Sucker Punch: Moulin Rouge + Bayonetta + Inception – Coherence


Okay, let’s get this post out of the way so I can use my words in more constructive ways. Yes, I just saw Zack Snyder’s Sucker Punch, and as a member of the nerd community I am therefore compelled to give up my thoughts. These are preliminary conclusions – more reaction than actual concrete theory – but I don’t want to spend too much time on it as America has had a week of arguing about whether it is sexist or the end of cinema etc. and so my wurblings already mean less than nothing. But hell, if I’m going to pay £17 to see a movie (in the afternoon! Not even at night when they jack the prices up!) then I’m going to at least get a blogpost out of it.

First thing’s first. Smarter and nicer people than I have already batted this around a lot, so if you want to understand the current state of play re: reaction to Snyder’s magnum opus, then you need to check out these:

All very good, and very thought-provoking. Which leads me to my first point; Snyder may have made a clunking, clattering, noisy and annoying failure, but he sure as hell got people talking, and I think that was his main goal anyway. Sucker Punch is designed to generate a reaction, though only occasionally does his filmmaking actually generate an emotional response other than numbed gurgling. I’m thinking here of the opening sequence; a dialogue-free and surprisingly nerve-wracking slow-motion prologue that sets out the stakes very quickly. It’s a bit unfortunate that the casting of Emily Browning means comparisons can be drawn to the Lemony Snicket movie (orphans, evil family members, etc), but this distraction means little.

My second point follows on from that. Snyder wanted to start a dialogue, but what was it? Sexism, exploitation, objectification and all that unpleasant jazz. The story is obviously drawing a line from familial sexual abuse, denigration and oppression of women, and the use of barbaric psychiatric regimes to deal with women who cause problems for their men, to the modern gender debate and the continued ill-treatment of women around the world. Snyder’s use of these emotive images and tropes is blunt, but then there is a real sense of anger here. You get the feeling he’s genuinely annoyed about these things, and sure as hell wanted the world to know about it.

So why the hot chicks in the sexy uniforms? Third point: nerd bait. Snyder wanted to give nerd culture a wake-up call about its objectification of women, and knew that we are all such snivelling little children that the only way for us to take the bitter medicine is to dress it up in sweet costumes and such. No nerd worth his salt is going to sit there and get told he’s wrong to have that poster of Megan Fox on his wall, so the Snyder-spider weaves a web and hides it behind a bunch of shots of Browning zipping around in a schoolgirl outfit with a samurai sword, and we multitudinous priapic clowns wander into the cinema and after a really quite boring 90 minutes of clumsy metaphor piled on top of clumsy metaphor… BAM! The equivalent of someone appearing on screen wagging their finger at the audience for being misogynists. I’ll give him this, it certainly wasn’t what anyone expected. Guess that “You Will Be Unprepared” tagline was right.

Point four: Is it gratuitously sexy? Yes, the ladies wander around in their smalls a lot of the time, but some of the money shots are surprisingly ambiguous. One slo-mo shot of the five girls walking in slow motion mimics some titillating Michael Bay-esque shot of models parading towards the camera, but the surroundings are more interesting. It’s the steampunk Nazi robot section of the movie, and they’re walking into a trench populated by “our boys”. What’s telling is that none of them look up, their eyes fixed down or away. As Snyder spends a lot of time focusing on eyes, there’s something being said about the Male Gaze here, perhaps that in Babydoll’s fantasy world she at least can escape that. In fact, the only man who looks at her (who even actually exists) in these fantasy worlds is Scott Glenn, and now that he looks like Leonard Nimoy’s older brother he arguably doesn’t pose a threat. He’s certainly a kindly old soul, though sadly lumbered with the worst dialogue.

In fact, the many tribulations of the five female characters very noticeably happen off camera, just as we do not see Babydoll’s supersexy dancing. All of the female characters who get killed have their moment of mortal wounding occur off screen, and when Babydoll dances we move into her fantasy worlds. Again, not what I was expecting. More to the point, the sexy costumes are less provocative than they seem at first, but as has been pointed out, there’s a difference between cosplay and dressing like a human being. Snyder is still making sure he adds the nerd bait with these costumes, and there’s just no point denying it, seeing as they add precisely nothing except sexiness to the plot. Such as there is one.

Point five: All of the nerd trappings here serve zero purpose, and – as has been pointed out before – are completely incongruous as Babydoll doesn’t seem to be the sort of person with a collection of Manga and video games in her sad room in the evil step-father’s house. They literally have no point whatsoever in the movie, but then the “sexy dancing” level of reality doesn’t either, other than as a way for Babydoll to process her experience in the mental institution. But then does that even exist, as the movie starts with Babydoll on a stage before she later sees the same stage in the institution? Are we just meant to assume that the movie is nothing more than a metaphor on every possible level, with only the wire framework of a narrative to keep us in our seats until the voiceover very bluntly tells the women in the audience to use their “weapons” to fight for themselves? If so, then Snyder’s need to lecture nerds about their unacceptable behaviour and immaturity could just as easily have been accomplished by putting some posters saying, “Don’t be such dicks” all around Comic-Con.

Point six: What the hell is this message anyway? I’m all for someone saying, “women deserve better than to be treated like objects for the sexual or visual gratification of the unevolved male”. I wholeheartedly endorse this message and am pleased to see Snyder is grappling with the way nerd culture has struggled to absorb this very simple idea into itself. Sadly, as Watchmen showed, Snyder can have a thought but have great difficulty expressing it very clearly. His love of Moore and Gibbons’ comic was obvious, so slavish was his imitation. However, the clunky failures of tonal translation were numerous, suggesting that while he loved the comic and wanted to show to the world just how strong that love was, he didn’t actually know why it worked, or why it has resonated with readers for decades. It was all surface. If he had understood it, he would see it needed to be ripped apart and put back together again for it to work. His love got in the way of the storytelling.

Same here. He really really really wants to make a big statement about sexism and objectification, and adds some interesting ideas (the covering and uncovering of female faces, the absence of actual names, the stretches where women are robbed of their voices, the facelessness of the male enemies in the sub-levels, etc.), but he doesn’t know how to put them together properly. It doesn’t help that his nerd-bait imagery gets in the way so much. They look sexy, and yet don’t and yet do. It’s iconography that gets in the way of the message while being necessary for the dissemination of the message and yet is utterly superfluous.

I’m having trouble describing the multiple cognitive disconnects needed to make sense of his haphazard jumble of meaning, but then in a way that perfectly describes it. He’s against the thing he’s using to show how he’s against it, but the reaction of the audience is not under his control. Whether he likes it or not, there are going to be audience members who think the talking got in the way of the hot chicks with the guns and stockings, and so should he have bothered putting it in in the first place? I think this is where Sucker Punch falls down the most. Certainly most of the to-and-fro in the blogosphere concerns the level of exploitation here, and whether it enhances or detracts from the message.

One thing is clear, though. In the immortal words of Groucho Marx, whatever it is, he’s against it. It’s impossible not to see that he’s struggling to say something, but he’s not a strong enough storyteller to get that point across without patronising the audience or realising that he’s muddling things up to the point that it’s impossible to pick through it. Maybe that’s actually intentional and he’s smarter than us: why bother making a clear point when we will do it all for him? Or he’s trying to make something for everyone. Titillation for the troglodytes, “empowerment” for the feminists. If so, he falls short on both counts, which, in the second case, is a shame.

What makes things worse is if we take his metaphors literally. Is he really saying to women that they have the advantages because while men are murderous rapists who treat women like possessions, we’re also so boner-obsessed that whenever the ladies dance all sexy-like, we literally fall into a stupor, enabling the canny women to get their way? There is not enough WTF in a million sub-levels of mental reality to even begin to cover this cheeky and absurd idea that manages to insult both genders simultaneously. Shake that booty, ladies, then pick our pockets! That’s using your “weapons”, all right! What a fucking awful world-view. What a reductive and insulting way to address the gender debate of our time. It’s the sort of fucked-up philosophy you’d hear some “nice guy” coming up with. “You women are so awesome, and powerful, and so in control of your sexuality. Nobody else out there understands how awesome you are. Except me. Now please go out with me.” No no no no wrong wrong wrong please stop.

So is there anything worthwhile in the movie besides the mish-mash of misogyny, misandry and feminism? Abbie Cornish is pretty good (though it’s sad to see her here after being so good in Bright Star), as is Jena Malone, both of whom are better at breathing life into the cyphers they are playing than anyone else in the cast, though Oscar Isaac makes a very hissable villain. Carla Gugino’s accent is… not the worst thing I’ve ever heard. The action scenes are occasionally well-staged, with some being surprisingly clear and others being a headache-inducing barrage of… splarg is the only word I can think of to describe it. The robot level was quite clever; a “single shot” that goes on for a while and flies around all over the place. There was a nice shot involving mirrors at one point, but after Black Swan – surely the most mirrored movie ever made – it was just unnecessary. Scott Glenn seemed to be having a good time. The dragon was pretty. The godawful cover versions of good songs end eventually. Erm… It was fun spotting all of the nerd iconography: steampunk, orcs, single-shot pistols, samurai swords, miniguns, etc. Sad that none of it was there for any reason other than that Snyder wanted to cover all of his bases. There’s a thesis to be written about his use of that iconography, though it would only ever get a C- at best.

The only other thing to praise is its ambition. It fails pretty spectacularly at almost everything it attempts to achieve, but it is trying to do – and say – something. That’s something that it has over just about every movie that will be released for the rest of the year. It’s just a shame that Snyder didn’t sit down and work out exactly what he wanted to say before he made this garish and needlessly complicated nerd epic, a movie that desperately wants to mean something but ultimately means nothing.

About these ads

3 thoughts on “Sucker Punch: Moulin Rouge + Bayonetta + Inception – Coherence

    • That pretty much sums it up. It’s a fascinating curio that is unutterably boring and stupid. It’s only really worth it to see someone try to work out his issues using $80m of someone else’s money.

  1. As always, I almost totally agree with your thoughts on a film, and the way you put them, and only seem to diverge on semantics/taste. I jabbed off a bunch of tweets at you, but I’ve pulled them together here instead, which is why this is going to seem disjointed as hell. Sorry!

    I love that you mention Moulin Rouge in your title. Sucker Punch is basically Moulin Rouge if you swap out the word “musical” for the words “action movie”: A fairly typical or traditional period piece, even with similar-ish subject matter, told in a totally anachronistic and feverish format – there are a lot of textual and contextual similarities there, and both films are similarly incoherent narratively.

    I think the level of objectification and sexualising are pretty similar in the two films… And here’s maybe where I was probably most out of synch with your post. In the context of this film at release, with all the buzz and promo material that we were seeing, and subsequent commentary on that promo material, it was kind of inevitable that we’d see that film through that prism, and that you’d talk about it in your post. Although you don’t think the film is sexist, or aims to be titillating, it was something that culturally had to be addressed, and I think your post shows a clear tension between not really thinking that’s the main issue but feeling pressure to discuss it anyway.

    With the distance of time, it seems even weirder to me reading about that aspect of the film, because any stills we see from it actually look almost naively tame. Even scenes with the characters in their underwear are more reflective of what would have been suggestive in the vaguely defined era the film was set in, rather than present-day Hollywood. I think a lot of the commentary at the time focused on the infantilising of the main character, and that may stand, but the actual representation of her, bare midriff aside, was a far cry from the titillation that the response suggested.

    Those fantasy versions of the characters aren’t much more than archetypes, which IS reductive, but in a way that isn’t entirely gendered: action stories trade on archetypes, and in that first wave of posters that triggered so much early discussion and derision, those archetypes were “child, knight, soldier, pilot, whatever the fuck Rocket was meant to be… engineer?”.

    So after suggesting it’s a shame that so much discussion of this film revolved around what was a bit of a non-starter, I’ve just gone on about it. And in such a half-arsed way. Sorry!

    Other than that, I LIKED the music, which makes a surprising amount of difference to one’s enjoyment of the film. I never really grew out of the love I had of the Judgment Night or Tank Girl soundtracks, which had a really similar approach to them.

    I’m also pretty sure John Glen’s lines were SUPPOSED to sound like that. It isn’t really bad dialogue, so much as he talks in non-sequitir aphorisms and philosophical or chest-beating sound-bites. He’s SUPPOSED to be their mentor, but his advice is largely superficial: ultimately, they always have to rely on each other, and act on their own agency. If Snyder’s making a point with that character at all, I think it’s about action movies first, and maybe patriarchy a distant second.

    Don’t ask me why he turns up at the end, in what we’re supposed to think of as the “real” world. I never worked out the answer to that in Time Bandits, and I’ve had thirty years on that one.

    Also don’t think every bit of fantasy is intended as commentary so much as Snyder was tripping hard on Alice In Wonderland, which I can relate to. If it was as easy to make a movie as it is to write a song or a novel, I think we’d let a lot more of this stuff pass as texture, but it isn’t, so we don’t.

    FINALLY Watchmen, which understandably I’ve thought about A LOT: You’re right that a contributing factor to how great it wasn’t is how slavish a copy it was, and that it also “missed the point”.
    However, I think the deck was always stacked against Snyder, there, and there isn’t as much of a causal link between those two factors as seems apparent.
    Watchmen was entirely a “Because We Can” endeavour, and I’d posit that we may have just seen the best possible movie version of that comic that we could’ve got, because at least Snyder largely nailed the visual elements of it – not every director could have.
    But Watchmen is SO reliant on the form of the comic medium, the way that it was originally released, and the context of 50-odd years of superhero comics preceding it, (as well as the paranoia of the eighties), that we were never going to see a film that “got it” in anything but the most superficial, narrative elements. The story is largely there, the only major change made to it making sense in the context of adapting it into a shorter, moving pictures friendly form.

    (As an aside, I think the only thing stopping it being a perfectly good precis of the Watchmen “story” is that Snyder was sticking so close to the source material that he’s managed to replicate the episode breaks/issue structure, which creates this oddly soporific pulsing flow to the whole thing, which doesn’t work that well in film.)

    To really make a Watchmen film that stood a chance of replicating the source material’s cultural impact, they’d have had to either make it a film “about” other superhero films, or make it a film “about” other films, threading updated cultural commentary throughout and going the full-meta. But in either case, they wouldn’t have actually been making a Watchmen film, so there’d be no point. You could do it, but people wouldn’t watch it in the numbers you needed them to to make it viable.

    What your post made me wonder aloud, as an interesting thought experiment, was “Did Snyder get nearer to making a Watchmen film with Sucker Punch?”. It’s a failed endeavor on many levels, sure, but it is a film with populist sensibilities that uses that platform for both cultural commentary and meta-textual examination of its own genre, which means it’s got more in common with Moore & Gibbon’s comic than the OTHER movie did.

    AND BREATHE.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s