CRACKASTEPPAVEGAN

1y

Hoo boy, okay. So, to summarize my thoughts of the movie and the source material:

Book

It's much more cynical than the movie, and at its core, it's a very political novel. It just so happens to have a reanimated figure on a journey of sexuality, femininity, and social change.

I'm gonna spoil the biggest difference between the book and the movie, but basically, the book is famous for its meta-approach to how it tells it's story and how unreliable the narrator is. It's basically a manuscript that McCandless wrote, but here's the kicker: At the end of the manuscript, there's another ending: an extended letter/epilogue, written by the real "Bella" Baxter, who prefers her real name Victoria. Essentially she debunks the whole story as BS from the fragile ego of a man who didn't accomplish much and was envious of how Victoria herself was outside making real change as a doctor, while he floundered with manuscripts that she didn't think much of.

In the book, Victoria and Godwin were actually in love, but he told her he was dying and kept pushing her away to other men. She married McCandless out of convenience even though she grew to like him, but her one true love was always Godwin. Obviously in the movie, they went for something different, because Willem Dafoe is like 700 years old and him being romantically involved with Emma Stone would induce mass projectile vomiting and push the movie to an NC-17 rating.

Bella's condition was dubbed 'erotomania,' and she gets around, word to Pac. You learn about her influences and how she pushed for socialist and suffragist movements. She also had three sons and two died in World War I, which did irreversible damage to her mental and disillusioned her on her ventures. You get to see the negative press she got for pushing for birth control measures as well. This is what gives the book it's feminist edge: her having the last word with the epilogue, her accomplishments put on display, as she's one of the few female doctors around at the time, then she tries to navigate an imperialist, capitalist, racist world with her own ideas, even though she gets massive pushback. This is all left out of the movie

The book also plays out differently during key moments. Bella refuses to go with the general when he objects the wedding. Instead, they all convene at Baxter's home and that's when the negotiations escalate into a showdown with a gun. Bella manages to grab hold of the gun but she's the one who's shot in the foot, not the general, and she basically tells him that she recognized him at the brothel in Paris (he's a kinkster in private) then she tells him to f\*\*\* off literally. He leaves, and the next day, he shoots himself in the head. It's a much darker conclusion.

The movie is not awful, but it's very disappointing and makes me wonder if Yorgos and screenwriter Tony McNamara were actually aware of the source material, or if they got summary notes from the intern who brought them coffee on set.

There's stuff to appreciate of course, like the world that Yorgos created here. It's vibrant and very easy on the eye in its otherworldliness. Emma Stone also commited to her role and it's apparent from start to finish. Mark Ruffalo had by far the worst accent in the film, but he provided a number of the movie's laughs. That dinner scene was hysterical.

The movie lost steam for me after the first hour, and fumbled the ending with the generic evil General doing generic evil s***. Also the writing was piss poor, and Yorgos presented only parts of the book he wanted to show, which unfortunately makes the movie open to misinterpretation of the pedophilic and statutory nature.

In the end it's a struggle to see what point the movie was trying to make if it left out the most important part of book-form Bella in favor of s***scenes. This is why the 'feminist' label on this movie, to me, feels disingenuous and surface level. I get that the book is messy and complicated and some things inevitably get left out, but why not show more of Bella becoming a doctor and implementing her ideas? They even got the wrong person to play the American on the boat/ship (I'm talking about Harry Astley, the character played by Jerrod Carmichael). In the book, Astley is the imperialist British guy, and Dr Hooker is the American cynic. It's small things like these that make me wonder if they really went through the source material or nah

Overall, book was pretty good. The movie was disappointing coming off from reading the book, but I get that the sprawling and messy nature of the source material makes it hard to adapt. The film critics do seem to love it tho, so

Marble

1y

We needed more Qually in this tbh

WRU

1y

are those emojis in the title refer to what I think they refer to

Mac Wit Da Cheese

1y

Appreciate you writing this up. Interesting to read the differences and getting a perspective from someone who read the book first

MR MUCUS

1y

Haven’t read the book, but enjoyed this write-up

Even though I really enjoyed the movie and it’s in my top choices for Best Picture, I was confused to see so many people calling it a feminist film. What I got out of it was a complex and cruel world reflected back to us through the eyes and words of a well-spoken and relentless innocent, rather than a strong message of female empowerment. There were definitely aspects of feminism and strong womanhood present, but it didn’t strike me as the film’s purpose. That being said..I’m not a woman, so I thought maybe that part went over my head.

So it’s interesting to see you say how, in your opinion, a lot of the core feminist structure of the book was missing.

Marble

1y

We needed more Qually in this tbh

Block Muteson

1y

If you try to jack off to this movie your d*** should fall off

Block Muteson

1y

If you try to jack off to this movie your d*** should fall off

Fax My Brother

1y

dont see how a film about a woman with the mental maturity of a child can be erotic in any way lmfao i was mad uncomfortable

Block Muteson

1y

That's not even the issue lol. The s***scenes are all played for laughs. You gotta be submental to mistake that for h****

Block Muteson

1y

That's not even the issue lol. The s***scenes are all played for laughs. You gotta be submental to mistake that for h****

Pokerking4128

1y

So, watched this movie yesterday overall it's fine 7.5(8)/10
Some themes that I picked up, maybe discussed here already, maybe not
The first one is
So this Godwin is literally called "God", his father creates him and tortures him to understand his own body. Then this God creates human - Bella. Then Bella creates a man with goat brains. I don't know much about Bible so maybe allegories that I found out is not there. Also Godwin was kinda nice to Bella and lets her on a journey. But then he is cruel to his new creation - Felicity.
The second one
This is more of my rumblings. So Bella (a women) is exploited by men for sex, who doesn't want her to pick up a book and by other women for money, and the movie of course has a moment where she wants to find out more about world, and there a millisecond of her going to the surgeon theatre (I don't know how is it called), but at the same time there are like a 20 minutes of s\*\*\*scenes. I don't find it empowering. And STDs doesn't exist in this world, and maybe I miss something, but in the brothel nobody beats her, just some ugly guys. Gives the vibe that brothel is OnlyFans in that world since there are no consequence at all.
About ending
I was 80% sure that she is going to put Godwin's brain into that angry officer's skull, but she ended up punishing a goat instead of man (yes, she technically killed him, but still)

CRACKASTEPPAVEGAN

1y

About Felicity, Where do you think she got the brain that they used on her? I'm asking because it's never explained and she's reanimated offscreen. Bella was created from a pregnant woman who commited suicide, a very specific situation, so it makes you wonder what exactly they were going for with Felicity and how she came about in the first place

Pokerking4128

1y

So, watched this movie yesterday overall it's fine 7.5(8)/10
Some themes that I picked up, maybe discussed here already, maybe not
The first one is
So this Godwin is literally called "God", his father creates him and tortures him to understand his own body. Then this God creates human - Bella. Then Bella creates a man with goat brains. I don't know much about Bible so maybe allegories that I found out is not there. Also Godwin was kinda nice to Bella and lets her on a journey. But then he is cruel to his new creation - Felicity.
The second one
This is more of my rumblings. So Bella (a women) is exploited by men for sex, who doesn't want her to pick up a book and by other women for money, and the movie of course has a moment where she wants to find out more about world, and there a millisecond of her going to the surgeon theatre (I don't know how is it called), but at the same time there are like a 20 minutes of s\*\*\*scenes. I don't find it empowering. And STDs doesn't exist in this world, and maybe I miss something, but in the brothel nobody beats her, just some ugly guys. Gives the vibe that brothel is OnlyFans in that world since there are no consequence at all.
About ending
I was 80% sure that she is going to put Godwin's brain into that angry officer's skull, but she ended up punishing a goat instead of man (yes, she technically killed him, but still)