Talk:Poor Things (film)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 October 2023

Please change the Rotten Tomatoes rating to 97% (from 99%). Lunarcraters88 (talk) 22:11, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done Mike Allen 23:57, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

"Violence, prostitution and pedophilia controversies"

@John315: Let's talk about this:

The only mainstream sources you seem to muster up are.. The Variety review that you included which says "Ramin Setoodeh and Zack Sharf in Variety comment, "But not everyone loved 'Poor Things.' A stream of [Venice] theatergoers bolted for the exit during some of the racier scenes. The movie features graphic and sometimes violent sex involving Stone’s character[.]" That really does not sound like it should be under a "controversy" section, listing it under critical response suffices. The title of the article is literally "Emma Stone’s Graphic ‘Poor Things’ Sex Scenes and Tour-De-Force Performance Make Venice Erupt in 8-Minute Standing Ovation for Yorgos Lanthimos". This is cherry picking.

As for the next paragraph, sourced to the San Francisco Chronicle, it appears that you combined different sentences from the source to create a narrative to fit your WP:POV. Read more at WP:SYNTH.

The Publica about us states it was started by two YouTubers. The author of the article you are using as a source is Natasha Biase. No information about this writer is posted on the site.

Worth it or Woke? is absolutely not a reliable source.

The link is broken, but the "Evie magazine" that claims to be the future of femininity also, not a reliable source. Mike Allen 21:25, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed comments. :D ...I didn't know "mustard" was a verb!

I know that the Variety article's title is complimentary-sounding, but the article does include the odd and scary fact that people bolted for the exit.

Re the SF Chronicle, Mick LaSalle is very negative about the film. I think he gave it 25 on Metacritic. 25, not 95. ...I do direct quotes from him, and I don't see any synthesizing I do (even if I do agree with his POV), given his very negative score and outlook for Poor Things. He makes the point of the film's dishonesty, then gives examples I cite (e.g., getting syphilis in a brothel isn't exactly feminist empowerment).

The three minor sources are pretty minor, admittedly, which is sad, because they have insightful information. (The thing about little boys watching the Stone character have sex, which combines voyeurism and pedophilia, is especially chilling, if true.)

Sorry about the broken Evie link -- it may be a subscription site.

Finally for now, as for the "controversy" subsection title: I'm not sure it's so bad. By way of comparison, on The Exorcist film Wikipedia article, there is a "Audience reaction" subsection, also "Religious response", etc. People running out of the theater during Poor Things resembles what some did during The Exorcist.

The Exorcist is controversial, and Poor Things is too, cf. Mick LaSalle on the film's dishonesty, fake feminism, gaslighting, rapiness, etc. So I think it's o.k. to have a special section labeled "controversy" or such.

I could make other commentary, but the above is enough to chew on for now, maybe.

Thanks. John315 (talk) 03:30, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

"rapiness"! very weird choice of non existent word juvenilising a violent crime which I didnt see in the film, just standard brothel behaviour which has more in common tonally with "Moll Flanders" than the National Enquirer. 92.40.214.137 (talk) 01:54, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

"Hysterectomy" in the plot description is inaccurate

In the film Alfie did not threaten to make Bella get a hysterectomy, he planned for her to have a female circumcision procedure (also known as female genital mutilation). He explicitly wanted her to keep having his children, but without the ability to feel sexual pleasure. A hysterectomy refers to the removal of the uterus and prevents a person from having children. He instead wanted her external genitalia removed so she wouldn't experience sexual desire anymore. "Hysterectomy" here should be replaced with something like "circumcision" or "genital mutilation". 2601:282:1682:6B30:94CD:EE74:E89B:3068 (talk) 17:49, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Quoting LaSalle's review

@John315: Instead of causing an edit war by changing the reception section again, I want to ask here about an edit you made (link). The quote goes from:

Worst of all, it's dishonest. It purports to be a feminist document, but it defines a woman's autonomy as the ability to be exploited and not care. ... What version of feminism are these guys — Lanthimos and screenwriter Tony McNamara — trying to sell us here?

to:

Worst of all, it's dishonest. It purports to be a feminist document, but it defines a woman's autonomy as the ability to be exploited and not care: [i]f Bella worked in a Belle Epoque brothel, she’d [near-]certainly get syphilis[.] What version of feminism are these guys — Lanthimos and screenwriter Tony McNamara — trying to sell us here?

There are two issues here. First, the brackets imply that you've only changed minor wording or grammar, but you've actually spliced together different sentences where the brackets are. This is misleading without ellipses. Second, this adds to LaSalle's quote (which is already quite long) to add a relatively small quibble instead of focusing on his overall response to the film. Given this, I'd like to use the previous quote; would that be acceptable? RunningTiger123 (talk) 15:35, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I brought this up right above under "Violence, prostitution and pedophilia controversies". The editor did not seem to think it was an issue… Mike Allen 15:42, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I thought the brothel/syphilis was important. How about if I took away brackets and added ellipses? That way, it would not seem misleading (and I certainly didn't intend to mislead), but it would get included. What do you think? Thanks. John315 (talk) 18:19, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I find that criticizing the character not getting syphilis is a trivial supporting detail. The main criticism within LaSalle's review is how it, in his view, presents a poor view of feminism. We don't have to provide the examples to support his conclusion; that's why we link to the review – so that if people are interested in how he reaches his conclusions, they can read the full review. There's no reason to awkwardly splice sentences together just to keep one detail in. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:55, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Once again, what if the sentences were unspliced, but done with ellipses added? -- I know the total number of words may be more than you like, but you did cut out about a thousand characters, including the whole of LaSalle's second quote (responding to the film critic who like LaSalle's original article), if I may say. Thus, maybe it's o.k. to include the brothel/syphilis excerpts, if done with ellipses? What do you think, everything considered? Thanks. John315 (talk) 03:23, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I cut out a thousand characters because before that edit, LaSalle (with Mantz) had quotes totaling two hundred and thirty words. That's over twice as many words as were quoted for all other critics combined (114 by my count) – there is no reasonable justification for overemphasizing one review like this, especially when it is such an outlier within the critical consensus. If you want to go by total length to account for paraphrasing, LaSalle's review is currently four sentences (plus a fifth for Mantz's direct response); most critics only get one or two sentences, with Dargis being the only other one to reach three sentences. As to splicing: adding ellipses doesn't change the fact that you're putting two separate sentences together into a new sentence, which is what I meant by "splicing". Please consider that this is the second time someone has raised concerns about how this review is being used, after MikeAllen. RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:46, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Okay, since you're not comfortable with my version, I eliminated the brothel/syphilis part. John315 (talk) 05:44, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Title

Whence the title, please? Maikel (talk) 03:55, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Genre lead

"Science fantasy" is not mentioned anywhere in the article and Isn't really a common term in film criticism. Per MOS:FILMGENRE "Genre classifications should comply with WP:WEIGHT and reflect what is specified by a majority of mainstream reliable sources."

Without hunting and picking, I went through a good various sources to see how genre was discussed.

• " much in Poor Things, the period is impossible to pin down exactly. The story of Bella unfolds in a parallel past, a gothic, steampunk-infused Victoriana, a world that is distorted (literally – Lanthimos’s enthusiastic use of fisheye lenses warps the contents of the frame) by the patriarchal power disparities in society."Guardian
• "But degradation, horror, and sadness rarely come into play in “Poor Things,” a sex comedy bursting with empathy and hopefulness about the possibilities of life lived off a blank slate. IndieWire
• "Poor Things, review: Emma Stone’s raunchy gothic comedy is unlike anything you’ve seen in years" Telegraph
• "Mark Ruffalo, Willem Dafoe and Ramy Youssef also star in a genre-defying film that starts as absurdist comedy but evolves into an unconventional reflection on female freedom." Hollywood Reporter
• "Yorgos Lanthimos’s feminist Frankenstein comedy is scabrous, smart and obscenely funny" Time Out
• "In that regard, Lanthimos holds nothing back in making his version of Victorian Europe into a surreal landscape, mirroring Bella’s birth into a new reality by beckoning us into a world where steampunk silliness and blatant artificiality are an unremarkable norm. " AV Club
• "Perhaps cinema’s best absurdist, the Greek filmmaker has always been able to tread a delicate line between ridiculous dark comedy and rich emotional and political truths, from The Killing Of A Sacred Deer to The Favourite; he and screenwriter Tony McNamara — a co-writer of The Favourite, and creator of similarly ahistorical romp The Great — have here fashioned a surreal steampunk spectacular" Empire
• "Actually, with a whole lot of it. But, when “Poor Things” is firing on all its subversive steampunk cylinders, also with much more." Washington Post
• "his is an aggressively weird (sometimes too much so) black comedy and social satire — the kind of movie that will surely make many a “Best of the Year” list but might also have some theatergoers heading for the exits by the halfway point....“Poor Things” is set in a steampunk, exaggerated Victorian-era England," Chicago Sun Times
• "Poor Things is sex-comedy Frankenstein by way of Jules Verne, and one of the most imaginative comedies in years." IGN

I'm seeing a lot of ways of phrasing steampunk (which mostly talks about the look of the film), but predominantly the most common thread is comedy. I'm going to alter the lead and add the genre to clarify it. If there are any further comments, please give me a ping. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:55, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

It is my understanding that "science fantasy" was added to the lede to likely distinguish it from a comedy film set in the natural world without fantastical elements. Since sources do describe the film as steampunk, I have no issue changing the genre to "steampunk comedy film" or even "absurdist comedy film" since other sources mention absurdism as well. I feel that describing it as simply a comedy does not accurately represent the film in its entirely, and while if "science fantasy" does not have clear enough sourcing, the sources you provided give other ways to do it, and I do not believe this is adding undue weight. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 07:48, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

the problem is that it's described by various forms of comedy (black, gothic, absurdist) so we can't really hunt and peck. From the above links I found, I don't think I heard fantasy once, and I have almost never heard the term science fantasy in any professional review of most things (this included). The steampunk setting I added just because some reviewers did comment on it but mostly in terms of setting and costume. I think we can take in that anyone reading this article will read beyond the first sentence to figure out the fantastical setting of the film. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:49, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Simply calling it a comedy film is misleading. Fantasy, absurdist, science-fiction, steampunk, coming-of-age are all used by sources, and are apt for the film, but a straight-forward comedy it ain't. Science fantasy is actually a good mix of three of these genres, which is why it was used before, but I understand that no source directly mentions that sub-genre. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:07, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with this. "Comedy film" draws to mind cheap, vapid works that are "LaUgH oUt LoUd FuNnY" and "fOr ThE wHoLe FaMiLy". This is not that. "Black comedy" would get us far further. Snokalok (talk) 22:43, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I disagree that we should assume any readers will read beyond the first sentence to figure out the fantastical setting, and I disagree that that should be a reason for omitting anything else from the lede. The sources you provided do describe the film as genres other than just comedy, so it's not like we're pulling this out of nowhere, it's just a matter of determining which should be used in the lede and given what the film actually is, describing it as just a comedy is not describing it as well as we could in my view. In fact, very few of the sources you provided even describe the film as a pure comedy, but under other comedy subgenres as Krimuk2.0 mentioned. I truly do not see the downside to identifying it with a sourced subgenre when these sources do exist, and it is misleading at best to describe the film as simply a comedy. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 19:22, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Well we don't go by opinions, we go by what is sourced. We have several sources and we aren't allowed to cherry pick which ones we want. Again, this is by the manual of style. If you think people can't read one sentence and not another. But Science fantasy is not mentioned once so that would be against several rules which I don't think I need to remind anyone of. I think the sources above speak for themselves. So far all the suggestions have been against WP:RS, WP:STICKTOSOURCE and MOS:FILMGENRE. So that isn't happening. I would suggestion if you think the genre is truly complicated, add some prose, but we can't cherry pick genres here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:34, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

By that logic, you are cherry-picking the word "comedy" over everything else. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:42, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't feel we're being constructive, the above states several forms of comedy, sex comedy, absurdist, gothic, and various other adjectives. The next most common thread is the steampunk part which I was surprised to see pop up as much as it did. That can be explained in the plot section without hybridizing a genre in a way that hasn't been approached. Both are valid, both are in the lead, only someone obsessed with labels or unable to read wouldn't be able to figure it out. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:46, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree that we need to apply MOS:FILMGENRE, so "science fantasy" would lack the due weight to warrant upfront inclusion. We have to remember that genres are subjective and that certain films may not fit neatly into one or any category. We also don't have to include all elements of the film in the first sentence, instead spreading them out in ensuing sentences. "Comedy" is the common denominator, so I support that at minimum. It does seem like when I search Poor Things and "comedy", "black comedy" comes up more often than other labels unprompted, so I wonder if that's a possible subgenre. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:03, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Erik. Yeah basically agree. I think we can have whatever those subgenres are in categories per the above (steampunk, black comedy, etc.). I'm not sure if it's fair to specifically put black comedy in the lead as it's called several things, but I'll see what others say here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:36, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

"Black comedy" is an excellent start, but that misses the science fiction/steampunk part of the film, which holds equal weight in sources. Of course, we shouldn't include all elements in the opening line, coz as I listed above, there are way too many, but black comedy and sci-fi/steampunk seem to be the most prominent ones. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

You keep saying science fiction holds equal weight in the source, but specifically, I didn't find it at all (and in my personal opinion, I expected to). Currently, the article does still already state the steampunk setting...and it doesn't address the problem that various critics did not call it a black comedy or a variation on that term. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:57, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

"steampunk" is a sub-genre of "science fiction". Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:06, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

• I haven't seen the film, so have no personal view on this. If you look over the sources we regularly use in Wikipedia articles which list genres (BBFC/Allmovie/Rotten Tomatoes/Metacritic), the same genres keep coming up: Sci-fi, romance, comedy & drama. However, none of them really dominate. The whole point of listing genres in the opening sentence is to give readers who haven't seen the film a feel for the film, but I don't think they actually offer a benefit in this case. The film seems to have been purposefully constructed to defy genre conventions. I think the second sentence in the lead does a good job of conveying the essence of the film, so I would just leave it as it is. Even if consensus does arrive at a genre for the opening sentence, it's not really going to assist the reader. Betty Logan (talk) 04:00, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  Also a good point. I feel like this could be a situation like The Lighthouse where it's probably best to go into the broad points at home in it's own section. Andrzejbanas (talk) 05:54, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  Agreed, if there's no obvious primary genre given by sources just omit it. The worst-case scenario is to just pile up as many genres as possible in the lead sentence. Popcornfud (talk) 20:42, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

  I think it should be addressed though in some form, not that it's bad for readers, but maybe just annoying as drive-by editors will be adding things back and forth. If we at least have some prose (something like the one I suggested below), it at least had some reference point. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:21, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Going to propose a style section, as we have done in articles like The Lighthouse.

David Rooney of The Hollywood Reporter described Poor Things as a "genre-defying film". Critics have variously described the film's genre as a sex comedy, gothic comedy, black comedy and an absurdist comedy. Some specifically noted the visual elements of the film, saying that Lanthimos's Victorian Europe was displayed into a surreal landscape with critics described as being steampunk-styled.

References

Probably could go more into filmmaking technique here, but this is just a starting suggestion. Thoughts? Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:39, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Sourced commentary on the genre is definitely appropriate in the article body like you suggest there. I just don't think it should be in the lead sentence unless we can identify one genre primarily identified by sources. Popcornfud (talk) 21:02, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I mean, personally I see comedy or some variant of it listed the most. Others have suggested otherwise and I see their points too. I feel what I've added here can be added here can be added to the prose at least in some form (not necessarily in the lead). Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:12, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Yep I agree, that's pretty much what I wrote above. Popcornfud (talk) 14:16, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

When in doubt "absurdit black comedy" is a good start. It's a pretty umbrella term, why not just go with this? AlienChex (talk) 00:16, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

• bro, just call this a steampunk absurdist-comedy fantasy and be done with it. this stupid infighting is cringe. Every source has a mix of those genres and it's pointless debating the semantics. For a website that's so anal about "muh sources!" there's a whole lot of ignoring said things for personal interpretation.132.205.229.52 (talk) 16:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Per MOS:FILMGENRE, "Genre classifications should comply with WP:WEIGHT and reflect what is specified by a majority of mainstream reliable sources." Critics have been ultimately very varied on this so we should reflect that. You are free to describe the film however you like but from your response suggests you do not want to contribute to the wiki in any serious manner. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Setting and Time

There's a reference in the article to "Victorian England" but a note that says the time is ambiguous.

Both the year in which the story is set, and the time frame over which the story takes place are made explicit in the film - in a scene on the ship to Athens, two women discuss "the new Wilde play" and reference the handbag, referring to Oscar Wilde's play "The Importance of Being Earnest", which places the film in 1895. Early in the film, Max McCandles observes that Bella's hair grows "an inch a day". Over the course of the film, Bella's hair grows from shoulder-length to past her knees, fixing the time frame of the story at between six weeks and two months. 184.69.7.234 (talk) 22:47, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

• I'd say, it's more of a steampunk, alternate-universe England. They may not even have Queen Victoria here.Beaumain (talk) 12:14, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

mistaken description

The line, "She is mistakenly addressed as "Victoria Blessington" by a fellow hotel guest." is incorrect. Bella WAS Victoria Blessington before she "inherited" her replacement brain. Even Bella accepts that, as stated towards the bottom of the description. Furthermore, the line itself is extremely important, because it causes the next to last twist in the film, when her husband suddenly re-enters her life. Long complaint short, Bella was Victoria in body, but not in mind. LarryWiki115 (talk) 00:35, 7 October 2024 (UTC)