Of Lanthimos I've seen Dogtooth and The Lobster. I don't recall either being particularly visual, just conceptually audacious, but Poor Things was both. Lanthimos is continuously bold in concept. I'm delighted to learn he's brought visuals into the mix over the years. Poor Things is one of the more visually interesting movies I've seen, though I say that as a shallow patron of the visual. It's maximalist, and I don't mind that. I could use more of that. It's not just maximalist, it's decadent, and it needs that style to stand on when its plot falters.
The plot severely failed the early promise. 45 minutes could have been cut with no loss in artistic merit or invigorated experience. I thought of Under the Skin and like movies whose narrative development distracts from the originality and intensity of the premise. I'm not saying nothing should happen, but it must carefully preserve the original sheen. Poor Things is even worse than Under the Skin in this regard. It wanders mercilessly, through so many miserable, heartless sexcapades, through characters without meaning, through travel destinations that contribute nothing to the story. Emma Stone, a simpleton, is brutalized by so many gross men. I guess once she passes her second adolescence it's really her choice (her body) so I can't feel sorry for her there. But it is not enjoyable to witness. Even without the unfortunate sexual forays, the plot is just bad. Premise good, plot bad.
Emma Stone abandons all: posture of intellect, girl-next-door relatability, wit, clothing, anything else I can identify with her prior acting. She thrusts herself into a cognitively regressive, sexually aggressive role. It is not flattering, and I don't just mean her baby-walk -- the entire part does not suggest any charm of classical acting. She excelled through charisma in La La Land, Crazy Stupid Love and otherwise. She has plenty of it. It does not make an appearance in Poor Things. She has stupefied all charm for this part. I don't know whether she plays it well, I just know she plays it with abandon. I don't really think she deserved the Oscar, but I do think she deserves kudos for diving into a role many would find humiliating.
Beyond the story, the script is poor. Attempts at poetry just sound contrived -- as contrived as the British-accented Mark Ruffalo uttering them. And the comedy -- Lanthimos does black comedy, right? -- is a whiff. Almost every joke sounds forced. Perhaps he or the writer just doesn't really have a good sense of humor. Just not a humorous person. Each joke just sounds unhumorous.
So the concept and the visuals win; the plot and script lose.
Willem Dafoe has been used many ways, from Christ to Antichrist to the Green Goblin. This is the right way. Make him even more hideously grand than he naturally is.
I think the end was supposed to be really satisfying. It really wasn't. I think it was supposed to be because I've seen satisfying endings of similar flavor. The abusive husband is turned into a goat, the titular poor thing smiles in sick revenge and we all feel glad for her. But it wasn't satisfying. The middle section took too long, wore us out. The husband wasn't in the movie long enough to justify the treatment.
Booooo Ruffalo and Jerrod. Was Jerrod's accent supposed to be in the same universe as everyone else's? And Ruffalo degrading himself was not pleasing to watch, not like Tom Cruise in Magnolia. If you're going to be despicable, be believable. Ruffalo's performance just leaned toward the silly without actually becoming funny.
There's definitely gender commentary in this female lead, despite the author, screenwriter, and director all being male. You could be satisfied by the husband-as-goat at the end, like you were satisfied by the boyfriend-as-bear at the end of Midsommar. Or you could say what one critic said: is this really the feminism we want? Liberation from the patriarchy just entails liberation from caring when men take advantage of you? I can vouch for at least one strong point of the movie's commentary though: Bella's loss of purity sickened me like it sickened the men trying to control her in the movie, and I guess that's the point. I also heard from a friend that his fiancee loved the movie while he thought it was a bit gratuitous. Maybe that's unrelated, but I certainly felt it got gratuitous, and I certainly didn't enjoy seeing her in these unpleasant sexual situations with these power-hungry guys. I wonder if I would have felt that way if Lanthimos had toned it down a little -- made each affair a little more mutual, or each man a little cleaner, or the number of affairs fewer. Again, this movie is maximalist, so Bella has maximum "furious jumping." Maybe if Lanthimos didn't take it to 100 I wouldn't have felt the repulsion at her loss of innocence. Maybe I would have felt proud of her. But I felt a little repulsion, and so I reflect on that repulsion, and realize it's a similar repulsion the gross men feel in the movie, and realize it's not Bella that's repulsive, nor any loss of innocence; all of this is entirely voluntary. Where the movie may falter is its suggestion that Bella is liberated for simply not caring that everyone wants to control her. Ideally, liberation entails a squashing of said control.
I don't think I'll try other Lanthimos movies unless I just really get in the mood for a movie, particularly a distinctive one. Lanthimos is good for that stylish movie craving, if it comes around again, but he doesn't stack up with my favorites. He isn't someone I need to seek out. That said, I have little opposition to seeing his forthcoming sci fi movie in the theater. I've never experienced Lanthimos at the same time as everyone else -- always years later. And never in a theater. It would be something to see him new, in a theater. But in general I don't feel the need to keep up with him or go back and watch The Favorite, Sacred Deer, or Kinds of Kindness. He just doesn't quite hit me right. He's interesting, he's film buff material, or hedonist material, but he tends to fall short of what I want from him. Poor Things is as acclaimed as anything he's done, and it missed its potential.
No comments:
Post a Comment