Is “Poor Things” Truly Feminist?
Philosophy in Film 3
“Poor Things” presents two compelling topics for discussion: feminism and the Philosophy of Misery, notably explored through a cynical character encountered in Alexandria. While feminism inherently offers complexity and depth, neglecting to discuss the Philosophy of Misery in the context of “Poor Things” would overlook a significant thematic element. Let’s delve into it briefly. Yorgos Lanthimos, the director of the film, stands as one of my favorite filmmakers, renowned for crafting worlds steeped in absurdity and often drawing from Gothic aesthetics or architecture, a trait aptly showcased in “Poor Things.” However, examining the narrative through a philosophical lens leads us to intriguing insights. “Poor Things” finds its roots in Alasdair Gray’s novel, inspired by Mary Wollstonecraft Godwin Shelley’s “Frankenstein.” Notably, Mary Shelley, the author of “Frankenstein,” was an activist deeply engaged in political movements, echoing the feminist legacy of her mother, Mary Wollstonecraft. This feminist undertone resonates throughout the narrative, set in the 19th century and featuring a character named Godwin, a nod to Mary Shelley’s father, a mad scientist emblematic of unchecked experimentation at the cost of human suffering and life.
One day, Doctor Godwin discovers a woman who has tragically ended her life by jumping off a bridge, while she was pregnant. This decision suggests a profound aversion to life itself. Intrigued by this circumstance, Doctor Godwin embarks on an audacious experiment: what if he were to transplant the unborn baby’s brain into the woman’s body? This novel approach would effectively merge the woman’s mature physique with the cognitive faculties of her own unborn child, resulting in a peculiar form of self-rebirth. Thus, Bella Baxter emerges, possessing the body of an adult but with the cognitive capabilities of a developing infant. As Bella’s mental faculties rapidly evolve, she undergoes an accelerated journey from childhood through adolescence to adulthood, mirroring the archetypal hero’s quest. Her odyssey entails a departure from the familiar, the exploration of bodily pleasures, followed by a disillusionment with superficial gratification. Subsequently, Bella delves into intellectual pursuits, striving to master her mind and uncover deeper truths.
This part of the story bears resemblance to Kierkegaard’s stages of existence. According to Kierkegaard, there are three stages: the aesthetic life, the moral life, and the leap into faith. Bella’s journey mirrors these stages in some ways. Initially, we witness Bella exploring her own body and sexuality, depicted through nudity and sexual scenes, akin to the aesthetic mode of existence. As Bella becomes accustomed to this exploration, she develops an intellectual curiosity, engaging in meaningful dialogues with philosophy and literature, resembling the transition to the moral way of life. Alongside this intellectual growth, Bella becomes increasingly aware of the societal class divide and the plight of the lower class, prompting her to take responsibility and attempt to help, albeit unsuccessfully. This narrative structure echoes both the eternal journey of a hero and Kierkegaard’s stages of existence, as Bella embarks on a journey of self-discovery and personal development. This adventure extends beyond the realm of the mind, encompassing physical travel as Bella leaves London for Lisbon, then onward to Alexandria, before returning to Paris and ultimately back to London.
In Lisbon, we explore sexuality and pleasure, in Alexandria, we confront social realism, and in Paris, we attempt to convey political messages, albeit in a manner that lacks finesse. Like the arc of many tales, our heroine eventually circles back to her starting point, her home. However, upon her return, we witness the profound changes she has undergone and the vast distance she has traversed from her initial state.
While the story unfolds along this trajectory, it also invites analysis from a feminist perspective. Indeed, at the heart of the discourse surrounding “Poor Things” lies the contention that it serves as a feminist narrative. Paradoxically, some argue that this very assertion is the most anti-feminist aspect of the tale.
Notably, Bella affectionately refers to the doctor who saves her as Dr. Godwin Baxter, endowing him with the moniker “God.” This choice of address symbolizes the male figure who created her, akin to the paternal role of God, the father. Furthermore, during her time with her god/father, Bella falls prey to manipulation and exploitation by Duncan Wedderburn. Despite inhabiting the physical form of an adult woman, Bella’s cognitive faculties remain that of a child, rendering her susceptible to Duncan’s predatory advances. His deception and subsequent abuse underscore the inherent exploitation and violation of her agency.
In Lisbon, when Duncan realizes he can no longer exert control over Bella due to her burgeoning curiosity about the world, he resorts to imprisoning her in a chest and shipping her away — a stark manifestation of his desperation to maintain dominance.
Another character who could be regarded as the third man is Max McCandless, the young assistant who works alongside the doctor. Max’s role involves observing Bella and documenting data for the experiment. However, as he develops emotional attachment to Bella, he, along with the doctor, decides that Max should become engaged to her. It’s worth noting that Bella still possesses the mind of a child at this juncture, thus raising concerns about potential exploitation and abuse by this third man.
The fourth man Bella encounters is a cynical character named Harry, whom she meets aboard the ship where she was forcibly taken. While Bella immerses herself in literature and philosophy to grasp life’s meaning, Harry offers a stark contrast by presenting the harsh realities of existence. His character serves as a male figure who exposes her to the unvarnished truth.
Subsequently, upon her arrival in Paris, Bella finds herself compelled into the role of a sex worker. Upon her return to London, she encounters her ex-husband, a character whose actions contribute to her eventual suicide attempt. He imprisons her once again, depriving her of her freedom. Throughout the narrative, men continuously exert dominance over Bella, whether by exploiting her for pleasure, subjecting her to sexual abuse, restricting her freedom, or dictating her fate and actions.
This pattern of male domination prompts some viewers to perceive the narrative as antithetical to feminism, if not outright anti-feminist. Indeed, it reflects historical societal norms where women were engaged at young ages, lacked autonomy in marital decisions, and were confined within domestic spheres. Fathers often wielded control over the lives of their daughters or women, assuming godlike authority over their destinies.
Another perspective suggests that men who bring excitement, pleasure, and adventure into Bella’s life might also view her solely as an object of gratification. Thus, rather than being at odds with feminism, this portrayal is seen as a reflection of reality itself. Throughout history, interactions between men and women often mirror such dynamics. The scenarios described, such as being married off as a child, experiencing child sexual abuse, or being objectified by men, are sadly not uncommon.
However, it’s essential to examine how the story concludes rather than solely constructing its narrative. Upon Bella’s return to London, she exhibits compassion towards her father and forgives him. She then drives Duncan, who exploited her for his pleasures, to insanity. Her first husband, who imprisoned her and drove her to attempt suicide, is metaphorically transformed into a goat. Bella chooses not to marry the assistant, and in the final scene, she confidently decides to remain single, smiling as she holds a glass of gin and tonic in her own home.
From this perspective, despite being subjected to constant domination, we can interpret each of these power dynamics as reflections of reality. Therefore, it’s crucial to analyze how the story ultimately unfolds. This interpretation offers a reasonable perspective, yet much of the discussion has deviated from this point.
Additionally, it prompts the question: do we truly need numerous scenes depicting sexuality at this stage? In doing so, are we observing the story through Bella’s lens or from a male perspective? While an initial scene might depict Bella’s exploration of her sexuality, subsequent scenes predominantly portray her from a male perspective. This raises questions about the narrative’s portrayal and whose perspective it ultimately serves. Because one of the reasons the film has sparked significant attention and discussion is due to its portrayal of intense sexual scenes. Despite ostensibly telling a story of female liberation rooted in feminism, the film continues to objectify the female actor and her body. This issue becomes particularly apparent in the Paris segment, where the protagonist decides to engage in sex work. This narrative thread feels superficially constructed, lacking depth in addressing the underlying political and social issues it attempts to portray. The inclusion of slogans and arguments, such as “my body is my means of production,” and the protagonist’s participation in socialist and communist meetings in the final scene, adds to the disjointed nature of the film’s messaging.
Sex work, a controversial topic within feminist literature, presents conflicting viewpoints. Some argue that embracing sex work is a means of challenging historical patriarchal norms imposed on women’s bodies, viewing it as a form of liberation. Conversely, others contend that sex work perpetuates the commodification of the female body, further entrenching women in systems of exploitation under the guise of freedom.
Interpreting the film from a feminist perspective reveals a multitude of conflicting viewpoints, making it challenging to categorize. However, one particularly impactful segment occurs upon the characters’ arrival in Alexandria after their ship journey. Here, the film offers a direct critique of societal morals and ethics, questioning established ethical and aesthetic values. Each character embodies a sense of cynicism, reminiscent of discussions around cynicism previously explored on this channel, such as through the lens of Diogenes.
Diogenes’ philosophy, advocating for a return to a more natural way of life, resonates in the film’s portrayal of characters. While the cynical personas aboard the luxurious ship appear to embody nihilism rather than cynicism, Bella’s journey, immersed in philosophical inquiry, offers poignant commentary on the limitations of intellectual pursuit in understanding life’s complexities. This is epitomized when Bella witnesses the stark reality of poverty-stricken families burying their deceased infants, prompting a visceral reaction. Her subsequent attempt to alleviate their suffering with monetary assistance is met with disillusionment, highlighting the ineffectiveness of individual efforts in combating systemic societal injustices. Director Lanthimos poignantly conveys the futility of relying solely on philosophical discourse to address issues of exploitation and class conflict. The scene in Alexandria, where Bella confronts the harsh truth of societal inequality, emerges as a pivotal moment in the film. Beyond feminist debates, the film prompts introspection on the intersection of cinema and philosophy, as evidenced by discussions on various themes including science, politics, meditation, and feminism. It invites viewers to contemplate the limitations of intellectual discourse in addressing real-world challenges, urging collective action over individual contemplation. As audiences engage with these thought-provoking narratives, they are encouraged to share their insights and perspectives, fostering meaningful dialogue and collective reflection.
