Poor Things
As cinematic taste goes, Yorgos Lanthimos is divisive but undeniably talented. His work includes The Lobster, The Favourite, and The Killing of a Sacred Deer. Based on a book of the same name by Alasdair Gray, Poor Things reunites Emma Stone with Yorgos Lanthimos for a transformative tale.
The film is an infusion of mainstream cinema and art house. Abstract and realism combined into a visually bolder story than his previous work. Set in a blend of periods, it takes the eccentric style of The Favourite and gives it a more naturalist narrative arc of Sacred Deer. The theme of experimentation is in the film’s DNA, a creative playhouse for Lanthimos and his team. It’s an achievement in filmmaking to balance surrealism with realism so well.
Emma Stone plays a pregnant woman who throws herself off a bridge. Her body is found by Dr. Godwin Baxter (Willem Dafoe) who transplants the brain of her baby into her adult body to create Bella. Referred to as God, his house is filled with his creations of surgically crossbred animals, such as a duck’s head on a goat’s body. God asks one of his students at the local observatory, Max Candles (Ramy Youssef), to observe Bella’s development.
God wants to contain Bella in his home so he can observe her development. He suggests that Max and Bella marry, under the condition that they stay at home. He employs a lawyer, Duncan Wedderburn (Mark Ruffalo), to write the marriage contract. Wedderburn becomes infatuated with Bella and, with the permission of God and Max, Bella runs away with Wedderburn to explore the world in the knowledge that she will return to marry Max.
Stone worked with Lanthimos on The Favourite and the relationship has blossomed into this joyous creative partnership. Stone is a producer on the film and gives an extraordinary performance that’s brave, creative, and thoroughly deserved the Oscar. Bella is her most demanding role, she’s taken an abstract concept and embodied it from movement to speech. A character who starts as a baby in an adult’s body and grows into a sophisticated adult, one well versed in philosophy, ethics, and medicine.
Equally at home is Dafoe who is his usual glorious self. He wears the most remarkable prosthetics. An odd but compelling move for someone who is known for expressive features. It’s delightful to watch Stone and Dafoe on screen together as they’re two actors who are comfortable in this environment and play off each other expertly.
On the other hand, this is Mark Ruffalo’s first foray into such a creative role. Normally one for more contained performances, he’s broken away from his safety net and really pushed the boat out. For a first outing, it’s impressive, he’s just overshadowed from time to time by Stone, as at times you can see the cogs turning in Ruffalo’s mind, whereas Stone is Bella. I really hope Ruffalo pursues this style as I’m fascinated to see him develop.
Growing up in a scientific household has given Bella a pragmatic view of life. She wishes to experiment, to discover the world and indulge in the things she enjoys without being emotionally encumbered by men. It would be very easy to take this concept and make it conventionally comical, but her behaviour is a realistic response to circumstance. Her mind is a blank state unaffected by social politics.
One key ingredient that supports this is the script. And what an immersive, intelligent, and layered one this is, with moments that had the entire cinema in hysterics. It’s philosophical, explores class, poverty, nihilism, and sexual liberation. It questions taboo subjects through Bella’s rational observations, in particular patriarchy and male oppression. A theme the film explores through the male entrapments Bella is continually forced into. Traditionally masculine characters accustomed to the oppression of women become consumed with their infatuation of Bella, made more so by her refusal to submit to them. Their desperation to possess her exacerbates their emotional derangement. One memorable scene involves Bella defying Wedderburn, the music stops, the tension mounts, and you observe with Bella, as this narcissistic chauvinist crumbles.
Much has been made of the film’s use of nudity of which there is a great deal. Emma Stone as Bella has many full-frontal scenes, Mark Ruffalo is nude, though strategically covered to hide his penis, and there’s a chapter set in a brothel with both nude men and women. The argument has been made that Stone’s nudity feeds into the male gaze as Lanthimos is the director and writer, however I question this theory, as not only is Stone a producer on this film, giving her more creative control, she’s also worked with Lanthimos before, and I believe the idea for this film was discussed while making The Favourite. I don’t believe she would not have done these scenes if she didn’t feel comfortable, or if she didn’t feel the nudity was necessary.
Poor Things is an expression of liberation and pragmatism. The male gaze is the flaw of the male characters who sleep with Bella and view her as an object they can control. The nudity starts with a scene between Bella, Max, and God where Bella tries to leave a carriage and is chloroformed. She’s taken back to her room by Max and laid on her bed. The top of her dress has moved to expose her nipple. Max stops and stares for a moment before readjusting her dress. As an audience, you feel uncomfortable watching an unconscious Bella become a sexualised character to Max.
Once Bella takes control of the situation the nudity transitions from the male gaze and into her control, her liberation. As an audience we then see it all from Bella’s perspective. She is liberated, unencumbered by societal politics, as demonstrated by her every action. She enjoys sex and has no qualms about who it is with, she’s investigating how society works through experiments and rationality, seeking fulfilment, and for those men who do not match her criteria, it’s clear that she’s simply humouring them and is exasperated by their limitations. Bella may initially be seen as an object, but she quickly adapts to turn the tables and use men as the object to achieve her own pleasure, maturing and developing her own ideas of the world. A development most of the men in this film are incapable of. Once she grows tired and bored of their immaturity, she moves on, while the men become increasingly infatuated by her and are driven to madness.
Bella is God’s creation as Poor Things is Lanthimos’s, with all the hallmarks of his style. The long single shots and fisheye lenses give that artistic feel. The oscillation between scenes of colour and monochrome showcases the huge electronic screens used for backdrops of cities, the sky, and the sea, creating this non-naturalistic style. The sets are meticulously designed with huge steampunk cities filled with vibrant pastel colours, heightened by the phenomenal, fabulous, voluminous costumes one would see at a high-end fashion show. I immediately created a Pinterest board to collect as many as possible. All of this is supported by Jerskin Fendrix’s soundtrack which adds to the ambience so completely to create an eerie and energetic world, it’s unconventional and adds to the abstract themes – I even listened to it on my way home from the cinema to prolong my stay.
It’s a fascinating film. I’ve already seen it twice and plan to see it many more times to further understand the world they’ve built. By bringing abstract and realism together in a cohesive narrative, with a strong script, cast and phenomenal performance by Stone, Poor Things is a transformative piece.
Overall **** ½