A long, silly defense of Sucker Punch that seems to argue for the film as a kind of extended conceptual joke on its audience.
It's one of the first things that Sweet Pea announces: "Don't you get the point of this? It's to turn people on. I get the sexy little schoolgirl. I even get the helpless mental patient; that can be hot. But what is this? Lobotomized vegetable? How about something a little more commercial, for God's sake?" Because of all the stylistic and narrative roadblocks thrown up between the audience and the characters, it's nearly impossible to identify with them as "real" people. This leaves only one significant way to identify with anything in the film: the act of watching a spectacle.
This is how Sucker Punch implicates the audience that watches it; in the film, the people who are doing the same thing that we're doing are a parade of predatory men and powerless women.
This argument only makes sense if you accept everything but Baby Doll's fantasies as real. Whose point-of-view are we in when we're watching the brothel scenes? I've come to think it's Sweet Pea's, she's the "star" of the show and the most sexualized of the girls before Baby Doll arrives and the motif of "dancing" is her way of dealing with the far worse indignities that are visited on the girls. I can't accept that Snyder means us to critique our own response to the fantasy sequences, which are tied far too closely to images from genre film culture to be anything other than wish fulfillment.
0 Yorumlar