Sucker Punch Forum

• Add

 So, I guess this what me laying all of my credibility on the line looks like.  The movie is getting almost universally panned by critics, and the Screened community appears to have taken a generally negative stance on it as well.  I think a lot of the negative reaction came from expectations that people had about the film, most of which were left unsatisfied.  People saw the surrealist-fantasy-action sequences in the movie and wanted to go see a cheesy, over-the-top action movie ala 300 or even Kick-Ass.  What they got didn't resemble either of these things.
 
I'm not saying that this movie is a masterpiece, or that it deserves any great praise, but I am saying that it is a good film, and hopefully this blog will help people view it at a different angle than they initially saw the movie.  
 
SPOILER WARNING: For good measure, I am not going to be censoring myself about any aspect of the film, so it is inevitable my ramblings will go into spoiler territory, just a warning for those who care.
 

Review after review points out the same common complaints, and many are valid given the reviewers' overall opinion of the movie, so instead of trying to counter those, I'm going to go over a few of my own points based on how I think people misjudged the film.  Alright then, here we go
 

#1 Sucker Punch is more intelligent than audiences thought.

 

Once again, when people talk about this movie, almost all of their attention is focused toward the action sequences, seen in full effect above.  What they don't say, is that these sequences may not even take up a full-third of the films running time, as flashy and CGI-tacular as they are, they are not meant to be the only focus-point of the movie.  
 
What really is the main focus-point of the movie is the theme of oppression.  The main character Babydoll is oppressed by both her father, and later the asylum staff, and the film chronicles her struggle to fight back against them.  The way the film presents this is not over-the-top in the slightest, in fact in the entire opening sequence is presented as a sort of music-video, during which I audibly heard audience members complain about their confusion.
 
Soon, the Asylum turns into a Brothel (which I'll get into later), but the dark tone remains there, the girls are still remain captive there, and their danger remains very real. 
I chose to bring up this point first because it feeds into the other points I am going to make, so let the remaining points serve as more proof to this initial one
 

#2 Sucker Punch is not misogynistic

This is probably the biggest controversy surrounding Sucker Punch.  Despite being a film that wants to promote itself as a female-empowerment movie, the way it goes about it is sexist.  
 
There are people who stand under the idea that even if the film carries an anti-sexism message, the fact that they still dress-down the female-characters purely to titlate the audience kind of destroys any point they had.
 
Well, we live in a world where first person shooter videogames can carry an anti-war message, so I disagree with the above statement in the first place, but I don't think that the way the female characters were represented was purely out of a need to cater to the pervy-14-year-old-boy audience.
 
The movie takes place across three planes of reality.  The first one, The Asylum, is completely normal on the surface, it looks like a standard-issue mental hospital where everything goes according to plan.  Obviously, darker things are done on the side, and this is what leads to the manifestation of the second plane of reality.
 
The Brothel, which is Babydoll's interpretation of the Asylum, is a much more literal manifestation of what they do there.  The women are dressed down because they are completely under control of the men, and this is how the men view them, as their pretty little toys to do whatever they want with.  It sounds dark because it is.
 
But this feeds into the third layer of the film, the action-sequences.  While it's easy on a surface level to view the sequences as being everything the aforementioned pervy-14-year-old-boy would find "awesome", they are what they are for another reason.  Think about the four setpieces they use in the film.  A snow-covered temple filled with samurais, a war-tarnished battleground, a fiery dragon-lair, and, finally, a futuristic train/city.  These choices are interesting precisely because they are juvenile fantasies, they are all setpieces that are representative of masculinity, and the female characters are fighting against it.  
 
These action-sequences represent Babydoll dancing, and whenever she is about to dance the film cuts to one of these.  Earlier in the film the character of Sweet Pea talks about how dancing should be a reflection of oneself, and their inner-desires manifested.  This is exactly what we are seeing on the screen, Babydoll's inner-desire is to fight back from this male empowerment fantasy and turn the tables on them, establish control.
 
I can't say the action sequences weren't intended to appeal to a lower demographic, because from a marketing standpoint they obviously were.  What I am saying is that there is definitely an intelligent reason why they exist in the format that they do, and are not purely misogynistic testosterone-fests.
 

#3 Sucker Punch is a much darker film than people thought.

As stated before, the main theme of the movie is oppression, so it's naturally a dark movie, but let me just go down a checklist of plot points real fast.  
 
The first thing that happens in the movie is the killing of Babydoll's sister by her father, which she is blamed for and sent to the asylum, the father is able to pay off the head of the asylum to have her lobotomized ASAP, which happens to be five days from her arrival.  During her time in the asylum/brothel, she is witness one of her friends being stabbed to death, two of her friends being shot whilst unarmed and crying, and she herself is lobotomized.  If the movie were presented in a darker light, this would be one of the bleakest, most depressing movies ever, but it's not presented darkly.  It's presented from the viewpoint of a mind that is trying to cope with tragedy in an unimaginable hell.

 Thus, it's up to the viewer to piece together what is really happening, and once you climb that wall, much of the movie takes on an entirely new meaning.  A lot of people were put-off by the ending message of the movie declaring that our struggle is futile, and it will only end in failure.   I think the message of the movie is that if we truly fight with all of our strength, we can manage to make an impact in our situation, no matter how small.  Babydoll did succeed in letting Sweet Pea escape, and the head of the asylum, as well as her father are in police custody by the end of the film.
 
As I have described, much of the extremely dark plot is covered up by the presentation, which is done in an almost playful-fantasy setting.  There is a reason why it is done this way, but I haven't read anybody get it right, so, with my final point, I am going to give my interpretation

#4 Sucker Punch was not interpreted correctly

 



The beginning of the film shows Babydoll going to the asylum.  She has literally no dialogue during these scenes.  She looks into the asylum and sees all of the future characters, as well as all the "items" they will later need to obtain during the films plot.  The film then time-lapses to her actual lobotomy, up until the pike is literally about to go into her eyeball, and she grabs it and says "stop."  This is her first line of spoken dialogue in the entire movie, and is how the movie transitions the asylum into the brothel.  She literally gets up, walks into the other room, and it is a brothel.
 
How were people willing to just forget about that moment?  How can you accept an entire shift of setting and not question it?  I don't know how, but they apparently did, I really want to read someone else's interpretation of what they thought that scene represented.
 
My interpretation is fairly straightforward.  I believe that the film skipped over her five days spent in the asylum as a whole ,and at the very beginning of the film she was lobotomized.  In the moment of the lobotomy, she flashes back to the last five days and all the events that brought her to the table, with John Hamm's steely gaze upon her.  These memories are not how the events actually transpired however, and are crude re-imagining of them, mainly because while she's imagining them she has a fucking pike piercing her brain.
 
What I am suggesting, is that the movie did not show us events in real-time, we were not with Babydoll during her struggle to survive the asylum, we were with her after her plight had already failed.  In short, the entire movie is a fragmented flashback.
 
This explained a lot of the movie's surrealism to me, and I think if the movie did a better job at letting you know this is what actually happened, a lot of people would have appreciated it more, but they decided to play it more subtle.  There is no doubt in my mind that this is the actual intention of the director however, there is too much symbolism that this is the right interpretation. 
 
Take the action sequences.  If I recall correctly, each of them ends with her stabbing the last enemy in the brain.  This isn't just for flair, it's her actual situation, and her fleeting desire to turn it around to the opposite side.  
 
Before the twist in this movie, I was comparing it to the likes of Kill Bill and 300.  After, I am seeing more elements of Brazil and Jacob's Ladder.  I'm not saying that Sucker Punch is as good as either one of those films, but I think people need to view it as more of a psychological-action movie.  It is certainly different than anything I have seen before, and is far from the run-of-the-mill CGI-fest people are making it out to be.  
 
It may not be the greatest film ever made, but if people asked me if I got my eight dollars worth for the movie ticket, I would say hell yes.

I was waiting for this. Nice work; something like this takes guts. That said...I'm going to wait on reading it until I actually see the film due to spoilers.

I suppose it's refreshing to see a post that defends the film. Regardless, I'm getting quite sick of hearing about the film. 

#4 Sucker Punch was not interpreted correctly

 

"WE DIDNT GET WHAT HE WAS GOING FOR! OH WE GET ONE OF THESE IN THE CLASS EVERY YEAR".

I haven't seen the movie yet, but this seems like a well-reasoned argument for it. I think the biggest problem with the movie was that the marketing presented it as a straight action movie, when apparently it was something very different.

Most movies are rewarded for exceeded preconceptions. So the idea that this movie was too successful at exceeding expectations for the cavemen to understand is kind of silly. Nobody expected UP to start with 10 minutes of heart stabbing manipulation, but it did. People don't hate being surprised by depth, Im sorry. Critics avoid trailers, generally. All their preconceptions were based on the last Snyder movies they saw, with the fucking owls of Gools or whatever and Dr. Manhatten before that. It seems like, if anything, they were most prepared for what this movie was trying to do.

@ryanwho:  I'm not saying that it exceeded anybody's expectations.  I'm saying that it wasn't anyone's expectations.  That the movie itself was completely different from what anyone was expecting. If anything reviews have proved to me that critics weren't prepared for what the movie was going to do, because almost all of them describe the plot as "incomprehensible" or "nonexistent".
 
The opening ten minutes of Up was unexpected, but not to the same extent. Pixar is known for tugging at the heartstrings.
 
In the critics eye, I feel like this more akin to if Fast and the Furious Five was the deepest, most transcendental viewing of all time.  It might actually be true but no one will ever attempt to read into it that way because....well....it's Fast and the Furious Five.

@ryanwho: I'm more going to say that expectations were either to have a simple story a la 300 thrown at the audience or something incomprehensible requiring the audience to turn their brains off. When many people viewing the movie became confused by the not-so-simple story, they went with their other preconceived response and decided it wasn't ever going to make any sense. 
 
Also, we don't have a visual of her killing her last mark in the Samurai sequence; the fella simply falls down. However, the last guy we DO see her kill is shots through the eyes. I can't actually remember her last visualized kill in the WWI sequence, though in the next two it is absolutely through a blow to the brain. 
 
I pretty much agree with you on all counts. I rather enjoyed Sucker Punch, and I'd recommend it to just about anyone who doesn't feel instantly repulsed by video games or babes (while they're not Charlie's Angels bad or anything, they're still definitely babes.)

I just don't get this idea that 3 movies later, 300 is what shapes expectation.

@little_socrates:  Just to quickly clear up your confusion about the WW1 sequence, while she doesn't kill the last guy, she gives the impression that he is stabbed through the eye.  The camera then pans and shows that she stabbed the side of the bunker next to him, and then she takes the map and lets him live.
 
The symbolism is still there, however.

I agree on pretty much all accounts. My friend who was with me thought the brothel was real, and I tried to explain to him that in no way is real.
 
The only other thing I would add to your defense is the reason for the Brothel Reality is because the orderlies (and cook) are raping the girls in the asylum, hence the guy with the Fire being just a regular orderly, yet he is a high paying client. 
 
I'm going to go see it again today to test this theory out and see if I see more orderlies as clients, along with looking deeper into the action scenes. Good catch on that, when I read it I thought yeah she definitely shot the samurai twice, I believe in the same eye, maybe the same eye she got the spike through.
 
This film is kind of like a remake of 'Girl, Interrupted' but with the time manipulated and a heavy dose of awesome action.

Nice to see someone else defending this film. I liked it quite a lot, enough that I may go see it a second time in the theater, which is something I rarely ever do. It is true that the story seems to all take place in her mind as a fractured memory, but the question is how accurate is her memory? The supernatural parts of this story could be possible in the universe of the movie. If you go and read my review, I would be interested in what you think about my interpretation of the story really being about Sweet Pea's guardian angel using Babydoll to save Sweet Pea's life.

I had no trouble understanding the framework of the film at all, and I still think it is a steaming, misogynist piece of shit.

Wow, good synopsis. I don't think I came even close to figuring out any of the stuff you pronounced. I still enjoyed the film, but barely caught any of the subtle notes you've pointed out. Guess I'll have to go back and watch it again to see if I can pick those themes and images out. Bravo, good sir! Commendable!

@Sidescroller: I remembered the guy Babydoll spared, I was just wondering if you meant the guy before him. Still acceptable, of course. 

@Sidescroller: You do realize that when critics say the story is "nonexistant" they don't literally mean that there isn't any story, rather that it's too horrible to be worth anyone's time. I haven't seen the movie myself but you seem to have a very wrong interpretation of how critics think and work. 

very well said man. i, like many people, felt a little disappointed (or more) by the film, but I felt that there was something redeemable to be found here, and in some parts, I found the film very clever. I just wish the dialogue was up to par- that probably would've had people thinking on a much higher level, more open to some of the more... well... interesting parts of the film, like correlation between reality and dreamscape, and such.
 
great write up! i love your interpretation about the film as a flashback. that is an awesome thought.
 
edit: the notion of a lot of her enemies (mainly the big bosses) getting stabbed and/or shot in the brain is insane now that I think about it. I feel like Zack Snyder had a lot of good ideas and a very good film here, but a lot of it was bogged down by less than desirable acting and some other flaws.

You did a great job defending this movie.  As I've stated in my review, Sucker Punch isn't the worst movie I've ever seen, but it isn't the best, and it's not nearly as awful as every critic has panned it.

If the quality of a film is measured by the cryptic notes you hide in the margins, Richard Kelly's last 2 shitty films are secretly brilliant.

Excellent write-up. I agree and would also second the notion that this is not some sexist romp. Yes, the girls are depicted as incredibly sex-y, but it genuinely ends there. There are no sex scenes, no crude pole dances, no nudity, etc. There is so much that this film could have done that it avoided, in my view, because it was trying to be more intelligent. 
 
I may have had an advantage. I saw the film having no expectation. Hell, I never saw the trailer for it even, so I ended up being pleasantly surprised.