There’s nothing positive about porn for women. Ever.
From that interview:
Stone: This film definitely felt different, because we talked about it for so long. It was so interesting to be involved in how the film was being pieced together, from cast to department heads to what have you. Ultimately, Yorgos was the one making those decisions, but I was very involved in the process, which started during the pandemic; we were reaching out to people and casting and everything during that time, because we couldn’t go anywhere.
IMHO, the contemptuous dismissal is the problem. Everyone else is having an in depth, civil discussion about the film. She comes in with this surface reading based on trailers, and uses sarcasm and mockery to make up for the lack of depth.
I say it does come off as rude, in a way that is likely to make people defensive. There’s a way you can address movies you haven’t seen without making it sound like you know more than the people who have seen it. And there’s a way to discuss not liking something without being that venomous with it, so none of that venom bounces off and hits any of the participants.
I do think there is a valid way to discuss this aspect, but it would take a different approach. It wouldn’t include such straw feminists lines as “A movie written by a man, based on a book written by a man, directed by a man,” but it could discuss the idea that it appears to be a movie about the male fantasy version of female empowerment. And it would acknowledge that the poster’s position of not seeing the movie means their analysis is a lot more tentative.
Here’s my quick attempt at an example (I’m sure you can nitpick it, but I’m not spending the time I would normally spend to write something. This post took long enough.):
I don’t know, guys. What I saw from the trailers and pre-release talk made it seem like it’s about the typical male-centered version of female empowerment. You know, the one where an innocent woman learns to embrace sex and being DTF all these men.
And what you guys are saying doesn’t seem to contradict that. Is there anything in the movie that seems to rise above that?
I’ve been having to walk on these eggshells for over 10 years now, ever since I learned how angry it made people that I would discuss a film I hadn’t seen myself. And I wasn’t even necessarily being negative, and definitely was not mocking it.
Throw in that this is talking about misogyny, a form of bigotry, and that was just a powder keg waiting to go off. That’s something you also have to soft-pedal a bit when discussing art. Every reviewer I know does it.
Once you piss people off, they will read a lot more negativity into everything you say. They will take it as preaching, because you chose a contemptuous tone from the start.
I compare Eonwe’s review to the one you posted. Sure, it contains a lot that a simple post couldn’t, but I do think it handles the “not feminist” criticism a lot better.
I gotta say, that’s a great dig!
FWIW my wife was annoyed with the triteness of Barbie as feminism. This movie didn’t annoy her. The feminism philosophy bit she also thought was trite but she thought the other themes were mesmerizing in a horrific but unable to turn away way.
None of that, or any other part of the interview AFAICT, is saying that Stone had anything like an equal role with Gray’s book, McNamara’s script, or Lanthimos’s direction in determining what the character of Bella is doing and saying in the film.
Of course Stone as an actor is responsible for actually bringing to life the character as conceived by the writers and director, which is hugely important work, as I already said. And of course it’s a very good thing for the film that the person responsible for that important work is involved in a producer role as well. But Stone is quite explicit that she was not the decision-maker in that regard.
Which BTW is absolutely fine in my book; let the driver drive the bus, and the director create the film, there’s nothing wrong with that. I’m just noting that a film by a male director with a script by a male screenwriter based on a book by a male novelist doesn’t automatically become not-male-centric just because the female lead is also a producer.
You really don’t see how this might be irritating to a woman? How many women are getting to write or direct big budget films? There are a few that have come up recently but not many.
Do you feel the same about criticism for white filmmakers telling stories about people of color?
As an aside from the thread topic…
I am thrilled Greta Gerwig and Margot Robbie did so well with “Barbie”. Money speaks louder than anything else in Hollywood and Gerwig/Robbie delivered big time. Hopefully that breaks down some walls for more women to get into that business. I think there is still a long way to go for women in Hollywood but I hope that helped move things along at least some.
100%, in every single case? No. But yeah, that premise is pretty suspect, especially when she’s really pretty and dtf lots of men. Let’s just say that a premise like that is presumed misogynist until proven otherwise.
I mean, it sure sounds like a male fantasy of a woman, and not actually a story about the female experience.
FWIW, despite the crowd pleasing Barbie getting “snubbed” it is record year for women at the Oscars.
Still a long way to go.
I get that a movie written by a woman, based on a book by a woman, directed by a woman has appeal. Representation in the room, leading the room, definitely matters, for women and other groups as well. OTOH there is some importance to the part that has to follow: starring a woman as the lead? Centered on a strong story about a woman? One that doesn’t just repeat an established formula yet again?
Would the same exact movie be judged differently if the script and book were women written and the director female? Should it be?
A lot of women were. I didn’t realize it was intended to be feminist in any serious way, and enjoyed it as a cheerful fluffy movie with good music and dance numbers.
I guess you missed the speech:
I mean, it obviously made a nod to feminism. But its feminism was pretty shallow. The show succeeded as a musical, imho, and as a fun set of references to other works. For instance the 2001 scene was hysterical.
The movie actually makes her seem the male fantasy to one man. And it turns out very badly for him (she moves on just fine).
All I can say is, watch the movie. I guarantee this is not the male fantasy for almost all men (I suppose there is always one whackadoodle who is fantasizing over a movie like this). Thinking this is the male fantasy is actually offensive. Men really do want meaningful relationships and not just sex dolls (mostly…again there is always that one guy).
So you can see why it sounds like an offensive movie.
Anyway, it also sounds creepy as heck, and it’s on my “do not watch” list based on the discussion here. It may be a provocative movie that’s profoundly feminist. I’m dubious, but i suppose it’s possible. But I’m pretty sure i would find it unpleasant to watch, even if that’s true.
Not just sounds like. The movie will bother you (and most people) the whole way through.
Start to finish.
I was uneasy the whole time. I think the “magic” of the movie is, despite that, I was somehow still in my seat watching till the end. As hard as it is to watch there is a certain fascination to it.
Wow, there were a lot of logical fallacies in that Barbie monologue.
I’m doubtful I’ll watch Poor Things when it hits the streamers, but for the same reason I won’t make any effort to watch whatever Michael Moore has to offer lately. Yorgos Lanthimos Has, you should pardon the expression, shot his wad. As I said upthread, I liked The Lobster, it was unique and its theme is relevant today where dating and marriage is a bust. Favourite went over English Baroque territory that was done much better by Peter Greenaway years ago. And if anyone can make a pitch for Poor Things that doesn’t sound like a “Weird for the sake of Weird” remake of The Opening of Misty Beethoven, I could give it a look.
Would I feel dirty afterwards, as complicit in an act of misogyny? Why even bother dodging the label if you’re a man? I’ve been told, not without sound argument, that if I were to watch Deep Throat I’m an accessory after the fact to rape. There’s another website I read where the following is self-evident truth, not to be refuted nor questioned:
Men’s default setting is to SA and unalive (in the accepted terms) women. The only thing holding them back is the risk from other men who are protecting women as their own property. The punishment for acting on their natural impulses is prison, where they themselves can be SA’d and unalived. Yes: the worst punishment for guilty men is the same risk that innocent women face in their daily lives. The “not all men” complainers may not be active monsters, but they carry monsters inside them. Don’t you dare deny it.
Though all of us harbor resentment; valid resentment, after a certain threshold it crosses into narcissism. And we don’t feel ourselves crossing it.
I agree with @Eonwe. I haven’t seen the movie but I have no doubt ‘male gaze’ is an appropriate description. Anyone who doesn’t like that kind of movie probably won’t like this. I’ve seen thousands of movies and it is extremely rare for a movie to have any more depth to it than found in a one paragraph description. I won’t mind seeing it because I have a male gaze but if Eonwe or anyone else doesn’t like this kind of movie they shouldn’t watch it or pretend there’s an underlying significance to it that is missing from more than 99% of all movies ever made.
What does this mean? I am not up on terminology. SA, unalive? (really asking)
Guessing SA = sexual assault but not sure. No idea about “unalive.”
I couldn’t understand that post either.
“Unalive” means to kill.
Not just YouTube, but other platforms where humorless AI parse language based on algorithms. Compare to our mods, who operate with brains 78% water, 12% lipids, 8% protein, 1% carbs, 2% soluble organics, and 1% salt: a combination that can’t be beat!