Forer

Потенциальные мини "Трудности перевода" с милейшей 1996 г. р. превратили в похотливо-пердёжную ситуацию, сделав из и без того жалкого чела просто како-то ничтожество. В итоге что, нерешительный и жалкий протагонист, подписывающий жалкую книжонку в перекладе на французский, реализует свою сущность с женой через устройство для снов? Просто набор сюжетной ерунды. Сексуально-пердёжная сцена - просто днище. Нафига и к чему эти маньячные сны? Какая бессмыслица. 

Прикольная несуразица. Ну это не фильм, а социально-сатирический скетч, в принципе, нормальный и довольно остроумный моментами, - под видом кино.

Ну и оценка. Скетч.

 

 

Turns out the real poor things were the audience all along.

Pjtaylor-96-13804423 January 2024

Warning: Spoilers

 

просто наф сэд

Poor Things (2023) is an ostensibly feminist film directed by a man, written by a man, and based on a book written by a man... and it shows. This isn't the feminist masterpiece many people claim it to be, and there are a few deeply problematic elements that make most of it feel downright icky. It's about an extremely sheltered (read: imprisoned) young woman's coming of age (mostly via sexual liberation) and the journey she takes to outgrow the various men who seek to control her in one way or another.

The film takes the 'born sexy yesterday' trope and pushes the sickly male fantasy even further by making Emma Stone's Bella not only naïve but actually, at least to begin with, a literal baby inside an adult's body. The concept is that an experimental surgeon (a make-up-caked Willem Dafoe) finds a recently deceased pregnant woman and decides to put the infant's brain into the mother's skull and reanimate her. The unborn child is birthed directly into an adult body, skipping over the physical development but still going through the mental development. It's mentioned that her motor skills will come slowly, but that her mind will develop at an advanced rate. This doesn't really make sense, as absurdist and impressionistic as it is intended to be, and it seems to be accelerated purely because the piece doesn't want to be scrutinised over the icky insinuations of its own concept.

The narrative can't take place over more than a couple of years, but it's heavily implied that the hero has grown from being a babbling baby at the start to a self-actualised woman at the end. The timeline for all this is uncomfortably ambiguous, though. Although Emma Stone and writer Tony McNamara have said Bella is actually about sixteen, mentally speaking, when the sex starts (which is still very young, especially in relation to the men she gets involved with, but is at least more akin to the generally accepted age for media portrayals of sexual coming of ages), her mental age is consistently ambiguous. She still walks with the ungainly gait of a toddler when she's supposedly close to the brain age of twenty and she remains acutely innocent even as her general maturity begins to show. The capacity to learn and grow that comes with getting older is separate to the knowledge you gain from having actual experiences, and there is a point at which it's evident Bella is capable of understanding the world around her like an adult even though there are still plenty of things she has yet to be exposed to and are therefore a mystery to her. Even if she is sixteen when we first see her do the deed, the sequence in question - as well as almost all those that follow it - still boils down to a creepy older man having sex with - at oldest - a teenager who is incredibly naïve and unaware that the bloke is taking advantage of her. As others have pointed out, children can't give consent, and misguided consent isn't consent either (you can't consent to something without properly understanding it).

Even if Bella wasn't younger than she appeared, her sheltered sincerity would still craft a dynamic that plays into that odd male power fantasy of engaging with a woman who isn't equally as experienced as them. The men in the movie are totally taken with Bella's childlike demeanor, falling head over heels for her because - not in spite - of her younger mental state, and that's massively unsettling. Of course, that is kind of the point. However, the story frames Bella's experiences with these men as a means of her achieving adulthood and ultimately doesn't decry them as much as it should. The most likeable male character (Ramy Youssef) calls her lovely as soon as he sees her, even though she's acting like a toddler, and then proposes to her with the full knowledge that he's proposing to someone who, again, is in her early teens at the absolute latest (this isn't treated as a problem, and he is positioned as the only 'good' guy left by the film's end). It's all just a gross variation of a bizarre male fantasy that really shouldn't be something anyone fantasises about.

I'm not sure if it's to the film's credit or to my own that none of the sex scenes ever feel sexy, primarily because it always feels downright wrong to be seeing Bella participate in them. Despite the fact that she's played by an attractive adult actress, you can't separate what you're seeing from the context in which you're seeing it. You never forget that the character herself isn't as old as the person portraying her, even when her mental age might have caught up to her physical age, but it's difficult to say whether that's due to the filmmaking itself or due to the way in which the viewer reacts to what they're seeing. To be fair, the sexual scenarios are all filmed with a kind of detachment that massively reduces their in-the-moment male gaze, even though it's still apparent and runs throughout the actual narrative (despite the female protagonist and themes of female liberation).

All of this begs the question: what about the concept of a baby's brain being put into an adult's body indicates it should be used to kickstart a story that's primarily about sexual liberation? Why is Bella's development viewed almost entirely through the lens of sexual discovery? It's a very weird place to take the concept; there are many potent elements that comprise someone's journey into adulthood. It's a massive missed opportunity to explore some of these aspects. Perhaps the picture's second most prominent aspect is its depiction of the patriarchy and its protagonist's almost accidental breaking of it (at least when it comes to her specific experience). It gets really close to making a point about this, but it settles for making most of the men in the movie look like total idiots and, as great as that is, it feels like more could have been done. Others have pointed out there's no mention of menstruation, which is a key milestone on the path to womanhood, which indicates that the piece isn't as concerned with the female experience of growing up as it thinks it is. By focusing so much on its sexual aspects and going out of its way to make them as inappropriate as possible (one-upping the 'born sexy yesterday' trope by throwing a literal infant into the fray), it's just very yucky overall and it isn't even done in a way designed to challenge the audience (it almost feels like it wants you to forget about the specifics of its underlying concept after a short while).

It may sound like I hate the feature, but I don't. From a technical standpoint, it's well-made in pretty much every area and it has an unconventional approach to its aesthetic that makes it distinct from its peers. Its performances are also all really good, with Stone impressing the most. It isn't especially boring, even if it isn't particularly compelling for long stretches, and it also inspires a fair bit of thought if you're willing to engage with it critically. You can call it a lot of things, but bland isn't exactly one of them.

The feature isn't the laugh riot many people are claiming it to be, but it is mildly amusing (I don't think I actually laughed once, but I did smile a few times and did one of those sharp nose inhales on one occasion). The first movement is rather difficult to get through; I didn't particularly enjoy any of it. When the piece pops into colour and starts its second act, it slowly gets more interesting and enjoyable. It also becomes even more visually appealing, with fantastic steampunk-esque sets and elaborate frilly costuming captured with delightfully vivid cinematography. The best parts of the picture aren't when it's indulging in its infamous sex scenes (which, despite their frequency, aren't actually as explicit or gratuitous as their reputation would suggest), but instead when Bella is on her journey of self-discovery. This segment leans into the increasing frustration of her insecure companion (an accent-chewing Mark Ruffalo), providing space for the picture to begin to critique the caveman male ego, alongside her exposure to things like philosophy and suffering, which paves the way for her to develop her intellectual and emotional aspects independently of her sexuality (which, for large portions of the affair, is the only way she gets to express and explore herself, cementing the flick's somewhat misguided concept that sexual liberation is the highest form of female empowerment - an idea which flattens feminism, as well as the female experience itself, to only one of its many elements). Though it doesn't fully explore its potentially powerful themes and arcs, it's intriguing to see the protagonist grow as a character and drive the men around her to insanity simply by being entirely unconcerned with their notions of what she should be. The feature slowly but surely becomes more enjoyable as it goes along. Unfortunately, it then takes a hard turn into a sort of epilogue that's incredibly on-the-nose and feels unnecessary. It also introduces an outright villain (Christopher Abbott) whose inclusion only really serves to dilute the misconduct of every other male character (including the 'good'-coded Fiancée, who - let's not forget - decided to marry a child in an adult's body). This segment tanks the pacing and highlights the fact that it's just way too long overall. This goes hand in hand with the other narrative issues to create an experience that's ultimately rather disappointing. It's not just that its narrative is misguided at best, it's also that it isn't that entertaining. It isn't terrible, and there is a stretch where it's even rather good, but I don't find myself particularly moved by any of it and it isn't something I'd actively recommend. Despite its surface-level yet undeniable visual wonder and its genuinely strong performances, it's a bit of a slog to get through and it often makes you feel uncomfortable in the worst kind of way (it's not challenging, it's just creepy).

 

 

резюмируя: сжечь и обоссать

 

Хосспаде какой душный текст.

Да тут апофеоз "алгеброй гармонию поверить"

 Буквализм.

Небось, Красавицу и Чудовище автор воспринимает как историю о зоофилии?

 

 Научная процедура здесь - это условное допущение, которое означает "Познаю себя заново". Что - сюрприз! - часто после сильной травмы (неважно женщина, или мужчина) и происходит. Секс - это компенсация примененного к ней насилия (нам же сказали, что муж уже пытался совершить над ней эту отвратную процедуру)

 

Понял, поблевал, спасибо

Turns out the real poor things were the audience all along.

Warning: Spoilers

Всем ораторам спасибо, сэкономили время.

Ждём сиквел для Панина: в бордель и с новым пересаженным мозгом - собаки.