Poor Things: the sexually liberated woman through the male gaze

Yorgos Lanthimos’ Poor Things has elicited divisive criticism since its release. Responses to the film have oscillated between high praise and extreme dislike. While the film has been widely celebrated both online and at award shows, it has also left a negative impact on certain audiences. Poor Things left many feeling deeply unsettled and misrepresented by the film's presentation of sexual liberation. Lanthimos is famed for his distinct film style and Poor Things follows the archetype set by his 2018 film The Favourite. But where The Favourite navigated the sexual experiences of the female characters convincingly Poor Things opts instead for a highly disturbing and misogynistic display of the born yesterday trope. A trope that aligns the film's sexual liberation as one firmly shown through the male gaze.

Adapted from the Alasdair Gray 1992 novel of the same name Poor Things takes inspiration from Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein. Our protagonist Bella Baxter, played by the incomparable Emma Stone, is a surreal creation of Godwin Baxter, whom she refers to as “God”. The film is set in a steampunk-retrofuturist world, and the surrealist set and the wonderful costumes stand out as the film's largest success. It feels like it belongs both within and without the world we are accustomed to. These elements set the stage for an exciting story, one that is in my eyes let down by the film's direct content and interpretation of the sexual experience of a ‘liberated’ woman. 

Bella has the brain of a child in the body of a grown woman. To be more specific, she has the brain of an infant in her own mother’s body. Lanthimos makes a clear point of consolidating Bella as a child in our minds, as we see her spoil herself, throw tantrums, speak in broken English to replicate a toddler’s developing speech and she is in a constant state of discovery. This idea of discovery is a wonderful sentiment, but the execution is lacking and from the offset, it is more focused on sexual discovery than any other aspect of mind or selfhood. I must say that although sexual awakenings are a crucial part of growing up, the sexual discovery here Lanthimos laces with paedophilia, misogyny, and abuse while framing it as a ‘liberation’ to be celebrated. Sexual discovery is framed as the film's great liberation ‘metaphor’ as Stone and Lanthimos have stated in multiple interviews. And while you could argue the film presents these issues to offer a critique on them it tends to lean more towards glorification, with the critique being simply an excuse to shock and push the audience's boundaries.

This is most evident with the central role paedophilia plays in this film. For the first forty or so minutes of the film Lanthimos not only consolidates Bella as a child but also consolidates the paedophilic reaction she elicits from the men around her. Bella is called beautiful by Max McCandles, played by Ramy Youssef, right after she urinates herself. It starts here and culminates with lengthy graphic sex scenes between Bella and Duncan Wedderburn, played by Mark Ruffalo. The born yesterday trope is established from the film's inception, therefore when Bella displays childish behaviour, reminding the men around her and the audience that she is an infant, she is consequently met with desire. 

The start of Bella’s sexual relationship with Duncan Wedderburn triggers the film’s black-and-white aesthetic to switch to full colour. It is a change that is being hailed as signifying a moment of liberation because Bella has sexual intercourse, and she breaks away from Godwin who had sought to entrap her. It is interesting to highlight that her supposed moment of initial liberation is dictated by a man and not her own discovery of pleasure. What I mean here is that the visual liberation of the film from the black-and-white colour palette does not occur when Bella masturbates for the first time but when she is penetrated by a man. We are supposed to think Bella is liberating herself from her creator, but we watch her walk from prison to prison happily and be allowed to partake in a sexual act that she does not understand. An infantilising sexual act that the audience is encouraged to engage with as we are forced to bear graphic witness to it. A sexual act Bella labels as “furious jumping” as she does not understand what it is. “Furious jumping” is a phrase that plays into the uncomfortable comedic tone of the film but feels deeply sinister. Poor Things repeatedly asks us to laugh at Bella as she is being abused, and here we are laughing at the fact she cannot comprehend this abuse. Bella is experiencing sex only in the capacity that her underdeveloped brain can and the only thing she can understand about the act is this feeling of fury and violence. 

The argument can be made that Bella needs to break free of this paedophilia to be truly liberated in the end. But this falls flat as she never shows any acknowledgement of this trauma. We as the audience never see her having to grapple with and overcome it to become liberated. This is also reflected in Bella’s sexual encounters in the prostitution house in Paris. Lanthimos provides a carousel of various male clientele that Bella has sex with. Men of all different appearances and ages are seemingly hand-picked to make the audience the most uncomfortable, at one point two young boys watch their father have sex with Bella. At the start of this large sequence of differing encounters, we see Bella experience the first glimpse of discomfort during sex. This is short-lived as she is able to comically make it work in her favour. After this point, she never experiences any version of sexual trauma and doesn't feel uncomfortable again. Rather she enjoys it, and these encounters are framed simply as another one of the film’s gags.

The problem is we never establish in the earlier contextually paedophilic sections or this later one that she understands that she has been abused. Bella never actually gets to have her sexual expression and experiences be truly her own. This is an issue when the film hinges so much of its female liberation on her sexual experience and sexual ownership. Yes, Bella removes herself from these situations through the development of her brain and she does grow tired of men around her wanting to control and possess her. But Bella only leaves Paris because Godwin is dying, and just like the brief mentions of socialism and Bella’s empathy, the film doesn't go further with exploring her actual opinions and feelings around sex. Rather we spend a lot of the film watching and being made to laugh as Bella’s body is used and displayed.

In the second half of Poor Things Bella’s critical brain develops massively and she unlocks interesting trains of thought and meets interesting female characters. Unfortunately, the film doesn't feel the need to elaborate on this. While trapped on the boat Bella interacts with a woman for the first time, they share a few nice moments and then, of course, they push away the woman for her male companion who provides Bella with an intellectual education. This trend continues when Bella becomes a prostitute although she is surrounded by women and befriends. Lanthimos doesn't delve any deeper into their dynamic. Ultimately Bella’s relationships with other women are not truly explored and instead are left feeling surface-level and empty.

Lanthimos and Stone have spoken about their intention to frame Bella as a woman experiencing life and sex without ‘shame’. This is tricky firstly as for most of the film Bella is not a woman at all, she is a child. Further their ‘woman without shame’ is an insult and a fantasy that matches the surrealist setting. This “shame” they say Bella does not have inherently implies that women in reality do have. Ironically it is so deeply intertwined with the shame men force around sex. Bella’s story feels like a virginal ingenue fantasy that just acts to shame the women watching for having the ability to feel the abuse and understand fully the situations they are in. It also feels like conversation on this topic gets lost talking about sex on screen rather than the unsavoury context. As though the audience that becomes uncomfortable with the graphic implications of paedophilia are the ones full of shame. Here I think it's relevant to talk about the comparisons to Greta Gerwig’s Barbie. Maybe this is as Barbie and Bella both grow and gain consciousness. But in Barbie, the story of ‘liberation’ does not stem from her sexualisation. I think it's disappointing that the story of a ‘liberated woman’ is so centred around how her body can be used and victimised by men without any retribution. 

I do think a positive thing is it is interesting to be having such diverse conversations about film. But with the subject matter being what it is, I fear the continued normalisation of this male-gaze feminism being used to replace actual feminist narratives. Many people have claimed that the movie is incredibly fun to watch and in parts, I can understand why it could be. Lanthimos’ signature style lends itself wonderfully to moments of almost farcical comedy and the film was visually spectacular. Further, Poor Things makes attempts at a feminist commentary on the patriarchal possession of womanhood. We can see this through the mental deterioration of Wedderburn as he fails to contain and control Bella and through the effect Bella's leaving has on Godwin and Max as they try to replicate her. While I think this is done relatively well it is just overshadowed by the film’s presentation of sexual liberation. In Poor Things, sex is too deeply populated with contextually uncomfortable scenes and empty metaphors. I've spoken to both people who hate and love this film, and everyone has agreed that although there are definite triumphs, there is also an extreme focus on controversial sex that Lanthimos’ lens presents through a male gaze. Bella becomes a character many women can't identify with and a character the male gaze has shaped and can use to shame women's experiences. Bella is presented as a woman who lives without shame, but she feels more like a woman living without the capacity to experience trauma. Fundamentally a film that relies so heavily on the born yesterday trope without ever truly breaking away from it or critiquing it does not feel like a great story of female liberation. Poor Things lacks a real sense of catharsis for me and does not go to far enough lengths to say anything substantially feminist. 

Poor Things (2023)