The Perverse Movie, Poor Things, Once Again Sees Hollywood Using Pseudo-Feminism and Cinema to Promote Not-So-Cleverly Concealed Pedophilia: This is a New High in Trashy Low Porn Cinema

First of all, the fact that Emma Stone won this year’s Academy Award for Best Actress, where she plays a mentally disabled, even semi-retarded, and underaged erotomaniac child, exploited so many times up by adult men for pure pleasure that the body count is incalculable, just shows us, once again, how desperately Hollywood needs to push their Sadomasochistic Pedophile Agenda.

In short, this film is nothing more than a pedophilia porn film wrapped up in a big Hollywood budget and sprinkled with Emma Stone’s extremely mediocre acting. Even the porn industry would most likely have not given Emma Stone any award for her abysmal acting in this film. When a Hollywood actress, such as Emma Stone, appears in such perverse films as this, which she has done many times before, you can be certain that her handlers informed her that if that you do not help support Hollywood’s pedophilia agenda with this film, you are done in this town. Essentially, Poor Things, is a shamelessly gratuitous promotion of child abuse, pedophilia, and blasphemy against God, concealed as a revisioning of Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein story.

In the movie, Bella, Emma Stone’s character, is a child, having had her own unborn fetus’s brain implanted into her cranium when she was 29 year’s old, complete with sexualized women’s body. And then, they show that even with literally having a child’s brain, what matters most is the gratuitous and Godless primal sexual appetite of a nymphomaniac grown-up woman. It’s a pedophilic fantasy movie: A willing and sexually hungry woman with literally an infant’s pliable and submissive brain inside her head.

Bella, with an adult body but with the surgically implanted brain of a young, less than two year-old girl:

Bella is a child abused by men in this movie, over and over. This movie is a federal crime and the director should be arrested under The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA), and not awarded various Academy Award accolades. However, furtive pedophiles in theaters and couches all across the world are, for sure, happy to see such a horribly perverse movie has been applauded by The Oscar Committee. The movie explicitly says that a child wants sex and can consent. No, a child can’t consent, and it is rape. They raped a child in a women’s body the entire length of the movie.

Lastly, it should be noted that throughout the duration of the film, Bella, who literally has the brain of young child but the body of fully developed woman, refers to the man who “created” her as nymphomaniac abomination…as God. The idea here is that Man is now God and can create life, and as such, he chooses to create a sexually pliable child in the body of a fully sexually active women.  

Additionally, one notices throughout the film that is reminiscent of the Satanic film, The Island of Dr. Moreau, a 1996 American science fiction horror film, based on the 1896 novel The Island of Doctor Moreau by H. G. Wells. It was directed by John Frankenheimer and stars Marlon Brando, Val Kilmer, David Thewlis, and Fairuza Balk. The screenplay is credited to the original director Richard Stanley and Ron Hutchinson. It is the third major film adaptation of the Wells novel, following Island of Lost Souls (1932) and The Island of Dr. Moreau (1977). In the book and film, a man creates blasphemous animal hybrids, much like the ones created by The Nephilim in The Age of The Fall of Mankind. The Nephilim were creatures who drank from The Mortal Cup of hybrid offspring between angels and demonic forces, resulting in mongrelized hybrid offspring. This speaks volumes about the Satanic nature of the film, Poor Things.

Christians beware.

Bella, with the implanted brain of a young child, and yet having the body of a 29 year-old woman, having sex with an adult in Poor Things:

Director, Yorgos Lanthimos, films Emma Stone playing a nymphomaniac woman who has had an infant’s brain surgically implanted into her cranium so that she is an erotomaniac, willing to have sex with any and all adult men:

POOR THINGS | Official Trailer | Searchlight Pictures:

2024 Oscar for Pedo-Incest Movie "Poor Things":

The Guardian:

From the minute underage and mentally deficient, Emma Stone, discovers masturbation at the dinner table, then recommends it to a cranky maid, her wild and enchanting performance is pure Jungian libido (desire, will, interest, passion) expressed through libido the way Cosmopolitan uses it (having sex, constantly).

I wanted to enjoy Poor Things. Emma Stone is a terrific actor, Mark Ruffalo a genuine good guy activist playing a cad. Hilarious! But Bella, Stone’s character, has an infant’s brain – and the consent issue for a woman with learning difficulties is a blazing red flag. She embarks on a “voyage of self-discovery” which leads, quickly, to an insatiable desire for sex with as many men as possible, one of the oldest abuser myths. In the 1970s, pornographers jumped on the women’s liberation movement, claiming sexual liberation was essentially never saying no.

As a work of fiction, Poor Things can explore anything it likes, but it is not feminist. Just because a woman chooses to do something, does not make the act feminist. Feminists challenge the patriarchal system in which women’s choices exist. Prostitution has always been romanticized by men in fiction, but it remains overwhelmingly the male exploitation of poor female bodies. Men – always much older and sometimes with visual deformities (raising questions about the degrading treatment of people with disabilities) – use Bella’s body without any attempt at foreplay. She is bound and gagged in a scene played for laughs.

A man forces his young sons to watch him have sex with Bella. I know this scene was shortened, thanks to the BBFC’s suggestion that it contravened the 1978 Protection of Children Act, but lord, it still seems to go on forever.

Common Sense Media Comments:

1. 30 years ago this would have been expensive porn with a good script. Now it's called art. The 2 biggest troubling things about this movie are how it almost disguises pedophilia by giving the "child" a grown body. Children can't consent because of the development of their brains not because the body is not developed. The reasons pedophiles argue against it being illegal is what this movie is all about. They believe children are sexual and it is natural for them to explore. The second is the double moral of claiming to be a female empowerment movie while at the same time using the female body to gain attention and views. Using the actress. This is what many actresses say they struggle with, that they can't get roles on less they are willing to undress. So the movie claims to empower women while at the same time, degrading them. Christians stay away.

2. This is yet another Hollywood pedophilic film disguised under the “female empowerment” title. This is just the continued genre of “born sexy yesterday”, a film where an adult women has a child-like understanding of the world and therefore is now the male protagonists play thing. He is to teach her about all things including sex and desire… in other words a female whom he can groom into his perfect sexual being. We’ve seen this trope so many times, disguising it under weirdness (“art”) . Women in Hollywood have definitely learned that taking their clothes off is the only way they will ever win the coveted golden awards. Female empowerment begins when a woman is respected for her talents, not her willingness to do sex scenes .

3. I thought this was a horrible, repulsive movie from the moment the “father” of Bella offers her in marriage to his research assistant. She still had the brain of a child!!!! And unbelievably it got even worse by including lots of sex scenes between Bella and the lawyer, and later on with other men at the brothel. The movie doesn’t mention her age. But she can’t be older than 15 in mental age - she’s still a child. What makes it okay to show this in a movie? Some of the cinematography was beautiful…that’s all.

4. I should have done more research but I never expected Emma Stone to be in a movie like this. I liked her in La La Land and other movies and saw she was up for awards for this movie and went without knowing anything about it. Figured the R rating was for language. I’ve never walked out of a movie before but did after she was masturbating with food. This is early in the movie. Glad I walked out then especially after reading reviews about her later having sex in front of children. What is going on here? Is this trying to desensitize people to pedophilia? So sad and disturbing.

5. Nothing short of satanic with themes of child abuse and basically pornography. I would not recommend it for adults nor teenagers. It’s movies like these that make me want to give up movie watching all together when I start thinking in the intentions on the writers and producers and what they want for our society. Media consumption is a form of socialization and it’s alarming to watch what people are saying is art and liberation. It mocks God, faith and the Catholic Church. One of the people that goes to have sex secretly with Bella is a priest and the sacrament of Marriage is also portrait is going be performed degrading the Church and the family institution. During the end credits there is an image of a headless statue but where the head is supposed to be there is a wooden design that looks very much as a satanic sheep’s head. I have studied film, and nothing in films is accidental. These movie promotes hedonism, materialism, nihilism, atheism, satanism, pedophilia, etc. It tramples on the dignity of the human person.

6. This film is appalling. I walked out after 1 hour unable to stomach its vile and sensationalist tone. Masquerading under the mask of a movie about feminist empowerment, the writer/director/ producer has created a disturbing film full of gratuitous sex including sex with a young woman with the brain of a child! Pedophilia, by any stretch of the imagination. The film is ugly. From the opening suicide to the first close up of a horribly disfigured William Defoe the film has no artistic merit at all. Do not go and see this film unless you want to be contaminated by the director’s unfettered twisted vision.

7. I truly consider myself a feminist. I think women experiencing pleasure in the movies - and being in control of their sexuality - is a good thing. But this is soft porn disguised in an art film. It truly is. I couldn’t get through it. It feels more like a male fantasy than a female exploration of her own sexuality. I mean, the book was written by a guy and the film directed by a guy. Emma Stone’s Oscar winning performance is her bending over completely unclothed for a fat old smelly dude? Puh-leeze.

Patreon Post:

The Meaning of the Occult Symbolism in “Poor Things”

Upon seeing it, it stood out for a number of reasons.

It's a strong contender for one of the best films of 2023 - a year heralded as a "comeback" for cinema.

It features extraordinary performances, including an Oscar-worthy lead performance from Emma Stone (as of-writing, we have yet to see if she's nominated).

It's filmed as if through a sentient rainbow's vague memory of an 1800's chocolate shop.

But most of all, it stood out due to its esoteric symbolism.

A lot of commentators have used the term "Surrealism" to describe Poor Things. This is accurate - to an extent.

Unfortunately - as an increasingly meaningless crutch word, the term is synonymous with using "aesthetic" as an adjective, or "egregious" as the full-spectrum indicator of human grievance.

Or, as Moe Szyslak would put it:

"Po-mo... you know, weird for the sake of being weird."

That isn't to say Poor Things is weird for the sake of being weird. 

In-fact, it is surrealistic. 

As you might remember from a previous article here on Surrealism - this art movement is not just inseparable from the occult and socialism - it owes its existence to it. 

Poor Things itself makes explicit reference to Socialism throughout, but also (as this article will note) - implicit reference to the occult as well.

So, to start, let's have a look at the theory of Gnosticism.

Gnosticism

Gnosticism is a collective body of ancient writing having largely originated around the 1st century AD. The vast majority of texts were discovered in the Egyptian city of Nag Hammadi in 1945.

Essentially, the Gnostics looked at Christianity, and contended the recipe was nearly correct. 

Hollywood's Gnostic Gospel Exposed | LED Live • EP76:

Gnostic Propaganda in Hollywood Movies | LED Live • EP132:

However, they had a couple of updates (which, spoiler: the Church did not like).

In-fact, they argued that the protagonist of the original series (The Torah) was actually the antagonist of the sequel series (New Testament).

This was, of-course, a clever inversion of James Cameron's Terminator and Terminator 2: Judgment Day, in which the T-800 began the series as the antagonist, but then shifted to the protagonist in the sequels (simplified flowchart below for convenience). 

Despite this adroit intertextuality, overall Gnosticism was considered heresy by the Christian church. Largely because the further context the texts provided then prompted uncomfortable questions like:

• Were Adam and Eve prisoners in the Garden of Eden? 

• Were they 'liberated' by the Snake?

The underlying thrust of Gnostic texts was liberation - through the imparting of knowledge (no matter how unpleasant). Hence why "Gnosis" translates to "knowledge" in Greek. 

For example, although there is dispute as to whether the Gospel of Philip (found amongst the original Nag Hammadi texts) is canonical to Gnostic theory, it features a re-interpretation of the relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene as part of a broader sex magick ritual. 

The First Third

At this point, the parallels to Poor Things should be obvious.

The film's beginning takes place in paradise. Delectable foods, plenty of space to roam, and - much like the Garden of Eden - abounded with the hitherto unseen creations of God.

It should then be obvious why the characters all refer to Godwin by his shorter nickname (the much-more subtle "God").

The first important indicator we get that this is a Gnostic re-interpretation is the principle of inversion. The first, most-prominent inversion is that God(win) creates Eve first.

And as we soon find out, God(win) isn't just Bella's guardian, but her creator - and prison warden.

But of-course, "Prison" is only two letters away from "Paradise". 

And, in Gnostic theory, the God (called "The Demiurge") that we know only created the universe. 

Because the Demiurge only created this realm of existence (and evil exists in this realm), the Demiurge is considered a malevolent creator. 

The Demiurge also has a hang-up. 

As a lesser god, it stands subsumed in the shadow of its father (the 'true' god). 

Much like Godwin stands in the shadow of his own father throughout the film. 

And - after it's revealed that Bella is re-animated, we see Godwin in a slightly more malevolent light.

Why?

Because he is guilty of having imprisoned Victoria Blessington (the original Bella) - even after the release of death.

Escaping the Garden

In the Bible, Gnosis (translated as "knowledge") comes when Eve is tempted to bite the apple from the Tree of Knowledge.

Who tempts her?

The Snake.

In Poor Things, Gnosis comes when Duncan slithers and sneaks into the Garden.

Even Duncan's character-design and costume (which radically changes later in the film) is intended to be evocative of an old-timey conception of  'dastardly'.

Like the Biblical Snake, Duncan was not invited in, he snuck in. 

But a Gnostic re-interpretation would have the Snake / Duncan liberating Eve / Bella.

There's a decidedly sexual element to the Garden of Eden as well - you're not imagining things, sometimes a snake, isn't just a snake.

In much the same way that part of the Gnostic pantheon placed sex as an important liberating force - 

In what way does Duncan 'liberate' Bella?

Through sex.

Once she is liberated with Gnosis, her life is literally injected with colour. An understanding of how the world really is, so to speak.

Her journey of liberation isn't limited to sex, of-course, but it's an important metaphor for her earnest, and all-encompassing pursuit of Gnosis throughout the film. 

It's also a fantastic rebuttal for more prudish readings of the film that might contend that the sex scenes were an unnecessary distraction. 

Of-course, this is only the First Third of the film, and there is specific meaning imbued in the choice of colours for the film.

However, that's another theory, and for another time.

What we can note though, is that whatever journey Bella goes on, it completes itself Ouroboros-style when the film ends with Bella in her own garden - having come full circle.