Amy Eastwood
Poor Things, directed by Yorgos Lanthimos,is about a woman who is in an abusive marriage with General Alfie Blessington. While she is pregnant with his child, she commits suicide by jumping into a body of water. Dr. Godwin Baxter, a scientist with a passion for bodily experiments, finds her body and replaces her brain with the brain of her unborn infant, thus creating Bella. He raises her in a controlled environment, and hires a medical student, Max McCandles, to keep a record of her physical and mental progress. McCandles proposes to her, but Bella chooses to leave with Duncan Wedderburn, who is fascinated by her unique personality and sexual development. While traveling with Wedderburn, she rapidly becomes independent, and leaves him, earning her own money as a prostitute, and eventually returning to Godwin and McCandles. During her and McCandles鈥� wedding ceremony, General Alfie Blessington appears and states that she is his wife, and she decides to leave with him. He is still abusive and has plans to cut off her clitoris, but ultimately Bella resists by choosing to surgically remove the general鈥檚 brain and replace it with a goat鈥檚.
Much of the discourse surrounding Yorgos Lanthimos鈥� 2023 filmis about whether it is a feminist film that promotes the freedom, rights, and bodily autonomy of women, or one that completely fails to do so because it reverts to images, tropes, and fantasies that evoke the male gaze. Jacob Barton is an example of a critic who believes that Poor Things harmfully objectifies women through its explicit depiction of female sexuality. Other critics, such as Cady Lang, believe the film is feminist in nature and empowers and liberates women by showing Bella as a sexual being in control of her own body. Although critics debate if Lanthimos succeeded in making Poor Things a feminist film, there is no doubt about what his intentions were. In an article published by TIME, Lanthimos says he believes that 鈥淧ower is the story of a woman鈥� and that is why he chose to tell this story from the perspective of the main character, Bella (Lang 2). I will argue that Lanthimos purposefully uses the masculine gaze and clich茅 tropes that appeal to a male audience to draw our attention to these stereotypes, and ultimately deconstructs our expectations, with the result being a feminist film that mocks both masculinity and misogyny.
The male gaze has been a concern in film studies for decades. Laura Mulvey describes the male gaze in her essay 鈥淰isual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema,鈥� which, though published in 1975, is still taught in film classes and remains highly influential. Mulvey claims that cinema is essentially voyeuristic, and says: 鈥淭he determining male gaze projects its fantasy onto the female figure which is styled accordingly. In their traditional exhibitionist role women are simultaneously looked at and displayed, with their appearance coded for strong visual and erotic impact . . .鈥� (62). Mulvey believed that films were created for and from the perspective of a male viewer, and therefore women would always be objectified on screen.
Lanthimos鈥� critique of the male gaze begins with the title of the film, Poor Things. The title suggests that the viewer, who, if we take Mulvey鈥檚 perspective on this issue, is by default male, views Bella as a 鈥減oor thing.鈥� In a traditional patriarchal society, she would be pitied, seen as a helpless woman whose bodily autonomy and basic freedom has been stripped from her. Lanthimos uses a cliche phrase, 鈥減oor thing,鈥� to draw our attention to the way we view Bella. After he has drawn our attention to this perspective, he reverses our expectations and makes Bella a powerful, independent being.
Bella herself often pokes fun at men, unintentionally in many cases. When she tells Duncan Wedderburn that she is ready for another round of sex, he informs her 鈥淯nfortunately, even I have my limits–men cannot keep coming back for more,鈥� to which she replies, 鈥淚t is a physiological problem? A weakness in men?鈥� (43:45) Bella鈥檚 comment is a jab at male sexuality that is made more effective by her naivete. Since she has the brain of an adolescent and has been heavily sheltered most of her life, she is unaware that society associates masculinity with a man鈥檚 sexual performance, and her remark is truly her honest opinion of men and is without bias or malicious intent. She reveals to us that she naturally observes men as sexually inferior to women.
There are many other scenes in the film that mock male sexuality. One especially effective critique of masculinity occurs when a young Bella plays with the penis on a dead body in Godwin鈥檚 surgery room, picking it up and letting it fall, emphasizing its flaccidity and lifelessness, and thus deconstructing phallic power. Later, when she is employed at the brothel, she makes continuous comments about the bad smell of the men who pay to have sex with her, and even stifles a laugh at the poor sexual performance of her first client. Even Godwin鈥檚 confession that 鈥渢o get a sexual response from my body would take the same amount of electricity as runs North London鈥� (30:18), strips the power away from this man who seemingly has control over her.
While Cady Lang argues that 鈥淏ella embodies a feminist fever dream鈥� and views her strong sexual desires as something 鈥渢hat helps her fearlessly forge a path to her own future鈥� (1), some critics claim that this film caters to the male gaze, pointing to the frequent female nudity, and the turn Bella takes towards sex work. In 鈥淥bjectification or Empowerment: Exploring the Male Gaze in Yorgos Lanthimos鈥� Poor Things,鈥� Jacob Barton considers that the film could be seen as empowering to women, but also strongly critiques it as a fetishization of women. Barton argues that 鈥淏ella turning to sex work felt almost like a clich茅 of the genre, as though the writers couldn鈥檛 think of an alternative occupation for women during this era鈥� (6). Barton also criticizes the fetishization of sex in the film, saying, 鈥淚t seems Bella exists as the perfect fantasy for heterosexual men–willing to engage in extreme acts of sexual depravity without the mental maturity to know otherwise鈥� (6). I agree with Barton partially; I do think these aspects of the film cater to the traditional male gaze, on the surface. However, by saying Bella does not have 鈥渢he mental maturity to know otherwise” Barton implies that the men in the film hold all the sexual power while Bella has none, which is proved untrue repeatedly throughout the film.
In contrast to the weakness of the male characters鈥� sexuality, Bella has great power and command of her own. Before Bella ever has sex with a man, she begins masturbating alone, and the film makes it clear that she is very enthusiastic about her own pleasure. The first time she has sex with Wedderburn, the scene begins abruptly with a clear shot framing a nude Bella sitting on top of him while he lies on his back. By beginning the scene this way and capturing our attention with the explicit nudity, we are forced to notice the physical control Bella has, which reverses our expectations of their power dynamic. Whenever she is having sex, her pleasure is made clear to the viewer. The camera almost never focuses on her nude body, but rather zooms in on her face that is contorted with ecstasy. The only exception to her pleasure is when she is having sex at the brothel, during which she disempowers the male gaze by laughing at the men. The only exception to her nudity not being the focus of the frame is when she has sex with a woman, and this scene showcases Bella further exploring her sexuality and pleasure without a man.
Barton鈥檚 main argument against Poor Things being a feminist piece is that 鈥渢his film, exclusively written, shot, edited, and directed by men, was perhaps a bit too concerned with women鈥檚 pleasure鈥� (1). However, Sofia Coppola, an Oscar winning female director known for her feminist works, uses similar techniques in her 2006 film Marie Antoinette to undermine the masculine perspective.In the dressing room scene in Marie Antoinette, the male gaze is evoked by showing an almost nude Kirsten Dunst, but the ceremonies involved in dressing the new queen are so lengthy that it causes us as the audience to become uncomfortable. This scene does the same thing Lanthimos does throughout Poor Things, that is, creates shots that seem to sexualize women to get our attention, and then promptly subvert this portrayal.
All of the male characters in Poor Things wish to control Bella, and all of them fail. In the case of Godwin Baxter, the very act of taking her dead body and placing the brain of her unborn infant in it is an act of control and power over Bella. Following this act, he keeps her inside the controlled environment of his home, and does not let her leave. He teaches her with meticulous calculation and views her as an experiment. He even goes so far as to hire Max McCandles to closely observe her every action, and report them to him in detail. Though Godwin says he will never let her leave, as soon as Bella says that she will hate him if he does not, he relents. Despite the cold control he exercises over her, she has a personality and a will that is unique to her and not a result of his training. As a result of this, Godwin has fondness and paternal feelings towards her. She uses her innate charm to release herself from Godwin鈥檚 power and take control over her own life.
Duncan Wedderburn tries to control her from the moment he meets her and never ceases trying to do so throughout their time together. Infatuated by her childishness, her personality, and her sexuality, Wedderburn seemingly lures her into running away with him and tries to exercise greater control over Bella as the movie progresses. However, it was really Bella鈥檚 choice to leave, and something she clearly wants, as she had to fight both Godwin and McCandles physically and verbally in order to get her way. She is fully aware of Wedderburn鈥檚 manipulative intentions, as she tells Godwin, 鈥淚 will adventure on with Duncan Wedderburn, whom I think cares little of damage to me, but will be interesting as well鈥� (37:37). Wedderburn鈥檚 attempts to control Bella fail repeatedly, and his most desperate attempt to control her is when he kidnaps her and puts her on a cruise ship. Here again, our expectation is reversed as it is on this ship that Bella鈥檚 knowledge and independence grow most, resulting in her disliking Wedderburn, and giving away his money, which leaves him devastated, penniless, and powerless. Both McCandles and the audience fear that Wedderburn will manipulate Bella, but the reality is that Bella has power over McCandles.
Though McCandles seems to have good intentions, he still attempts to control Bella. When he finds out she intends to leave with Wedderburn, he is outraged and becomes violent towards Wedderburn, saying he will 鈥渂eat him until his handsome face is a porridge of blood and bones鈥� (38:50). In response, Bella covers his mouth with a sedative which causes him to lose consciousness and strips him of his power to stop her from leaving. Later in the film, she calmly and decisively walks away from him at the wedding altar. Ultimately, she does wish to be with him, but it will always be on her own terms, not his. Even at the very end of the film when she does choose to be with McCandles, she has him perform the brain transplant between her former abusive husband, and the goat, the same procedure Godwin performed on her and her unborn infant. She is the one who decides the general鈥檚 fate and the one who decides who will carry out this inhumane procedure. She constantly holds the power over McCandles.
The most notable instance of Bella taking control over her own life and body is when she committed suicide in her previous life, where she was abused by her husband, General Alfie Blessington. The woman whose body Bella inhabits was trapped in a life she hated and stripped of all her bodily autonomy. In order to regain control over herself, she was willing to resort to the most extreme act available to her, the ending of her own life and subsequently that of her unborn infant鈥檚. Whether you view the woman as Bella or as her mother, and whether or not you believe she was justified in committing suicide, this act is undeniably a powerful and bold rejection of masculine power.
Ultimately, the ambiguity about whose body the main character is in makes the scene where she goes back to Alfie a more interesting and more powerful statement. Though she has the brain and life of a different woman, she is still in the body of the woman Alfie was married to and abused years before. Once again, the same man is abusing the same female body. Because the transfer of one brain to a different body is scientifically impossible, we are intrigued, and pay closer attention to the fact that Bella鈥檚 body is what is being abused, and we are in turn forced to see how Alfie truly sees her only as a body that he is determined to strip the autonomy from. Significantly, Bella chooses to leave a man yet again to go with another one. It is never the man鈥檚 decision for her to go with him. Although the general tries to regain control over her body and sexuality by planning to cut off her clitoris, he fails miserably, just as all the other men did.
Godwin is the symbol of ultimate male power in the film. He is portrayed as a godlike figure to Bella, as he has created her and controls her world and environment as she develops. Bella even fondly refers to him as 鈥淕od鈥� in the place of a paternal name such as 鈥渇ather鈥� or 鈥渄ad.鈥� Bella gets her revenge on all masculine power at the end of the film when she uses the same procedure Godwin used on her to replace the general鈥檚 brain with a goat鈥檚. The general survives this, and is forced to live as a goat, just as Godwin forced Bella to live as an infant. While she lives a comfortable life with her loving husband, McCandles, and has independence, intelligence, and autonomy, Alfie has no capacity for mental growth and therefore no way to change his circumstances. Bella鈥檚 鈥淕od,鈥� Godwin, has died, and she now has full autonomy over herself, and has taken his place of power. Bella, the 鈥減oor thing鈥� has made herself the ultimate figure of control and power: God.
Works Cited
Barton, Jacob. 鈥淥bjectification or Empowerment: Exploring the Male Gaze in Yorgos Lanthimos鈥� Poor Things.鈥� High On Films, 13 Mar. 2024, www.highonfilms.com/objectification-or-empowerment-exploring-the-male-gaze-in-yorgos-lanthimos-poor-things/.
Lang, Cady. 鈥�Poor Things and the Feminist Origins of 鈥楩rankenstein.鈥欌�� Time, Time, 13 Dec. 2023, time.com/6344025/poor-things-frankenstein-mary-shelley-feminist/.
Mulvey, Laura, et al. Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema (1975). Afterall Books, 2016.