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)

"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)