Review: Poor Things

Poor Things did well. This is a good review. It makes one wonder how such a film (adapted from a 1992 novel of the same name by Scottish writer Alasdair Gray) possibly got made. It bodes well for film. It features no action superheroes, billionaire brand sponsors, or any previously successful franchise. The title of ... Review: Poor Things

Poor Things did well. This is a good review. It makes one wonder how such a film (adapted from a 1992 novel of the same name by Scottish writer Alasdair Gray) possibly got made.

It bodes well for film. It features no action superheroes, billionaire brand sponsors, or any previously successful franchise. The title of this article could be “Non Franchise Film Success.”

Tony McNamara, a screenwriter known for The Favourite, was chosen to adapt Gray’s story for the screen.

“Bella’s story is narrated by the men in the book; her point of view and internal experience aren’t told. This becomes the biggest choice in my adaptation. Yorgos and I decided Bella will be the center and driving force of the film,” McNamara says for the LA Times.

The novel Poor Things wasn’t really widely known since its publishing in 1992 until its adaptation for Yorgos’ film. Its peculiar, obsessive genius satirized Victorian Britain’s preoccupations with decorum while teasing the modern reader’s taste for the lurid.

Gray’s diverse body of work also includes collections of short stories like Unlikely Stories, Mostly (1983) and Ten Tales Tall and True (1993), as well as plays such as Fleck (2008).

In the context of the movie industry, “pre-awareness” is a value. It is the familiarity and recognition that audiences have with a particular intellectual property (IP).

Today, studios are all on the band wagon of capitalizing on pre-awareness: sequels, reboots, and adaptations of popular franchises.

Studios have always “stolen” and adapted, from Cindarella to Hercules, but now, there is even more aversion to educating an audience on some new thing.

“In the golden age of New Hollywood, creators were given huge sums to take big risks, and it paid off,” writes Juke Ures, a Los Angeles-based cinematographer.

Some argue that franchises like Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, Indiana Jones, and the Marvel Cinematic Universe should be retired. There is a sense of “franchise fatigue” setting in with audiences.

The only Best Picture nominees this year that earned more than Poor Things, were Barbie ($1.44 billion), Oppenheimer ($960 million), and Killers of the Flower Moon ($156 million). These movies had bigger budgets and were made by more well-known filmmakers, with pre-awareness, like Barbie.

Poor Things has surpassed $100 million worldwide. The film received awards for Best Production Design, Makeup & Hairstyling, and Costume Design at the 96th Oscars.

Since Disney now owns Searchlight Pictures and the rest of Fox’s former media assets, Poor Things makes some feel comfortable about their continued investment in non-franchise ideas.

It may also represent a positive shift in audience tastes. Could it mean that studios will take more risks on unique stories, over relying pitifully on established intellectual property?