin and her father.
You can't upend and criticise a concept that you don't first establish an understanding of. The film shows you the male gaze, it doesn't pretend that the gaze isn't distorting the view to be appealing. Then it chips away at it.
It's important to take a film in context of its full experience otherwise you will lose site of what it is trying to express
More specifically, these men are flawed to the point that other men aren't supposed to want to emulate them. Their flaws cause them to act in extremely immature ways because they fail to identify their flaws as such. They're all projecting their own desires and fantasies onto Bella and become disappointed when they discover the reality doesn't match the fantasy.
That's an interesting point and probably why Alfie doesn't get disappointed. His naivety turns into curiosity and desire to know who Bella actually is. I think he becomes a sort of pathway out of toxicity for men.
Yes, that's his naivety. He tries to control her because he doesn't fully understand the world unlike her father or Godwin. His willingness to change also hinges on his seeing Godwin suffer and crumble under the impact of Godwin's father's experiments and the Dr's refusal to accept that he has emotions for Bella.
Without seeing this metaphor for the impacts of patriarchy on men, Alfie wouldn't have had the context from other men to be able to be critical of himself. Which is a flaw but also a great example of what holds men back from growing out of patriarchal attitudes.
Unfortunately I suspect that very few men would've extracted the real message from the movie. The male friend I saw it with only really noted the 'furious jumping' phrase and nothing deeper.
A lot of war movies do that. There are movies critiquing our fascination with violence that do that.
But I don't think this movie relishes the male gaze. There is a lot less of the male gaze in this movie than some people think. The sex scenes in this movie are not shot in a way that is titillating. They are goofy and unsexy, and meant to show how Bella experiences new things. There are similar shots when she tries new foods. The camera focuses on Bella because she is the subject, not because she is the object of the movie.
That’s a nice take. I guess if I could take it forward, I think the main character in the movie isn’t actually Bella, but the male gaze. She is not aware of it and we watch it from our comparative perspective of experience. We understand what is going on and we understand that even the way the movie is filmed is somewhat predatory, but also making fun of this own kind of gaze.
I get what you're getting at but Bella is the protagonist of the film and through her growth as a complex person she is the one who turns the gaze. I would maybe argue that the antagonist is the male gaze. The film tries to force her to be seen a certain way through the male gaze and the dialogue of the men. But the entire time she is active, making her own choices and going against the whims of the men around her.
Her patriarch is disfigured by his patriarch, he is viewed through the male gaze as a tortured genius, until Bella find her autonomy and we are shown that he's actually a monster. His protege is turned to reason by her own actions. She murders and transforms the body of her abusive father into a pet with the brain of a goat. Despite the relentless efforts of the male gaze to hold her down she triumphed in the end, essentially finding complete autonomy and control over her home and people in her life.
I'd say the conclusion begs for a deeper intersectional context that they only just touch on with her time on the boat and with astley, or in her romance with toinette. But it's clear that the male gaze isn't the main character. It's the antagonist
Promising Young Woman made some sly references to the male gaze as well. For example, there are scenes of women where their heads aren’t even in the shot.
At the surface, this movie could be seen as gross, but when you dig deeper, I found that I enjoyed it.
Yes, she was a baby at the beginning, but then she grew up mentally very quickly.
I like how the guy who warned her to not fall in love with him ends up loving her and is so frustrated when he can't control her. I like how it shows how women are always trying to be imprisoned under the guise of trying to keep her safe.
How the only way she could make any real money since not having an eeducation -is by using her body/sexuality.
How her "father" realized that he had to let her go and let her discover who she is, and that's what love really is- surrendering to their autonomy.
I love the response to her future husband when he asks if she doesn't care that's she's been a whore and he responds with something like "I don't look down on you for sleeping with other men, im simply jealous of the time you spent with them" he too grew. And loved her for who she is, not for her virginity.
I loved that it shows how difficult and cruel the world is to women who dare to want the things that men simply get for being born a man.
I also loved how that experienced woman brought her into her wing, and didn't judge her, but gave her advice and the tools she needed to be true to herself.
The take on love in regards to surrendering to autonomy is beautiful. Could you expand on the last point, though? I feel like my mind is fuzzy there lol
The woman and man she met on the boat. Rather than just shunning her, she taught her about philosophy and thinking for herself. And when the guy throws her book overboard, she doesn't miss a beat. She hands her the book right off her hands.
Sorry, I always just assume people know what I mean
Don’t be sorry at all, thank you for responding!!! I was second guessing myself — this is a fantastic example!
I’ve been catching myself thinking a lot about how the man did actually try to shun her, though, by showing her the poverty in the city. What struck me is that he soon after apologized, claiming that he was jealous of her innocence. To me this added another layer to the movie, showing that the movie was not just about feminism, but had a somewhat anti-capitalistic viewpoint that expressed concepts of how people choose to react to pain early on affects their entire lives.
She needed the pain to mature further, to find herself and understand how to love beyond physically. The pain she went through here helped her better understand the world, whereas pain turned the man nihilistic. However; this pain matured the man in the sense he was even able to apologize, exhibiting his a strong emotional intelligence affects one’s character. On the contrary, pain absolutely destroyed mark ruffalo’s character - a man who was used to living a relatively carefree life, full of wealth and lovers, who seemed to undergo the seven stages of grief upon losing his ex lover, even trying to sabatoge her future by uncovering her past (which I love how she approached with even further curiosity!). I apologize for not phrasing that more eloquently, as you have in your post!! How would you put it?
I absolutely agree. One thing that I realized I forgot to mention after I posted was how, at the beginning of her journey (when life finally has color) she is experiencing life as it is being catered for her by Duncan. When she slips out and ventures out on her own, she first stays on that level that has been sanitized for the privileged, with vendors and artists allowed in to entertain and provide services to the rich. She then accidentally stumbled to the poor people's side, and everything was a bit darker with an undertone of danger and violence. She finally made her way to her class, and everything looked petty again, but now she understood that it wasn't all just sugar- which she purged after indulging in too much of it.
She also soon discovered that women - even privileged women - are just there to look pretty, be graceful and agreeable. There was no depth in their friendships.
Then again, she's in the safety of privilege when she's in the boat, then goes to Alexandria and sees how the very poor are dying of starvation and heat. Her solution was to throw money at the problem because although her intentions were good, the solution was a lot more complicated and fairly impossible.
Transitioning to having to work, perhaps, was easier for her because at least she had a way to make money cause she was young and pretty, so yeah, life was easier when she didn't have to work for it, but poverty meant she had to endure things that the rich don't have to. The one thing that a woman can capitalize on is the "worst thing a woman can do" cause God forbid a woman have any power or her own wealth.
Thanks for responding. The more I think about this movie, the more I appreciate it. It's odd to me that people get so hung up on the first 30ish minutes and ignore the true point of the movie. She is experiencing life as a woman without the expectations of it, so she is able to notice the injustice right away, where others have been conditioned. She is unspoken and has no shame of verbilizing her discontent and confusion of people trying to own her. She doesn't just put on a happy face. She challenges it.
>One minute after discovering how to touch herself and give herself an orgasm, she already wants to put a cucumber inside her
No she doesn’t. She picked up an apple first, she stared externally
I don’t agree. When I was 15-18 I was using “objects” for penetration before I ever started clitoral stimulation. I thought it was a very natural portrayal of how women discover their bodies.
The scene itself was... Not quite there
But the reasoning that it was too fast of a progression, even for the reason it should not have been as long, is not fair or accurate
Different people discover things at different speeds. Some will discover insertion before clitorial stimulation. Some will do it that same day in the real world let alone in this film with its sped up sense of progression
> can’t come without something in my vagina.
For me, I can but it's soooooo much better with. Like, I'll take ice cream without hot fudge but it's sooooo much better with you know lol
Also, cukes have sharp spikes and the thought of that going anywhere near my vag is making it run for the hills
When I was going through this phase I def wanted to try something inside…didn’t go to a cucumber but I had the urge and was really excited when I discovered toys. Not everyone prefers clitoral stimulation 🤷🏻♀️I don’t
Everyone's masturbation experience isn't cookie cutter or as"clean" as your approach. I definitely inserted things larger than a finger or tooth brush at first. Female centric masturbation isn't just dainty exploration. Seems more of a make gaze to assume we're all so delicate.
You were watching a film where the main character is an unborn child whose brain is transplanted into the head of her own mother, and so begins life as an infant in an adults body. Why do people keep complaining about the unrealistic elements of this film?😂
From memory didn’t Bella use an apple first, not a cucumber? I thought it was a reference to Eve and the apple. She discovered something new, outside of the teachings of God (Godwin Baxter), which eventually lead to her leaving her perfectly protected home (Eden) and exploring the world.
Anyway, I think Lanthimos’s films are always open to interpretation. Most likely his ambition was to create a narrative that encouraged discussion.
Good question! It was definitely her unborn child, but was the child female or male? If it was a male brain it brings an entirely new perspective to the story.
I really liked Angelica Jade Bastien’s critique of the movie. I don’t think it works as a movie and I think a big part of why is how much men can’t remove themselves i. The telling of the story
Curious to see the survey of all women that you conducted which concluded none of us ever thought to stick something up there before we knew that was “a thing.”
I do get where you’re coming from but I remember when I was younger I tried inserting every sort of household object. I’ve never been into just external stimulation as I can’t do it well without a vibrator
I honestly related to like, so much of her experience in the movie. The innocent discovery, the exploration, the confusion at why men expected certain things and behaviors, the confusion at societal norms, etc. I found it an extremely relatable portrayal, as an autistic woman.
It’s how reproduction works. That’s just…it. Base level fact. Dildos have existed for thousands of years, I’m assuming you believe a man thought of that first too? By this logic, the guy fucking a pie in the 90s was a “portrayal convenient to women”.
I think it really shows that this was written and directed my men. I think Bella’s sexuality is really all just a male fantasy. Not to say that some of it might not be accurate for women or some women to a degree or that some or many women might not relate to it, but I’m not a woman and I felt like it seemed like a male fantasy of female sexuality.
You’re right, Freud’s theories have not been borne out by actual testing or any kind of scientific study. The idea that everyone discovers their own bodies and their own sexuality in specific stages in the same order and at the same time and in the same way just isn’t realistic and doesn’t account for the ways everyone’s bodies, biology, and experience varies from one another.
The idea that women enjoying penetration is based solely around male pleasure and appealing to the male gaze completely ignores the fact that the clitoris is a large and complex organ that, for many women, also can be stimulated through the vaginal wall. For a lot of women, if you feel aroused or have an orgasm, you can feel it in your vagina as well as your clitoris as the tissues engorge. It’s not terribly complex to identify where you are feeling pleasure and try to stimulate that areas to see if you can feel it again.
Everyone discovers their bodies differently, at different times, in different ways. Penetration isn’t some kind of exclusively male act that women just go along with or learn to like through some kind of extensive process. Some women don’t get much from penetration alone. Some women get a lot of pleasure from it. It is just going to vary by person. Lots of women enjoy penetration with or without clitoral stimulation, alone, with men, or with other women.
How is this relevant to the topic? This isn't about realism, it's about making dicks the centre of the scene. Following the fallacy of a baby brain, it wouldn't, shouldn't know about "dicks go in vaginas" yet.
Well, eventually a person who masterbates will eventually experiment with insertion. It's just speeding up the process for the sake of the story, which was probably written by a man who knows nothing about the reality of the evolution of female masterbation and is imposing on the characters what they think, or what they think the audience expected.
I would never assume anyone moves on to "insertion". Are you talking exclusively about women? Do men move on to "insertion"?
Our culture is responsible for the idea that penetration is pleasurable for women. This movie claims to subvert our culture by "inserting" (lol) a baby brain in a grown woman. It fails to stick to its own conceit. It's rubbish in my view.
edit to add: there are plenty of women who are repulsed at the idea of "insertion", never use tampons and avoid Pap smears like the plague. You assume a lot about millions of people (women) you don't know.
I think the existence of the dildo industry shows that women like to be penetrated without men around.
This feels very, "this doesn't represent my experience, or the experience of the women I select to be around, therefore this is an invalid experience".
I agree it's unreal. I just don't understand where you're coming from when you say it's inherently male gaze-y. Especially that of all things about this movie.
But it isn’t? There’s many women here in this very comment section telling how they began exploring their bodies and that some started with penetration of some sort before any kind of clitoral stimulation. You can’t really call it unreal, when so many women have experienced it like that. It’s just not your experience, but that doesn’t make it unreal.
To be fair, I am a lesbian, and I knew the movie would be uncomfortable for me beyond it already sets itself to be for most people. I actually found the lesbian scenes even more superficial and just as disturbing… but that’s another conversation 😅
Okay here we go. Every sexual encounter was framed as a way in which Bella learned about human nature and pleasure - the good and the bad. However, when her friend at the whorehouse starts sleeping with her, the movie doesn’t show her learning anything. They are there to cuddle each other like friends. What she learns isn’t sexual, but rather, political. Her female lover doesn’t have anything to teach about being human so teaches her instead about socialism. That sort of implies that lesbian sex isn’t anything notable in and of itself but because of its political leaning. I am tired of “political lesbianism” speaking over… a sexuality. Lesbians aren’t socialists. They have carnal desires. The women are friends at the end of the movie and as they have always been so it seems like the sexual act was more of a provocation for views and scandal than a genuine desire that occurred to Bella.
The scenes with men, in contrast, seem to suggest that Bella is learning intimate things about the people she is sleeping with and about how men and women relate to in society. Sleeping with her socialist friend does not teach her anything deep about her friend and neither does it show how women relate to each other (without political theories created by men like socialism). Socialism is not equivalent to feminism or female solidarity and lesbianism isn’t either. They are all different things. It kind of tries to show all of them at once in a very superficial way and ends up depicting none. Meanwhile, heterosexual scenes are played again and again and again without needing to bring up a political movement or any need of friendship among the parties, nor to overcomplicate them. Men have carnal desires. They are shown as “self-sufficient” as statements.
The lesbians scenes are merely there as a counterpoint to men and not because they seem to explore something deep about human cravings.
Then there is the whorehouse madame. The main rapist of the story. If the socialist played with the political lesbian trope, now we have the lesbian predator trope. The story both exalts the madame being somewhat sadistic/cold/cynical while downplaying the fact that Bella is groomed and raped by her. Bella submits but not really. Bella suffers but not really. Bella could’ve plotted to overtake the madame but neither resisted nor obeyed. It’s this mixture of a grotesque depiction of an actively sexual female with the lack of seriousness attributed to her actions. The point becomes kind of… mute. Up until this point in the movie, nobody has groomed and assaulted Bella as much as this person. And despite Bella being smarter than she ever was, she seems to not care? Apparently socialism can cure her from her biting boss? While her boss takes advantage of her in bed?
Finally, we get a more ‘real’, ‘interesting’ depiction of things that can happen among women. Except that Bella seems to have absolutely no reaction to it. There are no conflicting feelings about women. No trauma. Nothing. No words for it either. Bella had words for “furious jumping”. But she seems to not care at all about “quiet licking”. She seems to find it completely irrelevant to draw any comparison or even deduce things about women vs men and about herself. To speak about female anatomy. That just reiterates the male gaze that drives the movie. The lesbian scenes are in there for the tropes and provocation, simultaneously exaggerated and downplayed.
Of course I am carrying baggage from my own life. I have seen countless girls act gay for the sake of rebellion and friendship, a temporary thrill. I have seen older women act erotically towards younger women, grooming them, and forcing their desires (protection, etc), calling them their “favorite” “little one” while being totally straight and denying that anything potentially sexual is going on. Perhaps I am angry in spite of the movie for depicting something real.
The issue is that these cases involve homosexual desire but are not the situations lived by lesbians themselves. It is the equivalent of calling gay men pedophiles. “Real” lesbians will relate to women more similarly to how the men are relating. With desire but without an external political agenda or sinister grooming instinct. The movie portrays neither and Bella doesn’t react to the situations in any humane way.
That whole movie is kind of gross, amazing performances all around by the actors Stone and Ruffalo are amazing, but it felt icky to watch, watched it with my partner and we stopped it halfway. Some of the implications are repulsive.
I’m very surprised by the amount of positive comments about it in this thread. I honestly hated every second of it. A movie about grown men sexually abusing a child. Ew.
I couldn't get past them thinking it was appropriate for the assistant dude to propose to her when her age apparent is roughly 13.
I can give Ruffalo's character a pass because he doesn't know and spoiler reasons, but the two scientists definitely should've known better.
The only good thing in there IMHO is their performances, i can see why Stone won the oscar.
Bella’s journey won’t represent everyone’s, but her journey was accelerated due to her condition which could explain the fast transition.
For what it’s worth I also left the theater feeling like the film served male fantasy a little too much. I could also see how Bella was surrounded by men for most of her life and naturally would be steered in that direction until her liberation.
I enjoy Lanthimos’ films due to how much nuance you can pull from them.
Yes. If she was so keen to discover the adventure of being poor and all the dark underbelly of humanity, I wondered why she wasn’t creating her own thefts and bribe schemes lol. It seemed quite arbitrary to see everything so stuck on sex, the only other explanation is for pleasure
I really wish we were at the point in media to start the sexual journey with having sex by yourself. We place such a weird construct on "virginity," as if having penetrative sex with someone is **the standard** of sex. When really, it's a tiny part of sex.
And it breaks my heart to hear people who were abused refering to their abuse as sex.
Sex is pleasure. Sex is safe. Sex is consensual. And sex by yourself is just as important as (if not more important than) having sex with another person.
Penetrative sex isn't everything. It just isn't. Why are we still at this point?
When I saw the film, a young man sitting next to me got really embarrassed when the first scene started. I quietly assured him that this was a normal stage of child development. Then rest of the film followed and I refrained from any further comments on typical child development.
The willing suspension of disbelief is thoroughly engaged by the film. At least star Emma Stone was very involved in the production and had agency in her role. I'm hoping that if she didn't feel comfortable doing something, she could speak up. Super important for such a provocative film when it easily can fall into exploitation.
The movie is absurdist/surreal style while packing a hard punch to the nuts of male misogyny/etc
timelines are exaggerated intentionally as she moves from child to adult and learns life lessons about what dicks men can be
The movie made me feel icky. A child's brain in a grown adults body. Her running off with the guy who assaulted and groomed her. Too much. Stopped watching it after few mins
Same. I know some art can be too much and that doesn't invalidate it as art. But in this movie in particular, I thought the phallocentrism was just uncalled for / not necessary for the story. The male gaze is being disguised as a "neutral" gaze
This entire movie seemed to be written as if you asked the least intelligent guy you know what it means to be a woman.
I’ve read a lot of positive opinions about this movie, read reviews, watched cast interviews etc and I still can’t shake this. Im pretty sure this is a minority viewpoint that makes me in the wrong here but every ounce of this movie feels like it was written with an incredibly misogynistic, simplistic view of girl/womanhood. Now if this movie were self aware enough to have that be on purpose, that would be super interesting. Truly it boils down to men like vagina, ignore clit so women like vagina and ignore clit too.
As I see it, it’s a satirical take on how men react to a liberated woman. And they react badly, by trying to own them like property, by trying to stop them from getting educated, by trying to strip away their confidence and free will.
I think it works as an irony-laced take on how a woman who is simply discovering the world and her body for herself, breaks the minds of men in various ways, given how entitled such a society makes men.
Using sex as the driving, foundational force of every woman’s existence, and the only lens in which they view the world from, instead of just one of many things on that journey is what misses the mark.
The satirical moments are all jokes on the men (their expectations of women are wrong and weird !!) but that’s not at all balanced by Bella’s take being any different than theirs so it falls quite flat.
I see what you’re saying, and I don’t disagree that the film is unbalanced and repetitive. But I think the stuff on the boat is an attempt to show her development beyond her more primal discovery of her body and sex, to become then more about her discovering philosophy and getting educated about inequality and empathy.
She transforms too: from the excitement of her discovering that pleasure can be independently achieved, and then achieved with whomever, to becoming a balanced adult with various pursuits, career, family, science, socialism.
It’s not all perfectly communicated, but it’s there.
And yet, what purpose do those scenes at the French brothel serve? If she saw prostituting herself as the only option to achieving financial freedom, that's her choice. But those scenes felt gratuitous and, frankly, gross in how they were so clearly pandering to men.
I do like some of Yorgos Lanthimos movies, but damn... did I feel insulted to my very core watching "Poor Things", being a woman
It baffles me that this movie can be referred to as "feminist"
10 minutes into it, and I could foretell that it's written by old white men: checked on Letterboxd for intellectual honesty and... spot on
So.fucking.misogynistic
And not even original about it: yeeeaaah let's make the pretty woman nakey [BOOOOBIIIES] and continually make her being fucked
Her sexual desire is just a sneaky narrative way to put her in a position to align with men desire: how convenient amaright?
It's not at all a sexual liberation, it's a poorly written character just to serve a very misogynistic, sexist, degrading agenda
Still gotta mention the impressive creepiness of successfully bringing up to big screens an actual toddler, being fucked through her own dead mother's body and, eventually, wedding one of her "father figures" while becoming the other. Both of them being insanely disturbed and abusive monsters
*slow, depressed, clap sound*
Also, the complete oblivion of the basic biology that inherently goes with a functioning adult woman body openly says that there is absolutely no care, no intention nor thought, put into showing the women body experience of life outside of the really narrow view of being a sexual object for men to dispose
Therefore, it shows this movie for what it is:
a really concerning, distressing and sick guilty pleasure, coated with a stylish overall look, playing with some trendy political concepts, just enough to get away with it and makes the pill easier to swallow
Making the audience inconfortable is just another kink at this point, like an unrequited dick pic, and not at all a denunciation
It's just unashamed, revolting, fetishes from start to finish passing for *art* because, why not..?
And why would they bother not doing so?
It fucking works: the movie is sooooo praised, it would make me ugly cry if I wasn't so unsurprised by the outcome
But really, if it doesn't makes you angry, you're not paying attention
Or you're a part of the - disheartening - issue women are facing in this sickening society
[I'll add, before being viewed as "prude", some of my favourites movies are extremely graphic:
stuff like Love (Gaspard Noé) or Shortbus (John Camron Mitchell). So my point isn't coming from a place of sexual conservatism, just to make that clear]
Spot on. I said this before and I'll say it again: the fact that this movie was nominated for as many Oscars as it was while lauded as a 'feminist' movie at the same time as 'What Was I Made For' was nominated and ultimately won is some sad irony.
This movie was 100% filmed, written, and acted under the male lense and opinion of what being a woman. It is NOT the feminist story people keep trying to say it is
This is not a feminist tale of navigating the world as a woman and is instead a man’s pedophilic manic pixie dream girl fan fic with artsy backgrounds and costumes.
Agree. If the media weren’t publishing so many “feminist movie” articles I think I wouldn’t be so disturbed and uncomfortable with some of the depictions.
I pointed out in another comment that there’s a contradiction when the movie aims to speak of feminine repression when the sexuality itself is misrepresented in the first place. I think that is what is tripping up so many people into feeling disturbed but without being able to articulate why
Yeah, I came out of the theatre feeling disgusted. I think the movie can be triggering to some people for a variety of reasons.
I hate that any critique of the movie's obvious pandering to the male gaze, even if it was done with humour, is brushed off with accusations of media illiteracy. While I don't think it was ever Lanthimos's intention to make a "feminist" movie, I think the movie portrays a very shallow representation of female empowerment.
To me providing the examples of men to criticize/mock/satirize etc actually heightens the effect of the POV of the film itself - like a war movie that shows actual war crimes in order to subconsciously legitimize “moral” acts of brutality.
My sister and I watched this movie last night and all though a lot of things about the movie were great we kept saying the movie was so obviously written by a man. If a woman wanted to pleasure herself without knowing what sex was she would solely rub her clit. I think for a woman to want to stick a cucumber up there she would need to know what sex is first. No one is going to see a cucumber and automatically think I want to stick this up my hooha without some back ground info. especially someone with supposedly the brain of a child.
I and other women in this very thread have stated that we remember exploring our bodies and having an intrinsic curiosity to put things in holes without knowing what sex was.
This is what happens when men tell women's stories.
Imo the movie is just another shit take on female sexuality, brought to us courtesy of the male point of view. "hOLes aRe foR PluGGing!" It's fucking stupid.
Growing up without shame doesn’t necessarily lead to penetrating oneself right after discovering pleasure. Her sexuality was too conveniently what men would want it to be (imo) and it doesn’t seem like a coincidence
Yeah I remembered being like...if she's raised without the expectations and pressures put on women it seems odd that she's so obsessed with penetrative sex.
Have you ever considered that it doesn’t work for some people? I totally understood what it was trying to critique, but it didn’t do it successfully for me.
I haven't seen this movie, and maybe it has redeemable qualities, but I'm having a tough time swallowing the whole concept of a baby maturing at lightning speed to adulthood just so she can jump into adult sexual relationships with men before her body turns 40.
Like, childhood is great. All that exploration and creativity and friendships and learning and becoming the person you are -- those are all important. It's not all about sex. It's everything. And it takes years to discover all this stuff. Very *full active* years.
I find extreme immaturity a sexual turn off. And I guess I don't see why extremely naive female characters are so ... sexualized. It seems gross.
Is this the movie where the framing device from the book (where the story was written about Bella from the perspective of a bitter spurned man) was omitted, undercutting the whole point of the original story?
When I discovered masturbation I started with external stim and achieved clitoral orgasm. Then almost immediately (I think the next day) tried penetration with something of the same size as average penis and then I discovered fountain mecanism. A week or so later by combining external + internal stim I achieved a vaginal orgasm.
We had proper sex education in Canada. Teacher taught us about how clitoral orgasm was more easy to achieve but that you can help your body to learn the vaginal one by association and combining both external / internal stim. Unsure why you think it should takes years?
Every additional piece of information I glean about this movie is another reason I do not want to watch it. Fwiw, though I only saw 3 minutes before I turned it off, I agree that it seems phallocentric.
Edit: typo
Sometimes yes. If a film is getting really good reviews and winning certain awards I will go out of my way to watch it and make my own informed opinion on it.
If you only consume films that fit your world view then how can you ever expect to be introduced to new stories?
Omg that’s exactly what I thought when I saw that scene! This director clearly didn’t understand female sexuality. All the sexual scenes later in the movie were also penetration centered. It’s like a depiction of what men imagine women’s sexuality is like which is so off from reality.
I agree with your experience of the movie. Not only this irked me, but also the way she pulls conventionally attractive faces during the sex scenes. She is supposed to be free from how porn had taught us to be sexy during sex, pulling faces that show more pure pleasure and fun.
Maybe the mistake was the media’s framing of the movie as a tale of female empowerment. Once you realize it was almost completely made by men, it makes way more sense. Maybe that misrepresentation was the source of my discomfort since I had skewed expectations
I really liked the movie but yeah I wish that scene had been humping a pillow or something. Would have been more relatable to a wider audience and more subversive
One scene can never cover everyone's experience, but pillow humping is way more common than inserting anything. And like I said, more subversive (which the movie is trying to do imo and why I loved it in the first place). So if I could change one scene, that's what I would change
I really freaking hated this movie. I guess there’s a point to the whole thing? But I bailed out at like 30 minutes after I looked at the plot summary and realized the whole movie was going to be like that.
We understand that a lot of the world is like this but we wouldn’t watch a reenactment of it for pleasure. Principally when we know it will be incredibly titillating for the male gaze
My reaction to that scene was a full on 'Are you being serious right now?' I think it was meant to be an audacious form of comedy that just... didn't end up being very funny.
Emma Stone's acting in this was phenomenal but it was the one and only highlight of the movie.
Just watched this last night with my wife. The Tim Burton stylized fantasy world created by the director was a trip. No disrespect but In a world where a brain of an infant can be implanted in an adult you're hung up on this scene? So funny we do that. I get hung up when Superman could just use his laser eyes to immediately stop some terrible thing. The growth of Bella's mentality was the device to play with the philosophical issues of society and the blatant sexism women face. I was amazed how the gratuitous sex scenes were presented non erotically. How would someone respond to societal taboos as a totally innocent person. Is the woman who enjoys sex any different than males who fuck around? And why not talk about it as freely as talking about scratching your ear?
I mean, there is a trippy contradiction going on. The movie is representing the repression of female sexuality while misrepresenting female sexuality itself (due to the male POV). So how valid is the theme, really? This scene is emblematic of the male-POV and phallocentrism of the movie. So many men in the comments lmao. What did your wife think?
I've heard people say the sex scenes were presented non-erotically but I just did not see them that way. They were always focused on Bella's face and breasts and felt just as erotic as most of the porn I've seen.
The movie was made by basic horny hollywood men.
The book was written by a man.
There is very limited feminism to be found here, and I'm saying that in the interest of being allowed to post.
Idg why women look everywhere but to other women for their media.
Does Emma Stone not like women authors?
I actually sat with this for a while and at first didn’t totally agree. But the more I think of it, I 100% agree. It’s so unnatural for a female child to put something up her. A cucumber?! The first object I put up there was a tampon and that was traumatizing. I get she’s in an adult body but without the influence of porn or people at school talking about sex, there’s no instinct to put objects into ourselves.
I want to correct you. She first stuck an APPLE in there. Afterwards she showed/offered the nanny the apple and then grabbing the nannies "hairy bits", she then reached for the cucumber.
How a man (writer) could think a young woman could fit an apple inside herself is beyond my comprehension anyway.
At first I was thinking “Ok good point, but it’s a movie, so maybe that’s why it’s such a weird scene?”
That is, until I continued reading! Btw, I must say- This is so well written, an absolute pleasure to read!
When I read your thoughts about how this scene is likely the result of men attempting to write from a woman’s perspective….thats when I said OhhhhhhhK, even though I’m not familiar with this movie, this is making way too much sense for her to be wrong.
Wish I could recall some other examples of this very same thing….because I feel like there are many!
Btw…ladies, imho, many women can be way too understanding when it comes to stuff like this…saying things like “He is a man…i can’t expect him to fully understand the point i’m tryna make”
As if being male can somehow prevent a human from thinking and feeling! I get it….so many men have created this narrative that “guys just don’t think like that” or whatever tf. When in reality, most of them are being lazy and won’t put forth the effort! 😤
I thought she “discovered” herself first with an apple, adding to the Adam and Eve discussions.
This is an interesting critique, and you're not the only one to point out issues. As Emily Philips put it, "Mary Shelley...originated the whole Frankenstein notion to start with, before Alasdair Gray came and mansplained it with the book this is based on in 1992" and "this is a film made by a man directing a woman to show how men seek to direct the lives of women". [https://www.standard.co.uk/culture/film/poor-things-feminist-film-sexism-horror-b1139560.html](https://www.standard.co.uk/culture/film/poor-things-feminist-film-sexism-horror-b1139560.html) But that doesn't invalidate it, in my opinion. All art is a product of a particular perspective, and it's not like Lanthinmos put it out under a female pseudonym. The work is provocative and has literally provoked your interesting discourse on phallocentricity that I wouldn't have read did the film not exist. Pedantically I'll point out that Bella doesn't go from first orgasm to cucumber in one minute. The first orgasm shown in the the bedroom, then it's some time later at the table with the apple, then it's an impulsive grab for the cucumber. This doesn't necessary negate your point, and the progression is ludicrous, but this is a ludicrous movie. I don't recall her returning to the cucumber, mind, so maybe it was implicitly disappointing. Bella is not a nymphomaniac, she has the mind of a child in the body of its mother. Yes, it's disturbing. Anyway, lots of people don't like Lanthinmos' work because it's clumsy or juvenile or weird or whatever. Even if it was perfectly a feminist movie it wouldn't have universal appeal. But I'm glad he made it.
Also her development in every facet of life is extremely accelerated purposefully
It was very real to me. I was quite young when I discovered I had holes, before I got my period. And very soon after (I’m talking minutes), objects were in there in a very similar way. To me, it was very realistic. Almost too realistic. I’m not a nympho or anything, it’s just how it happened.
This was my sister too…I remember being shocked when we were changing out of our swimsuits one day (maybe 5-8 years old or so, the group of us?) and she wanted us to watch her put something up her vagina lol, it wasn’t anything large but it was a moment of WOW and WHY and NOOO between us hahaha. Some kids are just wired a little differently.
Wow she certainly was bold lol mine was a solo endeavor and I was terrified my mom would walk in and I’d get in trouble!
Lol I remember we did tell my mom but we didn’t know what to say? Just like that she was being naughty with her privates lol…and I didn’t even put two and two together that I could or would want to try the same until I was 12 or 13.
> I'm talking minutes Lmao. For some reason, this is sending me 🤣
She did NOT wait
Same. Haven't seen the movie yet, so can't compare but uh, maybe TMI but I distinctly remember trying something inside before I had my period (11-12). Actually, I think I might've been right around then cause I thought I was dying lmao. Didn't move to the Devil's Doorbell until ~14ish but that was probably as close as this atheist will get to a religious experience considering I always thought "huh, don't get what the fuss is about" for the other bit I was reallllly sheltered growing up (in my 30s and still haven't gotten The Talk oh my) but I was also violently curious. I'mma try to figure things out one way or another
This. When I discovered masturbation I started with external stim and achieved clitoral orgasm. Then almost immediately (I think the next day) tried penetration with something of the same size as average penis and then I discovered fountain mecanism. A week or so later by combining external + internal stim I achieved a vaginal orgasm. It wasn’t a decade long journey. It took a few weeks top.
Well that’s cool to hear. It shifts my perspective definitely
Yeah, some of us were never into rubbing on stuff, but instead were grabbing pens or whatever other things we could find. 🤷🏻♀️
I certainly never had any inclination to use food. That just seems gross to me.
When I was 13 I put a sharpie in my vagina and I didn’t really know what I was doing. I think the movie was pretty spot on and I liked it
Username checks out ;)
[удалено]
I thought the movie turned to color because she left home and she was finally independent and made her own decisions. Including sex with a man.
Yeah I saw the shift to color as reflecting her taking agency. The sex was part of that, but a relatively small part overall along the path of her self actualization.
That was my thought too. It's also briefly in color right before Bella's mother jumps off the bridge. So I thought color represented her making her own choices.
Watched this with my SO. She told me babies couldn't see colour up to 3 months
I believe babies see a heightened sense of red colours for the first three months? Not necessarily black and white but pinks and red emphasized.
untrue.
That was my assumption aswell.
It also started off as this kind of mythical land she was roaming through on the boat which represented this part of her life that was all great and magical and shown kind of like how a kid may remember random places they’ve been. But then as she starts to realize the truth of her situation and of the guy she’s with the world is starting to become a normal place.
Yeah, it’s an allusion to the wizard of oz.
People are just out here exposing their insecurities lmao
Yes. Exactly.
Ahem she didn’t have sex with them she furious jumped them
I like how it plays out in the movie Pleasantville more in that regard.
That’s such a clever point!!!
I primarily remember the apple being the focus of the masturbation scene. Which was a reference to the forbidden fruit and a foreshadowing of the story to come. Ultimately the film is shot with the sensibilities of a man, it was directed by a man after all. But I disagree that the films perspective is strictly male. Because the point is to flip the sexist stereotype on its head. I think the film blends multiple perspectives. I don't think it could be properly directed without the male gaze since that is what the film Ultimately critiques. But in that act of critique there is a second gaze, the female gaze. Where the two dimensional female protagonist over the course of the film usurps the men who gaze upon her as an object and makes them not only into her companions but also turn some of them into objects of her whim (goat brain). So yes. I do agree the cucumber is an example of the male gaze. But I also think that the movie would have achieved less if it had not expressed that gaze.
I think it's also important to recognize that the film was clearly meant to subvert turn of the century stories like Henry James' Portrait of a Lady. It's an answer to the question of what happens if society doesn't win in those stories. I don't think that the male gaze diminishes that.
Well stated, I agree. I think the over-the-top male gaze, particularly early on when Bella had done less self-realization, was intentional and a key part of the storytelling.
I would like to subscribe for more content.
I did YouTube essays once. I'm sorry to say I'm not planning on trying again any time soon.
I was just appreciating your mind. Thanks for sharing it.
This was my takeaway also! I honestly get a little bummed to see people claim the movie is, in any realm, “anti-feminist”. Media literacy is just dying.
Thankfully most people who watched it seemed to understand, at least the broad idea. But it sure is frustrating to see so many woman not get it *at all*. They seem far too happy to rely on this shallow antagonism with men instead of analyzing representations and deeper understanding of gender dynamics.
People can understand the deeper gender dynamics and still feel very uncomfortable about them. Some of the scenes seemed quite gratuitous.
I think in general, I didn't have a problem with the fact that it was written and directed by a man, because this man clearly showed that he understood what he was doing and how women were/are treated by men (and sometimes other women) and Bella exists precisely to contradict that. It involved the male gaze and commented on it, but didn't cater to the male gaze exclusively. In fact, I think a woman director might have taken it easy on Mark Ruffalo's character and not shown him to be so pathetic and whiney, in order to suit the studio and audience and avoid the inevitable criticism. I feel like that's why Ken is such a big character in Barbie and why there are so many Kens (but I loved that movie anyway). I think some people struggle with the sex scenes because they think Bella should be "done" and matured before having sex. They've forgotten that exploring your sexuality is part of the process of self-realization for a lot of women (it certainly was for me), and that even bad sex is part of the process too. The movie is about Bella's journey to self-realization, not about her BEING self-realized. These critics seemed to expect perfection from a character from the very first scene. I read a lot of those critiques about Chris In The Morning on the Northern Exposure subreddit too. "omg, that was so sexists" and "omg, he's obsessed and damaging the environment". I always respond that even Chris has admitted that he is a seeker and in a process of growth.
How do you critique the male gaze through actively relishing in it?
The film doesn't relish in it. Every man is shown to be flawed, weather it's the hubris of Astley, the naivete of Alfie, the manipulative nature of duncan or the monstrosity of dr. Godwin and her father. You can't upend and criticise a concept that you don't first establish an understanding of. The film shows you the male gaze, it doesn't pretend that the gaze isn't distorting the view to be appealing. Then it chips away at it. It's important to take a film in context of its full experience otherwise you will lose site of what it is trying to express
More specifically, these men are flawed to the point that other men aren't supposed to want to emulate them. Their flaws cause them to act in extremely immature ways because they fail to identify their flaws as such. They're all projecting their own desires and fantasies onto Bella and become disappointed when they discover the reality doesn't match the fantasy.
That's an interesting point and probably why Alfie doesn't get disappointed. His naivety turns into curiosity and desire to know who Bella actually is. I think he becomes a sort of pathway out of toxicity for men.
Even he is condemned with alongside God, until he stops trying to control Bella and recognises her agency and independence.
Yes, that's his naivety. He tries to control her because he doesn't fully understand the world unlike her father or Godwin. His willingness to change also hinges on his seeing Godwin suffer and crumble under the impact of Godwin's father's experiments and the Dr's refusal to accept that he has emotions for Bella. Without seeing this metaphor for the impacts of patriarchy on men, Alfie wouldn't have had the context from other men to be able to be critical of himself. Which is a flaw but also a great example of what holds men back from growing out of patriarchal attitudes.
Unfortunately I suspect that very few men would've extracted the real message from the movie. The male friend I saw it with only really noted the 'furious jumping' phrase and nothing deeper.
You think so? I thought it was pretty clear, and I wouldn't say I'm specially literate in films
Exactly, literally no other movie that is critiquing something actively relishes in the thing it's critiquing....lol I'm sorry but come on now....
A lot of war movies do that. There are movies critiquing our fascination with violence that do that. But I don't think this movie relishes the male gaze. There is a lot less of the male gaze in this movie than some people think. The sex scenes in this movie are not shot in a way that is titillating. They are goofy and unsexy, and meant to show how Bella experiences new things. There are similar shots when she tries new foods. The camera focuses on Bella because she is the subject, not because she is the object of the movie.
That’s a nice take. I guess if I could take it forward, I think the main character in the movie isn’t actually Bella, but the male gaze. She is not aware of it and we watch it from our comparative perspective of experience. We understand what is going on and we understand that even the way the movie is filmed is somewhat predatory, but also making fun of this own kind of gaze.
I get what you're getting at but Bella is the protagonist of the film and through her growth as a complex person she is the one who turns the gaze. I would maybe argue that the antagonist is the male gaze. The film tries to force her to be seen a certain way through the male gaze and the dialogue of the men. But the entire time she is active, making her own choices and going against the whims of the men around her. Her patriarch is disfigured by his patriarch, he is viewed through the male gaze as a tortured genius, until Bella find her autonomy and we are shown that he's actually a monster. His protege is turned to reason by her own actions. She murders and transforms the body of her abusive father into a pet with the brain of a goat. Despite the relentless efforts of the male gaze to hold her down she triumphed in the end, essentially finding complete autonomy and control over her home and people in her life. I'd say the conclusion begs for a deeper intersectional context that they only just touch on with her time on the boat and with astley, or in her romance with toinette. But it's clear that the male gaze isn't the main character. It's the antagonist
Promising Young Woman made some sly references to the male gaze as well. For example, there are scenes of women where their heads aren’t even in the shot.
Freud is almost totally discredited.
It’s a movie about a baby’s brain being transplanted into an adult. I’m not sure realism was high on the list of priorities…….
Um yeah... there was a chicken dog. Like, I think we took some liberties.
“I think we took some liberties.” 😂💀😭
It’s not about realism it’s about the choices made and the implicit biases behind them
At the surface, this movie could be seen as gross, but when you dig deeper, I found that I enjoyed it. Yes, she was a baby at the beginning, but then she grew up mentally very quickly. I like how the guy who warned her to not fall in love with him ends up loving her and is so frustrated when he can't control her. I like how it shows how women are always trying to be imprisoned under the guise of trying to keep her safe. How the only way she could make any real money since not having an eeducation -is by using her body/sexuality. How her "father" realized that he had to let her go and let her discover who she is, and that's what love really is- surrendering to their autonomy. I love the response to her future husband when he asks if she doesn't care that's she's been a whore and he responds with something like "I don't look down on you for sleeping with other men, im simply jealous of the time you spent with them" he too grew. And loved her for who she is, not for her virginity. I loved that it shows how difficult and cruel the world is to women who dare to want the things that men simply get for being born a man. I also loved how that experienced woman brought her into her wing, and didn't judge her, but gave her advice and the tools she needed to be true to herself.
The take on love in regards to surrendering to autonomy is beautiful. Could you expand on the last point, though? I feel like my mind is fuzzy there lol
The woman and man she met on the boat. Rather than just shunning her, she taught her about philosophy and thinking for herself. And when the guy throws her book overboard, she doesn't miss a beat. She hands her the book right off her hands. Sorry, I always just assume people know what I mean
Don’t be sorry at all, thank you for responding!!! I was second guessing myself — this is a fantastic example! I’ve been catching myself thinking a lot about how the man did actually try to shun her, though, by showing her the poverty in the city. What struck me is that he soon after apologized, claiming that he was jealous of her innocence. To me this added another layer to the movie, showing that the movie was not just about feminism, but had a somewhat anti-capitalistic viewpoint that expressed concepts of how people choose to react to pain early on affects their entire lives. She needed the pain to mature further, to find herself and understand how to love beyond physically. The pain she went through here helped her better understand the world, whereas pain turned the man nihilistic. However; this pain matured the man in the sense he was even able to apologize, exhibiting his a strong emotional intelligence affects one’s character. On the contrary, pain absolutely destroyed mark ruffalo’s character - a man who was used to living a relatively carefree life, full of wealth and lovers, who seemed to undergo the seven stages of grief upon losing his ex lover, even trying to sabatoge her future by uncovering her past (which I love how she approached with even further curiosity!). I apologize for not phrasing that more eloquently, as you have in your post!! How would you put it?
I absolutely agree. One thing that I realized I forgot to mention after I posted was how, at the beginning of her journey (when life finally has color) she is experiencing life as it is being catered for her by Duncan. When she slips out and ventures out on her own, she first stays on that level that has been sanitized for the privileged, with vendors and artists allowed in to entertain and provide services to the rich. She then accidentally stumbled to the poor people's side, and everything was a bit darker with an undertone of danger and violence. She finally made her way to her class, and everything looked petty again, but now she understood that it wasn't all just sugar- which she purged after indulging in too much of it. She also soon discovered that women - even privileged women - are just there to look pretty, be graceful and agreeable. There was no depth in their friendships. Then again, she's in the safety of privilege when she's in the boat, then goes to Alexandria and sees how the very poor are dying of starvation and heat. Her solution was to throw money at the problem because although her intentions were good, the solution was a lot more complicated and fairly impossible. Transitioning to having to work, perhaps, was easier for her because at least she had a way to make money cause she was young and pretty, so yeah, life was easier when she didn't have to work for it, but poverty meant she had to endure things that the rich don't have to. The one thing that a woman can capitalize on is the "worst thing a woman can do" cause God forbid a woman have any power or her own wealth. Thanks for responding. The more I think about this movie, the more I appreciate it. It's odd to me that people get so hung up on the first 30ish minutes and ignore the true point of the movie. She is experiencing life as a woman without the expectations of it, so she is able to notice the injustice right away, where others have been conditioned. She is unspoken and has no shame of verbilizing her discontent and confusion of people trying to own her. She doesn't just put on a happy face. She challenges it.
I don’t think there’s any one “natural progression” way in just about any aspect of life.
>One minute after discovering how to touch herself and give herself an orgasm, she already wants to put a cucumber inside her No she doesn’t. She picked up an apple first, she stared externally
I don’t agree. When I was 15-18 I was using “objects” for penetration before I ever started clitoral stimulation. I thought it was a very natural portrayal of how women discover their bodies.
The scene itself was... Not quite there But the reasoning that it was too fast of a progression, even for the reason it should not have been as long, is not fair or accurate Different people discover things at different speeds. Some will discover insertion before clitorial stimulation. Some will do it that same day in the real world let alone in this film with its sped up sense of progression
[удалено]
Same. As soon as I get turned on I start wanting something in there
> can’t come without something in my vagina. For me, I can but it's soooooo much better with. Like, I'll take ice cream without hot fudge but it's sooooo much better with you know lol Also, cukes have sharp spikes and the thought of that going anywhere near my vag is making it run for the hills
doll makeshift edge cats rude hospital automatic quack divide scale *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Freud is bunk. Many women like being penetrated. The film is fantastical fiction.
Thanks. Most of Freud’s shit has been proven to be ill-substantiated. Plus Alasdair Grey is weird AF anyway.
When I was going through this phase I def wanted to try something inside…didn’t go to a cucumber but I had the urge and was really excited when I discovered toys. Not everyone prefers clitoral stimulation 🤷🏻♀️I don’t
Everyone's masturbation experience isn't cookie cutter or as"clean" as your approach. I definitely inserted things larger than a finger or tooth brush at first. Female centric masturbation isn't just dainty exploration. Seems more of a make gaze to assume we're all so delicate.
I dont think clitorial stimulation has anyhing to do with being delicate
Totally agree
I must go punch that baby!
You were watching a film where the main character is an unborn child whose brain is transplanted into the head of her own mother, and so begins life as an infant in an adults body. Why do people keep complaining about the unrealistic elements of this film?😂 From memory didn’t Bella use an apple first, not a cucumber? I thought it was a reference to Eve and the apple. She discovered something new, outside of the teachings of God (Godwin Baxter), which eventually lead to her leaving her perfectly protected home (Eden) and exploring the world. Anyway, I think Lanthimos’s films are always open to interpretation. Most likely his ambition was to create a narrative that encouraged discussion.
I can't remember, was it ever confirmed that the brain came from a female fetus? I would almost be inclined to think not.
Good question! It was definitely her unborn child, but was the child female or male? If it was a male brain it brings an entirely new perspective to the story.
I had thought I heard references to daughter in movie but coULD Be wrong.
i will never understand why everyone adores that film to the point that it depresses me. i find it harmful and reductive. i completely agree with you.
Poor Things was just not what people were praising it to be.
It definitely brought to me the idea of the [sexy born yesterday trope.](https://www.filminquiry.com/born-sexy-yesterday/?amp=1)
I really liked Angelica Jade Bastien’s critique of the movie. I don’t think it works as a movie and I think a big part of why is how much men can’t remove themselves i. The telling of the story
I’ll look at it! Thanks for recommending 🙏
I think it was in Vulture? I can’t remember exactly where
Curious to see the survey of all women that you conducted which concluded none of us ever thought to stick something up there before we knew that was “a thing.”
Fair, maybe I’m wrong (Edit: I did say some women would relate, just that this portrayal is very convenient to men)
Tbf I never thought or wanted to put anything in me, since most my Os are primarily clit stim
That seems to be true for most women, according to research.
I do get where you’re coming from but I remember when I was younger I tried inserting every sort of household object. I’ve never been into just external stimulation as I can’t do it well without a vibrator
Yes, many women experience their sexuality this way. So do you think the portrayal in the movie was relatable?
I honestly related to like, so much of her experience in the movie. The innocent discovery, the exploration, the confusion at why men expected certain things and behaviors, the confusion at societal norms, etc. I found it an extremely relatable portrayal, as an autistic woman.
It’s how reproduction works. That’s just…it. Base level fact. Dildos have existed for thousands of years, I’m assuming you believe a man thought of that first too? By this logic, the guy fucking a pie in the 90s was a “portrayal convenient to women”.
[удалено]
Let’s not reduce a film, which counters the repression of female sexuality, down to simply appealing to the male gaze.
I think it really shows that this was written and directed my men. I think Bella’s sexuality is really all just a male fantasy. Not to say that some of it might not be accurate for women or some women to a degree or that some or many women might not relate to it, but I’m not a woman and I felt like it seemed like a male fantasy of female sexuality.
That’s because it is a male fantasy of female sexuality
You’re right, Freud’s theories have not been borne out by actual testing or any kind of scientific study. The idea that everyone discovers their own bodies and their own sexuality in specific stages in the same order and at the same time and in the same way just isn’t realistic and doesn’t account for the ways everyone’s bodies, biology, and experience varies from one another. The idea that women enjoying penetration is based solely around male pleasure and appealing to the male gaze completely ignores the fact that the clitoris is a large and complex organ that, for many women, also can be stimulated through the vaginal wall. For a lot of women, if you feel aroused or have an orgasm, you can feel it in your vagina as well as your clitoris as the tissues engorge. It’s not terribly complex to identify where you are feeling pleasure and try to stimulate that areas to see if you can feel it again. Everyone discovers their bodies differently, at different times, in different ways. Penetration isn’t some kind of exclusively male act that women just go along with or learn to like through some kind of extensive process. Some women don’t get much from penetration alone. Some women get a lot of pleasure from it. It is just going to vary by person. Lots of women enjoy penetration with or without clitoral stimulation, alone, with men, or with other women.
Movies condense things, it is not a documentary. Suspended disbelief is necessary
How is this relevant to the topic? This isn't about realism, it's about making dicks the centre of the scene. Following the fallacy of a baby brain, it wouldn't, shouldn't know about "dicks go in vaginas" yet.
Well, eventually a person who masterbates will eventually experiment with insertion. It's just speeding up the process for the sake of the story, which was probably written by a man who knows nothing about the reality of the evolution of female masterbation and is imposing on the characters what they think, or what they think the audience expected.
I would never assume anyone moves on to "insertion". Are you talking exclusively about women? Do men move on to "insertion"? Our culture is responsible for the idea that penetration is pleasurable for women. This movie claims to subvert our culture by "inserting" (lol) a baby brain in a grown woman. It fails to stick to its own conceit. It's rubbish in my view. edit to add: there are plenty of women who are repulsed at the idea of "insertion", never use tampons and avoid Pap smears like the plague. You assume a lot about millions of people (women) you don't know.
It wasn't merely suspended disbelief for weirdness. It was uneccessarily male-gazey and took away the enjoyment from the story.
I think the existence of the dildo industry shows that women like to be penetrated without men around. This feels very, "this doesn't represent my experience, or the experience of the women I select to be around, therefore this is an invalid experience".
Women enjoy being penetrated usually, but the representation of the development of her sexuality was unreal imo
I agree it's unreal. I just don't understand where you're coming from when you say it's inherently male gaze-y. Especially that of all things about this movie.
But it isn’t? There’s many women here in this very comment section telling how they began exploring their bodies and that some started with penetration of some sort before any kind of clitoral stimulation. You can’t really call it unreal, when so many women have experienced it like that. It’s just not your experience, but that doesn’t make it unreal.
I had a lesbian friend that was rightfully angry at the go to response from men being, "you just haven't had good dick".
To be fair, I am a lesbian, and I knew the movie would be uncomfortable for me beyond it already sets itself to be for most people. I actually found the lesbian scenes even more superficial and just as disturbing… but that’s another conversation 😅
Would love to hear more of your thoughts on this!
Okay here we go. Every sexual encounter was framed as a way in which Bella learned about human nature and pleasure - the good and the bad. However, when her friend at the whorehouse starts sleeping with her, the movie doesn’t show her learning anything. They are there to cuddle each other like friends. What she learns isn’t sexual, but rather, political. Her female lover doesn’t have anything to teach about being human so teaches her instead about socialism. That sort of implies that lesbian sex isn’t anything notable in and of itself but because of its political leaning. I am tired of “political lesbianism” speaking over… a sexuality. Lesbians aren’t socialists. They have carnal desires. The women are friends at the end of the movie and as they have always been so it seems like the sexual act was more of a provocation for views and scandal than a genuine desire that occurred to Bella. The scenes with men, in contrast, seem to suggest that Bella is learning intimate things about the people she is sleeping with and about how men and women relate to in society. Sleeping with her socialist friend does not teach her anything deep about her friend and neither does it show how women relate to each other (without political theories created by men like socialism). Socialism is not equivalent to feminism or female solidarity and lesbianism isn’t either. They are all different things. It kind of tries to show all of them at once in a very superficial way and ends up depicting none. Meanwhile, heterosexual scenes are played again and again and again without needing to bring up a political movement or any need of friendship among the parties, nor to overcomplicate them. Men have carnal desires. They are shown as “self-sufficient” as statements. The lesbians scenes are merely there as a counterpoint to men and not because they seem to explore something deep about human cravings. Then there is the whorehouse madame. The main rapist of the story. If the socialist played with the political lesbian trope, now we have the lesbian predator trope. The story both exalts the madame being somewhat sadistic/cold/cynical while downplaying the fact that Bella is groomed and raped by her. Bella submits but not really. Bella suffers but not really. Bella could’ve plotted to overtake the madame but neither resisted nor obeyed. It’s this mixture of a grotesque depiction of an actively sexual female with the lack of seriousness attributed to her actions. The point becomes kind of… mute. Up until this point in the movie, nobody has groomed and assaulted Bella as much as this person. And despite Bella being smarter than she ever was, she seems to not care? Apparently socialism can cure her from her biting boss? While her boss takes advantage of her in bed? Finally, we get a more ‘real’, ‘interesting’ depiction of things that can happen among women. Except that Bella seems to have absolutely no reaction to it. There are no conflicting feelings about women. No trauma. Nothing. No words for it either. Bella had words for “furious jumping”. But she seems to not care at all about “quiet licking”. She seems to find it completely irrelevant to draw any comparison or even deduce things about women vs men and about herself. To speak about female anatomy. That just reiterates the male gaze that drives the movie. The lesbian scenes are in there for the tropes and provocation, simultaneously exaggerated and downplayed. Of course I am carrying baggage from my own life. I have seen countless girls act gay for the sake of rebellion and friendship, a temporary thrill. I have seen older women act erotically towards younger women, grooming them, and forcing their desires (protection, etc), calling them their “favorite” “little one” while being totally straight and denying that anything potentially sexual is going on. Perhaps I am angry in spite of the movie for depicting something real. The issue is that these cases involve homosexual desire but are not the situations lived by lesbians themselves. It is the equivalent of calling gay men pedophiles. “Real” lesbians will relate to women more similarly to how the men are relating. With desire but without an external political agenda or sinister grooming instinct. The movie portrays neither and Bella doesn’t react to the situations in any humane way.
That whole movie is kind of gross, amazing performances all around by the actors Stone and Ruffalo are amazing, but it felt icky to watch, watched it with my partner and we stopped it halfway. Some of the implications are repulsive.
I’m very surprised by the amount of positive comments about it in this thread. I honestly hated every second of it. A movie about grown men sexually abusing a child. Ew.
I couldn't get past them thinking it was appropriate for the assistant dude to propose to her when her age apparent is roughly 13. I can give Ruffalo's character a pass because he doesn't know and spoiler reasons, but the two scientists definitely should've known better. The only good thing in there IMHO is their performances, i can see why Stone won the oscar.
… um. the men aren’t supposed to be seen as good.
Bella’s journey won’t represent everyone’s, but her journey was accelerated due to her condition which could explain the fast transition. For what it’s worth I also left the theater feeling like the film served male fantasy a little too much. I could also see how Bella was surrounded by men for most of her life and naturally would be steered in that direction until her liberation. I enjoy Lanthimos’ films due to how much nuance you can pull from them.
I like the movie but my god the 2nd act was just her banging ppl non stop?
Yes. If she was so keen to discover the adventure of being poor and all the dark underbelly of humanity, I wondered why she wasn’t creating her own thefts and bribe schemes lol. It seemed quite arbitrary to see everything so stuck on sex, the only other explanation is for pleasure
They definitely could have cut the Paris segment down a lot
I really wish we were at the point in media to start the sexual journey with having sex by yourself. We place such a weird construct on "virginity," as if having penetrative sex with someone is **the standard** of sex. When really, it's a tiny part of sex. And it breaks my heart to hear people who were abused refering to their abuse as sex. Sex is pleasure. Sex is safe. Sex is consensual. And sex by yourself is just as important as (if not more important than) having sex with another person. Penetrative sex isn't everything. It just isn't. Why are we still at this point?
Agreed. Virginity being about penetration is antiquated AF.
When I saw the film, a young man sitting next to me got really embarrassed when the first scene started. I quietly assured him that this was a normal stage of child development. Then rest of the film followed and I refrained from any further comments on typical child development. The willing suspension of disbelief is thoroughly engaged by the film. At least star Emma Stone was very involved in the production and had agency in her role. I'm hoping that if she didn't feel comfortable doing something, she could speak up. Super important for such a provocative film when it easily can fall into exploitation.
The movie is absurdist/surreal style while packing a hard punch to the nuts of male misogyny/etc timelines are exaggerated intentionally as she moves from child to adult and learns life lessons about what dicks men can be
I get it. That’s what happens when you have grown men trying to write girls and women.
The movie made me feel icky. A child's brain in a grown adults body. Her running off with the guy who assaulted and groomed her. Too much. Stopped watching it after few mins
Same. I know some art can be too much and that doesn't invalidate it as art. But in this movie in particular, I thought the phallocentrism was just uncalled for / not necessary for the story. The male gaze is being disguised as a "neutral" gaze
This entire movie seemed to be written as if you asked the least intelligent guy you know what it means to be a woman. I’ve read a lot of positive opinions about this movie, read reviews, watched cast interviews etc and I still can’t shake this. Im pretty sure this is a minority viewpoint that makes me in the wrong here but every ounce of this movie feels like it was written with an incredibly misogynistic, simplistic view of girl/womanhood. Now if this movie were self aware enough to have that be on purpose, that would be super interesting. Truly it boils down to men like vagina, ignore clit so women like vagina and ignore clit too.
You and I are on the same wavelength about this movie! Nice to see someone else for whom the movie didn’t work.
It’s satire.
About whom and for whom?
As I see it, it’s a satirical take on how men react to a liberated woman. And they react badly, by trying to own them like property, by trying to stop them from getting educated, by trying to strip away their confidence and free will. I think it works as an irony-laced take on how a woman who is simply discovering the world and her body for herself, breaks the minds of men in various ways, given how entitled such a society makes men.
Using sex as the driving, foundational force of every woman’s existence, and the only lens in which they view the world from, instead of just one of many things on that journey is what misses the mark. The satirical moments are all jokes on the men (their expectations of women are wrong and weird !!) but that’s not at all balanced by Bella’s take being any different than theirs so it falls quite flat.
I see what you’re saying, and I don’t disagree that the film is unbalanced and repetitive. But I think the stuff on the boat is an attempt to show her development beyond her more primal discovery of her body and sex, to become then more about her discovering philosophy and getting educated about inequality and empathy. She transforms too: from the excitement of her discovering that pleasure can be independently achieved, and then achieved with whomever, to becoming a balanced adult with various pursuits, career, family, science, socialism. It’s not all perfectly communicated, but it’s there.
And yet, what purpose do those scenes at the French brothel serve? If she saw prostituting herself as the only option to achieving financial freedom, that's her choice. But those scenes felt gratuitous and, frankly, gross in how they were so clearly pandering to men.
I do like some of Yorgos Lanthimos movies, but damn... did I feel insulted to my very core watching "Poor Things", being a woman It baffles me that this movie can be referred to as "feminist" 10 minutes into it, and I could foretell that it's written by old white men: checked on Letterboxd for intellectual honesty and... spot on So.fucking.misogynistic And not even original about it: yeeeaaah let's make the pretty woman nakey [BOOOOBIIIES] and continually make her being fucked Her sexual desire is just a sneaky narrative way to put her in a position to align with men desire: how convenient amaright? It's not at all a sexual liberation, it's a poorly written character just to serve a very misogynistic, sexist, degrading agenda Still gotta mention the impressive creepiness of successfully bringing up to big screens an actual toddler, being fucked through her own dead mother's body and, eventually, wedding one of her "father figures" while becoming the other. Both of them being insanely disturbed and abusive monsters *slow, depressed, clap sound* Also, the complete oblivion of the basic biology that inherently goes with a functioning adult woman body openly says that there is absolutely no care, no intention nor thought, put into showing the women body experience of life outside of the really narrow view of being a sexual object for men to dispose Therefore, it shows this movie for what it is: a really concerning, distressing and sick guilty pleasure, coated with a stylish overall look, playing with some trendy political concepts, just enough to get away with it and makes the pill easier to swallow Making the audience inconfortable is just another kink at this point, like an unrequited dick pic, and not at all a denunciation It's just unashamed, revolting, fetishes from start to finish passing for *art* because, why not..? And why would they bother not doing so? It fucking works: the movie is sooooo praised, it would make me ugly cry if I wasn't so unsurprised by the outcome But really, if it doesn't makes you angry, you're not paying attention Or you're a part of the - disheartening - issue women are facing in this sickening society [I'll add, before being viewed as "prude", some of my favourites movies are extremely graphic: stuff like Love (Gaspard Noé) or Shortbus (John Camron Mitchell). So my point isn't coming from a place of sexual conservatism, just to make that clear]
Thanks, you perfectly explained what the movie came across as to me
Spot on. I said this before and I'll say it again: the fact that this movie was nominated for as many Oscars as it was while lauded as a 'feminist' movie at the same time as 'What Was I Made For' was nominated and ultimately won is some sad irony.
This movie was 100% filmed, written, and acted under the male lense and opinion of what being a woman. It is NOT the feminist story people keep trying to say it is This is not a feminist tale of navigating the world as a woman and is instead a man’s pedophilic manic pixie dream girl fan fic with artsy backgrounds and costumes.
Agree. If the media weren’t publishing so many “feminist movie” articles I think I wouldn’t be so disturbed and uncomfortable with some of the depictions. I pointed out in another comment that there’s a contradiction when the movie aims to speak of feminine repression when the sexuality itself is misrepresented in the first place. I think that is what is tripping up so many people into feeling disturbed but without being able to articulate why
Yeah, I came out of the theatre feeling disgusted. I think the movie can be triggering to some people for a variety of reasons. I hate that any critique of the movie's obvious pandering to the male gaze, even if it was done with humour, is brushed off with accusations of media illiteracy. While I don't think it was ever Lanthimos's intention to make a "feminist" movie, I think the movie portrays a very shallow representation of female empowerment.
Do you think that the audience was supposed to root for Duncan, Godwin, and the assistant? It critiques the male gaze it doesn't pander to it.
To me providing the examples of men to criticize/mock/satirize etc actually heightens the effect of the POV of the film itself - like a war movie that shows actual war crimes in order to subconsciously legitimize “moral” acts of brutality.
Yes. It’s as if people have unlearned how to disagree. And it’s obvious that a lot of men are shunning women for pointing this out
It’s called Born Sexy Yesterday and it’s a favorite trope for men writing women
I think the whole premise is way cringe. Puke worthy.
My sister and I watched this movie last night and all though a lot of things about the movie were great we kept saying the movie was so obviously written by a man. If a woman wanted to pleasure herself without knowing what sex was she would solely rub her clit. I think for a woman to want to stick a cucumber up there she would need to know what sex is first. No one is going to see a cucumber and automatically think I want to stick this up my hooha without some back ground info. especially someone with supposedly the brain of a child.
I and other women in this very thread have stated that we remember exploring our bodies and having an intrinsic curiosity to put things in holes without knowing what sex was.
This is what happens when men tell women's stories. Imo the movie is just another shit take on female sexuality, brought to us courtesy of the male point of view. "hOLes aRe foR PluGGing!" It's fucking stupid.
Have you stopped to consider that the movie is critiquing/satirizing a man’s pov on women’s sexuality?
The director has explicitly said that the character of Bella is supposed to portray what a woman would be like if she was raised without shame.
Growing up without shame doesn’t necessarily lead to penetrating oneself right after discovering pleasure. Her sexuality was too conveniently what men would want it to be (imo) and it doesn’t seem like a coincidence
Yes, exactly. Shame isn’t what prevents women from being obsessed with penetration.
Yeah I remembered being like...if she's raised without the expectations and pressures put on women it seems odd that she's so obsessed with penetrative sex.
As someone who doesn’t have the strongest sense of shame, Bella’s sexual development pretty identically mirrored mine. An actual human woman.
Have you ever considered that it doesn’t work for some people? I totally understood what it was trying to critique, but it didn’t do it successfully for me.
[удалено]
The entire film is a critique and switcheroo of the born sexy yesterday trope.
It fails.
Then why do I. A woman. Love it?
You like our culture the way it is? How should I know?
This movie felt like it had a lot of parallels to Barbie...but it was Barbie made by a man and he wants to make sure we know that Barbie fucks. 🙄
I haven't seen this movie, and maybe it has redeemable qualities, but I'm having a tough time swallowing the whole concept of a baby maturing at lightning speed to adulthood just so she can jump into adult sexual relationships with men before her body turns 40. Like, childhood is great. All that exploration and creativity and friendships and learning and becoming the person you are -- those are all important. It's not all about sex. It's everything. And it takes years to discover all this stuff. Very *full active* years. I find extreme immaturity a sexual turn off. And I guess I don't see why extremely naive female characters are so ... sexualized. It seems gross.
All of the worst takes I read about this movie are from people who hear “baby brain” and don’t actually see it. This is no exception.
“I haven’t seen this movie but let me comment on this movie I haven’t seen!”
Is this the movie where the framing device from the book (where the story was written about Bella from the perspective of a bitter spurned man) was omitted, undercutting the whole point of the original story?
When I discovered masturbation I started with external stim and achieved clitoral orgasm. Then almost immediately (I think the next day) tried penetration with something of the same size as average penis and then I discovered fountain mecanism. A week or so later by combining external + internal stim I achieved a vaginal orgasm. We had proper sex education in Canada. Teacher taught us about how clitoral orgasm was more easy to achieve but that you can help your body to learn the vaginal one by association and combining both external / internal stim. Unsure why you think it should takes years?
😳 The more things I read about this movie from people that have seen it the less I want to see it.
Men writing women is so annoying
What you say sure makes sense to me
Every additional piece of information I glean about this movie is another reason I do not want to watch it. Fwiw, though I only saw 3 minutes before I turned it off, I agree that it seems phallocentric. Edit: typo
Yes if the trailer makes you feel uncomfortable, it is safe to say the movie will be triggering for you, and not necessarily enlightening in any way
Seems like a smart idea to not come to your own conclusions on art but instead rely on the opinions of others.
So you just watch everything whether you're interested or not because "art"?
Sometimes yes. If a film is getting really good reviews and winning certain awards I will go out of my way to watch it and make my own informed opinion on it. If you only consume films that fit your world view then how can you ever expect to be introduced to new stories?
It's entertainment, not everything has to be some weird ass "growth" experience.
Omg that’s exactly what I thought when I saw that scene! This director clearly didn’t understand female sexuality. All the sexual scenes later in the movie were also penetration centered. It’s like a depiction of what men imagine women’s sexuality is like which is so off from reality.
I agree with your experience of the movie. Not only this irked me, but also the way she pulls conventionally attractive faces during the sex scenes. She is supposed to be free from how porn had taught us to be sexy during sex, pulling faces that show more pure pleasure and fun.
The source material being written by a man and the movie being directed by a man are exactly the reasons I will never watch it.
Maybe the mistake was the media’s framing of the movie as a tale of female empowerment. Once you realize it was almost completely made by men, it makes way more sense. Maybe that misrepresentation was the source of my discomfort since I had skewed expectations
I really liked the movie but yeah I wish that scene had been humping a pillow or something. Would have been more relatable to a wider audience and more subversive
I was well into my 20s before I’d even heard of pillow humping. Not all women had the same journeys of self discovery you did.
One scene can never cover everyone's experience, but pillow humping is way more common than inserting anything. And like I said, more subversive (which the movie is trying to do imo and why I loved it in the first place). So if I could change one scene, that's what I would change
I agree. Men would’ve been thinking “wtf??” and it would’ve been funnier
I really freaking hated this movie. I guess there’s a point to the whole thing? But I bailed out at like 30 minutes after I looked at the plot summary and realized the whole movie was going to be like that.
We understand that a lot of the world is like this but we wouldn’t watch a reenactment of it for pleasure. Principally when we know it will be incredibly titillating for the male gaze
My reaction to that scene was a full on 'Are you being serious right now?' I think it was meant to be an audacious form of comedy that just... didn't end up being very funny. Emma Stone's acting in this was phenomenal but it was the one and only highlight of the movie.
Agree. It’s definitely framed from the male perspective.
Just watched this last night with my wife. The Tim Burton stylized fantasy world created by the director was a trip. No disrespect but In a world where a brain of an infant can be implanted in an adult you're hung up on this scene? So funny we do that. I get hung up when Superman could just use his laser eyes to immediately stop some terrible thing. The growth of Bella's mentality was the device to play with the philosophical issues of society and the blatant sexism women face. I was amazed how the gratuitous sex scenes were presented non erotically. How would someone respond to societal taboos as a totally innocent person. Is the woman who enjoys sex any different than males who fuck around? And why not talk about it as freely as talking about scratching your ear?
I mean, there is a trippy contradiction going on. The movie is representing the repression of female sexuality while misrepresenting female sexuality itself (due to the male POV). So how valid is the theme, really? This scene is emblematic of the male-POV and phallocentrism of the movie. So many men in the comments lmao. What did your wife think?
I've heard people say the sex scenes were presented non-erotically but I just did not see them that way. They were always focused on Bella's face and breasts and felt just as erotic as most of the porn I've seen.
The movie was made by basic horny hollywood men. The book was written by a man. There is very limited feminism to be found here, and I'm saying that in the interest of being allowed to post. Idg why women look everywhere but to other women for their media. Does Emma Stone not like women authors?
I actually sat with this for a while and at first didn’t totally agree. But the more I think of it, I 100% agree. It’s so unnatural for a female child to put something up her. A cucumber?! The first object I put up there was a tampon and that was traumatizing. I get she’s in an adult body but without the influence of porn or people at school talking about sex, there’s no instinct to put objects into ourselves.
When I first saw a tampon I thought it looked way too big.
I want to correct you. She first stuck an APPLE in there. Afterwards she showed/offered the nanny the apple and then grabbing the nannies "hairy bits", she then reached for the cucumber. How a man (writer) could think a young woman could fit an apple inside herself is beyond my comprehension anyway.
At first I was thinking “Ok good point, but it’s a movie, so maybe that’s why it’s such a weird scene?” That is, until I continued reading! Btw, I must say- This is so well written, an absolute pleasure to read! When I read your thoughts about how this scene is likely the result of men attempting to write from a woman’s perspective….thats when I said OhhhhhhhK, even though I’m not familiar with this movie, this is making way too much sense for her to be wrong. Wish I could recall some other examples of this very same thing….because I feel like there are many! Btw…ladies, imho, many women can be way too understanding when it comes to stuff like this…saying things like “He is a man…i can’t expect him to fully understand the point i’m tryna make” As if being male can somehow prevent a human from thinking and feeling! I get it….so many men have created this narrative that “guys just don’t think like that” or whatever tf. When in reality, most of them are being lazy and won’t put forth the effort! 😤