By Giulia Piceni. Cover image by Margie Mitchem for I’M Firenze Digest.
I went to the cinema the very day Poor Things came out with the preconceived idea that I was going to be visually astounded; high expectations for the multi-awarded film (Leone d’Oro at the Venice Film Festival and with 11 Oscar nominations, including Best Film and Costume Design) were repaid, but never would I have bet that I would have laughed and reflected at the same time in such a bursting manner.
If Emerald Fennel’s Saltburn scandalised you, then save your money on the cinema and don’t go watch Poor Things by Yogos Lanthimos; it’s too much to process for a fainthearted audience.
Lanthimos is a widely known master of the uncanny, boasting controversial works in his movie roaster, such as The Lobster (2015) and The Killing of a Sacred Deer (2017). It comes as no surprise that his latest release could be described using the three words sexy, bizarre and quintessentially analytical. Featuring Emma Stone as the main character (and producer) but also Willem Dafoe, Mark Ruffalo and Ramy Youssef, this is a must-watch if you are thirsty for on-screen experimentation.
With these premises set out, here is a quick analysis of Poor Things film through the usage of fashion costumes as tools to convey and define identities, as effective enhancers in photography choices and to underline a dominant and deplorable male gaze.
POOR THINGS COSTUMES, A FASHIONABLE COMING-OF-AGE STORY
Emma Stone – Bella Baxter’s life is a continuous discovery made up of many first-timers as a result of having her own child’s brain implanted inside her. Narrated through Lanthimos’ cinematic perspective, her story becomes a coming-of-age tale that touches on themes such as female empowerment and the rejection of social norms.
To communicate these aspects, the Greek director not only used a sharp script made of equally witty dialogues inspired by Alasdair Gray’s 1992 eponymous novel but also the Poor Things costumes designed by the talented Holly Waddington. As a matter of fact, from formless to rigid shapes, the evolution of Bella’s character is very effectively depicted costume-wise. Waddington gave life to a never-before-seen world by blending different historical styles. After a careful analysis, here is the recipe for the melting pot in Poor Things’s style. Take the Victorian Era key features such as crinolines, bustles and petticoats, give them a Goth stir, add a splash of dense colours and a pinch of bondage latex and then place the garments in a cinematic frame that stays in between a steampunk novel and a 1980s design mansion.
The level of experimentation is quite rare to see on screen. The exaggerated leg of mutton sleeves, typical of the era in which the story takes place, have been combined with historically erroneous silk shorts with a modern twist. The film uses transparencies in costumes as a symbol of Bella’s refusal of social constructs; just like a baby who can’t dress properly alone, she always wears outfits that are missing one or more components that would make them effectively wearable for an average Victorian woman. Overall, the symbolic value of the garment takes precedence over historical accuracy, as is the case with the yellowish coat made of latex, which alludes to Bella’s Emma Stone role working in a brothel. A cadavre exquis of styles, these well-turned-out costumes were displayed at the Barbican Centre in London until the 26th of January.
POOR THINGS COSTUMES AND THE ASTONISHING PHOTOGRAPHIC FEATURES
“It looks like it was shot using the bottom of a spoon” this is one of the many jokes I have seen appearing on social media, in several comments under the edits dedicated to the film. And yes, they were right: many scenes were undoubtedly shot using a not so easy to use cinematographic technique: the fisheye. This one is a component placed on recording cameras which is able to produce a distortion in the images, causing the centre of the frame to appear more expanded than its extremes. In the case of Poor Things, this technique was used in its full-frame variant, i.e. showing a 180-degree view, giving the beholder the impression of watching at the scenes through a peephole as well as communicating the sense of estrangement, confusion that Bella’s character experiences during her self-discovery journey. It is important to notice that this is one of the techniques that has become a trademark of Yorgos Lanthimos having been adopted in The Favourite (2018) in a very eclectic way.
Another peculiarity of Poor Things on a technical standpoint is the fact that it was shot in black and white for the first thirty minutes except for the very first scene. Here Poor Things costumes play a main role in adding constrast and density to the scenes. As a matter of fact, this last one is monochromatic, giving life to different shades of blue: there’s blue in Victoria’s (what we could define as Bella Baxter’s dead name) eyes voided of life; there is a deep-dirt blue hue in the Thames in which she is jumping towards to commit suicide; the cloudy sky is even characterized by an ash-blue tone as if it was matching with the young woman’s soul. Victoria is also wearing a blue dress: all in taffeta with a shiny touch, corseted as in fashion for that time. Monumental thanks to its gown, it represents probably the only historically accurate costume of the movie; after that, it’s pure fantasy and Lanthimos quickly reminds us of that by showing everything in black and white from that moment on.
As a matter of fact, these sequences depict the early stages of Bella’s life, her childhood before the discovery of the corrupted world standing outside the home of Godwin Baxter, the scientist victim of his vocation for science who gave Bella a second life by reanimating her through electrical impulses in a Mary Shelley way. The fact that the hues of the outside world – later vividly reported by a warm colour correction – are absent gives these scenes the value of pure, untouchable memories, crystallised and forever cherished in Bella’s memory. The latter had in fact found in the figure of ‘God’ Baxter (here it is an analogy between Godwin’s desire to set himself up as a creator-god through his experiments) a non-biological yet affectionate father who, although the author of controversial practices, comes across as one of the few positive male characters in the film.
HOW COSTUMES STORYTELLING BORDERLINE THEMATICS AND MALE GAZE
There is no doubt that in Poor Things sexuality is a functional tool for self-discovery and, in the case of Bella Baxter, of her being a woman. This is an element which is signalled multiple times across the movie through the Poor Things costumes. For example, during the infamous dance scene, she is wearing a transparent dress with a sleeveless ruffled top and a modernised version of silk culottes; over them is just a sheer skirt, a petticoat that mimics through volumes in the back a bustle. The overall result is a mixture of a woman who has just got out of bed with her lover – an idea reinforced even by extremely long messy hair – and a child who, as it was stated at the beginning, couldn’t dress properly.
A key element of a person’s growth in adolescence, sexuality must not be forgotten as an important component even in childhood, erroneously considered as a phase characterised by a state of innocence and devoided sexual drive (Freud docet). Touching on the delicate subject of children’s discovery of sexuality, Lanthimos uses all those first times by Bella – Emma Stone to show the character’s evolution. Nevertheless, many movie’s watchers have branded on online platforms Poor Things as a ‘pedo film disguised as art’.
Bella Baxter does indeed have the body of a woman but the brain of a child, and as such, she knows nothing of the world. Her relationship with male characters who desire her, like the insatiable lover Duncan Wedderburn (played by Mark Ruffalo), unfolds a very interesting dynamic that appears as a recurring theme throughout the movie: the man tries to take advantage of her and impose himself on an apparently weaker subject. Beautiful, inexperienced but not clueless and with a self-awareness that is not bound by social norms, Bella effortlessly thwarts Wedderburn’s deceptions by prioritising her will, well-being and pleasure first, eventually driving the seducer to madness and misery.
All this is to say that too much analysis and quest to bring down to earth the most imaginative cinematic works are mental manoeuvres that only risk trivialising them and removing them from their original context.
Bella Baxter, mother and daughter of her own self, lives in a world that does not exist; her experiences are unique, making it difficult to apply our own experiences to the story, so it seems pointless to accuse Lanthimos of a lack of content sensitivity.
If anything has to be questioned, we may want to ask ourselves whether all the sex scenes in the film were intended to depict the protagonist’s objectification as a woman in a male-dominated world or if they were simply meant to cater to a male audience.
It is up to each of our readers to have their say and don’t be afraid to express the most unbiased opinions. Bella would have done the same.
