I am really not sure I agree that men are not able to have an opinion on the “male gaze” in art solely because they are male (I think that is a discussion for another thread).
I will say that even if only women are able to comment on the male gaze, they should probably view the piece they are commenting on first.
This movie is certainly weird and out there and is unlike almost anything you (or anyone) has ever seen. I’m not saying it is good…it certainly is not for everyone. It is a hard movie to watch. But that does not mean it is bad (necessarily…I expect strong opinions on that).
As Lanthimos and McNamara reconceived it for the screen, Poor Things makes for a pretty sharp gender critique. “I recognize myself as a man in many of the male characters,” Lanthimos says. “And I feel like it’s important to acknowledge the role that males have played in constructing this monstrous society that we live in. It felt freeing to be able to say, ‘Yes, this is how it works, this is what we do, and it should probably not be like that.’ ”
And, of course made without any female creative input.
Lanthimos began talking to Stone about Poor Things while they were making The Favourite. She was drawn to the opportunity to play such an inchoate character, and signed on to produce as well. “The idea of going back from scratch, seeing the world anew, and not having shame around pleasure or joy or pain,” Stone says. “Experiencing it all for the first time, that was the most exciting part to me.” She and Lanthimos conceived of Bella going through five stages of metamorphosis, from the toddler-like state she inhabits in the beginning of the film to the wisdom and maturity at the end of it. The production schedule required that she shoot those dramatically disparate stages back to back.
No, but i am interested in how a black man who has read a plot summary and some reviews feels about it. And I’m interested in his take on the impact the language in the book might have on whether he’d be comfortable reading it.
I didn’t lecture anyone. I have a take. I didn’t dismiss anyone else’s opinion. Or is disagreement with the consensus in part informed by previous in-thread discussion about the thing I take issue with a “threadshitting lecture”?
Um yes.
Are you seriously telling me that if I had written:
I haven’t seen it mostly because the trailer and pre-release talk made me skeptical because it seems like it’s a movie written by a man, based on a book written by a man, directed by a man, about a thin attractive woman who begins the story in a place of innocence, and discovers that sex is liberating and one of her favorite things, and is dtf lots of people in lots of ways on her quest to understand herself and the world. But she totally does it on her terms, because female empowerment!
… that no one would have a problem with my overly confident, uninformed opinion? That no one would be misunderstanding that I think men should not write woman characters?
Nor would I. But in this case, you’ve decided up front that my reasoning is based on something as vacuous as “some random person told me so”. There’s a wide gulf between that and “an informed perspective that is missing first-hand experience with the art”. And, different people’s backgrounds can bring perspectives that add valuable insights, and they don’t need to have read the whole thing for that to be true. And you know, fuck off about “banning”. I know you’ve moved to the Huck Finn analogy, but no where in my original post nor in any follow up have I come close to suggesting that the film shouldn’t be made, or should be banned.
This jump immediately to an extreme straw man- that by having a critical opinion about an aspect of the film I am as good as calling for it to be banned, is such a typical way to turn yourself into a defender of free expression, and to position cultural critique as extreme.
You’re an ass. That is not my position. It never was my position. It is in fact so far from anything I said that it’s clear that you’re not engaging in any of this discussion in good faith, either by choice or lack of ability.
I think the problem with this is the person could have read any of hundreds of reviews. Some will lean one way, some the other. And perhaps that person is inclined one way or another so gets a lopsided set of reviews. Or, maybe they read a fair sample. We cannot know.
I’d prefer the person viewed the piece in question and gave us their own views.
But people routinely decide whether to read a book or watch a movie based on reviews, trailers, and critical analysis. You will never learn why some group of people chooses to avoid certain works of art based on the usual information if you reject their choices out of hand. In fact, you may be completely missing out on issues with certain works if you have no interest in the opinions of the people most likely to be affected by those issues.
Anyone else reminded of dougie monty? He posted a question about Back To The Future, admitting that he hadn’t seen it, but had read somewhere that Marty rapes his mother. Which led to a classic interchange:
As I said above in this thread (and I think Cafe Society thread too)…it is fine to choose why you will or will not go see some art like a movie for any reason whatsoever. 100% fine. We all do that.
Just don’t tell others why it is bad or good when you have not seen it. I also think a judgement that it is misogynistic is not something to include if you (general “you”) have only read a review or a few descriptive snippets.
To be fair, some of those who have seen the film, and see a male fantasy narrative, do acknowledge the intent; they dispute still what they experience as delivered.
I can disagree with that opinion and respect it, even try to appreciate how we both saw the same thing and experienced it differently. My take is that every work of art is completed in the experience of its receiver, even if that was not the artist’s intent.
The difference between that comment and other negative comments in the thread, and uninformed finger wagging lecturing on the film’s misogynistic male gaze pandering message is pretty obvious.
I have great respect for that very durable species! The African Wild Ass is thought to be the ancestor of donkeys. A strong animal with great endurance and tenacity!
I gotta say, from the descriptions of the movie in this and the other thread, given by people who saw it and liked it, it sure as hell sounds like a misogynistic movie informed solely by the male gaze. I’m kinda curious why y’all think it’s not an example of that.
“Attractive woman knows nothing, and becomes completed by sex with lots of men”
So, what haven’t you said about it that makes it better than it sounds?
Bella is naive in the extreme. She seeks her own pleasure (be it food or sex or killing animals or whatever) with the naivete of a child. She is a child (adult body but child brain). We see her enjoying some food and then consumes so much she pukes (and she likewise indulges in a lot of sex because it feels good). She is not “completed by sex with lots of men.” Sex is an empty experience for her. She just indulges her own desire as a child would.
The world she is in is trying to get her to conform and make her a “proper” woman. She won’t conform. She is scooped up by a womanizer who only wants sex and turns the tables on him. Her naivete is her shield.
It’s really hard to explain but what it is not is an excuse to titillate by showing Emma Stone having sex nor is it a movie that having sex with men makes her whole (or something). Far from it. Which shows the problem with commenting that the movie is, “Attractive woman knows nothing, and becomes completed by sex with lots of men.”
And therein lies the problem with these short synopsis.
I cannot recommend the movie to anyone. I think it is good, it has gotten over 100 award nominations, but it is just soooo fucking weird and out there that I can’t possibly guess who will or will not like it. More, it is not easy to watch. Kind of mesmerizing but also…hard to watch. (Put another way, if you like it then be sure to thank me, if you hate it, I warned you.)
I will say that, “attractive woman who lacks the hang ups one acquires by actually living in society has lots of sex and really enjoys it” is a gotcha. If it were Bella became a prude there would be complaints. Or if she became a house wife. Or a spinster. Or a single woman working day-to-day. Or a single mom.
What is the magic “not misogynist” recipe for a movie?
@Whack-a-Mole’s explanation is a fine one. My addition is that the description you give is not an accurate description. In this thread I will keep it brief to avoid spoilers but feel free to ask in the open spoiler thread.
Yes as Bella rapidly cognitively and emotionally developing she becomes a sexually active person. In many ways she comes up against what she should be doing in proper society having not had the chance in her brief life to become socialized to it. One of several significant themes is her butting against male dominated power structures, ones that want to control her, and prevailing. It focuses on her desire to enjoy the pleasures of life and spit out (literally with food) that which displeases her. Sex is a major lens of that pleasure and the attempt to impose patriarchy upon her. There are other themes that intersect of course. Cruelty and a belief in goodness despite it. In very weird ways. And in ways that I am still a bit confused about. But I enjoy confusion!
I did not experience it as erotica in any way. If it was for my “gaze” it failed.
