Is “Poor Things” a feminist work of art or a derogatory male sexual fantasy? The woman is tied up and silenced for amusement.

Is “Poor Things” a feminist work of art or a derogatory male sexual fantasy? The woman is tied up and silenced for amusement.

‘A middle-aged straight man’s fantasy about nymphomania’

Samira Ahmed, presenter of Front Row on BBC Radio 4 and trustee of the Centre for Women’s Justice

I was looking forward to watching Poor Things. Emma Stone gives a fantastic performance, and Mark Ruffalo portrays a good-hearted activist who plays a deceptive character. The film was also quite comical. However, Bella, Stone’s character, has the mentality of an infant, which raises concerns about consent for a woman with learning disabilities. She goes on a journey of self-discovery that quickly turns into a dangerous obsession with having sex with multiple men, perpetuating the harmful myth of abusers. In the 1970s, pornographers took advantage of the women’s liberation movement by promoting the idea that sexual liberation meant never saying no.

Although Poor Things is a fictional work and has the freedom to explore various topics, it cannot be considered feminist. The fact that a woman may make a choice does not automatically make it a feminist act. In order to truly challenge the patriarchal system that limits women’s choices, feminists must confront the societal structures that perpetuate inequality. Despite its portrayal in literature, prostitution is still primarily a means of male exploitation of vulnerable women’s bodies. In Poor Things, the male characters, often depicted as much older and possibly with disabilities, use Bella’s body without any regard for her pleasure or consent. This is further emphasized by a scene in which Bella is tied up and silenced, played for comedic effect.

A father coerces his underage sons to witness him engaging in sexual activities with Bella. The duration of this scene was reduced due to the BBFC’s recommendation that it violated the 1978 Protection of Children Act, but it still feels excessively long.

The acclaimed French film-maker Céline Sciamma, who made the genuinely erotic drama Portrait of a Lady on Fire, once told me about the battle for female actors, writers and directors to be treated with respect by European cinema’s enduringly sexist male establishment. The feting of Poor Things – a heterosexual middle-aged man’s fantasy about nymphomania, with the flimsiest covering of “satire” and a tagged-on message about female genital mutilation being “bad” – merely confirms that feminism still has a long way to go.

This does not endorse pedophilia.

Charlotte Higgins, Guardian chief culture writer

Charlotte Higgins

Display the image in full screen mode.

Asking whether “Poor Things” is a feminist film seems like a misclassification. No, I have no intention of using this movie as inspiration for my feminist beliefs. It would be just as absurd as considering Medea, the powerful figure from Greek mythology who murders her own children, as a role model for gaining power. “Poor Things” is a fable, based on Alasdair Gray’s 1992 novel and inspired by Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein.”

This is not a manual endorsing the transfer of a baby’s brain into the body of a deceased adult woman, nor is it promoting pedophilia as some have speculated. Its connection to reality is made clear from the beginning – it is quite distant. You have never encountered someone like Bella Baxter, nor have you encountered a living being made up of half goose and half dog.

Similar to the tale of Medea, this film presents a deeper meaning beyond its superficial elements. In Bella, we see a portrayal of a woman who is unapologetically sexually liberated and satisfies her desires without any remorse or repercussions, completely disregarding societal norms influenced by Judeo-Christian beliefs or patriarchal dominance. While not reflective of reality, it is an exhilarating perspective that could be perceived as intimidating by certain groups.

Yorgos Lanthimos and Emma Stone on the set of Poor Things.

Display the image in full screen mode.

The term “male gaze” has been linked to the movie, thanks to the trio of Gray, screenwriter Tony McNamara, and director Yorgos Lanthimos. However, unless proven otherwise, I see Stone as an independent artist and individual who has chosen to portray Bella in her own unique and delightful way. It should be noted that Bella is not just a physical presence, but a thoughtful one as well (a particularly enjoyable scene involves her, a book, and screen legend Hanna Schygulla as an older woman). Is Poor Things a feminist work? The story is too unpredictable and whimsical to be defined by one word, making it all the more magnificent.

‘The men are like discarded condoms’

David Thomson is a critic of films.

David Thomson

Display the image in full screen mode.

In Poor Things, there is a moment where Bella ponders why sexual activity is not a constant occurrence. This intense action has consumed her as the bride of Frankenstein. I shared the same thoughts, captivated by the passion depicted in the film and the joy it evoked in the audience. The movie brilliantly merges production design with the use of lenses to expand and shrink space. I have not felt such a strong urge since watching Citizen Kane, where the black-and-white visuals pulsated with megalomania and its accompanying embarrassment. Poor Things is alive and it reflects how Bella’s arousal and awakening are portrayed.

The uncovering of sexuality and the revealing of movies. For some of us, it is difficult to avoid the genetic manipulation present in that union. It reminded me of Barbarella, another science fiction comic book ritual in which the chronic peeping-tom Roger Vadim whispered to us: “Can you imagine having Jane Fonda?” Even in 1968, that somewhat humorous film had a condescending male perspective. As I watched Poor Things, I wondered if there would be new criticisms towards a presentation made by and for men. However, I pushed that thought aside because of the enthusiastic dedication shown by Stone, not only on screen but also in her discussions about the film.

The movie explores female satisfaction while portraying men as insignificant and outdated, prioritizing dominance over enjoyment. This is what makes Poor Things so contemporary – it focuses on primal instincts and their fulfillment. It poses the question: “Do we, as a society, need to reduce ourselves to mere vessels of physical pleasure? Is that the direction we have been heading all along? Why do anything else?”

Movies have instilled in us a fixation on flashy special effects. This preoccupation allows us to dismiss numerous ideologies, including feminism and humanism. But why do we view these ideas as lacking? Perhaps it is because we start to realize that we are simply either in or out. This may seem like a lesser fate compared to being Anna Karenina, but Bella Baxter desires to be included, and we comprehend how film is helping her achieve that. This film caters to a society preparing for its ultimate demise. Our final ideologies will be explosive outbursts.

‘Desire, will, interest, passion – expressed by constant sex’

Zoe Williams, a writer for The Guardian newspaper.

Zoe Williams

Display the image in full screen.

Poor Things asks you to imagine a female sexuality that hasn’t been painstakingly formed by society and its arsenal of explicit rules, unspoken expectation, overt violence and the covert control of shame. And now imagine male sexuality with those levers taken away. Stand well back and see if they can get along.

I would like to express that even if I disliked the political aspect, I would still admire the boldness of Stone’s performance, the skilled unraveling of Ruffalo, and the spot-on portrayal of an ordinary man by Ramy Youssef. And let’s not forget the charm of Willem Dafoe’s character missing fingers (cue English Patient reference!). However, it is impossible to separate these elements, just as one cannot separate the significance from the artistic quality, or the humor from the emotion.

Stone first discovers masturbation at the dinner table and then recommends it to a disgruntled maid. Her performance is wild and alluring, embodying the Jungian concept of libido – desire, will, interest, and passion – as portrayed in Cosmopolitan magazine (constantly having sex). Dafoe’s character, a transplant surgeon, can be likened to Frankenstein but with a more scandalous past. Having mutilated himself, he believes he can play God (possibly fueled by Bella’s nickname for him) but ultimately his creation destroys him – or does it? Bella is more akin to a fire than a monster, both destructive and purifying, yet also exhilarating to watch. Her mad tango with Ruffalo’s character, Duncan Wedderburn, is a sight to behold. Her time spent in a brothel provides a raw glimpse into the often stigmatized world of sex work. It is a refreshingly honest portrayal that I haven’t seen in quite some time.

The movie begins with a rather provocative scene: the brilliant professor and his compliant assistant discussing Bella as a sexual object, essentially treating her as a non-verbal being. Some may interpret this as a metaphor, while others may see it as glorifying a toxic patriarchal mindset (a physically mature body, an empty mind, the ideal combination of a woman) and this creates a significant level of uncertainty.

If this were a popular movie, I would be hesitant to release it, wondering if it would be perceived as a cautionary tale about indulgence and restriction or as a psychologically disturbing story about pedophilia. In that scenario, I would distance myself from the project and instead focus on remaking “National Velvet”. Perhaps I am overthinking it, but the boldness of the film as it navigated through various gender-related issues struck me as a refreshing cultural statement.

At this stage, I no longer had the desire to continue living.

Viv Groskop, writer

Viv GroskopView image in fullscreen

The movie Poor Things is a fantastic example of film-making and a stunning visual spectacle. Stone’s acting is exceptional, showing no sign of self-importance or arrogance, and deserving of any recognition. However, it does not portray feminism.

At the beginning, it is revealed that Bella was made by a deranged scientist. The scientist, Godwin Baxter, obtains the body of a pregnant woman who committed suicide by jumping off a bridge. He then performs a caesarean and transfers the baby’s brain into the woman’s body. The mother “dies” and is brought back to life with her own baby’s brain. Godwin then takes in this unstable toddler-woman and raises her as his daughter. This story may seem crazy so far.

The situation changes when baby Bella asks for a cucumber while at the dinner table. (I understand.) This child is very confident in her body! She has no concept of boundaries or appropriate behavior! She is adventurous and unrestricted! Bella learns to embrace her body and also learns how to read. Later on, she also discovers the pleasures of working in a brothel in Paris where she boldly tells the clients they smell. But don’t fret, she still enjoys having sexual relations with them! At this point, I had given up on life.

The bizarre and otherworldly humor of this movie is undeniable. However, is it truly amusing when Bella, who is essentially a child, is abducted by a creepy individual and taken to Lisbon to eat custard tarts and engage in consensual “furious jumping” (which Bella refers to as sex)? Just moments ago, she was portrayed as a young child who could barely speak or walk. The gender of the implanted brain is unknown. We are never given an explanation for what happened to her reproductive organs. Can Bella experience menstruation or become pregnant? These questions are irrelevant. In a world where transplants, hybrid animals, and gastric bubbles are depicted in great detail, the mundane realities of a sexually active young woman are too uninteresting to address.

The movie’s theme focuses on self-discovery and breaking free from shame, which is commendable. However, in this day and age, it is disheartening that society still finds it shocking for a woman to embrace her sexuality. Moreover, the idea of having a baby’s brain implanted and working in a brothel is not liberating, but rather troubling. Overall, this is concerning.

“You’re supposed to make a face of disapproval towards the men who desire her.”

Tshepo Mokoena, journalist

Tshepo Mokoena

Display the image in fullscreen mode.

I thoroughly enjoyed Poor Things, including its clever jokes about STD testing. While not flawless, this film offers a dark yet humorous perspective on how the patriarchy harms and limits both men and women. Watching Bella’s character reminded me of how intensely I pursued my own orgasms as a teenager, rarely considering my partner’s pleasure. It all felt so exciting and new at the time! Some have criticized Poor Things for reducing womanhood to a series of wild sex scenes. However, our sexuality is a significant aspect of our development into adults, and it has not been socially acceptable for women to explore sex solely for their own pleasure.

The character of Stone is portrayed as a traditionally beautiful and youthful white woman, often shown in a state of undress through the camera’s perspective. Despite this, the movie “Poor Things” may still face criticism for its adherence to the male gaze. However, does this aspect of the film overshadow its overall value? It’s impossible for any film to please everyone or encompass every aspect of femininity. Director Lanthimos chose to include explicit sexual scenes, exercising his role as director, while Stone, as producer, also had a say in this decision.

While it may be difficult to talk about, the pleasure that comes from our genitalia is a natural part of our bodies and can sometimes be explored in a safe and private manner before reaching puberty. This exploration does not necessarily involve intercourse or abuse. The fact that Bella began masturbating before her body had fully developed may be seen as unconventional, but it should not discredit the message presented in the film. The audience is meant to be dismayed by how quickly men desire to possess and potentially exploit her innocence. This is yet another manifestation of the patriarchy.

However, the idea of turning to sex work in times of desperation as a means of empowerment – viewing one’s body as a tool for production, as stated by Bella – is a bit of a stretch (and would require input from actual sex workers to be fully developed). I found myself tense in anticipation of a scene depicting sexual violence, something that about 1 in 3 adult women have experienced. Perhaps Bella is one of the fortunate 70%.

In the end, she is a female who was born into a family with financial advantages.

Ione Gamble, writer

Ione Gamble

Display the image in full-screen mode.

For me, to declare Poor Things feminist would not only be reductive to feminism but also to the film. Yes, Bella has loads of sex and – freed by her baby brain of the patriarchal trappings that plague so many of us – manages to not ascribe ideas of moral good or bad to “furious jumping”. Instead, she focuses only on her pleasure. While shagging her way round Europe, she escapes men who wish to control her – another win for the “Poor Things is feminist” school of thought.

However, while some viewers found strength in witnessing her story unfold on screen, five others felt unsatisfied with the portrayal of the female experience. For them, the excessive portrayal of sexual content on screen seemed to cater to the male perspective and was created and written by a man, perpetuating the notion of the male gaze.

In the end, Bella is more than just a woman navigating her way through life; she was born into a wealthy family. Some may also view her as having a disability and/or being neurodivergent, which has sparked much discussion online about whether the film perpetuates ableism. Ignoring these aspects of her identity in order to make a feminist or antifeminist point is to miss the bigger picture of both the film and her character.

Rewording: In Shiva Baby, Rachel Sennott’s character states that feminism is a perspective to view the world from. Similarly, class analysis and discussions on the portrayal of disability in Poor Things serve as alternative lenses. The character’s ability to navigate the world with such liberty is admirable, but would she have the same opportunities if she were not affluent and part of high society? How can society embrace unconventional behaviors in all individuals, or does the character merely embody the acceptable version of being different?

These discussions and perspectives can be categorized as social issues, but they are unresolved questions that I had after viewing the movie. Poor Things is not a film promoting feminism, as the concept of feminism cannot be simply applied to media that reflects our ethical beliefs. I prefer a complex and thought-provoking story that challenges us to consider our own reality, rather than a polished feminist tale that is handed to us.

It’s reminiscent of a Campari commercial but with a whimsical touch from Willy Wonka.

Bidisha Mamata, broadcaster and presenter


Display the image in full-screen mode.

Is Poor Things a bloated fantasy or a simple coming-of-age story? It’s actually both. The story follows Frankenstein as he creates a manic pixie dream girl who is also a socialist PhD student and a fashion-forward modern woman. She is emotionally detached and highly intelligent, with a strong sexual appetite and no trace of jealousy. Her unique perspective and stunning appearance make her irresistible to men, but they only want to possess and control her.

Bella’s experiences primarily consist of 98% heterosexual intercourse and 2% dialogue. I appreciated her exploration into the world of brothels, as male authors often only see prostitution as a viable occupation for women and then proceed to glorify it with philosophical musings, using female characters as vessels for their own self-justification. However, as someone who lacks Bella’s combination of intense sensuality and innocent charm, I am also just a simple-minded individual, much like Bella at the beginning of the film.

Oscar-nominated … Emma Stone.View image in fullscreen

Not that it doesn’t look great, like Willy Wonka directing a Campari ad. Know what we also see a lot of? Stone’s nipples, pubic hair, supine body and unaware, sleeping face. Lanthimos has depressing form in this regard – remember the long, leering, breasty shot of a teenage girl swimming backstroke in The Lobster, and the full-body underwear shot of a teenage girl displaying herself to the boy she wants to impress in The Killing of a Sacred Deer. His camera just eats up all that nubile female flesh.

The screenplay for Poor Things was written by McNamara, with photography by Robbie Ryan. The film is adapted from the novel by Gray and executive produced by Daniel Battsek and Ollie Madden. I would like to express my gratitude to all of these individuals for their contributions and explanations.

‘Lisbon is shown to be beautiful, while Alexandria’s a cesspit’

Jason Okundaye, writer

Jason OkundayeView image in fullscreen

In my opinion, the movie effectively portrays the various ways in which men try to limit and manipulate women. The main male characters in Poor Things may have different personalities, but they are united in their efforts to control Bella. For example, Godwin, who acts like a father figure, tries to confine Bella in order to protect her from the outside world. On the other hand, Duncan, who is perverted and misogynistic, throws Bella’s books into the ocean as she becomes more intellectually aware, wanting her to be nothing more than a compliant and docile object for his sexual desires. However, Bella’s determination to pursue her own desires – such as masturbating, rejecting societal norms, and reading – ultimately triumphs over any attempts to constrain her.

However, the movie has its flaws. While Lisbon is portrayed as stunning, Alexandria is shown as a destitute area filled with poverty. This serves as a backdrop for Bella to reflect on the struggles of the Egyptian people and make futile efforts to better their circumstances. The impoverished individuals she encounters are also depicted as savage and capable of committing heinous acts, implying a commentary on the opportunistic nature of humanity but also perpetuating harmful stereotypes.

Similarly, although Bella successfully defies patriarchal norms and those who try to control her, the portrayal of sex work is too nonchalant. Some have argued that the male perspective is challenged in Poor Things due to the inclusion of full frontal nudity shots of men, but the scenes of Bella engaging in sexual activities with repulsive clients seem to have no significant meaning other than satisfying curiosity about such encounters.

Bella undoubtedly discovers freedom through her sexuality, as she and her colleagues in the sex industry view their bodies as a means of generating income. However, given Bella’s situation, prostitution seems to be primarily a means of survival and work rather than empowerment.

“Why is Bella not able to use her body as she pleases?”

The writer Imogen Tilden for The Guardian.

Imogen TildenView image in fullscreen

There is no need to mention the male writer, director, and mostly male production team behind this film. The main character is a woman who is actually brought to life by a man through the act of stitching and reanimation. Furthermore, Bella’s physically mature body and naïve mind are the perfect embodiment of male desires, as is her unapologetic enjoyment and desire for sex.

If the distorted lens, sudden switch from black and white to overly vibrant colors, and the obvious artificiality of all the sets, costumes, and props do not indicate that this is a film to be taken lightly, then the outrageous science surely does. I thoroughly enjoyed Lanthimos’s movie and found it to be rebellious and thrilling.

Bella does not feel guilty or disgusted when she masturbates, unlike the societal norm that teaches girls to be ashamed of their bodies and sexuality. She embraces and enjoys sex, confidently expressing her desires and needs. The character played by Ruffalo tries to manipulate her but ultimately feels drained and powerless, unable to fulfill her desires just as Godwin was unable to suppress her.

Is Bella portrayed as a happy hooker? She seems content with sex being just a physical experience, so why not support her perspective? In this fantasy setting of a brothel, bringing together elements of Toulouse-Lautrec, Moulin Rouge, and Tank Girl in Paris, using her body is the simplest way for Bella to gain financial independence. Why shouldn’t she have control over her own body? Bella is a woman who follows her instincts, but also has intelligence. Is she taking advantage of her male clients? It could be argued… as they all seem foolish or dull. The most touching moment in this part of the film shows her in bed with fellow sex worker, Toinette.

As Bella reaches emotional maturity, she desires to utilize her mind rather than her physical appearance. The story concludes with our protagonist not in a blissful marriage or jumping with joy, but dressed and pursuing a medical education. The cruel and oppressive husband from her past is given retribution with a goat’s brain. As far as feminist daydreams go, this one seems satisfactory to me.

It’s fake feminism reminded me of the Barbie doll.

, and culture critic

Shaad D’Souza is a writer and cultural critic.

Shaad D’Souza.

Display the image in a full-screen view.

The movie Poor Things reminded me of something I had already seen before: wasn’t this film trying too hard to show its feminist values during the summer? Oh, I must have been thinking of Greta Gerwig’s Barbie, which had a similar storyline, relied heavily on humor about being out of place, and had a simplistic moral message. In both movies, a woman who was created by men goes on a journey to find independence and purpose, but ultimately realizes she is unhappy with the harsh reality of the world and settles for a somewhat enlightened peace in her sheltered old life. In both cases, I found it surprising that the superficial references to feminist ideas were met with such exaggerated praise.

The book Poor Things brought back memories of Tumblr-level discussions on gender politics from my high school days. These discussions revolved around the belief that a woman’s power is tied to her body and that engaging in sexual activities without any complications is a form of liberation. While there is nothing inherently wrong with these ideas, Poor Things fails to challenge or delve deeper into them. The main character, Bella, becomes fixated on casual sex, which becomes her main focus and even her job for a period of time. However, this aspect of her life is never fully explored or intertwined with her studies in philosophy and socialism.

Some of the films I enjoy are men’s interpretations of women’s stories. However, I found Poor Things to be self-congratulatory and insincere, fixated on its supposedly radical take on a female coming-of-age tale. It comes across as a version of Barbie for those who believe they are too intelligent for Barbie, yet still crave neatly packaged lectures on gender politics. At least Barbie has the potential to teach children about basic feminist ideas. Unfortunately, I worry that Poor Things only reinforces the beliefs of smug grown-ups.

“Exceptional attire, particularly with its large and empowering sleeves.”

Jess Cartner-Morley is the fashion editor for The Guardian.

Jess Cartner-Morley

Enlarge the image to full screen view.

Oh come on guys, lighten up. It would be a bit bleak to dismiss the notion of a woman enjoying sex as an unrealistic male fantasy. Not just bleak, but also unfair to young women, who surely should be going into the experience believing that sex is something they should expect to enjoy. A healthy conversation about consent starts from a baseline that if anyone isn’t having fun, that is a problem.

The clothing choices in Poor Things reflect the film’s origin. The girls in the brothel scenes are seen wearing light blue, yellow, and pink underwear, without any traditional male-gaze elements like black stockings or red lace. This showcases the film’s celebration of female pleasure and empowerment in sexual experiences. When Bella explores her sexuality, she doesn’t conform to a seductive persona, but instead remains true to her awkward, funny, and playful self while engaging in enthusiastic sexual activities. It’s a wonderful portrayal.

The film features a significant amount of exposed Stone, but it also showcases impressive attire, notably the oversized leg o’mutton sleeves. According to costume designer Holly Waddington, the sleeves were meant to be “extremely empowering.” Throughout history, when women have worn voluminous sleeves, such as during the Elizabethan era, the 1940s, and the 1980s, it has typically been a positive time for women.

Playing God … Willem Dafoe as Godwin Baxter.View image in fullscreen

Some parts of the text can be seen as impolite, which can be uncomfortable at times. There are instances where the focus on Bella’s lack of experience can feel out of place alongside her sexual desires, almost like an awkward pairing. The use of pastel colors is reminiscent of Alice in Wonderland. At times, Bella’s straightforward and innocent demeanor is similar to that of Alice, who is a child. This may seem strange, but the reason it works is because Bella’s excitement is centered around her own physical enjoyment.

‘Bella is as eager to punch annoying babies as do sex work’

Leslie Felperin, film critic

This movie holds different meanings for different people. For some, it is a coming-of-age story centered around women, with elements of dark comedy and explicit yet tasteful art house sex scenes. It appears to me that complex narratives about women, particularly those that are enigmatic, provocative and unapologetically sex-positive like Poor Things, are often labeled as feminist to avoid accusations of sexism. However, I question whether this is the most helpful way to view the film, as Bella’s journey is not solely about her fighting against the patriarchal system, but rather her disregarding it as she embarks on various adventures.

Bella’s mental maturity does not align with her physical appearance, freeing her from the societal constraints that typically restrict women during her time. As a result, Bella is enthusiastic about trying new things, such as pasteis de nata and oysters, as well as engaging in activities like punching annoying babies, sex work, and medical training with equal enthusiasm.

A traditional feminist may have objections to the portrayal of Bella, a character created by novelist Gray, screenwriter McNamara, and director Lanthimos, as more of a sex object than a layered individual. However, Stone’s exceptional acting brings Bella to life in a deeply emotional way. She skillfully utilizes the resources provided by the book, script, direction, costumes, and co-stars to transform into a unique and dynamic character.

Bella’s point of view is the lodestar of the film. That singularity of focus, the way this whole marvellous world is refracted through one singular woman’s consciousness, is what makes this film extraordinary and near immaculate.

“I started to feel increasingly uncomfortable.”

Writer for The Guardian, Ann Lee

Ann Lee

This lively and bizarre interpretation of Frankenstein offers many delights. One standout is Stone’s fierce performance, which has rightfully garnered her an Academy Award nomination. Additionally, the unconventional visuals, the beautifully dark portrayal of a steampunk Victorian England, and the intricate costumes all add to the enjoyment.

I enjoyed all of these events until the part where Bella becomes a sex worker in Paris after being abandoned, with no money or support, by Ruffalo, her controlling partner. In her youthful perspective, it seems like a reasonable solution to her financial problems. She enjoys sex, so it seems like the ideal job for her. Of course, this may seem obvious if you are a man, as the director, adapter, and writer are.

As Bella enthusiastically embraces her new profession, she even confidently teaches a father how to please a woman. However, I couldn’t help but feel uneasy that what I was witnessing was a male fantasy of a woman’s journey of self-discovery. There are numerous other ways for a woman to be sexually liberated without experiencing humiliation, degradation, or violence. Bella, unfortunately, is unaware of this as her time at the brothel is portrayed as a carefree sexual experiment with no consequences. I doubt a female filmmaker would have depicted it in such a positive light.

In the original book, it is important to note that Bella rejects all of the events that unfold, deeming them to be the twisted fantasies of her naive husband, whom we have been following. Therefore, it is understandable that the story may be perceived as a male fantasy, as that was the intention of the author and a commentary on the objectification of women. However, this condemnation from Bella is not portrayed on screen. For a more authentic portrayal of unapologetic female sexuality, it is recommended to watch The Favourite.