POOR THINGs or FRANKENHOOKER left me so disappointed, and even more so, in the writer, Tony McNamara. The book does a better (not much, but better) job of handling this complex and problematic subject matter, not least of all by acknowledging that the story is told from a man's limited, unreliable point of view - in the case of the film, we must hope the audience sees that on its own. At one point on her two-week cruise of enlightenment, Bella says "if it is disgusting, why should I keep it in my mouth?" as she spits out her fancy dinner. She doesn't like it, she spits it out - she doesn't continue eating it, day in, day out, forever to see if she might feel differently about something she felt was disgusting. She actively expresses the disgust she feels when working as a prostitute, and yet she continues to do it, indefinitely, seemingly under the thumb of a madam who physically harms her. Then, bafflingly, she declares it a net-positive experience and the film plays it for laughs. An unsocialized human would instinctually, as we have seen, run away from a negative experience that provokes disgust and pain. Spit out that disgusting thing. Yet she continues, even though she has the means to leave or work in literally any other field or explore any other part of society. She's supposedly wise enough from exposure to those two or three books, the token black person explaining suffering for a quick 2 minute aside, and that noble street performer's song, to understand socialism, but she doesn't understand the realities of prostitution? And why prostitution? If she's evolved to the status of a grown woman capable of consent, she should be able to function in society in any number of ways that are more enjoyable. Yet she chooses prostitution even though these experiences are not pleasurable or even consensual, and she vocalizes that multiple times. There's also never any concern for pregnancy, menstruation, disease, assault or really any female pleasure. Even the slightly more consensual (felt more like a pedophilic grooming fantasy to me...) scenes with Mark Ruffalo felt like anything I'd see in regular heteronormative p0rn - a distinctly male gaze with zero attention to the mechanics of female pleasure or orgasm. And if her goal was solely sexual pleasure, why not experiment as she does in the book, with partners of her choosing, instead of partners she openly finds disgusting? I reject the character motivations on face value because she contradicts her own stated instincts, feelings and logic. If this were a critique of how society, specifically patriarchy, funnels women into these situations and treated it with the seriousness sex work deserves, including the many potential harms to vulnerable women, then perhaps I could buy an attempt at a feminist message. But she insists that she likes it and suffers nothing, after describing her utter disgust. The lush setting almost glamorized the lifestyle of a sex worker and implied this somehow led to her self-actualization and freedom. But how exactly? And can we really even call these actions free if she's being physically and psychologically coerced by the madam? If not for God's illness, she would have continued as a prostitute and I still have no idea why - except to showcase more nudity and "shocking" sexual situations. Funny that the male author, male screenwriter and male director would believe that a woman's unsocialized, pure response to sexual awakening would be to focus it all on male fantasies and desires rather than her own. Ultimately, the initially promising premise of an unsocialized female being exploring the world without social constraint became an exploitative exercise in the male gaze where a woman's base instinct is to have unpleasurable sex with men for money. Poor Things reduces a woman's journey of self-actualization to twenty minutes of ''learning" and an hour plus of unenjoyable sex she doesn't fully consent to, with a tacked on faux feminist ending to absolve itself. Only with the threat of the (sadly, once real) clitoridectomy solution to her supposed mental health issues by her cartoon villain of a husband are we faced with a worse villain than the film itself - I guess I can praise it for pointing out that tragic historical fact. But it also weirdly positions this as the alternative to the much better life of "whoring." I think everyone is loving the pretty, shiny packaging, but even from a technical standpoint, the film feels all over the place. The cinematography is novel, but it's also inconsistent and gimmicky - throwing in every cinematic trick in the book, the black and white to color cliché, the fish eye lens, the peephole, the title cards, the actually-not-original-at-all steampunk aesthetic. I've seen it before and this feels very much style over substance, with an everything but the kitchen sink approach. Even Emma Stone's performance felt forced and over acted due to this screenplay's more childish cruel portrayal rather than the books more cheerful and loving persona of Bella which didn't feel anymore believable as she uneventfully matures towards the dreadful ending. I just wish the story was worthy of her talent.
Thank you for this well thought out commentary on my review, I really enjoyed reading it. Now, I am very curious about the book and I should give it a read, I also agree with your points, at times I thought similar to your words while watching the film. It's a weird perverted movie.
Great Review 🌟
Thank you very much dawg
POOR THINGs or FRANKENHOOKER left me so disappointed, and even more so, in the writer, Tony McNamara. The book does a better (not much, but better) job of handling this complex and problematic subject matter, not least of all by acknowledging that the story is told from a man's limited, unreliable point of view - in the case of the film, we must hope the audience sees that on its own. At one point on her two-week cruise of enlightenment, Bella says "if it is disgusting, why should I keep it in my mouth?" as she spits out her fancy dinner. She doesn't like it, she spits it out - she doesn't continue eating it, day in, day out, forever to see if she might feel differently about something she felt was disgusting. She actively expresses the disgust she feels when working as a prostitute, and yet she continues to do it, indefinitely, seemingly under the thumb of a madam who physically harms her. Then, bafflingly, she declares it a net-positive experience and the film plays it for laughs. An unsocialized human would instinctually, as we have seen, run away from a negative experience that provokes disgust and pain. Spit out that disgusting thing. Yet she continues, even though she has the means to leave or work in literally any other field or explore any other part of society. She's supposedly wise enough from exposure to those two or three books, the token black person explaining suffering for a quick 2 minute aside, and that noble street performer's song, to understand socialism, but she doesn't understand the realities of prostitution? And why prostitution? If she's evolved to the status of a grown woman capable of consent, she should be able to function in society in any number of ways that are more enjoyable. Yet she chooses prostitution even though these experiences are not pleasurable or even consensual, and she vocalizes that multiple times. There's also never any concern for pregnancy, menstruation, disease, assault or really any female pleasure. Even the slightly more consensual (felt more like a pedophilic grooming fantasy to me...) scenes with Mark Ruffalo felt like anything I'd see in regular heteronormative p0rn - a distinctly male gaze with zero attention to the mechanics of female pleasure or orgasm. And if her goal was solely sexual pleasure, why not experiment as she does in the book, with partners of her choosing, instead of partners she openly finds disgusting? I reject the character motivations on face value because she contradicts her own stated instincts, feelings and logic. If this were a critique of how society, specifically patriarchy, funnels women into these situations and treated it with the seriousness sex work deserves, including the many potential harms to vulnerable women, then perhaps I could buy an attempt at a feminist message. But she insists that she likes it and suffers nothing, after describing her utter disgust. The lush setting almost glamorized the lifestyle of a sex worker and implied this somehow led to her self-actualization and freedom. But how exactly? And can we really even call these actions free if she's being physically and psychologically coerced by the madam? If not for God's illness, she would have continued as a prostitute and I still have no idea why - except to showcase more nudity and "shocking" sexual situations. Funny that the male author, male screenwriter and male director would believe that a woman's unsocialized, pure response to sexual awakening would be to focus it all on male fantasies and desires rather than her own. Ultimately, the initially promising premise of an unsocialized female being exploring the world without social constraint became an exploitative exercise in the male gaze where a woman's base instinct is to have unpleasurable sex with men for money. Poor Things reduces a woman's journey of self-actualization to twenty minutes of ''learning" and an hour plus of unenjoyable sex she doesn't fully consent to, with a tacked on faux feminist ending to absolve itself. Only with the threat of the (sadly, once real) clitoridectomy solution to her supposed mental health issues by her cartoon villain of a husband are we faced with a worse villain than the film itself - I guess I can praise it for pointing out that tragic historical fact. But it also weirdly positions this as the alternative to the much better life of "whoring." I think everyone is loving the pretty, shiny packaging, but even from a technical standpoint, the film feels all over the place. The cinematography is novel, but it's also inconsistent and gimmicky - throwing in every cinematic trick in the book, the black and white to color cliché, the fish eye lens, the peephole, the title cards, the actually-not-original-at-all steampunk aesthetic. I've seen it before and this feels very much style over substance, with an everything but the kitchen sink approach. Even Emma Stone's performance felt forced and over acted due to this screenplay's more childish cruel portrayal rather than the books more cheerful and loving persona of Bella which didn't feel anymore believable as she uneventfully matures towards the dreadful ending. I just wish the story was worthy of her talent.
Thank you for this well thought out commentary on my review, I really enjoyed reading it. Now, I am very curious about the book and I should give it a read, I also agree with your points, at times I thought similar to your words while watching the film. It's a weird perverted movie.