THE director of Poor Things, an adaptation of Scottish author Alasdair Gray’s 1992 novel, has addressed the controversy surrounding the film’s setting.
Despite the novel being set in Glasgow, where Gray is originally from, the film is predominantly set in London and across various places in Europe with no mention of the Scottish city.
Starring Emma Stone (below) in the lead role, the film tells the story of Bella Baxter – a Victorian woman brought back to life by scientist Godwin Baxter (Willem Dafoe) before she runs off across the continents with lawyer Duncan Wedderburn (Mark Ruffalo).
Yorgos Lanthimos responds to controversy as setting from original Alasdair Gray novel removed
Speaking to Little White Lies magazine, director Yorgos Lanthimos was asked about the decision to change the film’s main setting to London.
“Well, I think Alasdair probably wouldn’t be very happy about that, because he was a very proud Scotsman,” he said.
“But we give (Godwin) Baxter some of his character, and a Scottish accent. Alasdair was also a great inspiration for Willem (Dafoe) as a presence, so we filtered that through him.
READ MORE: Poor Things: What I thought of the film as an Alasdair Gray fanatic
“In the novel, the Scottish issue feels like a different part of the book, and I felt it would just be like trying to make two different films if I tried to put it into this version of the story.
“Once we decided that the point of view of the film was going to be Bella’s, and it was going to be her story and her journey, and working with an American cast, it just made more sense to contract things.”
The film has so far been met with critical acclaim and picked up two Golden Globes earlier this month.
READ MORE: Karen Adam and Kate Forbes join first episode of independence podcast
It is widely tipped to receive a number of Oscar nominations when they are announced at the end of January.
Former first minister Nicola Sturgeon was among those to weigh in on the change of setting, previously saying she was “curious” to see how it turned out following her re-reading of the original novel.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel