A man undergoes a radical transplant involving a goat brain. Is this act ethical or moral? It isn’t immediately clear. To explore the question, one should consider Yorgos Lanthimos’ striking film “The Wretched Poor.”
The film won two Golden Globes, including Best Motion Picture – Musical or Comedy, and earned four Oscars, among them Best Actress for Emma Stone. Variety magazine named The Lost Ones the movie of the year. There is a lot to discuss here.
Author Alasdair Gray’s 1992 novel “Poor Les Miserables” reimagines Shelley’s classic Frankenstein through a postmodern lens: a highly skilled scientist creates something deeply contradictory. In Lanthimos’ film, Emma Stone’s character embodies that contradiction. A scientist, played by Willem Dafoe, discovers the body of a pregnant girl who supposedly drowned in the River Thames during Victorian London. The story hints at a choice: the scientist could have brought the girl back, yet instead he reshapes the life by transplanting his unborn child’s brain into hers.
Throughout the film, imagery of cutting, tearing, and sewing pervades. Godwin Baxter, the scientist, bears the marks of a brutal past: his face is scarred and geometrically altered, his body bears burn marks, and his internal organs are arranged in an unusual, externalized fashion. A world of rough, almost animal-like beings—pig dogs and Kuroovites—moves through the scientist’s home. He travels the city in a steam car whose front is tinged with a horse’s head, while he spends his days examining corpses.
From these beginnings, the scientist creates Bella, an adult woman who speaks in fragments and moves with awkward, captivating grace. She learns quickly, speech becoming clearer, movements more precise, and she discovers sexuality and masturbation, marking a turning point in her self-understanding. The scientist’s brightest student is asked to study Bella, and a romantic possibility blossoms, hinting at a future marriage. A cunning lawyer then arrives, seducing the still-inexperienced Bella and steering her across Lisbon and into a global journey.
Some may find the plot intentionally provocative. It brushes against modern themes about autonomy, bodily independence, and power dynamics, while presenting provocative gender and moral questions. The film is accused of leaning on a contemporary agenda that places a woman’s self-discovery at the center, asserts control over one’s body, and portrays men as villainous, while suggesting redemption for those who serve a purpose. These elements are part of a larger conversation about how power and identity are negotiated on screen. This interpretation is one perspective among many.
Despite its lengthy running time, the film will challenge viewers. It can feel slow at moments, yet it compels attention with its artistic ambition. The most striking attribute is the art direction. The production design receives praise for crafting an environment that feels precise yet elusive. The cityscapes are recognizable without being fully replicable, creating a dreamlike version of urban life. Visual cues reference Notre Dame, Lisbon’s azulejos, and ancient ruins, establishing a sense of place that is both familiar and fantastical. The effect is a world that is memorable without dominating the frame, letting other elements shine.
The wardrobe supports this impression. Costumes blend authenticity with theatricality: maid aprons, elegant dresses, frock coats, and the unusual attire worn by the central character—shorts paired with a voluminous top—stand out against the period styling. A wintry Paris square, with snow sparkling in a funeral procession, reinforces the film’s theatrical mood and helps anchor the narrative in a striking visual moment.
In terms of narrative behavior, the lead character is portrayed as both sexualized and emotionally distant at different times, busy pursuing personal interests while appearing detached from others. The dynamics with other figures reveal a character who acts for self-interest, often without full awareness of her own motives. This creates a tense, provocative energy that keeps viewers engaged even as the plot challenges expectations.
In the broader context of contemporary cinema, the film sits among works where characters wrestle with inner turmoil and shifting loyalties. The cast and crew present a story about self-actualization in a world that prizes individual ascent, sometimes at the expense of communal norms. The result is a work that invites discussion about motive, identity, and consequence rather than delivering simple answers. This is a film that rewards thoughtful consideration and ongoing debate. It remains a bold artistic statement that lingers in the mind after the credits roll.
It is worth noting that Bella’s journey concludes within a relatively affluent, conventional domestic life, where daily routines reaffirm social roles. The comparison to the earlier, more chaotic experiments underscores a themes of restraint and stability amid the film’s earlier provocations. The memory of a man receiving a sheep brain serves as a reminder of the film’s surreal premise and the ethical questions it raises.
Overall, the film presents a provocative exploration of creation, power, and personal evolution. Its reviewers view it as a distinctive and consequential piece, one that invites careful reflection rather than straightforward judgment. The work stands as a conversation starter about how far science, identity, and society should push the boundaries of what it means to be human. The portrayal of Bella and the surrounding world remains a striking testament to this cinematic ambition. [Citation: Film interpretation and critical discourse]