Sucker Punch - Symbolic? It's more likely than you think! (spoilers)

Pages

Either that, or be an extension of Baby Doll's damaged psyche instead of a mash-up of Snyder's geek fantasies.

Truth be told, I don't mind that it was a bunch of action sequences where the story was an after-thought to give it a purpose. Not every film has to have a higher call to existence, and when you get right down to it Sucker Punch did a really good job of adding meaning to an otherwise meaningless experience.

I mean, this was always intended to be a balls-to-the-wall action film. There was no doubting that. So was The Matrix. The difference is that I feel Zack Snyder tried to approach things from a more artistic direction despite having a simple story whereas the Wachowski Brothers tried to take a simple story and make it seem complex. Both films are excellent, but when you get right down to it they didn't start with the plot. They started with someone saying "Dude, you know what would be totally sweet?"

I went in expecting this film to be simple and that I wouldn't think at all, and yet I've been having discussions with people here as to what certain things mean. When you get right down to it, I got more than I bargained for.

I think the problem is anyone that expected more than an action film.

I get your complaints. Truly I do, as I have leveled them to other films myself. I tend to get bored with highly-choreographed fight scenes, especially when they have shaky-cam, but for some reason Sucker Punch was just a fun experience (except for the first half of the train mission. At that point I was bored by the action and just wanted the plot to really move...and it did!).

ccesarano wrote:

I mean, this was always intended to be a balls-to-the-wall action film. There was no doubting that. So was The Matrix. The difference is that I feel Zack Snyder tried to approach things from a more artistic direction despite having a simple story whereas the Wachowski Brothers tried to take a simple story and make it seem complex. Both films are excellent, but when you get right down to it they didn't start with the plot. They started with someone saying "Dude, you know what would be totally sweet?"

They might have started the same way, but there's a big difference in how The Matrix and Sucker Punch handle their action sequences. The Matrix uses its action to develop its story, characters and world. For instance, when Trinity does her reality defying wire-fu it tells us a) something weird is going on here b) Trinity is badass, and when she then runs her ass off to get away from the agents you know c) Agents are to be feared, setting the stakes for all the fights to come.

Sucker Punch has its first action sequence start with a giant samurai kicking Baby Doll in the stomach, sending her flying across the temple, and then getting up no worse for it. Which sets the stakes and lays out the rules too, in a way; it establishes that there are none.

I think the problem is anyone that expected more than an action film.

I didn't expect more than an action film -- although I'd argue that Sucker Punch in a way *tries* to be more than that -- I just expect certain things from action films that it failed to deliver on. Characters I care about, tension, excitement, stuff like that.

(except for the first half of the train mission. At that point I was bored by the action and just wanted the plot to really move...and it did!)

I was so annoyed with the way it cut away from the fantasy there. I wanted it to play out until the end, and then cut to the aftermath. If you're going to do layered fantasies, at least have the guts to commit to the device.

wordsmythe wrote:
MechaSlinky wrote:
wordsmythe wrote:

Intentionalism?! Fie upon't, foh! What the director intended to produce doesn't mean squat in light of what was actually produced.

MechaSlinky wrote:

it assumes that authorial intent should be taken into account when critiquing an artistic endeavor, which I'm actually not sure it should.

Although, I really should've just said, "which it largely shouldn't." I mean, if someone intends their movie as a drama then judging it as a comedy is rather silly, but apart from basic stuff like that, yeah, I'm with you.

I've seen plenty of things that were intended to be serious but were unintentionally hilarious. I've seen plenty of things that were intended to be funny but were absolutely not.

You know what I mean, damnit. If you were to say Inception fails because it's rarely funny, then you'd be wrong. If you were to say The Happening fails because it's not scary, you'd be right. If you were to say it was the funniest movie of 2008 (or whenever the hell it came out) you'd also be right.

Alien Love Gardener wrote:
MechaSlinky wrote:

Basically, I was saying I like the movie for exactly the reasons why you don't like it. What you see as flaws, I see as wonderfully alternate methods of storytelling.

I'd genuinely like to know what you see those action segments as doing. I can't see the alternate methods of storytelling because I see no story being told. The action fantasy layer has no relation to reality or the brothel delusion, and what happens there tells us nothing new about anything. If you cut them out, you'd miss absolutely nothing.

In fact, I'd argue the action segments both hurts the rest of the movie by being in there, and are *hurt* by being set as fantasy sequences. If you'd removed them and presented them as separate entities, I'd probably enjoy them as silly little action viginettes on youtube or something. And if they weren't present as masses of dead weight in the movie, I'd probably like the rest more as well.

I'd have to watch the movie again to really figure out what I think about the action sequences. I can't exactly disagree with what others have said about them. They're probably right. I don't mind, since I really enjoyed the action sequences just on the visceral and visual levels, and I don't have a problem with a movie taking a step back for a few minutes of fun that doesn't advance the plot in any way.

I mean, yeah, they're metaphorical of the inner and outer struggles of Laura. They could also be metaphors for Baby Doll's sexy dancing, which itself is an expression of the pain and hopes and whatsits of Laura, blah blah blah, but I don't exactly know how clockwork Germans (were they nazis? That battle made me think more World War I than II, but it's not like it was historically accurate or anything) directly relates to anything happening the real world or the brothel world.

Other than the train robbery, since we get to directly see the parallels between the fantasy and the double-fantasy. And the first fight, since it's about her finding the inner strength to start her journey.

Perhaps the other fantasy sequences were just Laura escaping into a fantasy world where she kicks ass so that she doesn't have to relive the painful memories brought up by Baby Doll's dancing, which could be representative of Laura's turn to talk during group-therapy.

I may like the movie, but I don't have it all figured out yet.

Alien Love Gardener wrote:
(except for the first half of the train mission. At that point I was bored by the action and just wanted the plot to really move...and it did!)

I was so annoyed with the way it cut away from the fantasy there. I wanted it to play out until the end, and then cut to the aftermath. If you're going to do layered fantasies, at least have the guts to commit to the device.

Yeah, that probably would've worked better.

MechaSlinky wrote:
wordsmythe wrote:
MechaSlinky wrote:
wordsmythe wrote:

Intentionalism?! Fie upon't, foh! What the director intended to produce doesn't mean squat in light of what was actually produced.

MechaSlinky wrote:

it assumes that authorial intent should be taken into account when critiquing an artistic endeavor, which I'm actually not sure it should.

Although, I really should've just said, "which it largely shouldn't." I mean, if someone intends their movie as a drama then judging it as a comedy is rather silly, but apart from basic stuff like that, yeah, I'm with you.

I've seen plenty of things that were intended to be serious but were unintentionally hilarious. I've seen plenty of things that were intended to be funny but were absolutely not.

You know what I mean, damnit. If you were to say Inception fails because it's rarely funny, then you'd be wrong. If you were to say The Happening fails because it's not scary, you'd be right. If you were to say it was the funniest movie of 2008 (or whenever the hell it came out) you'd also be right.

But you don't need the director's word to know that Inception isn't a comedy or that The Happening is supposed to be suspenseful. You can get plenty of that information from cues in each film (really, you can get it from the music alone) within the first few minutes.

I think they could have made the violence in the Asylum world just as compelling. The girls are there because they are crazy and violent (assumed). It would have been cool (and empowering) to watch them find their courage and kick the sh*t out of the people terrorizing them. An once of crazy and sprinkling of desperation can turn a 110lb girl into a wolverine with rabies.

wordsmythe wrote:
MechaSlinky wrote:
wordsmythe wrote:
MechaSlinky wrote:
wordsmythe wrote:

Intentionalism?! Fie upon't, foh! What the director intended to produce doesn't mean squat in light of what was actually produced.

MechaSlinky wrote:

it assumes that authorial intent should be taken into account when critiquing an artistic endeavor, which I'm actually not sure it should.

Although, I really should've just said, "which it largely shouldn't." I mean, if someone intends their movie as a drama then judging it as a comedy is rather silly, but apart from basic stuff like that, yeah, I'm with you.

I've seen plenty of things that were intended to be serious but were unintentionally hilarious. I've seen plenty of things that were intended to be funny but were absolutely not.

You know what I mean, damnit. If you were to say Inception fails because it's rarely funny, then you'd be wrong. If you were to say The Happening fails because it's not scary, you'd be right. If you were to say it was the funniest movie of 2008 (or whenever the hell it came out) you'd also be right.

But you don't need the director's word to know that Inception isn't a comedy or that The Happening is supposed to be suspenseful. You can get plenty of that information from cues in each film (really, you can get it from the music alone) within the first few minutes.

Indeed. So the problem here is that I was misunderstanding the definition of intentionalism.

Yeah, intentionalism either drives from or towards the creator's intent. I'm only OK with that in theology.

Yeah. Basically, I was thinking that it was still intentionalism if you were getting those intentions purely from the content of the work.

I saw this the other day, honestly it was kind of boring... Some cool scenes tho, but about halfway through I started to think the action scenes would be REALLY boring if it was a guy instead of a girl.

Mex wrote:

I saw this the other day, honestly it was kind of boring... Some cool scenes tho, but about halfway through I started to think the action scenes would be REALLY boring if it was a guy instead of a girl.

Sounds sort of like an inverse Bechdel test.

I just watched it a few weeks back and enjoyed the movie. I'm looking forward to the director's cut. Its not a movie I would recommend since it is kind of out there sort of.

Finally saw this. I liked the soundtrack.

The fight scenes should have been a big draw but I actually didn't pay that much attention to them. Not only were they not real, I couldn't really see how they directly corresponded to what was going on in the burlesque house fantasy, nevermind the real world. So while they were visually interesting, I didn't find them engaging. As a comparison, I loved 300 and its fight scenes.

I felt so disconnected from the story because the film so quickly and abruptly goes from taking place in an asylum to taking place in a burlesque house. Right off the bat there's the "Huh? What's going on?" feeling that the movie never really recovers from.

Quintin_Stone wrote:

Finally saw this. I liked the soundtrack.

The fight scenes should have been a big draw but I actually didn't pay that much attention to them. Not only were they not real, I couldn't really see how they directly corresponded to what was going on in the burlesque house fantasy, nevermind the real world. So while they were visually interesting, I didn't find them engaging. As a comparison, I loved 300 and its fight scenes.

I felt so disconnected from the story because the film so quickly and abruptly goes from taking place in an asylum to taking place in a burlesque house. Right off the bat there's the "Huh? What's going on?" feeling that the movie never really recovers from.

I'm kind of the opposite. I'll catch this on cable, tune in only for the fight scenes and skip the rest. To me, they are completely separate vignettes without story...just visual setpieces that I found I enjoyed watching.

Oh yeah, saw this a few months ago.

Quintin_Stone wrote:

Finally saw this. I liked the soundtrack.

The fight scenes should have been a big draw but I actually didn't pay that much attention to them. Not only were they not real, I couldn't really see how they directly corresponded to what was going on in the burlesque house fantasy, nevermind the real world. So while they were visually interesting, I didn't find them engaging. As a comparison, I loved 300 and its fight scenes.

I felt so disconnected from the story because the film so quickly and abruptly goes from taking place in an asylum to taking place in a burlesque house. Right off the bat there's the "Huh? What's going on?" feeling that the movie never really recovers from.

Sums up my thoughts so exactly it's a little scary.

I had a similar reaction when it finally showed up from Netflix last month. I'd forgotten it was even in my queue.

Fight scenes looked great, but were fairly uninteresting on the whole. Everything felt disjointed and kind of... off.

MrDeVil909 wrote:

Sums up my thoughts so exactly it's a little scary.

I live in the walls of your house.

Quintin_Stone wrote:
MrDeVil909 wrote:

Sums up my thoughts so exactly it's a little scary.

I live in the walls of your house.

He mostly comes out at night. Mostly.

Quintin_Stone wrote:

I live in the walls of your house.

Describes every game of The Sims I ever played.

Edwin wrote:

Crap... now I want to watch it again... I love learning about and discussing these deeper subtexts.

The one thing that really irritated me about Sucker Punch was it's audio mix though. I have no issue with introspective moments cutting dramatically to a wild, rich crazy scene. What really bothered me was the way the audio mix would jump to blazing loud, badly performed cover songs during those intense scenes. It was a bit too much most of the time. I think I wore the batteries out on my remote adjusting it.

I really enjoyed that interpretation, and it brought new context to the High Roller scene that was cut out of the theatrical release. When I watched the extended version I thought that was really out of place, which is perhaps what a lot of initial viewers thought as well.

Though it also works in that the High Roller was the same actor as the doctor, and Babydoll indeed gives herself up to the doctor for a lobotomy by choice. But this interpretation really brought one thing to light: it always seemed odd how clearly fake the sky was in the ending segment, how CG it all was. I felt like Zack was trying to communicate something, but couldn't piece why that would still be a fantasy. The idea of all of it being a fantasy and Babydoll and Sweet Pea being the mind and body of one person actually makes sense.

I hope this movie gets studied enough that it isn't buried into obscurity, because there is a lot more going on here than a lot of people realize.

There is a lot going on, but it mistakes trying to allude to something with having something interesting to say. In the end, it basically makes a case for why movies like this are crap. Most people didn't need the instruction to get that.

And this analysis was basically cribbed from Movie Bob's, and still as shallow pretending to be deep.

I don't think the problem is that people didn't "get" Sucker Punch. There has already been plenty of conversation in this thread about empowerment vs. exploitation, the interpretation that Sweet Pea was the main character, and most of the other things mentioned in the video.

The problem is that people didn't like Sucker Punch. It's all well and good for a film to try to explore complex issues, but there still needs to be an actual film in there somewhere. "Girl uses her imagination to escape horrible situations" isn't really enough plot to support an entire movie. There's not a whole lot of character development, and there are no real goals being accomplished since everything is imaginary. The majority of the movie is just fanwanky CG filler sequences. It's pretty, but it's empty.

I also disagree with his interpretation of the end of the movie. Retreating into your head and submitting to a lobotomy isn't some noble victory, it's a surrender. "They may control her body, but they'll never control, her mind?" They just stuck a pick in her brain and permanently altered her mind. Specifically, the part of her mind responsible for "planning complex cognitive behavior, personality expression, decision making and moderating social behavior" -- most of the things that define who you are as a person. Plus, when you look at the lobotomy scene alongside the High Roller scene there are some really unfortunate rapey overtones.

I got pretty much all that from my one viewing of this movie. But what I hated about the movie, this guy is guilty of too. He ends his video with "...or guys could stop being such depraved perverts... yeah, good luck with that." But there's a difference between enjoying fiction involving pretty and powerful women, and being a guy who rapes, molests and enjoys holding power over women. The movie doesn't make that distinction, but instead draws people in with its provocative and action packed advertizing and stylized movie posters, and then condemns all men for wanting to watch such a movie.

I'm also going to tear into that YouTube video on a similar premise to TScott, using the video's own tools.

The narrator is endorsing abuse.

The narrator openly approves of "inverting" the abusive dynamic. Women can damage psychologically as hard as men can damage physically. Inverting is an important word: It does not exist to end abuse, but to endorse the continuation of abuse. After this point, the narrator also begins making blanket statements against an entire gender, and judging them worthy of scorn for what they were born with just below the waist.

The last lines of the video project the thesis of this video brilliantly. "Or, guys can learn to stop being such depraved perverts. Yeah. Good luck with that." The video effectively ended with gender based, stereotyped verbal abuse.

I loved the movie because its theme was empowerment. It stuck to that theme hard, even when most movies might have regressed into victim mentality. Yes. Empowerment and choice for everyone. It's very sad that this man reacted to the movie's theme by encouraging the very opposite of that theme.

Finally saw this on FX with the basic cable premiere today.

Weird.

Trying to read this thread, and might check out that youtube video above before I ask more questions.

Pages