By: Edu Kenedi & Lila Anderson

Edited By: Alexandra Huggins

To celebrate Valentine’s Day, your two star-crossed critics return to review the rom-com, coming-of-age, family drama, steampunk, fantasy period piece, Poor Things. The film, directed by Yorgos Lanthimos, follows a young woman, Bella Baxter, as she goes on an adventure, navigating different cities, men, and her own developing sexual identity – featuring sexual, romantic, fraternal, and paternal love. If that isn’t Valentine’s Day worthy, then we don’t know what is.

Edu’s Take: Watch it for the plot…

Poor Things left me with a lot of impressions about how funny, provocative, aesthetic, and well acted it was. And yet my most lasting impression was that I was glad I did not watch this with my parents. Those graphic sex scenes would’ve been long, hard, and awkward to sit through. Overall, this film featured great performances and innovative direction – except for my tiny gripes, it was almost perfect.

The three main characters, played by Emma Stone, Mark Ruffalo, and Willem Dafoe, are unique, fleshed-out, and amazingly performed. Emma Stone plays our protagonist, Bella Baxter, with impeccable physicality and delivery, perfectly encapsulating the mannerisms and gait of a child in an adult body. As her first lover and foil, Mark Ruffalo plays a sleazy lawyer called Duncan Wedderburn. His performance shows a surprising and unexpected range as he unravels from a confident, charming, and controlling misogynist to an obsessed madman. Last but not least, Willem Dafoe plays a mad scientist, Bella Baxter’s father and creator, Dr. Godwin “God” Baxter. While his face is covered by six hours’ worth of makeup and prosthetics, he nonetheless conveys a tender and paternal love that breaks through his rational and scientific character. Throughout her life and adventures, Bella Baxter encounters the stellar cast of memorable characters and performances, most notably her new friends on the boat and the menagerie of unique-looking men in the brothel montage.

From the opening act, shot in black and white, director Yorgos Lanthimos is cooking. With fisheye lenses, tight pacing, and a shocking transition from black and white to colour, the first two acts of Poor Things are riveting. In contrast, the third act seems slightly off, at times plodding, at times rushed, though, ultimately, Lanthimos nails the ending. The film’s look and colour palette, particularly the internal set-design and costumes, are outstanding. From the Frankensteinian laboratory to the lavish hotel and cruise ship, every locale has its own personality. The only thing that I found slightly off were the external shots of cityscapes that looked like a steampunk Victorian playset, almost as if the director had mixed Wes Anderson’s whimsical aesthetic with his own, darker vision. Nevertheless, the film is excellently executed, wrapping deeper questions in sexual comedy. It leaves you with food for thought about its themes of sexuality, coming of age, and the position of women in society – even as its primary conceit raises moral and ethical conundra.

My biggest nitpick with Poor Things pertains to writing. Much of the movie feels like a series of stereotypes, including the sleazy lawyer, the stern housekeeper, the rational scientist and his loyal assistant, the wizened (and wise) old lady, the firebrand Marxist, the boisterous military man, and the equally tender and abusive madam. While this may well be the point of the movie and while it was certainly an intentional decision from the writers, director, and actors, I couldn’t help but notice that these ‘on the nose’ tropes distracted me from the more subtle questions Poor Things poses. That being said, this was still an enjoyable, thought-provoking, and hilarious time at the movies.

Lila’s Take: Watch it for the ideas…

My mom and I left Poor Things in a daze for the same reason that anyone I have mentioned the film to says, “Oh! I heard there were a lot of weird sex scenes in that.” Yes – but it’s also so much more.

My mom looked up critic reviews, eager to compare her thoughts with those of the people who get published professionally. She found out that some of the men writing professionally on movies today have found it contradictory that a movie could sell itself as feminist and yet delight so openly in Bella using her body for, er, secondary purposes.

This struck us as a hamfisted critique. True, Poor Things takes the expression “coming-of-age” literally, with full-frontal nudity representing all segments of society. A large part of Bella’s screentime does involve sleeping with a barrage of men, whom she treats like specimens in her sexual menagerie – in a certain way quite in line with her upbringing of, by, and for the scientific method.

Bella’s uninhibited sexual expression contrasts with her asexual (re)production and extends from her not being raised with the chains of restraint that keep society together – ironically, those members of it that are actually of woman born.

But the hypocritical part of these critic reviews is that you just know these men enjoyed watching it; they’re just mad because they can’t credibly deny that fact. Lacking intellectual honesty, they take the position that a woman who profits from and enjoys her sexuality cannot also be a feminist icon.

Emma Stone, whose wondrous transition from a baby-talking idiot to an original and erudite woman of the world, is an interesting casting choice for another reason.  She has never been branded a Hollywood sex symbol, but in Poor Things, her gamine appeal is perfect for a character as innocent as Bella, one who entered the human race sideways, who is untouched by the shame of original sin. It’s cheesy but the foundation of Bella, unencumbered by the need to be liked but who honours her desire to love – not to mention her voracity and growing empathy for the world – is aspirational, and Emma Stone plays out Bella’s force of will to full effect.

As to my colleague’s tinge of displeasure over well-worn tropes, I see what he means. There is a cheap entertainment value in the flat tropes of an opportunistic lawyer and a wise, frigid older woman that doesn’t seem worthy of Lanthimos. Yorgos should not be off the hook just because he’s artsy.

But it should be noted that the men whom Bella does hold dear, her “God”/father and his sweetly amorous assistant, do not fall into neat boxes. They are noble men who love Bella for her personality, not her body.

Further, other tropes like Bella’s whimsical, Candide-like forays through the problem of evil add a traditional structure to a non-traditional movie. It helps her character’s originality shine through in other ways and engages delightfully with the tradition of coming-of-age tales of past.

Though I also would not recommend watching this with your mom (unless she is as cool as mine), the message of Poor Things is somehow wholesome.