I am a bit late to this. In more respect than one. This is about the film, which came out a year before I write this, in 2023.
But I am even later in many regards. I have the book this is based on, written by Alasdair Gray. The edition is the first German edition published by Roger&Bernhard on behalf of a company called Zweitausendeins (2001). They emerged from the student movement in the late 60s. I bought this as far as I can remember in their store in Frankfurt on Main which sadly closed quite a few years ago. I was still living in Germany I think, so it must be over 25 years ago.
I have never read the book. It is a beautiful edition, expertly bound with great illustrations by Gray himself throughout. I also have a copy of Gray’s Lanark which I did read. Partially. I was fascinated by it. Then, somewhere, one day, I lost interest. Just stopped. I do plan to pick it up again, some time, in English this time.
With Poor Things, the film, there is a curious reverse reaction. Initially I found it unengaging, almost giving up in the first 15-20 minutes or so. Then I started to absolutely love it.
It is, of course, utterly mad and absurd. A bit of a Frankenstein meets cyberpunk event.
I decided to watch it as it is directed by Yorgos Lanthimos whose work I very much admire. I did not make a connection to the aforementioned book at first.
I found it streaming on Disney+ and if you watch the film you will understand why I find it amusing to find this on a Disney related service.
At times it feels similar to Lanthimos’ Dogtooth, particular in the utilisation of language, dialogue and some of the mannerisms.
Acting across the board is brilliant. Nobody takes themselves very serious and it is a miracle how everyone manages to keep a straight face. I do wonder how that worked on set. I will not go too much into the story. If you know the book reviewers who have read it say the film is more inspired by it than closely following the original. Many are upset that it has moved from Glasgow.
As we start, I felt transported back into something resembling a more somber version of the auditorium I remember from Young Frankenstein, similarly depicted in black and white.
A review by an admirer of Gray that is well worth reading can be found here.
A solid film with excellent acting that engages the audience and is perfectly executed.
Let me start saying this is is not going to change the world. We will not find everyone suddenly following the appeal against hate towards the end of the film. Neither will the Catholic Church suddenly transform and unite behind those within or without calling for overcoming plotting, scheming, hunger for power, turning the clock back, even maybe self-definition through stressing differences. Nor will it change anyone’s view of that church, whatever that view might be.
It is neither going to transform cinema. It is not suddenly proposing a new visual paradigm or present a new way of telling a story.
But than that is not what all of cinema has to be about and recent films have shown us how those attempts may fail.
First of all this is great cinema. It is well executed, convincingly acted, beautifully shot, well edited and has a soundtrack intelligently used to great effect.
The story is easily summarised. The pope is dead. The circumstances could be seen as suspicious, but this is not a classic whodunnit. As such, this avenue is not explored further, despite the fact that the last person that saw the Pope, Cardinal Tremblay, was dismissed by the Pope at the last meeting. Going down this route may have taken us closer to the story of the death of John Paul I.
The focus is on the process that follows, in particular the role of the Dean, Cardinal Thomas Lawrence. This character was renamed from the book by Robert Harris (which I admit I had not read), likely to accommodate an English language film. One of the curiosities is the name of Thomas for the Cardinal who battles with doubts in his faith and is representing the rational element in the drama. Cardinal Lawrence is brilliantly played by Ralph Fiennes who clearly brings across the inner struggles of the character in a relatable way.
The two major factions are the liberals, headed by Cardinal Bellini, played by Stanley Tucci. I admit I in general admire the work of both Fiennes and Tucci so may be considered biased but find them, as every one else, excellent. This is also a credit to a director who facilitates these performances.
he other main faction is that of the traditionalists, lead by Cardinal Tedesco. The choice of name, in this case one going back to the novel, is once again interesting. When the book was published, Ratzinger was still alive and having turned from liberal to very conservative early in his career can be seen as representing many of the espoused views of this faction.
The third apparent candidate for the papacy is the afremention Tremblay, standing for the corrupt elements not driven by a conviction either based in liberalism nor traditionalism but that of pure hunger for power, which is to be obtained by whatever means and for no clear purpose other than attainment of that power.
Then there is Cardinal Adeyemi, who is representing Africa, with the outdated extreme views on homosexuality as found in some African nations but otherwise to me not clearly defined views.
Enter Cardinal Benitez, from Latin America, who had been made Cardinal to Kabul, in secret, due to the risk associated with that position. Nobody knew of him but his appointment on inspection is deemed to be genuine.
The ensuing developments shall not be disclosed here to avoid spoilers. Sister Agnes (a wonderful performance by Isabella Rossellini) plays a vital part at one point.
The outcome could have been guessed but for a final twist relating to a trip Switzerland made by Benitez, seemingly with the support from the late Pope.
The whole film is beautifully shot. Some shots are actually not just well executed and beautiful but stunning, like Cardinals filmed from above walking with umbrellas past and around a fountain. Sisters descending stairs. And many more.
The soundtrack is memorable, working in great effect together with the editing.
I do wonder about other aspects of the story to explore but then this is an adaptation of a novel after all and those avenues likely were no options. But what if the Tremblay had a role in the death of the Pope, or if Lawrence had been aware of that final twist earlier on in the story.
All in all an excellent film, one to be enjoyed and appreciated for its superb execution across all areas.
I may appreciate experiments and still not enjoy them if ultimately they fail. And then there are times when you have, let’s say, a relatively simple meal, but every ingredient is perfect and all is perfectly balanced. I’ll definitely go for that.
A beautiful film that is ultimately let down by not knowing what it wants to be and by trying to explain itself.
Let me start by saying this film is beautiful. Imagery, sound design and soundtrack are stunning. You may feel like I did that there are maybe a few too many drone shots, but they also all are beautiful. It is a film that definitely is worth seeing on the big screen with a good sound system. And yet …
The film starts with a prologue showing buildings in Ukraine destroyed by war. These are haunting images. Blocks of flates, in what we can tell typical utilitarian Soviet architecture style. Ripped open. Floor over floor, missing. Maybe just a meter or so off the wall still there, seemingly almost untouched. An old TV that looks ready to be switched on agaib. A wardrobe, hard to tell if doors are gone or never were there, but clothes ready to be worn again. Yet the shots are devoid of humans as if the places have been abandoned. But there are also buildings untouched, the destroyed or damaged standing in the middle of others that escaped. Arbitrarily chosen, no purpose apart from causing destruction for the sake of terror. Two churches next to each other, one largely destroyed, again the other untouched. Hit by weapons from a country whose leaders themselves like to demonstrate closeness to their church. Their version of a holy war not hesitating to destroy the places of worship of those once close to them, annihilated by those professing a belief in a God who is worshiped in the places they tear apart.
The theme of destruction is repeatedly revisited going forward, yet we are dealing with a different dimension of destruction here. The creation and destruction of what humanity builds, we refer back to it later when we see buildings being torn down en-mass or crumbling due to the passage of time or as a result of forces of nature. But this is ultimately completely different, wilful human destruction for the sake of destruction itself and nothing else.
We move on to images in slow-motion of the aftermath of a blast in a quarry. The blast itself is not shown, we see stone tumbling down, flowing almost like water, slowed down images and sounds, transforming this ultimately violent event into a beautiful ballet of smaller and larger rocks. This accompanied by a beautiful soundtrack. Only later do we really grasp the violence of what is occurring, see substantial pieces of rock tumbling down, ultimately coming to a halt after exerting their impact on their environment. Only later do we see the scars created in the landscape fully which initially seem like elegant tracks. Only later do we see that a whole mountain has been basically exterminated, hollowed out .
This is interspersed with footage of architect Michele De Lucchi building a circle in his idyllic garden, using stones specially selected from a quarry. As we later find out, that circle is meant to mark a space in which humans are not meant to enter after its completion.
In between crumbling stones, there is also footage of a tree being felled. And concrete being poured.
A blast in the quarry is shown tearing us from the contemplation of the beauty initially shown in the flowing rocks into the violent act of breaking stone from the landscape, and we see the huge scar created in the mountains.
For me this all is largely a reflection on impermanence, n a way also showing how in that impermanence there can be beauty. To build something new eventually the old has to pass.
So far this is beautifully shown; shots including the drone footage are stunning, sound desin and soundtrack are exquisitely done.
Where ultimately I have an issue is with the film being classed as a documentary and with its epilogue. For me it is so far an essay, then the epilogue starts asking direct questions and making implicit and maybe explicit value statement by the way of those questions. To be fair, the questions are interesting, valid, important, even though I personally find them partly flawed and do not agree with conclusions.
Kossakovsky asks why we build ugly buildings considering that people have always known how to build beautifully. Why do we build only for 40-50 years when the ancients have built for eternity. De Lucchi states that concrete is a dead material and questions why we, actually including himself, build ‘boring’ buildings with it. This all seems to invoke a nostalgia for something that hardly ever existed. Yes, the ancients built for eternity, but only a small amount. The reason Pompei is so valuable is that it is one of few examples of everyday buildings being left. Yes, some temples remain in more or less preserved form. But it is a questionable assumption that there was a substantially different attitude across all that was created.
The question of what is beautiful is also fraught. Who is defining what is beautiful, by whose standard, using which measure? How long should what we build, what we create last? Certainly not thousands of years. Trying to just preserve what has been done or is being done for what from a human perspective is eternal ultimately will result in stagnation and exterminate creativity, which always requires something to make space if something new is to emerge.
De Lucchi’s view of concrete is similarly flawed. Yes, it is a controversial material. It can be visually displeasing. But is it not down to what architects use it for? Blaming the material seems to be too easy an excuse.
Lastly is this a documentary? Likely not. There is nothing wrong with it not being one, but I am wondering if by classing it as such we end up with the director feeling such an epilogue is needed. This as well as the director’s statement for me ultimately take something away from the magic of this film. It suddenly tries to come to conclusions as a film where I wish it would allow the viewer the freedom to reflect on what is shown without feeling almost forced int a specific view.
A beautiful film that could be more by being less.
This is an example post, originally published as part of Blogging University. Enroll in one of our ten programs, and start your blog right.
You’re going to publish a post today. Don’t worry about how your blog looks. Don’t worry if you haven’t given it a name yet, or you’re feeling overwhelmed. Just click the “New Post” button, and tell us why you’re here.
Why do this?
Because it gives new readers context. What are you about? Why should they read your blog?
Because it will help you focus your own ideas about your blog and what you’d like to do with it.
The post can be short or long, a personal intro to your life or a bloggy mission statement, a manifesto for the future or a simple outline of your the types of things you hope to publish.
To help you get started, here are a few questions:
Why are you blogging publicly, rather than keeping a personal journal?
What topics do you think you’ll write about?
Who would you love to connect with via your blog?
If you blog successfully throughout the next year, what would you hope to have accomplished?
You’re not locked into any of this; one of the wonderful things about blogs is how they constantly evolve as we learn, grow, and interact with one another — but it’s good to know where and why you started, and articulating your goals may just give you a few other post ideas.
Can’t think how to get started? Just write the first thing that pops into your head. Anne Lamott, author of a book on writing we love, says that you need to give yourself permission to write a “crappy first draft”. Anne makes a great point — just start writing, and worry about editing it later.
When you’re ready to publish, give your post three to five tags that describe your blog’s focus — writing, photography, fiction, parenting, food, cars, movies, sports, whatever. These tags will help others who care about your topics find you in the Reader. Make sure one of the tags is “zerotohero,” so other new bloggers can find you, too.
stephan dilley 