Unyielding Nihilism, Naivety in ‘Poor Things’
Image via Searchlight Pictures
A woman plotting her course to freedom. How delightful.
Brought back to life by an unorthodox scientist, a young woman runs off with a lawyer on a whirlwind adventure across the continents. Free from the prejudices of her times, she grows steadfast in her purpose to stand for equality and liberation.
— Official Synopsis
Yorgos Lanthimos and Emma Stone are a cinematic duo that I’ll never tire from. The Favourite (2018) landed firmly in my Top 10 list for that year, in part because Lanthimos has a particular filmic craft that lends itself to the actor’s greatest strengths; his stories are often doused in an oddity with a playful tinge, and more recently elevated by Stone’s wit and tactful deliveries. While there’s typically a central lead in his projects, they do often resemble a complete ensemble piece—this especially true in the latest from the director, Poor Things: the cast solidly rounded by Mark Ruffalo, Ramy Youssef, and Willem Dafoe. Writing credits on this one go to Tony McNamara, who penned the script for The Favourite and consistently demonstrates that intentionality matters. The film does placate to a mainstream audience (certainly more-so than previous works), but Lanthimos’ aesthetic remains unbreakable. In Poor Things, we see the return of the fish-eyed lens and intriguing low-angle compositions from cinematographer Robbie Ryan. But there’s even more chewable subtext to ponder than previous works like The Favourite and The Killing of a Sacred Deer (2017), as Lanthimos opts to flip the script on his nihilistic tendency to explore the wonders of youthful naivety.
Bella Baxter (Emma Stone) is profoundly naive. It’s not her fault though, as Godwin Baxter (Willem Dafoe) employs unorthodox methods to revive the woman, who tragically passed, in pure Frankensteinian fashion. Bella’s figure is of a fully developed woman but there’s a small caveat: all of her language and motor development must be re-constructed, too. Godwin may be “God” after all, but no surgical fix exists for cultural development beyond frequent exposure to the larger society. Of course, Godwin being a man of science doesn’t give him permission to alter the evolutionary nature of a human life. Through his process, though, he gives Bella a second chance at a [hopefully] more fulfilling life. What happens next, is purely her decision and dependent on how she responds to the “real world” so-to-speak. Poor Things revels in a feminist coming-of-age sandbox with a deeply jaded, but accurate, worldview. On this very premise, an inherent conflict exists between the naivety of a young woman (in internal thought only) and a cruel—and trying—existence. For the audience, the film offers a rather profound opportunity of inward reflection. Even though Bella Baxter is our central protagonist in this stylized, and lavish, Victorian-adjacent setting, she’s not all that relatable to begin with [to the point of secondhand embarrassment].
Image via Searchlight Pictures
The point at which the audience tethers themselves to this fascinating character is the precise moment they may begin to question their own jaundiced worldview. Even more lovely, they will be able to muster an unyielding empathy and sense of compassion for her as she stumbles along towards a final, self-actualized destination. Whether it’s the point at which Bella’s yearning to explore and leave home takes hold, in discovering the power of her body, or grasping the truth of wealth disparity, the audience has several means of connecting to the film’s primary source of wonder. Stone’s energy is infectious—and we (as an audience) not only come to view civilized society with a sense of enchantment, but Bella herself, too. Lanthimos’ direct approach to the material aims to subvert the nihilistic tropes of his past filmography; the script informing the characters to directly speak the words that would upend the immersion of any ol’ film. “Do you want to see what the world is really like,” utters Harry Astley (Jerrod Carmichael) to Bella. She responds simply: “Yes.” Astley challenges Bella’s worldview as a self-proclaimed nihilist to the point of [almost] complete mental corruption. Their friendly companionship encompasses the direct opposition of thematic intent from the filmmaker: nihilism versus naivety. Is one more significant than the other? Which is the better philosophy to follow for a pleasant life?
It’s true, though, that Astley’s intentions are clear in that he wishes to completely ravage her childlike curiosity—obliterating her desire for blissful comfort. Despite this malicious intent, Bella urgently needed to recognize the gruffness of human behavior. His success in teaching her the laws of nature (over nurture) give her the upper hand in dealing with the fallout from the pathetic, yet very charismatic, Duncan Wedderburn (Mark Ruffalo) situation. Not only does Bella now know that she is likely to be used for the benefit of others, she’s more prepared to defend her ideals when called upon to do so. Lanthimos’ divergence from his traditions of whimsical nihilism in Poor Things welcomes a fresh perspective on cultural dialogue. The separation signals a departure from unfiltered hostility for a more philosophically-centered feat. But let’s remember that the film didn’t begin that way: Bella famously asks “why” with a undying repetition for a significant portion of the first and second act. The widespread admiration for the character can largely be attributed to her incessant reluctance to societal norms. Furthermore, the hesitation on display from Bella reaffirms that we are just for injecting a healthy dose of skepticism into our daily doctrine but that, ultimately, it leaves us vulnerable to harm both physically and physiologically.
Image via Searchlight Pictures
Ignorance is bliss, or so they say. Without the interactions between Bella and Harry, the foundational work laid by the filmmakers would fall flat. Of course unfettered negativity leads to a toxic perspective, but let us not forget that naivety is just as bad. I know everyone hates a “both sides” argument, but here it is important for illuminating the nuances of existence. Poor Things reinforces the ideation that even with all of life’s tragedies, hope exists for those who want it. By contrasting the two extremes that are nihilism and naivety, the film bestows a better representation of a balanced reality for the viewer through hyper-stylization and poignant comedy. In part, this is what separates Lanthimos from other filmmakers who skew a little more heavy-handed into the miserable semi-permanence of life. No better line captures the unadulterated brilliance in Poor Things quite like a line from Madam Swiney (Kathryn Hunter), Bella’s temporary employer while in Paris:
We must work. We must make money. But more than that Bella, we must experience everything. Not just the good, but degradation, horror, sadness. This makes us whole Bella, makes us people of substance. Not flighty, untouched children. Then we can know the world. And when we know the world, the world is ours.
The film is based on a 1992 novel of the same name from Alasdair Gray—and perhaps the source material provided a sense of grounding for the filmmakers to work from, but its concept is one that seems impossible to adapt for a wider theatrical market. Nonetheless, Poor Things serves as the perfect vehicle for filmmaker Yorgos Lanthimos and star Emma Stone, whose performative physicality remains unparalleled; it’s handedly one of 2023’s most precious gems, and again another decisive entry for my Top 10 list. If you’re curious enough about the film, or if you are itching for a rewatch, Poor Things will be available to buy or rent on Apple TV, Prime Video, and other VOD platforms beginning on February 27th.
