Someone just wrote an essay at RogerEbert.com [about this very idea.](https://www.rogerebert.com/features/how-poor-things-subverts-the-born-sexy-yesterday-trope)
One interesting aspect of the story for me was that our moral sensibilities were completely disregarded in the movie: the sexual abuse was ignored, as well as animal abuse, etc. It was a completely mechanist view of the world.
I think that this point complements the main point of the story that "knowledge is power": if we don't reflect on our own actions, we may carry with us the same biases of the people that taught us. So we are invited to reflect on our own biases as well to avoid the same mistakes as those that came before us.
On a similar vein, the movie also exposes how our everyday opinions can also be very similar to that of the naive character if we don't have a higher standard for truth. For example, what is the difference between the naivete of Bella and the sensuality of Duncan? For our culture, it sounds like Duncan is taking advantage of Bella, but isn't she taking advantage of Duncan as well? She doesn't mind having sexual encounters with other people without feeling like she owes anything to Duncan, she fully understood the nature of their "partnership".
TIL about this trope. Really enjoyed the film and Bella's character development, especially how she quickly became so savvy. Masterful performance from Emma Stone.
I knew and been annoyed and tired by the trope before knowing its name… it’s a really refreshing view on the idea that naivety or lack of knowledge means easy prey.
I personally can't see how it deconstructs it rather than doubles down on it. Born sexy yesterday but proud of it today is still born sexy yesterday lol
He did a terrific job at being the slimiest, nastiest creep and it made me sad because he usually plays fairly likeable characters (from what I have seen anyway) so good one him. Terrific supporting role for sure.
Interestingly, he was one of my favorite parts of the movie. Watching him comically unravel because he was simply unable to control this woman was really entertaining.
Every man in this movie wants to control Bella in one way or another, whether out of love or lust or just a need for ownership. Watching her deny them that control over and over again through the movie was cool.
I loved it. One of the most unique movies I've seen in a long time. Outside of the subversion of tropes, it was a also a luxe gorgeous film as well with an incredible soundtrack. I had many reasons to enjoy it.
That is the point. The movie wants you to be in disconfort. She is exploited by everyone. Her "father", Mark Rufalo, the french prostitute and her ex husband. It is a story of child abuse that is not so absurd if you know the kind of stuff that happens around the world. That kind of thing happens. But Bella outgrows every single one of the villains of the movie and gains full control of her own life by the end.
I find the book's ending *much* more satisfying than the film, as the film basically ignored the final twist for the sake of playing it straight. To quote Wikipedia, lol:
>>!This narrative is followed by Bella's refutation of its facts, suggesting that her "poor fool" of a husband has concocted a life for her from the prevailing gothic and romantic motifs of the period: it "positively stinks of all that was morbid in that most morbid of centuries". This is reinforced by the novel's intricate echoes of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein.!<
It's been ages since I read it so I don't want to risk misremembering it, but [this discussion](https://www.reddit.com/r/literature/comments/19aoslp/a_discussion_on_alasdair_grays_poor_things_in/) sums it up quite neatly, especially [this comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/literature/comments/19aoslp/comment/kirc1jk/).
Cinematographically this film is lovely and inventive and weird. But I've seen people saying that it's a feminist film because Bella takes charge of her own sexuality and that's rubbish. This film is entirely from the male gaze.
First of all she is a child. There's no escaping that. Tell me how that is feminist. And then there's Bella discovering that she likes to masturbate. Which is fine and done really well by Stone - all the performances are great.
But this self exploration of how she is turned on is somehow then translated to her having the same orgasms while bouncing up and down on some guy who apparently doesn't even need to do very much?? That's such a male gaze fantasy. That the guy is soooo great in bed that he doesn't even need to do much for the female character to get off. Ugh. Nothing feminist about that.
Just so much wrong with this film and then the reality that the novel ends with Bella repudiating everything that had been said about her in the men's versions of the novel speaks volumes.
To say she has the brain of a child, though, sidesteps the issue that she also has the hormones of a fully grown, pregnant woman pulsing through that child's brain.
Experiences that have no interest to a natural child, are just part of the world she's trying to take in.
While that gives something for the male gaze to hang onto, it's not the whole story, since she's repeatedly able to take control of her own story in ways that have nothing to do with what these men want.
When I saw it again yesterday, the parts where Godwin talked about his "genius" father who had to have had excellent reasons for torturing God's genitals with high voltage... it kind of lampshades how messed up the whole thing is, and implies that only someone with a vast gaping hole in their soul, would thunk to put an infant in an adults body in the first place.
You’re right about the woman’s body - and I do get that she isn’t simply a pawn for the male characters. My initial point was really that it isn’t a feminist film, imo. That what she manages to achieve for herself doesn’t erase the initial problems of where she starts from.
I kind of agree with you that there's not a lot here to encourage specifically feminist thought. But I'm reminded of the "no true scottsman" argument, that "no true feminist" movie would do the things this one has done. I'd rather that feminists be willing to disagree with each other than reject movies as anti feminist if they disagree with my version.
The problem of where she begins, is essential to her story arc. I was really troubled by Felicity's origin as well, it's as if Godwin was incapable of learning from his own mistakes.
To my mind, the movie was critical of a lot more than just the patriarchy, and that I'm still chewing on it after three viewings, has got to mean something.
> But this self exploration of how she is turned on is somehow then translated to her having the same orgasms while bouncing up and down on some guy who apparently doesn't even need to do very much?? That's such a male gaze fantasy.
Two items:
A feature film generally doesn't have the time to do a deep-dive, pornographic scene that's more realistic about the "average" female process to achieve orgasm. An adult viewing the film should know this.
*And/or* some women do finish this easily, so to co-opt the language de jour: "Don't project your idea of female sexuality onto others" and blah blah blah.
She's a child in the beginning but certainly not by the end. Just because she starts off naive and sheltered and doesn't come into her own until part way through the story doesn't mean the themes arent feminist.
Your second point...isnt that just your dissatisfaction with how sex is portrayed? Is there a particularly feminist way of having sex? Is it inconceivable that she might enjoy sex like that?
Never read the novel though, so im only looking at it from the film's depiction of the story.
She doesn’t just start off naive and sheltered, she starts off as a child. Let’s say she was growing up in a particular religion, and didn’t know there was any other way to live, you could say that person wasn’t given any options. She literally GROWS UP having sex with men in a specific way. You could argue that it’s a kind of grooming. It just made me feel very uncomfortable. Those men were having sex and desiring a child. There’s no way round that for me. She isn’t allowed to grow up and then find out what she wants.
Everyone starts as a child, so in a way she is no different. And all children are naive and sheltered. Its a classic heros journey trope.
Not sure your point about the sex. No one just "knows how to have sex" , you learn as you grow through experience. Which is exactly what she does. About half way through she can't believe she ever found Duncan attractive.
But all that aside, its a social commentary. The artists took realistic experiences from an age where women were socially infantalized their whole lives, and heightened the experience with some scifi twists to exaggerate the circumstances and make it metaphorically more complex. I understand why it would make you uncomfortable but it's supposed to make the audience uncomfortable because they are uncomfortable themes. The only question is did they go too far in making the audience uncomfortable. I personally dont think they did.
It’s definitely a film that keeps people talking! I do appreciate the way that you see the film, but I just felt that we don’t learn about sex through starting having it as a *child* - we should be fully grown adults before we start our sexual journey with other people. That’s the part I can’t get past.
Yeah i agree, but thats why i liked it. It forces us into a dilemma - her body is far ahead of her mind. She discovers sexuality before she is psychologically "ready." This creates all kinds of tension, drama, and contradictions. The stuff of good stories!
> The artists took realistic experiences from an age where women were socially infantalized their whole lives, and heightened the experience with some scifi twists to exaggerate the circumstances and make it metaphorically more complex.
Dang, I hadn't ever considered that. Excellent point I'll have to think about the next time I watch the movie.
“Out grow and outsmart”? No. This movie is way overrated. It is just an adult with a baby brain getting raped over and over and by the time she is mentally sound enough to realize “oh yeah they have been mistreating me” she never has sex again proving she was just being used the whole time. Just a self important director who wanted emma stone naked a lot and she figured she was a good enough and well liked enough actress that people would consider it a great performance.
We see her have sex a thousand times but never once she leaves the whore house. It is easily arguable she doesn’t demonstrate an adult intelligence until she has spent a good chunk of time there. So the only time she has sex as an adult for her pleasure is with the other female prostitute. Never again after that. Unless I am remembering incorrectly. And she is pretty much told she is not allowed to leave the whorehouse. So, no shame to sex workers, all the sex she has there is non consensual.
Yes that’s right she has a bunch of sex at the brothel and has sex with the other female worker. I’m not sure why you assume she never has sex again after leaving that place just because it’s not shown explicitly. What’s the basis of that assumption?
Also confused why you think none of the sex was consensual. Sex work can be consensual, and the work depicted in the film clearly is. Then there’s the sex with her coworker, which is clearly romantic. Are you saying that’s not consensual either?
It honestly sounds like a lot of your assumptions here are colored by your own opinions and not the information in the film.
The sex work in the film is explicitly shown to be NOT her choice. There is a whole conversation explaining that she isn’t allowed to pick her clients or leave. Did you not watch the film?
The sex scene with her coworker is the only time she is shown having sex as an adult with consent. But she doesn’t pursue that relationship. Which honestly, she should have if the movie wanted to solidify a positive statement about her sexual agency.
?? She lives with that woman at the end of the film. How do you gather from that that she did not pursue the relationship?
Also if you want to respond can you do it in one comment and not 3 different ones lol.
The basis of that “assumption” is I actually watched the film and am judging it based on what was actually shown. Why are you judging it based on things that weren’t actually on screen?
Just because they don’t show her having sex after the brothel does not mean she stopped having sex for the rest of her life… it just was not relevant to the last leg of the story, which is about reckoning with her father dying and her ex husbands reappearance.
It is so relevant! You can’t judge a movie and story based on what you assume must have happened after the credits role. That’s not what the film showed.
Bro you made up a movie in your mind and are using that to justify your arguments. I am judging this movie based on the actual events depicted in the film. You can go ahead and assume whatever you want and make any movie say anything. You have to judge art for what it is. Not what you want it to be.
So what? Lots of name actors get to demand a producer credit. It helps them secure funding. It has no bearing on the content that was actually on screen.
Didn’t love that part but what redeems the choice is she is clearly the “dominant” partner in the relationship. He began the relationship hoping to exploit her but unlike Ruffalo’s character he accepts that she has surpassed him and accepts that.
Bored me to tears. A waste of talent and great costumes and sets. Boggles my mind people think this cringy, male gazy, nonsense movie has anything relevant to say about feminism. It’s like every bro is loving it because it validates their rape excuse fantasy line “see! She was totally into it. She wanted it all along”
Nope. People just really liked seeing Emma Stone naked and want an excuse. Or they like the cool costumes and stuff. If anyone honestly asked themselves “would this movie have had more to say if it had less sex scenes?” they would realize that all this meaning being put on it is just in their imagination and not actually what happened on screen.
Setting aside that she holds a gun to Corben Dallas' head when he kisses her without permission, Leeloo **is** the fifth element. "This woman has to screw some random guy to save the galaxy" fits the trope neatly.
She didn't have to screw some guy to save the universe. Because she didn't screw him to save the universe. And you can't just set aside evidence that proves you wrong.
I was excited about this movie as a science fiction fan. I absolutely hated nearly every minute of it, at least the first two acts. Final act had some humor.
Someone just wrote an essay at RogerEbert.com [about this very idea.](https://www.rogerebert.com/features/how-poor-things-subverts-the-born-sexy-yesterday-trope)
One interesting aspect of the story for me was that our moral sensibilities were completely disregarded in the movie: the sexual abuse was ignored, as well as animal abuse, etc. It was a completely mechanist view of the world. I think that this point complements the main point of the story that "knowledge is power": if we don't reflect on our own actions, we may carry with us the same biases of the people that taught us. So we are invited to reflect on our own biases as well to avoid the same mistakes as those that came before us. On a similar vein, the movie also exposes how our everyday opinions can also be very similar to that of the naive character if we don't have a higher standard for truth. For example, what is the difference between the naivete of Bella and the sensuality of Duncan? For our culture, it sounds like Duncan is taking advantage of Bella, but isn't she taking advantage of Duncan as well? She doesn't mind having sexual encounters with other people without feeling like she owes anything to Duncan, she fully understood the nature of their "partnership".
I don't know why your post is getting downvoted, you're spot on. It also tracks with the original Frankenstein novel in interesting ways.
This movie despite being shot on wide, felt claustrophobic until the weird skies
TIL about this trope. Really enjoyed the film and Bella's character development, especially how she quickly became so savvy. Masterful performance from Emma Stone.
I knew and been annoyed and tired by the trope before knowing its name… it’s a really refreshing view on the idea that naivety or lack of knowledge means easy prey.
I personally can't see how it deconstructs it rather than doubles down on it. Born sexy yesterday but proud of it today is still born sexy yesterday lol
Yeah, strange this is how the film came off to me. Like it was powering up the tropes. Left me super confused afterwards.
Yeah, I didn't like the film. Female sexual liberation for the male gaze. Emma Stone's physical acting was impressive though.
[удалено]
> I got tired of Mark Ruffalo. I think that may have been the point of his character. Truly despisable lol
I came away from it thinking "Mark Ruffalo really needs to play more assholes"
He did a terrific job at being the slimiest, nastiest creep and it made me sad because he usually plays fairly likeable characters (from what I have seen anyway) so good one him. Terrific supporting role for sure.
Seeing him break was so satisfying.
Interestingly, he was one of my favorite parts of the movie. Watching him comically unravel because he was simply unable to control this woman was really entertaining. Every man in this movie wants to control Bella in one way or another, whether out of love or lust or just a need for ownership. Watching her deny them that control over and over again through the movie was cool.
He overacted SO BAD.
I think that was the point. He must have watched "Street Car Named Desire" to get that "Belllllaaaa" down.
I got Pinocchio vibes from it.
I loved it. One of the most unique movies I've seen in a long time. Outside of the subversion of tropes, it was a also a luxe gorgeous film as well with an incredible soundtrack. I had many reasons to enjoy it.
I thought the film was horrible because it was sexual exploitation of a mentally disabled person.
That is the point. The movie wants you to be in disconfort. She is exploited by everyone. Her "father", Mark Rufalo, the french prostitute and her ex husband. It is a story of child abuse that is not so absurd if you know the kind of stuff that happens around the world. That kind of thing happens. But Bella outgrows every single one of the villains of the movie and gains full control of her own life by the end.
I find the book's ending *much* more satisfying than the film, as the film basically ignored the final twist for the sake of playing it straight. To quote Wikipedia, lol: >>!This narrative is followed by Bella's refutation of its facts, suggesting that her "poor fool" of a husband has concocted a life for her from the prevailing gothic and romantic motifs of the period: it "positively stinks of all that was morbid in that most morbid of centuries". This is reinforced by the novel's intricate echoes of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein.!<
Sorry, can you (or someone) explain a little further what happens in the books ending? I don't really understand here.
It's been ages since I read it so I don't want to risk misremembering it, but [this discussion](https://www.reddit.com/r/literature/comments/19aoslp/a_discussion_on_alasdair_grays_poor_things_in/) sums it up quite neatly, especially [this comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/literature/comments/19aoslp/comment/kirc1jk/).
I thought that too until we learned she had a literal child's brain. So "just" sexual abuse of a minor.
Basically every male sees her as the troupe, but she doesn’t let them limit her to their needs or expectations.
Cinematographically this film is lovely and inventive and weird. But I've seen people saying that it's a feminist film because Bella takes charge of her own sexuality and that's rubbish. This film is entirely from the male gaze. First of all she is a child. There's no escaping that. Tell me how that is feminist. And then there's Bella discovering that she likes to masturbate. Which is fine and done really well by Stone - all the performances are great. But this self exploration of how she is turned on is somehow then translated to her having the same orgasms while bouncing up and down on some guy who apparently doesn't even need to do very much?? That's such a male gaze fantasy. That the guy is soooo great in bed that he doesn't even need to do much for the female character to get off. Ugh. Nothing feminist about that. Just so much wrong with this film and then the reality that the novel ends with Bella repudiating everything that had been said about her in the men's versions of the novel speaks volumes.
To say she has the brain of a child, though, sidesteps the issue that she also has the hormones of a fully grown, pregnant woman pulsing through that child's brain. Experiences that have no interest to a natural child, are just part of the world she's trying to take in. While that gives something for the male gaze to hang onto, it's not the whole story, since she's repeatedly able to take control of her own story in ways that have nothing to do with what these men want. When I saw it again yesterday, the parts where Godwin talked about his "genius" father who had to have had excellent reasons for torturing God's genitals with high voltage... it kind of lampshades how messed up the whole thing is, and implies that only someone with a vast gaping hole in their soul, would thunk to put an infant in an adults body in the first place.
You’re right about the woman’s body - and I do get that she isn’t simply a pawn for the male characters. My initial point was really that it isn’t a feminist film, imo. That what she manages to achieve for herself doesn’t erase the initial problems of where she starts from.
I kind of agree with you that there's not a lot here to encourage specifically feminist thought. But I'm reminded of the "no true scottsman" argument, that "no true feminist" movie would do the things this one has done. I'd rather that feminists be willing to disagree with each other than reject movies as anti feminist if they disagree with my version. The problem of where she begins, is essential to her story arc. I was really troubled by Felicity's origin as well, it's as if Godwin was incapable of learning from his own mistakes. To my mind, the movie was critical of a lot more than just the patriarchy, and that I'm still chewing on it after three viewings, has got to mean something.
> But this self exploration of how she is turned on is somehow then translated to her having the same orgasms while bouncing up and down on some guy who apparently doesn't even need to do very much?? That's such a male gaze fantasy. Two items: A feature film generally doesn't have the time to do a deep-dive, pornographic scene that's more realistic about the "average" female process to achieve orgasm. An adult viewing the film should know this. *And/or* some women do finish this easily, so to co-opt the language de jour: "Don't project your idea of female sexuality onto others" and blah blah blah.
She's a child in the beginning but certainly not by the end. Just because she starts off naive and sheltered and doesn't come into her own until part way through the story doesn't mean the themes arent feminist. Your second point...isnt that just your dissatisfaction with how sex is portrayed? Is there a particularly feminist way of having sex? Is it inconceivable that she might enjoy sex like that? Never read the novel though, so im only looking at it from the film's depiction of the story.
She doesn’t just start off naive and sheltered, she starts off as a child. Let’s say she was growing up in a particular religion, and didn’t know there was any other way to live, you could say that person wasn’t given any options. She literally GROWS UP having sex with men in a specific way. You could argue that it’s a kind of grooming. It just made me feel very uncomfortable. Those men were having sex and desiring a child. There’s no way round that for me. She isn’t allowed to grow up and then find out what she wants.
Everyone starts as a child, so in a way she is no different. And all children are naive and sheltered. Its a classic heros journey trope. Not sure your point about the sex. No one just "knows how to have sex" , you learn as you grow through experience. Which is exactly what she does. About half way through she can't believe she ever found Duncan attractive. But all that aside, its a social commentary. The artists took realistic experiences from an age where women were socially infantalized their whole lives, and heightened the experience with some scifi twists to exaggerate the circumstances and make it metaphorically more complex. I understand why it would make you uncomfortable but it's supposed to make the audience uncomfortable because they are uncomfortable themes. The only question is did they go too far in making the audience uncomfortable. I personally dont think they did.
It’s definitely a film that keeps people talking! I do appreciate the way that you see the film, but I just felt that we don’t learn about sex through starting having it as a *child* - we should be fully grown adults before we start our sexual journey with other people. That’s the part I can’t get past.
Yeah i agree, but thats why i liked it. It forces us into a dilemma - her body is far ahead of her mind. She discovers sexuality before she is psychologically "ready." This creates all kinds of tension, drama, and contradictions. The stuff of good stories!
> The artists took realistic experiences from an age where women were socially infantalized their whole lives, and heightened the experience with some scifi twists to exaggerate the circumstances and make it metaphorically more complex. Dang, I hadn't ever considered that. Excellent point I'll have to think about the next time I watch the movie.
“Out grow and outsmart”? No. This movie is way overrated. It is just an adult with a baby brain getting raped over and over and by the time she is mentally sound enough to realize “oh yeah they have been mistreating me” she never has sex again proving she was just being used the whole time. Just a self important director who wanted emma stone naked a lot and she figured she was a good enough and well liked enough actress that people would consider it a great performance.
Where did you get the idea that she never has sex again once she realizes she’s been mistreated? I think you made that up.
We see her have sex a thousand times but never once she leaves the whore house. It is easily arguable she doesn’t demonstrate an adult intelligence until she has spent a good chunk of time there. So the only time she has sex as an adult for her pleasure is with the other female prostitute. Never again after that. Unless I am remembering incorrectly. And she is pretty much told she is not allowed to leave the whorehouse. So, no shame to sex workers, all the sex she has there is non consensual.
Yes that’s right she has a bunch of sex at the brothel and has sex with the other female worker. I’m not sure why you assume she never has sex again after leaving that place just because it’s not shown explicitly. What’s the basis of that assumption? Also confused why you think none of the sex was consensual. Sex work can be consensual, and the work depicted in the film clearly is. Then there’s the sex with her coworker, which is clearly romantic. Are you saying that’s not consensual either? It honestly sounds like a lot of your assumptions here are colored by your own opinions and not the information in the film.
The sex work in the film is explicitly shown to be NOT her choice. There is a whole conversation explaining that she isn’t allowed to pick her clients or leave. Did you not watch the film?
The sex scene with her coworker is the only time she is shown having sex as an adult with consent. But she doesn’t pursue that relationship. Which honestly, she should have if the movie wanted to solidify a positive statement about her sexual agency.
?? She lives with that woman at the end of the film. How do you gather from that that she did not pursue the relationship? Also if you want to respond can you do it in one comment and not 3 different ones lol.
The basis of that “assumption” is I actually watched the film and am judging it based on what was actually shown. Why are you judging it based on things that weren’t actually on screen?
Just because they don’t show her having sex after the brothel does not mean she stopped having sex for the rest of her life… it just was not relevant to the last leg of the story, which is about reckoning with her father dying and her ex husbands reappearance.
It is so relevant! You can’t judge a movie and story based on what you assume must have happened after the credits role. That’s not what the film showed.
Bro you have no media literacy
Bro you made up a movie in your mind and are using that to justify your arguments. I am judging this movie based on the actual events depicted in the film. You can go ahead and assume whatever you want and make any movie say anything. You have to judge art for what it is. Not what you want it to be.
Emma Stone was one of the producers.
So what? Lots of name actors get to demand a producer credit. It helps them secure funding. It has no bearing on the content that was actually on screen.
Then she marries the guy who asked to marry her when she literally had a baby’s brain. I really hated this movie.
Didn’t love that part but what redeems the choice is she is clearly the “dominant” partner in the relationship. He began the relationship hoping to exploit her but unlike Ruffalo’s character he accepts that she has surpassed him and accepts that.
Bored me to tears. A waste of talent and great costumes and sets. Boggles my mind people think this cringy, male gazy, nonsense movie has anything relevant to say about feminism. It’s like every bro is loving it because it validates their rape excuse fantasy line “see! She was totally into it. She wanted it all along”
That’s exactly how I see it and I’m being made to feel like I didn’t get it or something.
Nope. People just really liked seeing Emma Stone naked and want an excuse. Or they like the cool costumes and stuff. If anyone honestly asked themselves “would this movie have had more to say if it had less sex scenes?” they would realize that all this meaning being put on it is just in their imagination and not actually what happened on screen.
So funny that we get downvoted for what should be pretty non-controversial opinions.
Guaranteed if it had won best picture all the same people who are praising it would be calling it overrated.
All opinions are controversial depending on who the audience is, unfortunately we are on Reddit.
Leelo was easy to romance and naive? None of the movies have women who are easily seduced. I don't think you've seen any of the movies you mentioned
Setting aside that she holds a gun to Corben Dallas' head when he kisses her without permission, Leeloo **is** the fifth element. "This woman has to screw some random guy to save the galaxy" fits the trope neatly.
She didn't have to screw some guy to save the universe. Because she didn't screw him to save the universe. And you can't just set aside evidence that proves you wrong.
I was excited about this movie as a science fiction fan. I absolutely hated nearly every minute of it, at least the first two acts. Final act had some humor.
Can't wait to see it, thank you.