I’m not sure what scene(s) in Meaning of Life you think are equivalent (genuinely asking) but here’s a bit more info on the UK censorship. It’s totally stupid, of course, but apparently real.
The one where a classroom of kids (and some Pythons-dressed-as-kids) watch two adults fucking as part of their education. And take notes.
Thanks. It’s been a while since I’ve seen Meaning of Life (time for a re-watch!) but I assume there was some significant distinction in the eyes of the censors. Anyway, the above article seems to confirm the story.
Probably the amount of nudity of the adults in the scene, I imagine. But that skips right past how much nudity the kids themselves are seeing, which seems to be the point of the law.
Perhaps. But does every film need to be a public service announcement? Does every film have to have huge social discussions and lessons?
Oh not for that reason but for Bella’s reactions and responses to the subject.
I watched it at a standard chain cinema here in Bristol and it included that scene <shrug>
The HuffPost article I quoted (and I’ve seen the same info from other sources) implies that the British Board of Film Classification required that the scene be modified, not necessarily completely removed. But I really have no idea. It’s possible the original decision was rescinded.
Can people in the UK just stream it when it comes to Netflix?
Like all internet content providers Netflix has geographical restrictions due to different licensing and distribution agreements in different countries.
Just watched it now that it’s available on Hulu. I liked it, but I’m a Yorgos Lanthimos fan. I didn’t like it as much as The Lobster, but I liked it more than The Favourite. But really, for most of the time watching it I just kept thinking that I should rewatch The Killing of a Sacred Deer tonight, which is my favorite of his movies that I have seen. I believe I’m in the minority with that take, though. (Looks like TKoaSD is only on Tubi, unfortunately, which means commercials.)
As for recommending it to others, I would only just say it’s a Yorgos Lanthimos film. If they like his movies they would probably like this.
Someone talked about it being horror. It is not a horror movie in any way, I don’t think.
Also, I didn’t see it mentioned in the thread, but it won 4 awards out of 11 nominations: best actress for Emma Stone, which seemed well deserved to me. Then three minor awards: best costume design, production design, and makeup and hair styling.
I watched it in two sittings. I wanted to turn it off after about ten minutes, but stuck it out to minute fifty-one. Subsequently, I watched the rest. I did not care for it. I generally do not care for movies that focus on mentally impaired characters. Most of the “humor” I found grating, not funny. Some of the dialogue seemed taken from a thesaurus.
Stylistically, overuse of fish-eye lens took me out of the movie repeatedly. The production design was magnificent. An interesting comparison here might be Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (another film I did not care for). The latter’s recreation of late-sixties Hollywood is every bit as audacious and ambitious as Poor Things, but it serves as a (lower-key) period-correct background for the story. In Poor Things, the steampunk look is a cool fantasy, but it screamed “this movie was DIRECTED, goddamnit!” For me, the settings existed apart from the story rather than complementing it.
The main trio of characters (Bella, Godwin and milquetoast Max) are clearly meant to be sympathetic, but as they all lack morality, they were not appealing to me. In the context of science, lack of morality is lack of ethics: the “experiments” of Godwin are plainly unethical. The fact that he is a victim as well does not justify or excuse his actions. BTW, no one in this thread seems to have commented on the fact that the origin of the brain used in his second “experiment” is omitted from the film (I haven’t read the novel). I suspect this is because showing how it was procured would have revealed just how depraved Godwin and Max really are, diminishing their audience appeal.
I understand Bella is all about learning from experience and reading, but she seems to exist only for her own ends, exhibiting no consideration for others outside Godwin and Max (the black whore’s role was too insubstantial to really matter in this regard). Granted, the lawyer is an exploitative dickwad, that did not excuse/justify stealing his money and incompetently giving it away. Bella may not know the ways of the world any better at that point in the story, but such ignorance does not make her sympathetic, just a misguided thief. Her ultimate aim, to be a doctor, is paid lip service only, and it seems likely, given the treatment given to her (former) husband, she will prove every bit as unethical as Godwin.
I had the sense the movie’s centerpiece is Bella finding contentment in the brothel. This seems inescapably a male conception. For me, the conceit of an attractive female willfully subjecting herself to the desires of mostly unappealing men skews towards porn (or “art-porn,” if you wish), even if the actual depiction does not.
All in all, a waste of cool production design and hair extensions.
I just remembered, in addition to not being a fan of the fisheye lens, I was baffled by the peephole camera shots sprinkled throughout the film. What was that about?
Agreed completely. I would definitely not want to be one of her patients.
I just finished watching it. I enjoyed it. I’ve never heard of the director before, but I thought the scenery was great, even if I didn’t quite get the futuristic touches. I enjoyed the transition from B&W to color as Bella’s knowledge of the world changed. I think Emma Stone’s Oscar was well-deserved, and while I do think Mark Ruffalo gave a good performance, I think Willem Dafoe was more worthy of a nod. Intentional or not, I got vibes of Frankenstein, The Wizard of Oz and Willy Wonka.
This movie is for the billions of people who said: “You know what Edward Scissorhands, Grand Budapest Hotel, and Being John Malkovich needed? Ungodly amounts of gratuitious sex.”
The movie was interesting, artistic, and thought provoking. But it wasted so little time on those things, and instead focused almost solely on sex. Bella spends all of 5 minutes dealing with the fascinating topics of gaining an understanding of politics (“we’re going to a socialist meeting”), the development of empathy (crying over dead children), the role of capitalism in injustice (giving money away), and instead spends 80% of the movie focusing on Bella’s sexual activity. What could have been a fascinating look at an intriguing character and how a human develops a view of the world decided instead to focus almost solely on the who, what, where, when, and how Bella has sex. A shame, because the character was awesome.
I said this upthread (sorry to quote myself; wasn’t sure the best way to do it). I agree that the sex scenes are repetitive and, to me, rather boring after about the first two. It kind of irritated me due to my boredome of it, but not specifically because it’s sex. IOW I would have groused if we were subject to numerous scenes of her learning to walk or speak or anything else. I’m not sure of the director’s motivation for doing it but it doesn’t strike me the way it does a lot of other folks.
Replying to @Hamlet if it isn’t clear.