“Poor Things” (2023)

Drama

Running Time: 142 minutes

Written by: Tony McNamara

Directed by: Yorgos Lanthimos

Featuring: Emma Stone, Mark Ruffalo, Willem Dafoe, Ramy Youssef, Christopher Abbott and Jerrod Carmichael

Dr. Godwin Baxter: “My father once told me, “Always carve with compassion.” He was a fucking idiot, but it’s not bad advice.”

Yorgos Lanthimos, the cinematic architect of the bizarre, brings another fever dream to life with “Poor Things,” a Frankensteinian romp through Victorian-era absurdity. Based on Alasdair Gray’s equally grotesque novel, the film is a sumptuous feast of off-kilter charm, audacious humour, and unsettling questions about gender, mortality, and the very essence of humanity.

At the heart of this madcap concoction lies Bella (Emma Stone, radiating childlike curiosity through disfigured features), a woman stitched together from the drowned and the desperate by the unorthodox Dr. Godwin (Willem Dafoe, relishing in every twitch and tic). Reborn without memory, Bella embarks on a journey of self-discovery, navigating the labyrinthine world of 19th-century society with a frankness that disarms and delights.

Lanthimos, master of deadpan delivery and awkward social interactions, paints a hilarious and unsettling portrait of this era. Every scene is meticulously crafted, a tapestry of meticulously chosen details that scream of Victorian excess and repressed desires. From the grotesquely opulent dinner parties to the hilariously stilted dialogues, the film revels in its own absurdity, poking fun at societal norms and scientific hubris with a gleefully morbid touch.

Stone is a revelation as Bella, her performance defying categorization. With wide-eyed wonder and razor-sharp wit, she embodies the Frankensteinian creation in all her fractured glory. Her journey, from childlike innocence to liberated womanhood, is both poignant and darkly comedic, a testament to Stone’s versatility and comedic timing.

The supporting cast is equally brilliant, each offering a twisted charm to the proceedings. Mark Ruffalo, as the lovelorn and perpetually perplexed Sir Godfrey, provides the film’s emotional anchor, while Ramy Youssef brings a manic energy to his role as the flamboyant and scheming Baron. Willem Dafoe, as the mad scientist with a heart of Frankenstein’s monster, is as captivatingly unsettling as ever, injecting the film with a constant sense of lurking unease.

But “Poor Things” is more than just a parade of eccentricities. Beneath the surface of its flamboyant costumes and grotesque humour lies a surprisingly tender exploration of identity, desire, and the very definition of what it means to be human. Bella’s journey is a poignant quest for self-acceptance, challenging both societal expectations and the arbitrary definitions of gender and morality. The film grapples with questions of belonging, the scars we carry (both literal and metaphorical), and the transformative power of love and acceptance.

However, Lanthimos’ signature ambiguity can become a double-edged sword. While it allows for multiple interpretations and keeps the audience perpetually engaged, it can also leave some feeling adrift in a sea of absurdity. The film’s pacing occasionally stumbles, losing momentum as it dives deep into Bella’s internal struggles. And while the abrupt ending might satisfy some for its open-endedness, others may crave a more concrete resolution.

Beneath the flamboyant costumes and grotesque humour of “Poor Things” lies a rich tapestry of thematic threads, each woven into a commentary on the very fabric of human existence. 

Gender and the Re-assembled Self: Bella, a being stitched together from female fragments, challenges the rigid constructs of Victorian womanhood. Her Frankensteinian existence forces a re-evaluation of gender as fixed or innate, instead presenting it as fluid and constructed. Her journey of self-discovery becomes a subversion of traditional feminine narratives, as she embraces her own desires and agency, defying societal expectations of passivity and obedience.

The Body Politic: Class and Scientific Hubris: Dr. Godwin’s grotesque experiment reflects the societal obsession with control and manipulation, particularly towards the “othered” classes. Bella’s body becomes a canvas for scientific and social anxieties, her very existence a transgression against the natural order. The film satirizes the scientific elite’s hubris, blurring the lines between creator and monster, and posing unsettling questions about who gets to define normalcy and who bears the consequences of transgression.

Love in the Face of Absurdity: Despite the dark humor and unsettling circumstances, “Poor Things” offers a surprisingly tender exploration of love and acceptance. Bella’s relationship with Sir Godfrey transcends societal expectations, offering a glimpse of genuine connection amidst the absurdity. Their love becomes a refuge from the harsh realities of Bella’s existence, highlighting the transformative power of compassion and acceptance in the face of the unknown.

Mortality and the Grotesque: The film confronts mortality head-on, revelling in the grotesque beauty of the human body, both living and stitched-together. Bella’s very existence embodies the ephemerality of life, her patchwork form a constant reminder of death’s ever-present gaze. Yet, even within this morbid reality, the film finds humour and even defiance, celebrating the resilience of the human spirit even in the face of decay and dissolution.

Beyond Humanity: The Monstrous and the Miraculous: Ultimately, “Poor Things” pushes the boundaries of what defines humanity. Is Bella a monster, a woman, or something entirely different? The film refuses to provide easy answers, inviting us to grapple with the concept of humanity itself. In its ambiguity lies the film’s power, forcing us to confront our own prejudices and preconceptions about who deserves to belong and what truly makes us human.

This thematic analysis is just a starting point for a conversation that the film so brilliantly provokes. Each viewer will likely find their own resonances within these threads, and the film’s open-ended conclusion invites further exploration and interpretation. By unpacking these themes, we can appreciate the depth and complexity of “Poor Things,” a film that is as grotesque as it is beautiful, as absurd as it is profound, and ultimately, a haunting and unforgettable cinematic experience.

Despite its minor flaws, “Poor Things” is a triumph of audacious filmmaking, a film that dares to laugh in the face of the macabre and find beauty in the grotesque. It’s a testament to Lanthimos’ unique vision, a cinematic feast that will linger long after the credits roll, leaving viewers both exhilarated and deeply unsettled. It’s not a film for everyone, but for those who embrace the strange and revel in the delightfully deformed, “Poor Things” is a cinematic delicacy, a Frankensteinian Franken-Frankenstein’s feast for the senses.