Poor Things Book vs Movie

Fisheye lens. It's called fisheye lens.

Poorly conceived but elegantly filmed, Pure Things is style over substance--an exploitative {almost a pedophiliac-necrophiliac} study in female child-grooming, hypersexualization and mindless sexploitation that could have greatly benefitted from being filmed exclusively in a Victorian brothel with an Amsterdam street decor and saved its "edgy" ateur-director half his budget! This is the stuff that Hollywood is made of in its life-long film exploration of females as "bodies" after overdosing on LSD & Moulin Rouge repeat viewings. Another Hollywood's run-of-the-mill Frankenstein defying humanity making Mary Shelley turn in her grave uncontrollably--which may frighten poor thing Yorgos Lathimos! Stick to the book itself.

I loved this book and I was super stoked to find out it was being adapted into a film.

I haven’t seen all your videos, so forgive me if you covered any of these. Anyway, there was an amazing run of books similar to Poor Things in the 70s/80s/90s that are all re-readings of Victorian literature and use interesting feminist angles to tackle and critique the historical era (and by extension, our own). A couple have been made into excellent films, including The French Lieutenant’s Woman (mind blowingly great adaptation and book—they’re almost apples and oranges, and I believe Harold Pinter did the adaptation, so there’s that—and Jeremy Irons and Meryl Streep are at the height of their powers and hotness, so there’s that) and AS Byatt’s Morpho Eugenia, which was gorgeously adapted into Angels and Insects (with Mark Rylance, Patsy Kensit, and Kristen Scott Thomas—less complex and well known than TFLW, but amazing nonetheless. AS Byatt does this kind of thing really well in all her work IMO). I dunno if a young YT audience would be turned on by discussions of either of these, but I’d love to hear your thoughts).

I really love the epistolary style of Poor Things, as it feels authentically Victorian, with a distinctive 90s postmodern twist. The framing device is incredibly sophisticated and I really hoped for a touch of that in the film, but YL went for a more direct approach. I get the ick factor of Bella’s being essentially a child and the “born sexy” trope, and I really wanted the film to yank the rug out of all that in the same way the book did. I still think it’s a heck of a film; I need to sit with the film’s sexuality for longer before I reallly know how I feel about it. Anyway, thanks for creating this channel—and apologies for the looong comment! I’ll be watching some of your other stuff (Scanner Darkly! Yay!) today and eventually probably work through it all. Subscribing!

It makes sense to me that you preferred the book but still have a similar level of appreciation for the movie. A book relies only on plot (obviously) while a movie-- this movie in particular-- can never execute a plot in the same way (if for no other reason than time constraints), nor rarely does it seek to do exactly so. Even if plot changes in a book adaptation are imperfect, they are only half the story. Filmmaking, at its most sophisticated, result in visuals that vie will the the plot in importance.

Nope, you lost me praising Ruffalo. I wonder why he got so lazy (probably those insipid comic cosplays he was miscast in as Banner/Hulk yet full of himself re income and sick personal politics7) and gets away with his usual mumbling and pisspoor wandering accent especially when narcissist Yorgos nixed Glasgow for generic English town.

Such a groomer movie, and then the scene where the guy brings his kids into a brothel. It felt like someone’s attempt to normalize something vile.

Hey! I loved this breakdown of the movie and the book :D I loved the book and I've been trying to discuss an aspect of it that I find very confusing. I would love to know your opinion. **BOOK SPOILER COMING** So, this is a very empowering story. I love how the author keeps mentioning the importance of women in many aspects, including the work of nurses in the field of medicine (knowing how even to this day, nurses are seen as low-quality doctors) so I find it very confusing when the author decides to give Bella such a horrible ending. After she becomes a very prolific and innovative doctor, spreading the word about safe abortion, sexual health, etc, she ends up being totally dismissed by the community and also ends up in poverty and thought of as a crazy person. I love the turn the book has when it suddenly becomes not only Bella's story but the history of mankind and the failed economic and social systems that create war, hunger, poverty, and basically everything wrong with this world. So I was crushed to see Bella/Victoria end up like this...our hero who represented modern thought and progress becomes a fanatic in a way. Why would the author take away all her power? I wonder if he really thought a woman could never be that clever and powerful without being crazy, or if it was his sarcastic way of protesting how women can never be taken seriously and always end up being considered witches/lunatics/neurotic? What do you think?

I was really conflicted watching the movie, because I think it actually kind of nails (metaphorically) my experience as a very horny, sex-positive teenager - being taken advantage by men but also enjoying some experiences and using them to grow. On the other hand, the whole "untouched by the neuroses of society" thing does come off in some ways as not much more than a male fantasy. Though it is also potentially a really fascinating exploration of how society "gentles" women's sexuality - it was super interesting to see a woman encounter accusations of being a slut and a whore, etc., and just kind of being confused and genuinely brushing them off - it does also make Bella's story just a smidge too far removed from reality, and Bella becomes far too invulnerable, considering how vulnerable she would actually be in the real world. So there's some huge potential there for telling the stories of women who really do discover their sexuality early and want to revel in it, but it doesn't fully explore why exactly it remains so dangerous to do stuff like that when you have no experience.

You should not be interpreting the Bible yourself. The Orthodox Church and all of its saints have already done this. This is why we have Islam.

THE MOVIE WALKS A FINE LINE as CLUMSILY as BELLA's first baby steps. I left so let down & feeling like the poor thing was me having gone to see it! I view the mainstream praise as a reflection of our times where superficiality vs substance has become the norm. If there's enough surface glitter, lip filler, butt padding & marketing ferocity then there's a good chance of success. Like a Frankenstein monster, Poor Things was a series of pieced-together events that touched on several deep social issues yet followed through on none of them. Like a Frankenstein who's threads are were loose vs sewn tight., much of her character was just plain contradictory. For one, her performance seemed to be retarded at first rather than a newborn innocently becoming aware while her unrestrained bluntness & unfettered reactions seemed too cold & cruel and lacking any sweet naive childlike innocence or wide-eyed curiosity. She was often emotionally one dimensional & distant, IMO. Later attempts were made to humanize her but by then the story had already begun to drag & the many narrative ideas remained unresolved. SO MANY CRITICS HAVE HAD THE EXACT SAME REACTIONS to the film so I know I'm not just being purely subjective. EITHER YOU CAN IGNORE ALL THE BROKEN PIECES of the Story or they stand out like a sore thumb. Maybe the pretty nature on the surface camouflaged the holes in the film or the quirkiness but it was far from the best thing since sliced bread. In fact it ended up being mostly just icing without much cake! I find it interesting that people care less about seamless intricate complex storytelling & more about surface decoration. Some directors can do both. Although there were a few funs scenes, none of them validate the flaws of the overall film. At times her actions are CONTRADICTORY & hypocritical to a Story that was CONVOLUTED in it's exploration of many social themes which were never resolved. Many scenes were pretty but ARBITRARY and did little to progress the narrative! Her FRANKENHOOKER phase was wild & a bit intense but it was mostly contrary to her strong free-willed independent nature. Concepts of misogyny, pedophilia, prostitution, abuse only serve to SHOCK rather than reveal any true insight, empathy or heroic sentiment. For all the men bashing she then freely allows a woman, the Madame Dwarf, to use & abuse her. Saying nothing about contraception and STD's. Often I was just confused to whether or not to laugh or frown. Nevertheless the IMAGERY is stimulating to watch but the STORY just gets SLOW around 3/4 the way through. After all the controversial SEX, when it should become full of intrigue, conflict resolution or drama it stalls when her new found "ENLIGHTENMENT" BOAT TOUR tries to get Political, to no successful conclusion except to END with a GOAT SACRIFICE & sick operation to show REVENGE towards her estranged Father, a stranger to us & her the entire film only with her return to a non-romantic relationship with a FEEBLE wannabe Frankenstein Scientist Husband who unsuccessfully did to that poor girl exactly what was done to Bella. WTF?!!! I LEFT UNINSPIRED, unsympathetic, irritated over the whole experiences! > Please GO WATCH any TERRY GILLIAM film * or PIERRE JUENET's "Amelie" or 'City of Lost Children" (in French) or even DEL TORO'S "The Shape of Water" to experience truly strange, VISIONARY, eclectic, quirky, enriched, yet fascinatingly cohesive FAIRYTALE STORYTELLING. Heck you can even rewatch the classic "The WIZARD of OZ" to experience a film of this style, done EXCELLENTLY in 1939!

Spoiler-free section and yet you spoil the ending in it...

Please check your future work for words “just “ and “like “ and “just like” you are obviously smart but you can improve in your presentation to be more successful. Slow down by 15% and take out “extra words “ and then people will notice your ideas without being destructed .

I thought they intentionally directed the movie to be in Bella's perspective because the director was so intrigued by her character in the book and wanted to focus on that more than framing the narrative through the male characters. I think all the details of her character's growth and the final shot of the movie really put into perspective that this was HER story.

Thank you very much for this video. I haven't watched the movie, and since I knew the plot I wasn't interested, and it was really because of the exploitation of the born sexy yesterday trope taken to its crassest. I had been obsessing for weeks until I found your video, and my obsession was how do people praise something that clearly brings up this trope under trivializing lenses? It bothered me to think that something as bizarre as the sexualization of a woman with a girl's mind would be such an 'artistic' thing. Unfortunately, I'm not open-minded enough to say 'oh, stupid, it's just a movie'. Clearly there was something that didn't fit, or rather something missing. So I can't accept people praising this film as a masterpiece (when it comes to the plot) when it's clearly another cultural product made with prejudice. And look, a big difference is made by a simple omission. The omission of the true purpose of the book. New subscriber, hugs!

Books usually are better than movies.

In general i see 2 different things book and movie

Don’t get me wrong I like the movie but after reading the book I kinda look at the irony because they could’ve just made the movie out of Bella/Victoria’s letter but instead they do what Archie did in the book but they make it seem like it’s Bella’s story even though it’s not movie is a 4/5 and the book will always be better for example in the letter after the goodbye chapter the housekeeper ms.dinwity is Godwin’s mother he’s not a monster he’s just a big wired guy that has daddy issues he didn’t want victoria to love him she doesn’t mention working at a brothel Godwin took her to hospital and medical lecturers she learned about sexual hygiene( we need men like him) and birth control and he tried to push her away people actually liked god Archie only saw her as god’s female part but he was in love with god but god didn’t feel the same Bella Baxter is not real 💀 it was only Victoria MCcandless she stayed with god to get away from blesinton she was naive she doesn’t believe in monogamy she had a relationship with Duncan god was afraid of love Duncan was in the mental hospital and she saw him often god called her Bella but there was no last name there’s not a lot of sex in the book surprisingly she never said that Duncan was mean to her the fact that the whole book is great but the epilogue is beautiful the fact that it wasn’t the movie we got hurts

Unfortunately in the patriarchal societies, women who try to just buck the system are punished by both the males and females in the society. Women were placed in mental hospitals, beaten, and even put to death for trying to disregard the social order. Change can happen is a long game of persuasion or a fast game of necessity. In both types, there is often push back, deception, and inventiveness. Religion is a very powerful tool to maintain a system because it doesn’t have to pass any logic test, and God mysteriously doesn’t call out any of the contrary rules. I would love to see how religion changes in the US if we made a simple law that says that no religion or organization can receive tax free status if it espouses inequality of race, gender, sexual orientation or ethnicity. God would personally deliver amendments to the leaders within hours..

I think the s3x work aspect is a bit unfair to judge (in the movie) because the only person enjoyed the work was Bella. We clearly see that the other women aren’t having a good time.

This review discussion was an excellent supplement to the film. I just got home from the theater. I went on whim without having seen a trailer or even read a synopsis, and this provided all the additional context I didn't know I needed. Thanks!

Just watched the movie and I’m running through all the reviews and analysis to learn more about the story and it’s adaption.

I think the context of Godwin (edit: AND McCandle!) in the books is incredibly insightful. Both in the book and the film I kind of see it a feminism from the view of a man. Flawed but earnest, where the critique is that of society’s exploitation of women while understanding your place in participating in it. It’s as much a feminist story as it is a critique of masculinity.

All the men are evil and scoundrel in the story, but Bella represents unbridled optimism and curiosity. The author sets Bella our to learn for herself and the world like many epics do while maintaining some of nativity of man who’s knowledge of women’s plight is second hand. This creates the circumstances where Bella is objectively exploited, which works as commentary and satire of the male gaze and machismo, but it’s her earnest journey to learn and reconcile this that shows that the author understands that an emancipated woman is stronger and wiser than the men who try to stomp them down. She’s tempered by her journey and it’s hardships, not insulated from it like a damsel in the high tower.

This coupled with The Curse shows an interesting world view from Emma Stone. She has a profound sense of humor about humanity and culture, both the show and film being blistering satires. Very much the yang to bubblegum feminism ying of Barbie (a film a also adored). Can’t wait to see what she does next.

Interesting compare and contrast review, Both novel and the movie have heavy doses of Gnostic beliefs/symbolism, maybe Mrs. Blessington unalived herself and her child because of her “sexual hysteria” as a way covering up the scandal or simply as a way of escape from Mr. Blessington

I think a lot of reviewers get the book and movie wrong, or don't pay attention to the "keys" of interpretation the author gives. If the protagonist was a man, I think you would get it. But the fact that the protagonist is a woman fogs the eyes. The book and movie are not about man vs woman, are tales of creation, it is about "God" and the rise of morality and social norms.

I have yet to see the movie but, having just finished the book, feel it’s less about female empowerment or a feminist story and more of a commentary of it, as well as a commentary on child exploitation and the exploitation of woman, abuse, classism, racism, imperialism, religion. I feel as if both Candle’s and Bella’s respective povs are correct. It is very believable she wouldn’t buy the child brain story when Godwin hasn’t told her of it. Or the bunnies for that matter. Idk but great video, helped with my own analysis

I interpreted her baby brain as hypothetical - what would happen if a woman grew up without the pressures of an oppressive society. I wasnt thinking of her as a literal baby, just "untouched" and untainted.

I had a huge sexual appetite growing up, so i identified with Bella quite a bit.

With a book you create the movie, the characters, the music etc. This is why the book always wins.

the fish eye lens is doing a lot of heavy lifting in the production design

Finally, someone who points out the major themes of this book and movie. So many analysts ( men ) of this movie just miss all these themes.

Sexual liberation is a big part of the movie, so the movie was trying to normalize explicit sex scenes, rightly so. If the movie showed restrain in the sex scenes and the amount of it, it would have gone against its own message i think.

I loved the book so much. Even before the twist at the end I felt there was a humor and a sarcasm that made the men look silly and the metaphors enjoyable.
The male fantasy of creating a beautiful woman for yourself to control except she leaves and doesn't care what you want from her.
I loved the socialist themes and how important reproductive health care was to Bella in the book.

The movie is visually amazing and it's still an interesting story but it's a shame it missed so much context from the book.

Bella is so young when she leaves with Duncan in both but in the book we know that's she's old enough to read Wuthering Heights and have seen the world and to desire sexuality. In the movie Duncan takes Bella. In the book Bella is also taking Duncan.

As a sex worker, who used to escort, I really liked the depiction of the work. It mirrored my experience in a lot of ways. I also didn't find that it romanticized it, only showed the reality, at least as I saw it. For me most sessions included a lot of banter. Sitting on the couch, talking and telling jokes, and getting to know one another. The movie also showed the less enjoyable parts like having s** with a rough, ugly man and the disassociation that comes with that. Also the pleasure of having a client who was handsome. I was lucky to never experience violence so perhaps that's why I felt her experience was similar to mine. I like that she was shown as a whole human, because sw are rarely depicted that way in media.

This is the best review so far

Pure male fantasy.

You have some plot issues, here. The Dr God uses the brain of the child because the mother is braindead. And the Cad loses all his money. But wins it back and has no money because Bella gives the money way.

i would consider myself someone who is not a huge prude when it comes to s3x in movies but i also agree this movie just had too much s3x. and I think that bc it always made me uncomfortable in a way that say, the s3x scenes in Game of Thrones never did. I was so grateful to be watching this movie at home when i did so i could skip through those scenes when I felt too uncomfortable (which was a lot). When the main character is so infantilized.... we dont need such long, detailed s3x scenes....

So wait.. the book twist is that her first husband wrote it, bella says it was all b.s.?

This movie stinks

There is nothing said about an autopsy at the end of the book. It simply says: 'Reckoning from the birth of her brain in the Humane Society mortuary on Glasgow Green, 18th February 1880, she was exactly sixty-six years, forty weeks and four days old. Reckoning from the birth of her body in a Manchester slum in 1854, she was ninety-two'. So it's not a fact but a comment from a man who is biased about women to such an extent that he can believe Candle's nonsense work of fiction. And I think this is a crucial moment in understanding the story. Candle, an unreliable narrator, presents us with a story that claims the following, 'Such an independent, openminded and unconventional woman can only be made by a man through some weird unknown procedure closer to magic than to science. ' And a man one hundred years later also so biased in understanding women that he prefers a story about some advanced beyond-belief surgery done in the previous century that is still unknown to science over believing that a regular woman can be and live this way. Through this, the author shows us that there is still a lot of sexism, even a hundred years later. Moreover, it's a sexism test for the reader. The reader sees one unbelievable point presented by two men and a very simple and realistic point offered by a woman. And it seems many readers are still inclined to find a man's point much more convincing than a woman's point, even if a man's point is 100% nonsense. This is proved by the film, which completely omits this detail.

❤❤❤ i like

As a gay man, watching the sex scenes were torture to me😂😂😂

Word😮

Please make a Dracula video!

This movie was a visual red pill of social constructs and male positioning. Loved this movie.

I remember someone telling me that if the repeated sex scenes made me uncomfortable, it was because the movie wanted to make a certain group of the audience uncomfortable, specifically opportunistic men who approach innocent girls.
But the reality is that I didn't see a single man uncomfortable about it, on the contrary, only women. Coming out of the theater, my partner told me how strange it felt to see the clean image of the protagonist, how the repeated scenes presented her as something positive, empowering, even, but still tied to the visual characteristics reinforced by pornographic productions of modern times. Poor Bella didn't even have any body hair.
I love the cast and the production is impeccable, but it's such a beautiful movie that if its message was female empowerment and criticism of how sexually liberated women who move away from the male gaze are judged, it failed miserably.
Also, english is my third language, sorry if I make mistakes.

awesome commentary. It's definitely a book a I'd like to check out. As I've realised with the movie being more "straight forward", it doesn't have the facets you spoke of in the book about it being of others perspectives, and therefore in my opinion becomes almost "rage bait". Without further context to the film ( from the book ), our own prefrontal cortex doesn't have the chance to form a critical thought about the story.

I have only seen the movie, but I find it a fascinating movie that is great in many aspects.
I find it very good if movies show more and 'real' sex scenes. As it is a real part of life, but I find it annoying that most directors cut or hide it. It disturbs me how it is regularly depicted.
Further my wife found it unfair that Duncan took the money that she had stocked in her dress. But as she had bluntly taken his money before, I found it kind of fair that he took money from her.

Did Bella not give away all of Duncan's money in the movie as opposed to him losing it all while gambling as the reviewer says? Some may rightfully assert that Duncan gambled on Bella and lost, but that wasn't the event's I witnessed in the movie. I understood the duo's destitution as a result of Bella having given away all of Duncan's winnings. I had moderate hopes for this video, but those were ultimately dashed just seven and half minutes in.