IDK what Yorgos’ politics are, but Poor Things had a sympathetic portrayal of a socialist character and this movie will be largely based on Ten Days That Shook the World by American communist John Reed.
edit: wait this is a fucking April Fools Day joke. god damn it
IDK what Yorgos’ politics are, but Poor Things had a sympathetic portrayal of a socialist character
He also produced Attenberg which has a socialist character who’s largely sympathetic in it. Also Dogtooth is supposed to be about fascism and it one of the most disturbing movies I’ve ever seen.
Really, I thought the film made it explicitly clear that Bella’s sexualization by the male characters was morally wrong. Mark Ruffalo’s character was very obviously a villain. Their whole relationship was supposed to make the audience feel uneasy.
portraying something in media does not equate to endorsing that behavior
I saw Ramy Youssef’s character as deeply flawed, even if he wasn’t portrayed as plainly villainous as Mark Ruffalo or Christopher Abbott’s characters. It’s left more for the audience to decide. My takeaway was that it showed how even well-intentioned people can do harm. He was absolutely wrong to want to marry Bella when she was still mentally a child, but he wasn’t acting out of intentional malice. He was taken by her physical beauty and neglected to consider her immaturity, because he himself was emotionally immature. He’s a product of a deeply patriarchal society that infantilizes women, so his behavior is sadly par-for-the-course, though it’s not an excuse. By the end of the film he does show character growth, feeling remorse over their engagement, and has a greater respect for Bella’s agency. I think it’s good to show that people who do wrong can learn and grow, because humans are morally complex beings.
As for her arc as a sex worker, I don’t think it was a celebration of her sexual liberation per se, as the film does not shy away from the exploitation inherent to sex work under capitalism (it’s not a coincidence that she starts attending socialist meeting at this time). She becomes frustrated with her lack of agency in choosing clients and is sexually abused by the madam of the brothel - it’s not exactly a girlboss moment. Yes, she does use this time as an opportunity to explore her sexuality, because in the patriarchal society that shames women for wanting sex, her options are quite limited. The sad fact is that a lot of women do have their early sexual experiences in far-from ideal, even outright abusive situations, and I think the Ruffalo and brothel sections of the film were both showing that, not celebrating it. It was supposed to make you feel uncomfortable.
Oh god the film is going to be anti-communist propaganda, isn’t it?
IDK what Yorgos’ politics are, but Poor Things had a sympathetic portrayal of a socialist character and this movie will be largely based on Ten Days That Shook the World by American communist John Reed.
edit: wait this is a fucking April Fools Day joke. god damn it
I have been PRANKED
“We’re our own means of production” is an incredible funny line.
He also produced Attenberg which has a socialist character who’s largely sympathetic in it. Also Dogtooth is supposed to be about fascism and it one of the most disturbing movies I’ve ever seen.
But yeah this is a joke.
Yeah and also sympathy for child sexual abuse. Smh
Really, I thought the film made it explicitly clear that Bella’s sexualization by the male characters was morally wrong. Mark Ruffalo’s character was very obviously a villain. Their whole relationship was supposed to make the audience feel uneasy.
portraying something in media does not equate to endorsing that behavior
And the good guy who wanted to marry her? And her liberation to work as a sex worker at the age of, what, 3 years old?
I saw Ramy Youssef’s character as deeply flawed, even if he wasn’t portrayed as plainly villainous as Mark Ruffalo or Christopher Abbott’s characters. It’s left more for the audience to decide. My takeaway was that it showed how even well-intentioned people can do harm. He was absolutely wrong to want to marry Bella when she was still mentally a child, but he wasn’t acting out of intentional malice. He was taken by her physical beauty and neglected to consider her immaturity, because he himself was emotionally immature. He’s a product of a deeply patriarchal society that infantilizes women, so his behavior is sadly par-for-the-course, though it’s not an excuse. By the end of the film he does show character growth, feeling remorse over their engagement, and has a greater respect for Bella’s agency. I think it’s good to show that people who do wrong can learn and grow, because humans are morally complex beings.
As for her arc as a sex worker, I don’t think it was a celebration of her sexual liberation per se, as the film does not shy away from the exploitation inherent to sex work under capitalism (it’s not a coincidence that she starts attending socialist meeting at this time). She becomes frustrated with her lack of agency in choosing clients and is sexually abused by the madam of the brothel - it’s not exactly a girlboss moment. Yes, she does use this time as an opportunity to explore her sexuality, because in the patriarchal society that shames women for wanting sex, her options are quite limited. The sad fact is that a lot of women do have their early sexual experiences in far-from ideal, even outright abusive situations, and I think the Ruffalo and brothel sections of the film were both showing that, not celebrating it. It was supposed to make you feel uncomfortable.
deleted by creator
It will be counter-revolutionary trash if it doesn’t even cover Lenin’s April 1st Revolution.
Mother fucker I just got it
they can’t do this to my boy please
at best they were going to be like ‘he had good intentions but evil Stalin vuvuzuela mao no iphone’
iPhone didn’t exist in the early 1900’s
there could be a flashforward, meanie
Stannis Baratheon crack pipe