Poor Things

[discovolante]

Posting in WM because at the moment for me this is a bit more of a broad discussion about art and entertainment than just the film.

I saw it in the cinema on Friday. Anyway, just to get the first things out of the way, I thought the script and acting in the film were hilarious, proper laugh out loud funny, well done Mark Ruffalo.

Next - not going to put this in spoilers because I don't think it really is spoilers but obviously feel free not to read. I'll keep it quite general for now and avoid mentioning any major plot points, although that'll probably make it a bit harder for me to explain what I'm getting at, so bear that in mind please!

After I watched it, I went online and read quite a lot of interesting discussions, both complimentary and critical of the film. I think there were a fair few people who just got the wrong end of the stick on both sides of it but never mind about those for now, maybe later. There were a fair few people who have had similar experiences to Bella (in a roundabout way...not literally!) who both loved it and hated it for what seem to me to be entirely valid reasons, and it was really interesting to read about their perspectives on it.

But one thing that kept cropping up in the discussions that I'm not sure how I feel about is - there seemed to me (and I could be wrong) that there was often an underlying assumption that a film (or book or whatever, any piece of art) needs to be 'about' something or have a particular message. As in, there needs to be some kind of overall moral certainty about it. I think I can understand partly why that is, we are coming about of an era of entertainment that had very little regard for different groups of people in a way that's really quite troubling, and I think there's quite rightly and understandably still a fair bit of wariness about that (so just to be very clear I am not talking about 'woke nonsense', none of that please thank you). But it seemed to me that the film (and I assume to a greater extent the book) has a number of themes that it explores (including one that is relevant to me As A Woman), not just one or two, and there is a little bit of ambiguity, not necessarily because the creators think a certain situation or outcome is right or wrong, but just to present the situation as something to think about. With a story as erm transgressive as Poor Things, there are bound to be points where it doesn't quite hit the mark, but the story is so much on the main character's side that I think that makes it maybe just a bit more interesting?

[nekomatic]

Well first of all I would have said that the people seem to have different standards for different art forms as far as the requirement to Be About Something goes. People get very exercised about what a piece of visual art is About but not nearly as much when it comes to a piece of music, say - in fact people can be quite resistant to the suggestion that a pop or rock song is about anything beyond the straightforward interpretation of its lyrics.

Without having seen either this film or the debate about it I’d have said that it seemed accepted that films can have interpretations that are up for debate, independent of the filmmakers’ intentions. But maybe I’m thinking more of critical evaluations of established classics than of hot takes on new releases.

[discovolante]

Well first of all I would have said that the people seem to have different standards for different art forms as far as the requirement to Be About Something goes. People get very exercised about what a piece of visual art is About but not nearly as much when it comes to a piece of music, say - in fact people can be quite resistant to the suggestion that a pop or rock song is about anything beyond the straightforward interpretation of its lyrics.

Without having seen either this film or the debate about it I’d have said that it seemed accepted that films can have interpretations that are up for debate, independent of the filmmakers’ intentions. But maybe I’m thinking more of critical evaluations of established classics than of hot takes on new releases.

Re bolded bit, do you have any particular examples?

I think the obvious reason for that is (and I appreciate this is partly the point you're making!) that visual art doesn't have words whereas songs and so on do. So I agree with you, but also I think your two examples are two sides of the same coin to an extent. In both cases people have decided that the piece of art is about Something, and there is a conclusive Something that can be drawn from it, even if they can't agree what that Something is.

Regarding your last paragraph, yes I think you're probably right on both points, that it's accepted that interpretations can differ but that sometimes it's the passage of time and allowing the dust to settle that allows people to accept that. And possibly, that with some films at least by the time you get to that point the issues raised in the films aren't as on the nose as they were when they were released, so the debate about it becomes less heated. But also what I'm getting at partly, is that even when it's accepted that there are 'different interpretations', there is still the underlying assumption that there is a particular interpretation to be found (or maybe two or three). Bit hard for me to explain...but that way of talking about it still assumes there are particular underlying messages and ideas that can be drawn from them even if there's legitimate disagreement about what those message are and/or they weren't what the filmmaker intended.

[Tessa K]

There is sometimes an assumption that films that are not 'pure' entertainment have to be About Something or at least have a Message.

The Avengers movies, for example, could fall into the entertainment category but these days even films like that have a Message or two dropped in, unrelated to the main plot.

Action movies don't have to be About anything whereas anything more complex in themes, ideas, characterisation do in many people's minds. They can't just be telling a good story that requires a bit more mental input than car chases and smashing stuff up.

As to this film, the first half is excellent, the second half good but overlong from when Spoiler:

she goes off with Ruffalo

. It could have done with much tighter editing. Still well worth seeing. The performances and visuals are excellent.

[discovolante]

There is sometimes an assumption that films that are not 'pure' entertainment have to be About Something or at least have a Message.

The Avengers movies, for example, could fall into the entertainment category but these days even films like that have a Message or two dropped in, unrelated to the main plot.

Action movies don't have to be About anything whereas anything more complex in themes, ideas, characterisation do in many people's minds. They can't just be telling a good story that requires a bit more mental input than car chases and smashing stuff up.

As to this film, the first half is excellent, the second half good but overlong from when Spoiler:

she goes off with Ruffalo

. It could have done with much tighter editing. Still well worth seeing. The performances and visuals are excellent.

Yes I'd agree with that. Although I'd add that I think you can have a distinction between a Message and themes. If a film has a theme or a number of themes, it seems to be assumed that it's trying to lead you to a conclusion about those themes (notwithstanding what nekomatic said). I'd say Poor Things is making certain arguments but also leaves room for some ambiguity, but also also! just has things in it that just 'are'.

Hmm I'd say maybe the middle section is a bit overlong but it picks up a bit by the end. From where Spoiler:

he imprisons her on the boat

, it slows down a bit - I think there is arguably a good reason for that but I think it's also partly because Spoiler:

I'm not sure it did a great job of her exploration of thinking and philosophy - it was mainly her reading books and saying the odd thing about them rather than anything really interesting coming out of that, apart from of course the nihilist who was just about as potentially damaging to her as all of the other men in her life.

[Tessa K]

There is sometimes an assumption that films that are not 'pure' entertainment have to be About Something or at least have a Message.

The Avengers movies, for example, could fall into the entertainment category but these days even films like that have a Message or two dropped in, unrelated to the main plot.

Action movies don't have to be About anything whereas anything more complex in themes, ideas, characterisation do in many people's minds. They can't just be telling a good story that requires a bit more mental input than car chases and smashing stuff up.

As to this film, the first half is excellent, the second half good but overlong from when Spoiler:

she goes off with Ruffalo

. It could have done with much tighter editing. Still well worth seeing. The performances and visuals are excellent.

Yes I'd agree with that. Although I'd add that I think you can have a distinction between a Message and themes. If a film has a theme or a number of themes, it seems to be assumed that it's trying to lead you to a conclusion about those themes (notwithstanding what nekomatic said). I'd say Poor Things is making certain arguments but also leaves room for some ambiguity, but also also! just has things in it that just 'are'.

Hmm I'd say maybe the middle section is a bit overlong but it picks up a bit by the end. From where Spoiler:

he imprisons her on the boat

, it slows down a bit - I think there is arguably a good reason for that but I think it's also partly because Spoiler:

I'm not sure it did a great job of her exploration of thinking and philosophy - it was mainly her reading books and saying the odd thing about them rather than anything really interesting coming out of that, apart from of course the nihilist who was just about as potentially damaging to her as all of the other men in her life.

I agree that Messages are different from Themes. There's often a Message about climate change or a few comments about women's rights for example dropped in although the film isn't about that.

Also agree that her Spoiler:

mental development is a bit rushed, probably because reading and thinking are not very dramatic or visual

.

I did wonder at the end if she was going to Spoiler:

put Willem Dafoe's brain in her husband's body.

[nekomatic]

Re bolded bit, do you have any particular examples?

Ha ha, I should have known I might get challenged on that, and should really have left it out as it wasn’t really central to my point (such as it was). I guess there are some obvious examples of songs where the writer/lyricist did have a clear intention but it is often overlooked or misunderstood (Born in the USA, Sweet Home Alabama, Jerusalem) and I bet you can find people denying those intentions somewhere, but I don’t have receipts ready to present.

Returning to your question of why some people don’t want to let a film be about nothing specific, I guess there’s a possibility of selection bias where the people who are happy with that position don’t feel the need to join in the discussions about it?