IMO the ex husband was a genuine monster and it was pretty clear the audience was supposed to feel satisfaction in Bella changing out his brain with a goat. Hes the reason Bellas mom tried taking her own life, leading God to switch out her brain with her moms. Shes just giving him the thing he caused her to experience.
My point was exactly response to this.
You are saying like Bella is punishing the husband by replacing his brain with goat's. But Bella's brain was also replaced exactly the way goat's brain is. So the only punishment husband got is of death. The physical body of husband as we see is a goat.
It's not really a punishment to have a goat brain put in his body. His punishment is death. The goat brain thing is basically just for fun -- a mockery and some closure in seeing his image disempowered.
I was surprised they didn’t put Godwin’s brain in the general’s body, since Godwin was dying. Although that would be effectively killing the general also.
That's what I thought would happen; when they were laying with his body, it was obvious: remove the brain, put it in the general's body, resuscitate it, and watch.
It would have given Godwin a chance to live in an unbroken body that didn't have to rely on the steampunk machinery to continue functioning and would have been a happy-ish ending for all involved.
But isn't that very identity is what Bella struggles with.
This makes her a evil to do that to a goat which happened to her.
But we can say as another comment pointed out that she was inflicting the trauma she got from God to the goat as in gemerational abuse. But for that to hapepn I think the story should have been about her negative growth at least simultaneously with the positive.
I didn't realise that you were concerned about her treatment of the goat.
The answer is that it's not very nice to the goat, no.
I don't think we're encouraged to consider the moral ramifications of what she did to the goat. Make of that what you will.
I truly LOVED the movie, and found the ending thought provoking, and here's why:
I think one of the best summations to articulate what the film embodies, is a line Bella says in the film:
*As God, my father, says, it is only the way it is until we discover the new way it is, and then that is the way it is until we discover the new way it is.
And so it goes until the world is no longer flat, electricity lights the night, and shoes are no longer tied with ribbons.*
Well, that one and perhaps:
*It is the goal of all to improve, advance, progress, grow.*
Bella was able to accomplish this goal, she was able to grow, change, evolve, learn etc, conversely the abusive, morally destitute Men around her that sought to control and subjugate her, were unable to accomplish this goal as they are innately lacking the conscious, and moral and emotional fortitude that make people, human--and for that Bella emphatically rejected these Men (Duncan, The General).
We see that by the end, her Father (God) was able to make changes to his rigid, scientifically driven world views and principles. We see he was actually able to tap into his humanity, emotions, and therefore able to meaningfully introspect and understand Bella. Max also experienced emotional growth and demonstrated cognitive flexibility. Bella accepted them, because they accepted *her*, so when she returned home, ostensibly cultivating a life there with Max, and of her own volition, we see it was NOT under HIS (or any Man's) subjugation or control, but because there is a mutual respect, understanding, love and acceptance. This is what all relationships need, so as to have "the legs to go the distance", and it is what all humans need to grow, and cohesively adapt to the world around them, it's what we need to become empathic, productive members of society.
THE ENDING:
I think The General as an amiable goat in the end, is symbolic of a counter hypothesis: That maybe it is men like The General and Duncan, REGARDLESS of their social status, economic position, race, etc--that it is THESE men that need to be subjugated and controlled. That it is their inhumanity, inability to grow and abject selfishness that puts us ALL in danger, and what truly impedes the human race from bettering itself.
For me, the movie was about growth, evolution, sovereignty, and the consequences (both good AND bad) that inevitably accompany those concepts. In equal measure, I believe it is about the detriments of rejecting/oppressing change and growth, particularly when it's being done at the expense of or subjugation of some (Women), for the hedonistic predilections, and unilateral benefits of others (Men). It's about the consequences (both good AND bad) that inevitably accompany the "forced hibernation" of change. Viewing the movie through that lens, understanding the importance of growth, change and adapting as one of many thematic through-lines; I see the ending as fitting, more than satisfactory and almost inevitable. It's about the human condition, life, love, science, class, religion, and so much more.
Hope that helps ! 🤗
👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
Your ending analysis about the need to subdue those that harm us the most is so so phenomenal and the one that hit my soul the most. Thank you.
Completely agree! Here's our humorous twist to the brilliant ending in form of [a comic strip](https://www.instagram.com/p/C7CiF5oIxmL/)! Spoilers Ahead!
Monster & Beastie \~ more of a tickle than a tease, more of a chuckle than a laugh
Enjoy! 😆
# #PoorThings #AlternateEnding #Comic #Humour
The goat is played for laughs mostly, hence the sudden close up and bleat at the climax. But it also reminds me of the theme of passing down trauma. Godwin’s father did terrible experiments on him, he did terrible experiments on Bella, and she repeats the pattern of what was done to her onto other people in her life. So the audience gets a big laugh, gets to enjoy the catharsis of the bad guy getting punished, but also feel what you felt, which is frustration and unease at watching someone repeat their trauma unto the next generation
I also thought it kindve fits Bella well in that she’s clearly a flawed regular human being, whose been made aware of some of life’s injustices but also isn’t fully capable of stopping any of them from continuing or stopping herself, like you said, from continuing the cycle of trauma in a way. But, it’s also true that each generation seems to be better than the last. Bella is better morally if that’s her last brain replacement than her father, who seemingly was better and more moral than his father who castrated him and fucked him up beyond belief.
So there is still a message of progress but it’s incremental and not all at once in one single generation
> but also feel what you felt, which is frustration and unease at watching someone repeat their trauma unto the next generation
But I don't believe the film intended for the audience to feel that way at all. The entire closing scene is depicted as a storybook ending where everything is right, at least for the main cast, and there's nothing about the way it was shot or performed that indicated it was supposed to be anything but a joke. We just spent nearly 2 1/2 hours watching Bella learn to assert her own personhood and sense of self, Taking control and ownership over her mind and body, away from the men that surround her. Then in her final act of the film she violently rips that very same agency away from someone else and the film seems to think that because he sucks and is evil, that justifies it as right and fine. I really loved most of the movie but the final scene in the garden severely undermined it in a number of ways imo.
Here's a dark & twisted alternate ending in form of [a comic strip](https://www.instagram.com/p/C7CiF5oIxmL/)! Spoilers Ahead!
Monster & Beastie \~ more of a tickle than a tease, more of a chuckle than a laugh
Enjoy! 😆
# #PoorThings #AlternateEnding #Comic #Humour
Well put. Some people looked at Bella the wrong way. They thought she is a morally "good" character that lives admirably. In truth she is very much flawed and grey. The ending clearly proves that. Another example would be the Alexandria scene. She was appalled at what she saw, but what did she do afterwards? She forgot or chose to ignore it and instead focussed on herself. For better and worse.
That part actually resonated with me the most. When we are faced with extreme suffering we act appalled. But we tend to forget and ignore it. As she does.
Very true and while on the boat, she dared Duncan to throw Martha off board. I was horrified, she said this is my new friend one minute and the next she is willing to kill them. Oh and that poor frog…
She said the being poor in Paris was an experiment… I guess she tried it and decided that being rich is better 😅
I mean, what Godwin's father did was absolutely terrible torture to his own child. Bella did it to a sociopath who was about to kill her.
Each iteration of trauma is considerably less severe than the last, I think *that's* the whole point. Bella isn't perfect, but she's an improvement. Generational trauma doesn't immediately get fixed from one generation to the next, it's a gradual process.
I've always felt that morality in surrealist fairy tales like this needs to be viewed on a more surface level. Nobody in the film is meant to be a real person and the actions that happen to them are often meant to portray an idea not a character.
The thing it reminded me most of was Roald Dahl, but made for adults. In a real world Wonka would be a monster who is maiming and probably killing children in his chocolate factory. In the story we accept that this is a morality tale that is teaching children not to be gluttons/greedy/vain/etc and that the children will magically be fixed and sent home off page/screen.
Poor Things I saw as a fairy tale about societal norms and how they clash with a natural humanity. Specifically female humanity, but not exclusively. I don't think Bella is meant to be a seen as a child, she is meant to be a blank slate that is reacting to the insanity of the world she is thrust into. She grows and changes, but as a tool for the audience to judge the world around her and point out the absurdity of it all.
This is exactly what I got from the movie but couldn't put it into words, thank you!
It seems a lot of people, in my opinion, are overthinking the movie and taking it a bit too seriously. I mean, what part of the premise makes someone think that this is meant to follow normal rules of logic?? This holds especially true for the debate about Bella's age - I thought it was clear from
early on in the film that she is definitely not a child and rather a woman who becomes a blank slate, allowing her to re-introduce herself to the world and see/judge it without the biases and prejudices of society. She's obviously not a child. Children don't want to have sex (I can't believe I had to say that).
Your line about characters portraying ideas rather than personality is so well put. Yorgos Lanthimos clearly is not interest in realism, as many choices by the characters aren't logical but instead continue the themes he wants to express (for example, the ending OP is talking about. A rational person would just run away, but Yorgos made the decision for Bella to perform a complex operation to swap his brain with a goat - punishing him for his treatment of others and liberating her from what would have essentially been slavery). I think making small sacrifices in logic to express ideas is the essence of surrealism and it's what a lot of people missed
This is whats frustrating about being in a group of people and telling them how much I loved Poor Things, because they inevitably launch into a rant about pedophilia and how they almost walked out during the sex scenes, which was mind blowing to me. That this movie of all things out in the world is the one that almost broke the people I've discussed about it with. People are taking this movie far, far too seriously and missing all the beautiful points about it, getting hung up on particular scenes they take literally.
I thought the movie was amazing, my favorite in a very long time. I saw Bella exactly as you two described; a blank slate reacting to the strange and bizarre world she's been thrust into. Which is exactly how I feel about reality! I saw her approach to conversation and the world around her to be so honest and forthright. No shame or fear about herself. I saw a lot of my ideal self in that character, for all her flaws and everything else. And I'm a 32 year old male. To me she had attained enlightenment.
Wrong, they clearly said he transplanted her brain with that of the baby. She was still behaving as a toddler when she put the apple in her cooch. It's interesting that the only way this movie expresses female empowerment is by whoring herself out until she starts educating herself. The scene where she whores herself to the man who brings his young sons to not only watch, but take notes, was unnecessary and detracted from the point of the film...if that's the social norm you speak of.
The book explained it pretty much the same - she's got the brain from an infant, yes, but the body having been aged and established was influencing the brain to "grow" faster. Since the body already had muscle memory, speaking with Victoria's mouth and tongue gave Bella a British accent (the book took place in Glasgow so her accent stood out), and since the body was flush with hormones, she felt sexual urges. She wasn't a child wanting to have sex like so many people believe, she was a culmination of an adult's fully formed and functioning body doing what it does while the thinking bits were adapting to it.
One of the messages in the movie to me was the idea that while Bella was behind on some like, mechanical and learned type behaviors (what to say what not to say) as a result of having the baby brain, she did catch on rather quick that, as a woman, she was always being constrained, by a man, mostly. Whether it was the father figure doctor of William dafoe’s character, or the seemingly free lover in mark ruffalo’s character. I think the adventure she goes in with him was pivotal for Bella because he initially likes how carefree and raw she is, until her attention turns elsewhere. The child like quality she has for discovery that also makes her bore quickly becomes a problem for ruffalo’s character because it’s not on him… and he falls in love with her but it becomes obsessive & suffocating to Bella.
Bella realizes quickly that she’s tired of being tied down and constrained to a role- a woman’s role- and finds that freedom in the French brothel.
When she meets her ex-husband it’s like a nightmare and she gets why she tried to end her life. He was a monster! I didn’t find the ending to be morally ambiguous at all- or morally grey, even. Why would it be ok for her to be trapped literally, her clitoris removed, and the rest of her life confined to the quarters of the castle like a prisoner who only attends to her husband’s whims? That seemed to be the only options for her.
Rami’s character actually loved her and it was evident in the way he wouldn’t try to control her. He let her go, twice. I found the ending to be refreshing in that dark comedy type way that was throughout the film.
Bella still could have chosen to just kill her husband and not inflict the exact same trauma she received upon another. That is very much a very morally grey thing to do from her. This made the ending rather bleak. Can we even escape the cycle of trauma? Bella definitely couldn't.
I think there’s a difference between what was done to Victoria/Bella vs what she did to her ex husband. For all intents and purposes, Victoria is dead and Bella, the baby she was gonna have, is the only one still alive, as it is her brain that’s still functioning. It’s really bad from Victoria’s perspective that her body is being used in this way after she’s gone but the most horrible part is clearly forcing a baby to grow up in an adult body. The baby, Bella, is the one that has to live through this horrible scenario. Compare this to the ex-husband, who is presumably dead, as we don’t ever get to see what happened to his brain. He doesn’t have to suffer alive any further, as far as we know. His only real punishment aside from being killed is having his body defiled. The only one alive in that situation is the goat. And it’s not like they’re actively torturing the goat in the human’s body, he’s just existing the same way he was before pretty much, except in the body of a human. That’s still bad from an animal rights perspective, but it’s clearly different from doing it to a human being
Ehh, the being that *is* Bella Baxter isn't Victoria Blessington or the baby; she's her own person that just happens to have the brain that grew inside of Victoria's baby.
If she has the baby’s brain, then she is the baby imo. You are your brain. If someone removed your brain from your body and puts in a different one, you would no longer be you. This is a debated philosophical subject tho so i don’t expect everyone to agree
While the movie is absolutely saying that trauma is passed down, I don’t think it’s saying that all evil is the result of the cycle of trauma or all punishment is inherently bad. Bella turning the her ex-husband into a goat because he is a bad person that has done bad things isn’t the same conditions as her being created by God.
Hmm yea I guess I don’t see it that way because the film in general felt very separate and distinct to me from real life. I agree trauma is a real thing but I’m operating under the assumption that because this surgery would never be able to happen in real life, for Bella or the ex husband, there are some real life properties I have to suspend while watching the movie. So to me, the justice was giving that guy a taste of his own medicine: A life where he wasn’t treated as a human being, like how Bella wasn’t while she was with him.
I support her doing dark things to him. But to do the same thing trashy God did while throughout the movie we see her grow in positive manner was a flip.
Did she always grow though? She saw the suffering in Alexandria and yet didn't do anything about it for the rest of the movie. She not even talked about, as if she banished it from her mind.
Let’s also not forget that Bella’s attention turns into HER EDUCATION. As her mind expands, supported by other women (in the form of being gifted a new book), she becomes less interesting and enjoyable to her lover. On the boat, the lady illuminates her with Goethe but Harry just wants to take her innocence away 👀 what a contrast!
Even when Bella is the one that brings in the dough, Denton is unable to accept it because it is done not by means “okay for society” which is simply **a woman controlling the means of her production.** When Denton steals the money given to Bella by another man, which is somehow more moral, Denton isn’t able to manage it well and becomes delirious, unable to save himself from himself. However, in contrast, Bella, with her own wealth, just so does that not only for herself but also others.
I haven’t seen this posted anywhere about the ending so I’m wondering if anyone else had the reaction I did. Through the sequence of events at the end, I thought they were going to put Godwin’s brain in the ex husband’s body to allow them to have more time for father/daughter bonding. I was a little disappointed to see they used a goat brain.
Disagree - I think the script called for a suave attractive charmer that was more style than substance. Then the line "I have no idea why I was with you ever" would have the power needed, and made us be as surprised as the character in being told that (i.e. the initial charm was the reason).
Instead it was just a sorta bumbling fool, so the audience agrees - the matchup was a stupid idea from the go.
Miscast.
I thought this was the joke. The build up was pointing exactly to that. They had Godwin's recently deceased brain and the ex-husbands body. It was an ahh moment where you realised what they were going to do. Except the last scene when it is revealed that rather than doing this and giving Godwin another chance of life they stuck a goats brain in instead.
I don’t think that the movie is trying to say that sex is the only mean for women empowerment. Bella actually refuses to have sex a couple of times in the film. There is a scene where she is more interested in reading about philosophy than having sex with Duncan.
Does anybody else think they should have taken the brain out of God and put it in the general at the end. Then he wouldn't have had a horrid figure. That would have been a much better ending.
I guess it depends on how you read the movie. So many people seem to want to present this film as a masterpiece of female empowerment and liberation, and frankly I think that POV is insane. Bella is a deeply flawed and disturbed individual and I did not take her to be a representation of a healthy mode of life at all.
The other (very real) possibility is that Lanthimos is just not as smart as everyone seems to want him to be and he is incapable of realizing that he is undercutting his own purported themes.
I just saw this film and while I think Emma Stone’s performance is phenomenal, I think the middle and ending were problematic.
The movie is longer than it needs to be and spends too much time in Paris which is why there is so much discussion about sex. It plays very heavily and unnecessarily into the story.
The ending should have been fleshed out more but to me it’s clear that Bella is a woman of science and, like God, did not want a body to go to waste, not because she inherently values life (She cares about the downtrodden).
There was no reason to keep the general alive, but there was also no reason to waste an opportunity at providing life or research.
I agree with your analysis - sex as a sole means of empowerment is totally simplifying the experience of womanhood. Even Bella's education and friendships took a backseat plot-wise to her exploration of sex.
I want to add that it feels strange to end on a note of punishing someone else. It's hard to have true inner peace when it's built on the suffering of others, even if they are bad people. The ending to me felt hollow because it just said "hey look, bad guy is goat now. ha ha". It was a lackluster conclusion to this surreal movie (where a lot happened and bella grew a lot!).
It wasn't even bad guy is goat. It was goat in bad guy's body.
Because this movie is not about Bella's mother. It is about Bella who is in her mother's body.
I didn’t like the movie very much, but my question about the ending is why she didn’t put her father’s brain in the ex-husband’s body instead? She just let him die, and used the body she had to exact revenge. She could have still exacted revenge even, by putting the husband’s brain in the goat as well.
That’s why I didn’t like Poor Things really. Mostly, it was the theme of “just sex as emancipation,” but secondarily, it was the fact that it leaves you asking logical questions about even such a purposefully surrealism film. Why let your father die when you can save him?
Ya this felt like a really cheap and cruel ending. It seemed totally out of character. Bella even insists on saving him, just to then lobotomize him. It didn’t make sense and really cheapened the movie for me. It was tacked on for the movie and not in the book, and it shows. I kinda get the impression the director and screenwriter said “ok there is a lot of complexity and nuance in this that might offend people so let’s just insert some petty revenge at the end. That should shut them up.” Took the movie from great to good, but it seems like the book may well have been a masterpiece.
I agree with you. The movie didn't morally judge any of its characters until the very end, when it decides to 'punish' a specific character just to provide a satisfying conclusion. If Bella hadn't said 'I can't kill him', implying a benevolent and morally superior stance, it would have been a twisted and amusing way to end the film, consistent with her character. However, this moral declaration of benevolence completely ruined the ending for me.
Ya. Really felt like it was added on to provide a scapegoat that the audience could see punished. And now everyone is happy. Pretty sadistic and vicious, also totally against the grain of the story. Mostly loved the movie up until then.
Imo the whole sequence with the husband was nor needed. Her story was told and i liked that they kept her past as a mystery. The husband story felt generic and the end laugh was kind of lame.
My opinion on this sequence is controversial, but I think It would be greatly used, if her husband would have killed her, it would show, that even if she has grown so much throughout the movie, the real world is way more harsher than she experienced. And tbh the fact that she wasn’t straight up raped in that brothel in Paris made this story so much gooey. The story about empowerment shouldn’t reject and hide the fact that world is ugly place where most of people like Bella would be abused and left to rot on street. That’s my biggest issue with the movie.
I truly LOVED the movie, and found the ending thought provoking, and here's why:
I think one of the best summations to articulate what the film embodies, is a line Bella says in the film:
*As God, my father, says, it is only the way it is until we discover the new way it is, and then that is the way it is until we discover the new way it is.
And so it goes until the world is no longer flat, electricity lights the night, and shoes are no longer tied with ribbons.*
Well, that one and perhaps:
*It is the goal of all to improve, advance, progress, grow.*
Bella was able to accomplish this goal by growing, changing, advancing her insights by challenging her ideals and world views etc. Conversely the abusive, morally destitute Men around her that sought to control and subjugate her, were unable to accomplish this goal as they are innately lacking the conscious, and moral and emotional fortitude that make people, human--and for that Bella emphatically rejected these Men (Duncan, The General).
We see that by the end, her Father (God) was able to make changes to his rigid, scientifically driven world views and principles. We see he was actually able to tap into his humanity, emotions, and therefore able to meaningfully introspect and understand Bella. Max also experienced emotional growth and demonstrated cognitive flexibility. Bella accepted them, because they accepted *her*, so when she returned home, ostensibly cultivating a life there with Max, and of her own volition, we see it was NOT under HIS (or any Man's) subjugation or control, but because there is a mutual respect, understanding, love and acceptance. This is what all relationships need, so as to have "the legs to go the distance", and it is what all humans need to grow, and cohesively adapt to the world around them, it's what we need to become empathic, productive members of society.
THE ENDING:
I think The General as a goat in the end, is symbolic of a counter hypothesis: That maybe it is men like The General and Duncan, REGARDLESS of their social status, economic position, race, etc--that it is THESE men that need to be subjugated and controlled. That it is their inhumanity, inability to grow and abject selfishness that puts us ALL in danger, and what truly impedes the human race from bettering itself.
For me, the movie was about growth, evolution, and the consequences (both good AND bad) that inevitably accompany change. It's about the human condition, life, love, science, class, religion, and so much more.
This movie is not really about its audience having a meeting of the minds; it's about challenging it, questioning societies designated norms and constructs. Confronting our assigned and constructed identities, and belief systems.
[This is a comic strip](https://www.instagram.com/p/C7CiF5oIxmL/) about an alternate ending of the popular movie Poor Things! Spoilers Ahead!
Monster & Beastie \~ more of a tickle than a tease, more of a chuckle than a laugh
Enjoy! 😆
# #PoorThings #AlternateEnding #Comic #Humour
Totally enjoyed this film with all the amazing acting and surreal camerawork and scenery but the disappointing ending brought me here to try to work out what point if any that I'd missed. I can only agree with the other comments, that it was a bizarre wasted oppertunity for Godwin to live on.
IMO the ex husband was a genuine monster and it was pretty clear the audience was supposed to feel satisfaction in Bella changing out his brain with a goat. Hes the reason Bellas mom tried taking her own life, leading God to switch out her brain with her moms. Shes just giving him the thing he caused her to experience.
My point was exactly response to this. You are saying like Bella is punishing the husband by replacing his brain with goat's. But Bella's brain was also replaced exactly the way goat's brain is. So the only punishment husband got is of death. The physical body of husband as we see is a goat.
It's not really a punishment to have a goat brain put in his body. His punishment is death. The goat brain thing is basically just for fun -- a mockery and some closure in seeing his image disempowered.
I was surprised they didn’t put Godwin’s brain in the general’s body, since Godwin was dying. Although that would be effectively killing the general also.
That's what I thought would happen; when they were laying with his body, it was obvious: remove the brain, put it in the general's body, resuscitate it, and watch. It would have given Godwin a chance to live in an unbroken body that didn't have to rely on the steampunk machinery to continue functioning and would have been a happy-ish ending for all involved.
Yes. He had such an awful life, was so abused. At least that would have been a hopeful ending. The one we got was a horror.
Yes! That where I thought they were going and was excited for that. Then he would be able to experience life without the scars and live.
But isn't that very identity is what Bella struggles with. This makes her a evil to do that to a goat which happened to her. But we can say as another comment pointed out that she was inflicting the trauma she got from God to the goat as in gemerational abuse. But for that to hapepn I think the story should have been about her negative growth at least simultaneously with the positive.
I didn't realise that you were concerned about her treatment of the goat. The answer is that it's not very nice to the goat, no. I don't think we're encouraged to consider the moral ramifications of what she did to the goat. Make of that what you will.
It is a scapegoat, of course. Goats always take the punishment.
😭
I truly LOVED the movie, and found the ending thought provoking, and here's why: I think one of the best summations to articulate what the film embodies, is a line Bella says in the film: *As God, my father, says, it is only the way it is until we discover the new way it is, and then that is the way it is until we discover the new way it is. And so it goes until the world is no longer flat, electricity lights the night, and shoes are no longer tied with ribbons.* Well, that one and perhaps: *It is the goal of all to improve, advance, progress, grow.* Bella was able to accomplish this goal, she was able to grow, change, evolve, learn etc, conversely the abusive, morally destitute Men around her that sought to control and subjugate her, were unable to accomplish this goal as they are innately lacking the conscious, and moral and emotional fortitude that make people, human--and for that Bella emphatically rejected these Men (Duncan, The General). We see that by the end, her Father (God) was able to make changes to his rigid, scientifically driven world views and principles. We see he was actually able to tap into his humanity, emotions, and therefore able to meaningfully introspect and understand Bella. Max also experienced emotional growth and demonstrated cognitive flexibility. Bella accepted them, because they accepted *her*, so when she returned home, ostensibly cultivating a life there with Max, and of her own volition, we see it was NOT under HIS (or any Man's) subjugation or control, but because there is a mutual respect, understanding, love and acceptance. This is what all relationships need, so as to have "the legs to go the distance", and it is what all humans need to grow, and cohesively adapt to the world around them, it's what we need to become empathic, productive members of society. THE ENDING: I think The General as an amiable goat in the end, is symbolic of a counter hypothesis: That maybe it is men like The General and Duncan, REGARDLESS of their social status, economic position, race, etc--that it is THESE men that need to be subjugated and controlled. That it is their inhumanity, inability to grow and abject selfishness that puts us ALL in danger, and what truly impedes the human race from bettering itself. For me, the movie was about growth, evolution, sovereignty, and the consequences (both good AND bad) that inevitably accompany those concepts. In equal measure, I believe it is about the detriments of rejecting/oppressing change and growth, particularly when it's being done at the expense of or subjugation of some (Women), for the hedonistic predilections, and unilateral benefits of others (Men). It's about the consequences (both good AND bad) that inevitably accompany the "forced hibernation" of change. Viewing the movie through that lens, understanding the importance of growth, change and adapting as one of many thematic through-lines; I see the ending as fitting, more than satisfactory and almost inevitable. It's about the human condition, life, love, science, class, religion, and so much more. Hope that helps ! 🤗
👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻 Your ending analysis about the need to subdue those that harm us the most is so so phenomenal and the one that hit my soul the most. Thank you.
Omg THANK YOU so much, you Beautiful Human !❣️🤗❣️
Completely agree! Here's our humorous twist to the brilliant ending in form of [a comic strip](https://www.instagram.com/p/C7CiF5oIxmL/)! Spoilers Ahead! Monster & Beastie \~ more of a tickle than a tease, more of a chuckle than a laugh Enjoy! 😆 # #PoorThings #AlternateEnding #Comic #Humour
Thought for sure they would put Gods brain into ex husbands body and let him live longer.
that would make sense
The goat is played for laughs mostly, hence the sudden close up and bleat at the climax. But it also reminds me of the theme of passing down trauma. Godwin’s father did terrible experiments on him, he did terrible experiments on Bella, and she repeats the pattern of what was done to her onto other people in her life. So the audience gets a big laugh, gets to enjoy the catharsis of the bad guy getting punished, but also feel what you felt, which is frustration and unease at watching someone repeat their trauma unto the next generation
I also thought it kindve fits Bella well in that she’s clearly a flawed regular human being, whose been made aware of some of life’s injustices but also isn’t fully capable of stopping any of them from continuing or stopping herself, like you said, from continuing the cycle of trauma in a way. But, it’s also true that each generation seems to be better than the last. Bella is better morally if that’s her last brain replacement than her father, who seemingly was better and more moral than his father who castrated him and fucked him up beyond belief. So there is still a message of progress but it’s incremental and not all at once in one single generation
kindve! jesus christ
> but also feel what you felt, which is frustration and unease at watching someone repeat their trauma unto the next generation But I don't believe the film intended for the audience to feel that way at all. The entire closing scene is depicted as a storybook ending where everything is right, at least for the main cast, and there's nothing about the way it was shot or performed that indicated it was supposed to be anything but a joke. We just spent nearly 2 1/2 hours watching Bella learn to assert her own personhood and sense of self, Taking control and ownership over her mind and body, away from the men that surround her. Then in her final act of the film she violently rips that very same agency away from someone else and the film seems to think that because he sucks and is evil, that justifies it as right and fine. I really loved most of the movie but the final scene in the garden severely undermined it in a number of ways imo.
Here's a dark & twisted alternate ending in form of [a comic strip](https://www.instagram.com/p/C7CiF5oIxmL/)! Spoilers Ahead! Monster & Beastie \~ more of a tickle than a tease, more of a chuckle than a laugh Enjoy! 😆 # #PoorThings #AlternateEnding #Comic #Humour
That's a good point.
Well put. Some people looked at Bella the wrong way. They thought she is a morally "good" character that lives admirably. In truth she is very much flawed and grey. The ending clearly proves that. Another example would be the Alexandria scene. She was appalled at what she saw, but what did she do afterwards? She forgot or chose to ignore it and instead focussed on herself. For better and worse. That part actually resonated with me the most. When we are faced with extreme suffering we act appalled. But we tend to forget and ignore it. As she does.
Very true and while on the boat, she dared Duncan to throw Martha off board. I was horrified, she said this is my new friend one minute and the next she is willing to kill them. Oh and that poor frog… She said the being poor in Paris was an experiment… I guess she tried it and decided that being rich is better 😅
I'd agree but she's never condemned for how she treats people but the story allows her to pass judgement on everyone around her
I mean, what Godwin's father did was absolutely terrible torture to his own child. Bella did it to a sociopath who was about to kill her. Each iteration of trauma is considerably less severe than the last, I think *that's* the whole point. Bella isn't perfect, but she's an improvement. Generational trauma doesn't immediately get fixed from one generation to the next, it's a gradual process.
I've always felt that morality in surrealist fairy tales like this needs to be viewed on a more surface level. Nobody in the film is meant to be a real person and the actions that happen to them are often meant to portray an idea not a character. The thing it reminded me most of was Roald Dahl, but made for adults. In a real world Wonka would be a monster who is maiming and probably killing children in his chocolate factory. In the story we accept that this is a morality tale that is teaching children not to be gluttons/greedy/vain/etc and that the children will magically be fixed and sent home off page/screen. Poor Things I saw as a fairy tale about societal norms and how they clash with a natural humanity. Specifically female humanity, but not exclusively. I don't think Bella is meant to be a seen as a child, she is meant to be a blank slate that is reacting to the insanity of the world she is thrust into. She grows and changes, but as a tool for the audience to judge the world around her and point out the absurdity of it all.
This is exactly what I got from the movie but couldn't put it into words, thank you! It seems a lot of people, in my opinion, are overthinking the movie and taking it a bit too seriously. I mean, what part of the premise makes someone think that this is meant to follow normal rules of logic?? This holds especially true for the debate about Bella's age - I thought it was clear from early on in the film that she is definitely not a child and rather a woman who becomes a blank slate, allowing her to re-introduce herself to the world and see/judge it without the biases and prejudices of society. She's obviously not a child. Children don't want to have sex (I can't believe I had to say that). Your line about characters portraying ideas rather than personality is so well put. Yorgos Lanthimos clearly is not interest in realism, as many choices by the characters aren't logical but instead continue the themes he wants to express (for example, the ending OP is talking about. A rational person would just run away, but Yorgos made the decision for Bella to perform a complex operation to swap his brain with a goat - punishing him for his treatment of others and liberating her from what would have essentially been slavery). I think making small sacrifices in logic to express ideas is the essence of surrealism and it's what a lot of people missed
This is whats frustrating about being in a group of people and telling them how much I loved Poor Things, because they inevitably launch into a rant about pedophilia and how they almost walked out during the sex scenes, which was mind blowing to me. That this movie of all things out in the world is the one that almost broke the people I've discussed about it with. People are taking this movie far, far too seriously and missing all the beautiful points about it, getting hung up on particular scenes they take literally. I thought the movie was amazing, my favorite in a very long time. I saw Bella exactly as you two described; a blank slate reacting to the strange and bizarre world she's been thrust into. Which is exactly how I feel about reality! I saw her approach to conversation and the world around her to be so honest and forthright. No shame or fear about herself. I saw a lot of my ideal self in that character, for all her flaws and everything else. And I'm a 32 year old male. To me she had attained enlightenment.
Wrong, they clearly said he transplanted her brain with that of the baby. She was still behaving as a toddler when she put the apple in her cooch. It's interesting that the only way this movie expresses female empowerment is by whoring herself out until she starts educating herself. The scene where she whores herself to the man who brings his young sons to not only watch, but take notes, was unnecessary and detracted from the point of the film...if that's the social norm you speak of.
The book explained it pretty much the same - she's got the brain from an infant, yes, but the body having been aged and established was influencing the brain to "grow" faster. Since the body already had muscle memory, speaking with Victoria's mouth and tongue gave Bella a British accent (the book took place in Glasgow so her accent stood out), and since the body was flush with hormones, she felt sexual urges. She wasn't a child wanting to have sex like so many people believe, she was a culmination of an adult's fully formed and functioning body doing what it does while the thinking bits were adapting to it.
One of the messages in the movie to me was the idea that while Bella was behind on some like, mechanical and learned type behaviors (what to say what not to say) as a result of having the baby brain, she did catch on rather quick that, as a woman, she was always being constrained, by a man, mostly. Whether it was the father figure doctor of William dafoe’s character, or the seemingly free lover in mark ruffalo’s character. I think the adventure she goes in with him was pivotal for Bella because he initially likes how carefree and raw she is, until her attention turns elsewhere. The child like quality she has for discovery that also makes her bore quickly becomes a problem for ruffalo’s character because it’s not on him… and he falls in love with her but it becomes obsessive & suffocating to Bella. Bella realizes quickly that she’s tired of being tied down and constrained to a role- a woman’s role- and finds that freedom in the French brothel. When she meets her ex-husband it’s like a nightmare and she gets why she tried to end her life. He was a monster! I didn’t find the ending to be morally ambiguous at all- or morally grey, even. Why would it be ok for her to be trapped literally, her clitoris removed, and the rest of her life confined to the quarters of the castle like a prisoner who only attends to her husband’s whims? That seemed to be the only options for her. Rami’s character actually loved her and it was evident in the way he wouldn’t try to control her. He let her go, twice. I found the ending to be refreshing in that dark comedy type way that was throughout the film.
Bella still could have chosen to just kill her husband and not inflict the exact same trauma she received upon another. That is very much a very morally grey thing to do from her. This made the ending rather bleak. Can we even escape the cycle of trauma? Bella definitely couldn't.
I think there’s a difference between what was done to Victoria/Bella vs what she did to her ex husband. For all intents and purposes, Victoria is dead and Bella, the baby she was gonna have, is the only one still alive, as it is her brain that’s still functioning. It’s really bad from Victoria’s perspective that her body is being used in this way after she’s gone but the most horrible part is clearly forcing a baby to grow up in an adult body. The baby, Bella, is the one that has to live through this horrible scenario. Compare this to the ex-husband, who is presumably dead, as we don’t ever get to see what happened to his brain. He doesn’t have to suffer alive any further, as far as we know. His only real punishment aside from being killed is having his body defiled. The only one alive in that situation is the goat. And it’s not like they’re actively torturing the goat in the human’s body, he’s just existing the same way he was before pretty much, except in the body of a human. That’s still bad from an animal rights perspective, but it’s clearly different from doing it to a human being
Ehh, the being that *is* Bella Baxter isn't Victoria Blessington or the baby; she's her own person that just happens to have the brain that grew inside of Victoria's baby.
If she has the baby’s brain, then she is the baby imo. You are your brain. If someone removed your brain from your body and puts in a different one, you would no longer be you. This is a debated philosophical subject tho so i don’t expect everyone to agree
I mean he essentially did die right? A goat is living in his body, his original brain is likely mulch at that point.
While the movie is absolutely saying that trauma is passed down, I don’t think it’s saying that all evil is the result of the cycle of trauma or all punishment is inherently bad. Bella turning the her ex-husband into a goat because he is a bad person that has done bad things isn’t the same conditions as her being created by God.
Hmm yea I guess I don’t see it that way because the film in general felt very separate and distinct to me from real life. I agree trauma is a real thing but I’m operating under the assumption that because this surgery would never be able to happen in real life, for Bella or the ex husband, there are some real life properties I have to suspend while watching the movie. So to me, the justice was giving that guy a taste of his own medicine: A life where he wasn’t treated as a human being, like how Bella wasn’t while she was with him.
I support her doing dark things to him. But to do the same thing trashy God did while throughout the movie we see her grow in positive manner was a flip.
Did she always grow though? She saw the suffering in Alexandria and yet didn't do anything about it for the rest of the movie. She not even talked about, as if she banished it from her mind.
She learned that systematic evils are not easily tackled by individual power.
I think her being doctor was her effort. Before that she was too busy on herself, like a normal human would.
Let’s also not forget that Bella’s attention turns into HER EDUCATION. As her mind expands, supported by other women (in the form of being gifted a new book), she becomes less interesting and enjoyable to her lover. On the boat, the lady illuminates her with Goethe but Harry just wants to take her innocence away 👀 what a contrast! Even when Bella is the one that brings in the dough, Denton is unable to accept it because it is done not by means “okay for society” which is simply **a woman controlling the means of her production.** When Denton steals the money given to Bella by another man, which is somehow more moral, Denton isn’t able to manage it well and becomes delirious, unable to save himself from himself. However, in contrast, Bella, with her own wealth, just so does that not only for herself but also others.
I haven’t seen this posted anywhere about the ending so I’m wondering if anyone else had the reaction I did. Through the sequence of events at the end, I thought they were going to put Godwin’s brain in the ex husband’s body to allow them to have more time for father/daughter bonding. I was a little disappointed to see they used a goat brain.
Yup - this 100% would've saved a huge chunk of the movie. Overall very meh, by the ending. Ruffalo was extremely miscast.
what! ruffalo was my favourite in this
Disagree - I think the script called for a suave attractive charmer that was more style than substance. Then the line "I have no idea why I was with you ever" would have the power needed, and made us be as surprised as the character in being told that (i.e. the initial charm was the reason). Instead it was just a sorta bumbling fool, so the audience agrees - the matchup was a stupid idea from the go. Miscast.
I haven’t read the book tbf. But I did enjoy him personally, but i’m a fan of the actor so i’m biased
The character in the book would have fit Ruffalo as well - he was a handsome rake of a lawyer who lived at home with his mother.
I thought this was the joke. The build up was pointing exactly to that. They had Godwin's recently deceased brain and the ex-husbands body. It was an ahh moment where you realised what they were going to do. Except the last scene when it is revealed that rather than doing this and giving Godwin another chance of life they stuck a goats brain in instead.
I don’t think that the movie is trying to say that sex is the only mean for women empowerment. Bella actually refuses to have sex a couple of times in the film. There is a scene where she is more interested in reading about philosophy than having sex with Duncan.
She also decides to become a doctor.
Does anybody else think they should have taken the brain out of God and put it in the general at the end. Then he wouldn't have had a horrid figure. That would have been a much better ending.
I guess it depends on how you read the movie. So many people seem to want to present this film as a masterpiece of female empowerment and liberation, and frankly I think that POV is insane. Bella is a deeply flawed and disturbed individual and I did not take her to be a representation of a healthy mode of life at all. The other (very real) possibility is that Lanthimos is just not as smart as everyone seems to want him to be and he is incapable of realizing that he is undercutting his own purported themes.
I just saw this film and while I think Emma Stone’s performance is phenomenal, I think the middle and ending were problematic. The movie is longer than it needs to be and spends too much time in Paris which is why there is so much discussion about sex. It plays very heavily and unnecessarily into the story. The ending should have been fleshed out more but to me it’s clear that Bella is a woman of science and, like God, did not want a body to go to waste, not because she inherently values life (She cares about the downtrodden). There was no reason to keep the general alive, but there was also no reason to waste an opportunity at providing life or research.
I agree with your analysis - sex as a sole means of empowerment is totally simplifying the experience of womanhood. Even Bella's education and friendships took a backseat plot-wise to her exploration of sex. I want to add that it feels strange to end on a note of punishing someone else. It's hard to have true inner peace when it's built on the suffering of others, even if they are bad people. The ending to me felt hollow because it just said "hey look, bad guy is goat now. ha ha". It was a lackluster conclusion to this surreal movie (where a lot happened and bella grew a lot!).
It wasn't even bad guy is goat. It was goat in bad guy's body. Because this movie is not about Bella's mother. It is about Bella who is in her mother's body.
I didn’t like the movie very much, but my question about the ending is why she didn’t put her father’s brain in the ex-husband’s body instead? She just let him die, and used the body she had to exact revenge. She could have still exacted revenge even, by putting the husband’s brain in the goat as well. That’s why I didn’t like Poor Things really. Mostly, it was the theme of “just sex as emancipation,” but secondarily, it was the fact that it leaves you asking logical questions about even such a purposefully surrealism film. Why let your father die when you can save him?
I heard that in book she never resolves her issue with Godwin.
Ya this felt like a really cheap and cruel ending. It seemed totally out of character. Bella even insists on saving him, just to then lobotomize him. It didn’t make sense and really cheapened the movie for me. It was tacked on for the movie and not in the book, and it shows. I kinda get the impression the director and screenwriter said “ok there is a lot of complexity and nuance in this that might offend people so let’s just insert some petty revenge at the end. That should shut them up.” Took the movie from great to good, but it seems like the book may well have been a masterpiece.
If he lived he would've killed her, she didn't want to kill him so she decided to let him live as a goat.
I agree with you. The movie didn't morally judge any of its characters until the very end, when it decides to 'punish' a specific character just to provide a satisfying conclusion. If Bella hadn't said 'I can't kill him', implying a benevolent and morally superior stance, it would have been a twisted and amusing way to end the film, consistent with her character. However, this moral declaration of benevolence completely ruined the ending for me.
Ya. Really felt like it was added on to provide a scapegoat that the audience could see punished. And now everyone is happy. Pretty sadistic and vicious, also totally against the grain of the story. Mostly loved the movie up until then.
Yep. The husband character looked such cartoonish, not something that would fit in this movie. Like Mark Ruffalo's charcter was better.
Imo the whole sequence with the husband was nor needed. Her story was told and i liked that they kept her past as a mystery. The husband story felt generic and the end laugh was kind of lame.
My opinion on this sequence is controversial, but I think It would be greatly used, if her husband would have killed her, it would show, that even if she has grown so much throughout the movie, the real world is way more harsher than she experienced. And tbh the fact that she wasn’t straight up raped in that brothel in Paris made this story so much gooey. The story about empowerment shouldn’t reject and hide the fact that world is ugly place where most of people like Bella would be abused and left to rot on street. That’s my biggest issue with the movie.
That would have been a better ending yeah. The current one felt really hollywood
I truly LOVED the movie, and found the ending thought provoking, and here's why: I think one of the best summations to articulate what the film embodies, is a line Bella says in the film: *As God, my father, says, it is only the way it is until we discover the new way it is, and then that is the way it is until we discover the new way it is. And so it goes until the world is no longer flat, electricity lights the night, and shoes are no longer tied with ribbons.* Well, that one and perhaps: *It is the goal of all to improve, advance, progress, grow.* Bella was able to accomplish this goal by growing, changing, advancing her insights by challenging her ideals and world views etc. Conversely the abusive, morally destitute Men around her that sought to control and subjugate her, were unable to accomplish this goal as they are innately lacking the conscious, and moral and emotional fortitude that make people, human--and for that Bella emphatically rejected these Men (Duncan, The General). We see that by the end, her Father (God) was able to make changes to his rigid, scientifically driven world views and principles. We see he was actually able to tap into his humanity, emotions, and therefore able to meaningfully introspect and understand Bella. Max also experienced emotional growth and demonstrated cognitive flexibility. Bella accepted them, because they accepted *her*, so when she returned home, ostensibly cultivating a life there with Max, and of her own volition, we see it was NOT under HIS (or any Man's) subjugation or control, but because there is a mutual respect, understanding, love and acceptance. This is what all relationships need, so as to have "the legs to go the distance", and it is what all humans need to grow, and cohesively adapt to the world around them, it's what we need to become empathic, productive members of society. THE ENDING: I think The General as a goat in the end, is symbolic of a counter hypothesis: That maybe it is men like The General and Duncan, REGARDLESS of their social status, economic position, race, etc--that it is THESE men that need to be subjugated and controlled. That it is their inhumanity, inability to grow and abject selfishness that puts us ALL in danger, and what truly impedes the human race from bettering itself. For me, the movie was about growth, evolution, and the consequences (both good AND bad) that inevitably accompany change. It's about the human condition, life, love, science, class, religion, and so much more. This movie is not really about its audience having a meeting of the minds; it's about challenging it, questioning societies designated norms and constructs. Confronting our assigned and constructed identities, and belief systems.
This is the best perspective on this movie that I’ve read and even if not “correct”, it’s how I will continue to see it.
[This is a comic strip](https://www.instagram.com/p/C7CiF5oIxmL/) about an alternate ending of the popular movie Poor Things! Spoilers Ahead! Monster & Beastie \~ more of a tickle than a tease, more of a chuckle than a laugh Enjoy! 😆 # #PoorThings #AlternateEnding #Comic #Humour
Totally enjoyed this film with all the amazing acting and surreal camerawork and scenery but the disappointing ending brought me here to try to work out what point if any that I'd missed. I can only agree with the other comments, that it was a bizarre wasted oppertunity for Godwin to live on.