Oscar Watch: Poor Things (2023)

Watched:  03/08/2024

Format:  Hulu

Viewing:  First

Director:  Yorgos Lanthimos

Selection:  Me

I remember seeing the trailer for Poor Things (2023) and immediately saying "well, I would like to see that".  

It is true: one of my favorite films is Bride of Frankenstein.  Not "favorite horror film" or "favorite 1930's movie".  Bride of Frankenstein just lands every note correctly - storywise, visually, casting, etc...  It's simply a favorite.  And it wasn't hard to see echoes of that film in the trailer.

When learning about 1930's horror films, I delved a bit into the German Expressionism that informed the aesthetic.  And this movie, from the trailers again, seemed to be saying "hey, nerds, we play with some of that stuff".  

The look, the lens selection, the occasional use of a keyhole POV into the world, and certainly the artificiality of the sets and astounding set design seem to call back to what you might find in The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, Nosferatu, or some early Fritz Lang (I won't pretend I have a wider base of knowledge in this arena than I do).  It's certainly not a 1:1, and Lanthimos and his design team go above and beyond, creating a world unique to this film, entirely built upon sets and where the artificiality and surreal environs are the point.

I would expect some of the detail in early horror also informed Lanthimos' inclusion of details like the Pig-Chicken and other oddities seen in the film (not that Bride of Frankenstein doesn't delve into it's own pockets of weirdness).  

There's also a tiny dash of Wizard of Oz in there, but what movie worth it's salt doesn't nod a bit toward that film?

If you've never seen Bride of Frankenstein, it's not exactly a horror film, despite how it's categorized for public consumption.  The tone is absolutely whackadoodle.  But, also, the punchline is: after a movie's runtime spent discussing, planning and executing on said plan to build a woman (something the subtext suggests is going to be *great*), the Bride finally comes to life.  And, despite only hissing like an angry animal, she wants absolutely nothing to do with any of the bullshit reasons she's been brought into being, rejecting everything the men who drove her into existence (the Monster included) wanted.  

That famous face you know is on screen for about five minutes, total, (and is non-verbal) right at the end of the movie.  And then the Bride is blown up along with everyone else (spoilers on a 90 year old movie).

There's also a key line in the movie which has been borrowed for about 25 years now, thanks to the Bill Condon written and directed film, Gods and Monsters, the origin of which I assume has been lost as "Gods and Monsters" is the semi-official Phase 1 theme for DC's new slate of superhero movies.  

In the film, mad scientist Dr. Pretorious raises a glass to "a new world of gods and monsters!"  It's a lovely line, and almost every movie since has borrowed the idea of "well, who is the god and who is the monster?" and here we are with Emma Stone nominated for that same idea in 2024. 

Of course, at some point, folks who watch Bride of Frankenstein will think "okay, but... what if she wasn't blown up?  That'd be wild."  And I wouldn't be shocked if this same line of thinking didn't help give birth to Yorgos Lanthimos' Oscar-nominated  film.  (It was also slated to be the plot of the Angelina Jolie Dark Universe film that never occurred, and this movie probably this movie screwed up plans for a new Bride remake I saw getting kicked around.)

Back in the 1980's, the Sting-starring film The Bride made some attempts at some of this, but it followed the wrong threads and wound up in melodrama and a lot of unnecessary nonsense that felt either a weakness in the script or forced upon the filmmakers by producers foisting their version of a Hollywood third act onto the movie.  It does have Jennifer Beals in elaborate gowns, so bonus points there, for what's otherwise a mediocre movie.

This post won't begin to cover a complete breakdown of the ideas and what is happening in this movie.  For that, I'll let some bright eyed kids who want to write a thesis toward their degree go nuts.  I suspect unpacking everything in the film would be a herculean task, and I've already started and then erased the start of some paths to pursue the movie, realizing how long it would take to tease out.  Apologies if I cut this brief.

SPOILERS

The basic gist of the story is that a brilliant - but probably insane - scientist, Godwin Baxter (Willem Defoe) obtains the body of a woman who committed suicide.  In his scientific quests, he re-animates the woman, but with a new, infantile brain in place of the woman's mind.  Though he has the best of intentions to be a cold, observing scientist, he clearly feels fatherly to the woman, Bella (Emma Stone), with the baby-brain, delighting as she makes progress.  

We do learn that Godwin's own father performed cruel experiments on him for the betterment of mankind.

An assistant (Ramy Yousseff) is pulled in to take notes, who falls for the lovely Bella and her innocence.  

Raised by two scientists (and a maid who is remarkably patient), Bella imprints on the notion of observation and experimentation.  While she was built as an experiment for Godwin, she is a being of free will and an experiment unto herself.  And so she must see the world and learn what it has to offer.  

She has already discovered self-pleasure, and upon meeting rake and cad Duncan (Mark Ruffalo), she decides to go to Lisbon with him, with Godwin's blessing.  From here, the primary education learned under Godwin's roof is opened to include the wider world, in it's ever-expanding complexity, from sexual pleasure to social mores and the evils of imbalance in how people allow themselves to live with one another while apart from one another.  She learns commerce, politics.  Upon returning home, she learns how far she's come, only to be claimed by the husband of the woman whose body she inhabits - a cruel man who uses violence as casually as he might use words.

I've greatly oversimplified, but I'm assuming if you've watched the movie, you don't need a synopsis.  And I know folks read these posts despite the spoiler warnings, so I don't want to spoil too much.  

I don't think Lanthimos is doing anything particularly complicated here, but he is doing it elegantly and with care.  He's mixing and matching metaphors, primarily the notion of a Father who observes and grants us free will and hopes for us to find our way, loving us (and what happens when he removes his love from us in his second, un-blossoming experiment).  That we create our own hells, but pursuit of truth is what grows us and sets us free.  Simultaneously, the movie weaves in commentary about patriarchy, matriarchy, capitalism, and certainly the male gaze and how that fits in to a flesh-golem's journey.  

I think it works.  It's a beautiful film, visually and stylistically.  It shows a filmmaker in command of their craft, reaching backward to reach forward, and remembers that film is a visual medium (which is something I give a lot of movies I've seen this year a lot of credit for).  It manages to tell a story, or stories, via analogy, which is what sci-fi and horror do when they're at their best.  And manages to do it without burying the analogy so deep in the nonsense of what he's put on screen that you don't need a decoder ring to work it through.  Whether you line up with what Lanthimos is suggesting (including the death of Godwin and subsequent carving of one's own path - gods and monsters, y'all) is going to be a Your Mileage May Vary scenario for every viewer.  

Pal MRSHL mentioned Poor Things came out in the same year as Barbie and shares messaging, and I don't dispute that.  I think Barbie stays focused on fewer topics and makes a cleaner argument as a result.  And no one is going to accuse that movie of not swinging for the fences.  But I'm not sure with me, that wins more points or not.  They feel like movies with different but cooperative agendas.  

Poor Things also came out in the same year as The Color Purple, which has it's own takes on patriarchy, class and the violence we do to each other, and it may be even closer in spirit than Barbie, which I think stopped short a few too many places.  

You will, no doubt, hear about the sex and nudity in Poor Things.  And this is true, it's in there.  Also, grow up, film-goers.  The sex is anything but prurient, played for comedy, and if you're covering your eyes at the nudity in the film, my guess is you're also missing the point of the movie, anyway.  But I think its earned, and the points well taken.

There's a lot of things that I love about this movie - and at the end of the day, all of it is in service to the story.  The wild design, the sci-fi Frankenstein horrors and stitched together wonders, the oddball performances...  it's all part of a greater whole.  I can pick out a dozen elements I want to talk about immediately, just visually.  Aurally, the movie is a wild ride, and I tip my hate for the film making sure the soundscape was as bent as the visuals.  But at the end of the day, we also need to care about the characters.  Love them even.  And I think Stone's performance as Bella does an astounding job of carrying us on the arc the film wants to take us on, allowing us to grow alongside her, and doing it with a sense of humor about our own world which would want to put her in a box, over and over.  

I liked it.  I look forward to watching more of the Oscar nominees and other movies from last year that I missed.