Culture Cabinet

Poor Things tells the story of Bella Baxter (Emma Stone), a woman who is brought back to life by Dr. Godwin “God” Baxter (Willem Dafoe), after Dr. Baxter finds her pregnant corpse. When Dr. Baxter realizes Bella’s unborn child is still alive, he transplants the baby’s brain into Bella’s, bringing her back to life – with the mind of a child. 

As Bella begins to re-discover the world, from the eyes of a child, Max McCandles (Ramy Youssef) is invited by Dr. Baxter to study Bella. Max is shocked and fascinated by Bella. Her social skills are essentially nonexistent, she does not understand manners, and she is only able to speak in short sentences. Dr. Baxter seems quite content with letting Bella remain in this state of childlike innocence, until Bella suddenly begins to learn a bit more about the female anatomy, and what pleasures it can bring. With this newfound knowledge, Bella sets off with the debonair lawyer Dunan Wedderburn (Mark Ruffalo) on a voyage of self discovery. Which, to her, means the “furious jumping.” 

There are more than a fair few bright points in this film. The most obvious, of course, being Emma Stone’s performance as Bella. In a performance that is arguably a career highlight, Stone manages to bring an arch to Bella that is transformative, hilarious, earnest, and dry. Stone has proven herself an equally gifted actor in both comedic and dramatic roles, and this particular performance allows her to showcase all sides of her repertoire. It’s not hyperbolic to call this performance “career defining,” despite her already notable list of credits. Mark Ruffalo also gives a performance that feels like something completely new for him. Often cast as the shy and nerdy type, Ruffalo brings an air of pompous crassness, peppered with just the right amount of subtle humor that is hard to pull off, but Ruffalo makes it seem easy. His chemistry with Stone is palpable, and the two play off each other well, keeping the audience invested in the highs and lows of Bella and Wedderburn’s tumultuous relationship. 

The production and costume design of this film are other-worldly. In a way that has become synonymous with the name, Yorgos Lanthimos creates a world onscreen that is visually appealing, giving some sort of Victorian gothic whimsy. It makes one want to live in Bella’s world. There are obvious nods to Frankenstein, of which the story is similar in general idea, with the rest of the visuals having an almost Alice in Wonderland type feel – as if Bella is falling deeper into this mystical world that she discovers outside of Dr. Baxter’s house. The first act of the film is also in black and white, turning to color once Bella steps out of the house, a presumed nod to The Wizard of Oz. Watching these visuals at work alone is worth the price of admission. 

However, the story has a few problems. Poor Things is based on the 1992 novel of the same name, written by Alasdair Gray, adapted for the screen by Tony McNamara. Which, it only feels worth mentioning that the story was written by men, as its biggest issue lies in the fact that it feels like a feminist work told through the male gaze. At its core, Poor Things is a story about female liberation. Bella remains under the control of Dr. Baxter, confined to the life of a child, living a life that she never consented to. Once she decides to run off with Wedderburn, she becomes obsessed with sex – though her childlike brain prevents her from actually calling it sex, rather referring to the act as “furious” or “happy jumping.” She questions why people don’t have sex every hour of every day – a question Wedderburn takes as a joke, but she means  it earnestly. 

While there is definitely something to be said of the importance of a woman’s body autonomy, and the unfair double standards set by society that seem to reward men for desiring sex but punish women for the same, that seems to be the main crux of Bella’s liberation. As the third act rolls in, we see Bella express interest in ideas beyond sex – wanting to know more about her past, vaguely mentioning her desire to become a doctor so she can help people – but on whole, her liberation comes more with her understanding of sexuality. And while that understanding is undeniably liberating, it feels unfair to make that the main touchpoint. This is a woman who has lived in captivity under the control by men. Her mere ability to draw as many conclusions about the world as she does by the end is liberation within itself, just overshadowed by the need for gratuitous “furious jumping” scenes.

However, the phenomenal performances in the film, coupled with the best visuals seen onscreen in recent memory, make the film an entertaining watch. The dry and dark humor is weaved so seamlessly, perfectly delivered by a knockout of a cast lineup. It just doesn’t seem to warrant being deemed the feminist masterpiece it clearly thinks it is.