 |
| art by Aleksander Walijewski |
A Movie Review by Didge
Martin
Can
I just say, or ask rather, before starting this essay that, is Duncan Wedderburn,
in the contemporary world, a classic manipulative sad boy? Finding out that fresh-out-of-Marvel-movies
Mark Ruffalo portrayed this character really made me laugh, and might I add,
made me anxious as well after finding out that he was scared to do this role
when he first read the script! To quote Bella Baxter: “what a confusing person
you are, Duncan Wedderburn!”
The
thing about trying to understand the outwardly bizarre premise and off-putting
vibe of a movie that is Poor Things makes me want to schedule a session with my
make-believe therapist which is myself. But the solace that can only comfort me
is a small self-talk as I try to tell myself “Oh, you poor thing” (Get it?)
I don’t
know if this movie was reverse Benjamin Buttoning me when I first saw it, well
that probably does not make sense, because the premise of a reverse Benjamin
Button is basically, a normal human being born and growing old. But it did put
a mind-bending experience, nonetheless. In a sense that the fast-paced plot
with ridiculously abrupt nudity that hits you the least you expect, is still a
theatrical experience, at least for me. If you carefully watch the movie, it’s
as if you are experiencing a wild theater or play. To quote Karsten Runquist: “[Lanthimos’s]
films often feel like dollhouses where characters are so stiff, and they have
to explore human emotion from the ground level...”
Ah
yes, ground level. Starting from scratch. When I was in college learning
philosophy, tabula rasa was introduced to me. My philosophy teacher
(shoutout to Sir Hollis, my Captain, oh Captain!) mentioned John Locke’s idea
of this blank slate, I immediately associated it with Bella Baxter when I
started watching this movie. Shall we color this blank slate/play then?
To showcase a blueprint,
this essay will delve into three main topics:
1. Is the movie really
about the Male Gaze?
2. The Polite Society Narrative and the Use of Philosophy. Are they important?
3. Love, hate,
prostituting ourselves, and everything in between, what’s in them?
On to the Idea of the
Male Gaze argument:
In
the hours of researching that I spent on finding out the meaning and philosophy
of Poor Things (mostly by YouTube essay videos and answers from Quora
strangers) I found out that a lot of them argued that the entire movie was
built upon this idea that it tries to put into a film the Male Gaze
perspective.
The existentialist philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre
(1905-1980) introduced the idea of le regard, or the gaze, in his 1943
book Being and Nothingness. According to this concept, the act of gazing at
another human being creates a subjective power difference, which is felt by the
gazer and by the gazed because the person being gazed at is perceived as an
object, not as a human being.
Immanuel
Kant argues in his second categorical imperative that people are meant to be
ends-in-themselves, and not mere means. In this context, Bella was a mere means
for the perverse and fetishized actions of Duncan, to say the least. Might I
add that he is also on the top when it comes to the list of best people to
showcase the fragility of the male ego.
Apparently,
Bella is living an I-It relationship with all the men in her life.
Godwin Baxter literally manipulated her with his Frankensteinesque (I don’t
know if this is a term, but I love how it sounds) idea. Max McCandless loves
Bella only after studying her and after following the orders of Godwin. Alfie
claims her back as if she is a property at his own disposal, then goes to the
lengths of binding her to ACTUALLY remove her clitoris as he says it “my life
is dedicated to the taking of the territory” and to which she responds, “I am
not your territory.” Also, isn’t he technically remarrying his daughter? Yikes.
Before continuing
this essay, I would like to say that being a male person commenting and making
a self-imposed review on this movie and agreeing that it might be true
can be quite appalling. But to get it out the way; before even I get to my
point, this allowed me to acknowledge that my viewpoints may have been shaped by patriarchal norms
and biases, and it prompts me to
actively seek to understand and empathize with the experiences of women and
marginalized genders. To quote Cory Aragon: “Male Feminists find
themselves in the weird position of opposing entrenched patriarchal gender
hierarchies while effectively reinforcing them.” I would like to preempt as
well that I teach ethics and one of the lectures I deliver during the Final
term is feminism as an ethical perspective. This movie will now be sort of an
additional requirement to create perspective in the intersectionality of this
timely topic. To genuinely ask the students (especially the males) what they
think.
Okay, so now that is in the way,
I shall now really think what the movie is telling us, the viewers.
Our understanding of the world
because of our sense-experiences and this notion that people can be objects
stemmed from our own entitled views of power. To quote Palazzo Fedrigotti:
“Objectification
represents a powerful and potentially damaging way in which we can see and
treat others. When people become tools, instruments, or objects of our
appreciation they can lose out on their humanity, inner mental life, and
sometimes even moral standing. This objectification can have a sexual element -
sexualized women and men become objects of our sexual attention. However,
objectification goes beyond the sexual sphere; it can be the worker or the
boss, the patient or the practitioner who becomes the object. Objectification -
reducing a someone to a something - can occur in any human relationship.”
Nicolai
Hartmann (1882-195), a German Philosopher and Metaphysician tries to tell us
that in the layers of existence in this world, only humans can achieve the
highest level, which is the mental layer of existence. Other layers are
conscious (higher animals can achieve this), live (plants belong into this
layer), and lastly, physical (where objects belong).
Bella,
in the beginning of the movie, is seen as a baby inside a grown woman. Her
mental capacities are obviously low (I also managed to laugh at Max’s comment
of her being a pretty retard) and that she is an actual child being
developed with an environment that is not typical (because of the bizarre setup
of God) This presupposes that this pretty retard is still in the process
of developing the layer of existence from a conscious being to a mental being.
In
contrast to the treatment of Duncan, he treats her as a physical being, to feed
and satisfy his egoistic and sexual desires. Bella was made to believe that she
indeed is an object to be set free, to explore the world and be an enjoyer of furious
jumping—a clever term she uses as a substitute for the word sex. As we are
hooked by the story, the juxtaposition of the colorful world and the dark
undertones of its dialogues and scenes dramatically lifts off as the movie
progresses. The isolated sounds are also adding flavor and emotional weight to
the entirety of the story and its scenes.
Bella
later finds out that the act of selling sex is a thing in the world (to which
infuriates Duncan) and prior this, allows her to meet other friends in a ship
to talk about philosophical perspectives and life in general. (more on this
later)
Swiney, the head of the brothel
delivers some of the most interesting and poignant lines in the movie that
explores the impact of the line of work Bella was about to enter. When asked
what the purpose of this endeavor is, she says: “We must work. We must make
money. But more than that Bella, we must experience everything. Not just the
good, but degradation, horror, sadness. This makes us whole Bella, makes us
people of substance. Not flighty, untouched children. Then we can know the
world. And when we know the world, the world is ours.”
And when
confronted with the idealist statements Bella tries to advocate for, she also
replies with the statement: You are an idealist. Like me. How delightful you
are. But we must give in to the demands of the world sometimes. Grapple with
it. Try to defeat it. To which Bella replies: so, you believe as me? And
she immediately replies with the statement, that perfectly encapsulates the
misogynistic reality: “some men enjoy that you do not like it… [it is] sick
but good business.” What I hate about the film is that they could’ve used
this moment to dive deeper into this aspect to empower these women. To quote
YouTube commenter Ashley Bird: “The concept of being forced to have sex with
men she doesn’t want to is not explored at all… in the end, her experience is
framed as liberating and positive, and having sex with someone she doesn’t want
to is a mere bump in the road.”
But I
guess to its merit, again, to quote Karsten Runquist: “without it being preachy,
the film examines sexual liberation in a pretty empowering way—exploring the
nuance of topics like sex work [in a way I’m surprised to see out of a big movie]”
Now, to
fully become aware of the problem is to recognize the impact it makes towards
the audience. As an average reasonable person, I would automatically think that
this is already the status quo even in the fictionalized Victorian era time-period
it portrays. Tolerance used as a beacon for the norm to stay the same is
clearly weaponized by men but also taken back by the women in their line of
work. A form of victorious claim, to say the least. Bella understands this, yet
the most baffling issue, as Ganymedia would say in her Video Essay
entitled Poor Things: feminist or degrading? “… the film does also raise
really unsettling questions about consent that it potentially doesn’t explore
critically enough.” The casual furious jumpings on the end of Bella
makes her a victim of her own narrative. She is a child that does not know the
idea of consent, more so its implications when not given, and yet the viewers
are made to believe that she indeed emerged victoriously towards the end.
The
Polite Society Narrative and use of Philosophical Thoughts:
What
constitutes a polite society? I had similar line of questioning when I teach
ethics in my class. Most of the answers of my students would either be a discussion
on socially acceptable norms and people conforming to it, then they would claim
that if someone violates these said rules, they must pay for the consequences.
In a typical sense, of course.
In
the movie, Duncan tells Bella that he doesn’t care for a polite society because
it was “f**king boring. This line was callback to the apple insertion scene
of Bella finding pleasure in self-touching. To which Max tries to stop Bella
because the polite society may not accept such acts.
Harry
backs this up during a conversation with Bella by saying: “Do not accept the
lie of religion, socialism, capitalism, we are a fucked species. Hope is
smashable. Realism is not. Protect yourself with the truth.” Harry is
another sad boy person, I presume. Well, as Bella presumes as well, because she
replies that Harry is just a broken little boy who cannot bear the pain of
the world. His lines also encapsulate an old-age nihilistic viewpoint. He
even retorts that “this improvement through philosophy is people trying to
run away from the fact that we are all cruel beasts. Born that way. Die that
way.”
Erich
Fromm (1900-1980) a German American psychologist and philosopher, has a famous
quote that goes “Man is born as a freak of nature.” In his book "The Anatomy of Human
Destructiveness" and other works, Fromm argued that humans possess a
remarkable capacity for both creativity and destructiveness. Just like how the
film is portrayed as creative and destructive. This is emphasized in the
brilliant cinematographic style of the strategic changing of lenses throughout
the whole movie, its score, and just the gorgeous set design and the characters’
costume juxtaposed with its dark scenes and lines.
Fromm further believed that humans are born with an
inherent potential for freedom, rationality, and creativity, but they also have
the capacity for destructiveness, aggression, and violence. By calling humans
"a freak of nature," Fromm was pointing out that humans stand out in
the natural world due to their complex psychological and social attributes.
Unlike other animals, humans have developed sophisticated cultures, languages,
technologies, and social structures. This is the reason why Bella was also so
intrigued by the essence of Duncan in the beginning. Well, she was a child.
However, this unique position by Fromm also brings with it certain challenges,
such as the potential for alienation, anxiety, and destructive behavior.
Beasts, as Harry Astley would argue. Bella’s response was also nihilistic but
more on the optimistic side. In a sense that, she was utterly confused with the
new wisdom given to her, she hated it but also wanted to know more about it.
In fact, when she was “shown” the real-world problems
being exposed to the dying babies, Harry’s absolute nihilism kicks in. Creating
this idea of a loop, or a cycle or the world that there is nothing else people
can do but to wing it in living a polite society. It’s a
situation of them vs. us. Bella of course steals Duncan’s money to give it to
the poor and dying people. Her act of hopelessness or desperation is a
manifestation of her purity and naivety. Developing a sense of empathy that she
clearly only realizes when faced with the actuality of the world and its problems
that seem to be impossible to be solved. Cue Paramore’s “Ain’t it Fun? Living
in the real world!”
On the philosophy aspect. Bella actually journeyed
towards the different philosophical schools of thought in the entirety of this
movie, from a tabula rasa (a literal child-brained person) who gains
rationality (experiencing anarchism with her tantrums and chaotic
self-exploration, not only of the psychosexual but also psychosocial) then she
explores hedonism (pleasure philosophy)and dismantles the idea of the soul
as she then tries to traverse nihilism (with her boat ride) and finally towards
realism. (shoutout to jasons5916 of a random YouTube comment from the video of
Lucas Blue’s Analysis of the movie) Bella is our Optimistic Nihilist Queen!
But in the end, did Bella really find her purpose?
Technically yes because she became a doctor. But it also does not sit with me
right that she became a doctor in the fashion that Godwin was a doctor. She
became a doctor who also manipulates people, quite literally. Carving with compassion
and what not. As Godwin would say: “My father once told me, always carve with
compassion, he was a f**king idiot, but not a bad advice.” Did Bella take the same
advice unironically? Or was it something else?
The Perception of love, lust, and everything in
between:
One of the songs I love in the entire Panic! At the
Disco’s Discography is this song called “But it’s Better if you do” This
song is about a man who goes to a strip club to help him get over a girl. While
there, he realizes that this isn't what he wants, and what he really wants is
the girl:
"Well,
I may have faked it, and I wouldn't be caught dead in this place." He
recognizes that the girl is playing hard-to-get.
"Isn't
this exactly where you’d like me... praying for love in a lap dance—and paying in
naivety” and doesn't like it.
The
sexual liberation that Bella experiences in the movie is also a good foreshadowing
on what comes after. Duncan went literally crazy after finding out what Bella
did. But Duncan is aware of what he did to her! Which is to liberate her and
make her understand the value of furious jumping in the lens Bella sees
or saw after. He even told her that “gosh, you look pretty, how it agrees it
with you to be ravaged!” I just kept imagining that the burlesque scenes
from the movie is the perfect metaphor for the song But It’s Better If You Do,
and it was Duncan who was singing this as a persona of a manipulative sad boy.
Bella
asks: does the whoring thing challenge the desire for ownership that men have? I
believe this was addressed to Max in the latter scenes of the movie. Which also
now encapsulates the entire existence of her being able to manipulate other men
as well. Even in its weird and submissive undertones, I would like to believe
that Bella fully recognizes the point of why she was doing all those things, because
the movie is not critiquing that women feel most sexually liberated through sex
work, but it tries to see or questions the origins of such idea.
Take for
example the case of Grace Quek aka Annabel Chong, the star of the porn movie “World’s
Biggest Gangbang.” For me, this story has the same effect to how the movie explores
sexual liberation. Mark Dacela on his research entitled “Sexuality, power, and gangbang: A Foucauldian analysis
of Annabel Chong's dissent.”
Chong claims in subsequent interviews that more than
anything else, she did it to challenge the stereotypical notion that female
sexuality is passive—that women like to be “seduced, kissed and cuddled, and
[are] basically biologically monogamous”. She quips that “if a guy did 251
women in one day . . . everyone would think he’s a real stud”; But if a girl
does the same “she’s considered a terrible slut.”
Dacela
on his research further asks:
Is Annabel Chong the quintessential feminist, defying
an oppressive system, asserting her individuality, redefining the parameters of
a gender-determined sexuality? Or is she a victim of her own misguided ideals,
objectifying herself in the belief that this affirms her subjectivity,
submitting herself to domination to reclaim control, eventually propagating the
same oppressive system she professes to end?
Recently,
a Filipina named Salome Salvi (I’m not really sure if this is an alias or her actual
name) was interviewed by Toni Gonzaga via her self-titled talk show in YouTube.
And the entire interview was also hinting on this idea of why there needs to be
sexual liberation to be used as a form of validation (not entirely from men) but
from society in general. (this is my personal opinion, I might be wrong) Opinions
from this interview were polarized, but of course, in a conservative Catholic
country, she is more despised rather than uplifted by the society.
Which
now goes to show that even if women prostitute themselves as a form of sexual
liberation, most men in general would STILL see this as an invitation of fulfilling
fetishes and perverse desires.
And
then goes the idea of love. Alfie, the weeping widower who suddenly had hope
because he saw that his dead wife has come to life is the final arbiter of the movie
for Bella’s decisions. But take note that she is now fully developed at this stage
and has already acquired the truth to her existence. She asks God: “is it hard
to be in the position where one wants to hit someone who is already in obvious
pain?” and that was such an expressive line for me.
There
was also this dinner scene where Alfie and Bella converse on a table where they
are far from each other. Alfie suggests: “marriage is a constant challenge,
some we bend to, some we bend to us” and delivers something somewhere “If one
must drown, let it be in the river of love!” Bella further asks Alfie: “so, am
I a prisoner?” I think this entire scene before the finale of the movie speaks
to us about these faux feelings that we have when it comes to love. The way we put
people into pedestals and the way we act towards our feelings and how we portray
them to people who we trust and love.
A
good example can also be seen in the creation of Felicity as a substitute for
Bella. This also means, the way I interpret it at least, that one cannot simply
create a version of a person to be passed on to another, because our uniqueness
can never be replicated. I mean, Alfie was no longer remarrying the same Victoria,
that as Bella, he was remarrying his own daughter (quite disturbing, I know) It
is unfair to see a person from another person just because there are similarities,
or just because you can recreate the elements of how you view a person to pass
it to another. I don’t know if this makes sense, I hope it does.
The question remains. Was Bella really liberated at
the end of the movie? Or was she still in the same bubble, only put into a
pedestal? What are your thoughts?
