I appreciate this take. I also think it’s important to note that a big tenet of feminism is that women should get to make their own decisions, not that women should become a progressive stereotype. Frankly, the moral questioning of Poor Things feels anti-feminist and deeply reductive.
Yes, the themes in Poor Things are meant to be grappled with, and a moral lesson may follow much of that. Bella’s body’s age vs. her mind’s age, and the way the two communicate and guide each other and her holistically, are certainly a huge part of this. And the lesson is made all the more complex and at times pressing when considering that Victoria’s sense perception and muscle memory are recalled by Bella (which is also a nod to somatic flashbacks, but that’s a conversation for a different post).
Another conversation that is often overlooked is that Bella does not receive typical feminine socialization. Much like many eldest/first-born daughters, Bella is raised in a way that is quite masculine. She’s the apple of her father’s eye and he encourages her curiosity, part and parcel of his own experimentation, and in turn allows her to act in ways that are destructive, à la “boys will be boys.” This, while also trying to keep her caged, as she is his daughter, not a son who might be encouraged to go out into the world to spread his seed, so to speak. She promises to hate him for being kept, thus he sets her free (and, funny enough, Max stays home with God, thereby inverting gender roles).
Through her own adventuring or “flawed experimenting” heuristics, which as you point out involves as much, if not more, suffering than pleasure, Bella becomes. Further, it is through trusting herself to navigate the world and her experiences, as her father trusted her to do, and importantly sans the shame of feminine socialization due to her origins that she is able to accomplish this. She deliberately does what others bid her not to do, not through defiance but through her authenticity and passion for learning through experience and experimentation. The beautiful consequence of this is that she overcomes what her mother, Victoria, died from and follows in her father’s footsteps, honoring both of her parents and their influence in her becoming.
The shame of the feminism/morality conversation surrounding Poor Things is that it mirrors the shame of feminine socialization I mention above, which is often baked into modern progressive approaches to feminism. Perhaps if we dropped these futile arguments altogether (and also consider the postmodern perspective of the tale), we could simply appreciate Bella for who she is. And maybe that’s the point of the story—and of your article.
(Besides all of this, Lanthimos as well as Alistair Gray, who wrote the book, are both men and both married women. I doubt very seriously either of them aimed to create a feminist masterpiece. Aims aside, what they did do is tell a beautiful story, and one that is, frankly, quite relatable to many who are done with the boring pressure-to-be-perfect-parading-as-morality/be-a-good-girl-and-save-everyone-prog-feminist bullshit).
I really like this article. I agree and really enjoyed that the moral stances of Poor Things aren't always obvious or explicitly stated. When interstellar tried to spoon feed us its message, it took a lot of flack for that as well. Perhaps that's why "critic" is a title more associated with negative comments rather than positive ones. They're never going to be happy! Personally I loved the juxtaposition of Bella as a prostitute but also attending medical lectures, something easily done for her because she didn't attach any moral significance to the occupation, just saw it as a way to make money and perhaps have some fun. I also like that someone else could have a different interpretation or attach to a different significant moment.
I appreciate this take. I also think it’s important to note that a big tenet of feminism is that women should get to make their own decisions, not that women should become a progressive stereotype. Frankly, the moral questioning of Poor Things feels anti-feminist and deeply reductive.
Yes, the themes in Poor Things are meant to be grappled with, and a moral lesson may follow much of that. Bella’s body’s age vs. her mind’s age, and the way the two communicate and guide each other and her holistically, are certainly a huge part of this. And the lesson is made all the more complex and at times pressing when considering that Victoria’s sense perception and muscle memory are recalled by Bella (which is also a nod to somatic flashbacks, but that’s a conversation for a different post).
Another conversation that is often overlooked is that Bella does not receive typical feminine socialization. Much like many eldest/first-born daughters, Bella is raised in a way that is quite masculine. She’s the apple of her father’s eye and he encourages her curiosity, part and parcel of his own experimentation, and in turn allows her to act in ways that are destructive, à la “boys will be boys.” This, while also trying to keep her caged, as she is his daughter, not a son who might be encouraged to go out into the world to spread his seed, so to speak. She promises to hate him for being kept, thus he sets her free (and, funny enough, Max stays home with God, thereby inverting gender roles).
Through her own adventuring or “flawed experimenting” heuristics, which as you point out involves as much, if not more, suffering than pleasure, Bella becomes. Further, it is through trusting herself to navigate the world and her experiences, as her father trusted her to do, and importantly sans the shame of feminine socialization due to her origins that she is able to accomplish this. She deliberately does what others bid her not to do, not through defiance but through her authenticity and passion for learning through experience and experimentation. The beautiful consequence of this is that she overcomes what her mother, Victoria, died from and follows in her father’s footsteps, honoring both of her parents and their influence in her becoming.
The shame of the feminism/morality conversation surrounding Poor Things is that it mirrors the shame of feminine socialization I mention above, which is often baked into modern progressive approaches to feminism. Perhaps if we dropped these futile arguments altogether (and also consider the postmodern perspective of the tale), we could simply appreciate Bella for who she is. And maybe that’s the point of the story—and of your article.
(Besides all of this, Lanthimos as well as Alistair Gray, who wrote the book, are both men and both married women. I doubt very seriously either of them aimed to create a feminist masterpiece. Aims aside, what they did do is tell a beautiful story, and one that is, frankly, quite relatable to many who are done with the boring pressure-to-be-perfect-parading-as-morality/be-a-good-girl-and-save-everyone-prog-feminist bullshit).
I really like this article. I agree and really enjoyed that the moral stances of Poor Things aren't always obvious or explicitly stated. When interstellar tried to spoon feed us its message, it took a lot of flack for that as well. Perhaps that's why "critic" is a title more associated with negative comments rather than positive ones. They're never going to be happy! Personally I loved the juxtaposition of Bella as a prostitute but also attending medical lectures, something easily done for her because she didn't attach any moral significance to the occupation, just saw it as a way to make money and perhaps have some fun. I also like that someone else could have a different interpretation or attach to a different significant moment.