SPOILERS WITHIN!!!
The taste of a mass audience, with regard to certain movies, will always be a source of constant surprise to me. Every now and again a film will come along that's artistically daring and intelligent, plus it's balanced with a commercial sensibility that ensures that a mass audience can find it accessible. Christopher Nolan films are a fine example of this as both The Dark Knight and Inception fall into this category, scoring huge critical acclaim and massive box office tallys. But there's also a small contingent of these movies that are met with apathy, disdain and a dogged hatred. Such movies like The Matrix Reload, Hulk and Death Proof have visionary, auteur directors making thought-provoking stories within the boundaries of hugely commercial genres like sci-fi, comic books and slasher horror. Some are subversive, some are ground-breaking and some are dealing with themes seldom dealt with in mainstream cinema...and they're all unique artistic visions. But it seems that sometimes being commercial AND intelligent is to be scorned and derided rather than welcomed and applauded. Sometimes all a mass audience seems to want is the same old shit. And that's frustrating.
The latest movie to fit this mold is Sucker Punch. Judging by the stunning imagery in the pre-release trailers things were looking good for the latest offering by Watchmen and 300 director Zack Snyder, until the film was eventually seen by critics. Given that Snyder's work is highly stylised and aimed at a young demographic, some critical backlash was to be expected, but the near universal moaning from the online geek community (the very audience it's aimed at) has been astonishing. Perhaps some feel that it's time to tear Snyder down, just as the Wachowskis were for Reloaded or Ang Lee was for Hulk. Maybe it's because it's too arty, concentrating on thematic content over a standard story narrative or maybe because the film has an unexpectedly downbeat conclusion that flies in the faces of mainstream audiences. Which ever way you look at it, the negativity aimed at Sucker Punch has been spiteful and vicious. So why is it not true and why the backlash?
Well first off if Sucker Punch is on a movie scale with arthouse flick at one end and blockbuster at the other then it's a film that leans a little more towards art and a little further away from story. Also, in art terms, this is doing a few unusual things you perhaps wouldn't expect in a blockbuster. Many scenes, including the dialogue-less pre-titles sequence is played to a song (in this case a haunting reworking of Sweet Dreams Are Made Of This), prompting a reaction that you're looking at a pop video (or a string of pop videos). The action set-pieces are structured like computer games with an objective explained to you at the beginning, hidden moves and a 'boss' opponent to be fought at the completion of the level. Theatre and dance play a major part within the story and visual look of the film, characters adopt the powers and abilities of comic book characters and Snyder plays with as many cinema techniques as he can get his hands on. It's an intoxicating mix and if you're not into these kind of modern artistic expressions, or are overwhelmed by the rich mixture that you're being presented with, there's a danger you'll switch off rather than engage in the narrative.
Sucker Punch is a tribute to art, or more specifically contemporary pop culture (if you're OK calling that art), and how inspiring art can be whether it's dancing (it's no coincidence Baby Doll imagines a brothel theatre), gaming, music, pop videos, theatre, comics or cinema. Adopting Terry Gilliam's body-of-work mission statement evident in everything from Brazil, The Fisher King and Baron Muncheusen, Zack Syder tells us that not only is art a place to escape from the pressures and burdens of the real world, it can serve to inspire us into action, or to understand how to solve a problem, or to reassure or encourage us to conquer our fears when we're back in that real world.
In Art College I not only learnt a trade I also discovered what I liked in other art so that I could understand what I wanted to say as an artist myself. I like Sucker Punch so much because much of that theme that I discovered I wanted to talk about myself has been focused and concentrated down into it's purest form in Sucker Punch; it's perhaps the movie I would make if I made movies. That theme is simple. The world can be utter shit. Some of it you have influence over and some of it is beyond your influence, but you always have control over how you deal with the world psychologically. You're ability to survive the trails of life is down to how you view it. In The Shawshank Redemption, which also deals with similar themes, it's distilled this idea down to a single line of dialogue, "Get busy living or get busy dying." Life isn't about moaning about how unfair it is, it's about realising that you have the power to change it if your willing to find the courage to fight for what you want.
The film is also an examination of women in society, which has led to a little controversy. On the surface it's about provocatively dressed, attractive young women using their feminine wiles to hypnotise and outsmart the men that imprison them (whether it's in a mental institution or a brothel). In order to progress in society it appears to say that women must behave and dress like sex objects. And just like other subversive films like Blazing Saddles or Starship Troopers, if the surface is all you see then that message is all you'll get out of it. But by the time we get to the third act, that illusion is well and truly quashed. Sucker Punch suggests it's only by playing by the men's aggressive rules and by supporting and caring for each other and their interests that women will succeed and change society.
Both Shawshank and Sucker Punch have two inspirational heroes which, despite their prominence in the story, are not the main characters. In Shawshank it's Morgan Freeman's Red who goes on an emotional journey to emerge a changed character, and not Tim Robbin's inspirational Andy, who remains something of an enigma throughout. In Sucker Punch the attention revolves around heroine Babydoll, but by the time we've entered the multiple level dream worlds she escapes to, we've then met Sweet Pea whose journey as a character takes her from from doubting, inhibited and cynical to motivated, courageous and full of hope. This is very much The Shawshank Redemption for the X-Box generation.
Narratively Sucker Punch deals with the same story problems as The Wizard Of Oz, Alice In Wonderland (both of which are referenced), The Matrix and Inception in that it deals with a dream world as well as reality, which can be difficult communicating to an audience not versed in this kind of narrative twist. Like Inception the film is dealing with three or more levels of reality (action level, brothel level, asylum level...and maybe even cinema itself level) and the film also leaves you not knowing whether it's all just part of one person's imagination. The clue is the opening shot as a curtain is raised on the film, reminding you that this is just a made-up story and it's not real while the confirmation is Sweet Pea's narration which suggests the film isn't her story either and in fact belongs to the real story-teller (probably referring to writer/director Snyder himself).
Critically it's had a bashing. For the most part this has been from people who are either turned off by the extreme nature of the directing style (slo-mo, speed ramping, tons of CGI, loud pop music, etc) or because they didn't like or understand the story. To the first half of these people I say tough; if you don't like dragons fighting WWII bombers fighting hot samurai chicks while Skunk Anansie blasts then this isn't the film for you. More for me then. To the people who don't like the story then I suspect it's either down to the downbeat ending (it has to end this way as our heroine isn't completely innocent) or they're not paying attention. Not only do I feel that Snyder's made it pretty clear about which level of reality the characters are in, I found the voice over a little too blatant in the meaning of what's going on. Snyder's certainly gone out of his way to make it easy for the thickies, much more so than Guy Richie did for Revolver, another great movie that's heavy on arty subtext and slim on story.
There's a more sophisticated group of critics that dug the film but still had gripes about the story. Some complained that despite all the dazzle, Sucker Punch isn't saying anything original or telling a story that hasn't already been done already. On that count I'd certainly agree, although it's certainly doing it in a ways that's vastly different so it'll speak to a whole new generation (much as George Lucas did with old samurai and war movies when he created Star Wars). Some feel the film doesn't come together emotionally or thematically at the end which I'd strongly disagree with. While much of the massive action bombast dissipates in the final reel the way in which Snyder composes his shots, scores the scenes or paces the final revelations means the film is reaching its crescendo, not diving to it's doom. And to those who complain that it's impossible to care about characters in a dream world because there's nothing at stake, I'd point them in the direction of Inception which works perfectly. Besides, that argument always falls apart. You're watching a movie...a faked version of reality where nothing ever is real...so if you can get emotionally engaged in classics like E.T. or Goodfellas which are just as fake, you can get invested in this too. Besides, gamers get invested in the fakeness of Halo or Assassin's Creed and they don't even have narratives, so stop your bitching.
Things that stood out were strong performances by the Amazonian Abbie Cornish's Sweet Pea and kooky Jenna Malone as her fiery sister Rocket and Scott Glenn as the dream world's paternal wise man/ mentor character. Snyder's visual composition is virtually unsurpassed and his handling of the four fantasy action sequences blinding. The design work rivals that of a Tim Burton movie while the use and choice of songs (covers of The Smiths, Jefferson Airplane and The Pixies) is inspired.
It's not all perfect. The film favors a grainy look akin to Snyder's 300 which cheapens the effects (but it's all set in a fantasy world so who cares about realism), the actresses are all great although Emily Browning's Baby Doll is stronger silent than when she opens her mouth) and the film goes a little bit too far out of it's way in the final moments to explain it's theme (but it still doesn't ruin the ending).
It's a brave and unique mixture that, judging by the scathing critical response, not every body has got. The pop culture is off putting as are the seemingly objectified women. If you don't like music videos or musicals, you're cussed. If you don't like movies that leave you to work out what's happening rather than explain it then you're going to be annoyed or if you think that comic strip action movies are no place for pretentious cinematic storytelling devices then you won't like it either. But if you love pop culture art in all its many forms, love feel good movies and love highly stylised direction then you might just think this film was made for you.
