Nothing in the below would actually spoil the experience of Poor Things for you if you’ve not read or seen it, but it does briefly mention some of the fictional events. If you want to go in knowing absolutely nothing about the plot, skip this post, though I’m not sure why you would want that.
A good piece which I agree with much of, and has me thinking on this issue from some new perspectives.
I do take issue with the description of my ‘outrage’, though. I don’t think I (or any other nats) have expressed anything but a bit of disappointment with Lanthimos. My follow-up National piece very much reflects the findings of our documentary, and certainly doesn’t represent a ‘cooling off’ from some state of rage since posting the doc.
I'm glad you enjoyed it! And thank you for engaging.
In hindsight (I wrote this post about a week ago) 'outrage' is definitely too strong; it was for rhetorical effect but I should have been more measured. My apologies. But certainly I did detect a 'cooling-off' at least in terms of tone between two different stages across the discourse as a whole; this included between your documentary and your National piece. If you think I was wrong to detect it then fair enough, I imagine you'll be more in touch with intra-nationalist discourse than me!
I notice your response to Neil Scott's post - I don't necessarily think you personally would have been throwing around accusations of colonialism had Lanthimos chosen to set the film in Glasgow. (I don't know you and all I know of you is your documentary, your article, and your very kind and charitable critical engagement here.) But I do think that the way Lanthimos has discussed about his decision to relocate the setting to London speaks of a certain fear of talking 'about Scotland'; and I think that's a fear that Gray and other prominent nationalists have cultivated, in many cases deliberately. As I said, pessimistic nationalism is far from the only strand of Scottish nationalism; it's not even the only strand of Alasdair Gray's (or Tom Nairn's) nationalism. But it is a major one.
Cheers for that. Some opinion and reporting around Poor Things that has misreported the discussion. I think the BBC said something about ‘frenzied debate’... for me, it has been a useful and very overdue discussion - and your piece here is another good contribution.
As a nat, your points around different nationalisms in the literary context are quite challenging and I’ll need the chew on them for a bit. I can certainly see how a director from outwith Scotland might look at some Scottish material and find it all a bit pessimistic.
A good piece which I agree with much of, and has me thinking on this issue from some new perspectives.
I do take issue with the description of my ‘outrage’, though. I don’t think I (or any other nats) have expressed anything but a bit of disappointment with Lanthimos. My follow-up National piece very much reflects the findings of our documentary, and certainly doesn’t represent a ‘cooling off’ from some state of rage since posting the doc.
I won’t bite on the Ossian issue.
I'm glad you enjoyed it! And thank you for engaging.
In hindsight (I wrote this post about a week ago) 'outrage' is definitely too strong; it was for rhetorical effect but I should have been more measured. My apologies. But certainly I did detect a 'cooling-off' at least in terms of tone between two different stages across the discourse as a whole; this included between your documentary and your National piece. If you think I was wrong to detect it then fair enough, I imagine you'll be more in touch with intra-nationalist discourse than me!
I notice your response to Neil Scott's post - I don't necessarily think you personally would have been throwing around accusations of colonialism had Lanthimos chosen to set the film in Glasgow. (I don't know you and all I know of you is your documentary, your article, and your very kind and charitable critical engagement here.) But I do think that the way Lanthimos has discussed about his decision to relocate the setting to London speaks of a certain fear of talking 'about Scotland'; and I think that's a fear that Gray and other prominent nationalists have cultivated, in many cases deliberately. As I said, pessimistic nationalism is far from the only strand of Scottish nationalism; it's not even the only strand of Alasdair Gray's (or Tom Nairn's) nationalism. But it is a major one.
Cheers for that. Some opinion and reporting around Poor Things that has misreported the discussion. I think the BBC said something about ‘frenzied debate’... for me, it has been a useful and very overdue discussion - and your piece here is another good contribution.
As a nat, your points around different nationalisms in the literary context are quite challenging and I’ll need the chew on them for a bit. I can certainly see how a director from outwith Scotland might look at some Scottish material and find it all a bit pessimistic.