![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Movie Bob has a defense of Sucker Punch up. This makes me happy, because I genuinely enjoyed Sucker Punch (more than I enjoyed many better reviewed action movies, including The Avengers), and because there's enough clues to make me think there's a hidden level of depth that would justify its existence. I've never quite managed to fit those clues together into a cohesive hole and never found anyone on the internet who agreed with me, so a two-part defense of the movie was promising.
Alas, Movie Bob did not flesh out my theory that there was only one set of sisters and Babydoll or Sweet Pea a projection and/or alternate personality of the other. Instead, he focused on demonstrating that the film was not a glorification of sexualized violence, nor a [criticism of glorification of sexualized violence] that nonetheless glorify sexualized violence, but a criticism of [[criticisms of the glorification of sexualized violence] that nonetheless glorify sexualized violence]. He makes a stunningly good case for this, which is not hard to do when the movie just up and calls you a piece of shit for finding it sexually arousing. No seriously, it does that, and I don't dispute it. The problem is that it still glorifies sexualized violence.
At one point*, movies were allowed a great deal more sexual content if they had "socially redeeming content". One pornographer responded by shooting the movies he wanted to make anyway, and tacking long moral speeches onto the end. It fulfilled the letter of the law, but it doesn't mean people weren't going to the theater for the express purpose of jerking off, or that the moral messages improved anyone, ever.
Coming at it another way: as video games mature as an art form, they're starting to get very high concept stories. But often the moral message of the story conflicts with the message inherent in the game's mechanics. The classic is Bioshock, whose story is severely critical of objectivism, but has large mechanical rewards for hurting other people. The only reward for being a Good Person is a sunnier ending.** Contrast with two video games that are also good comparisons with Sucker Punch: Psychonauts (where you spend several levels helping patients in a mental ward work out their traumas by going into their brain and manipulating their metaphors), and Lollipop Chainsaw, (impossibly hot high schooler kills zombies in such a manner as to give you as many upskirt shots as possible). Each level of mechanic and story in Psychonauts reinforces the next one. The collectibles are "mental figments", which are images related to the environment or the person's mental state. You also try to match up "emotional baggage" with appropriate tags, and see a formative memory if you succeed. The levels themselves are extended metaphors for the person's mental state (like defeating the actress's inner critic so her inner glow will once again light up the stage, or running across a battlefield in the mind of a wanna-be soldier). And many of the levels support the meta-narrative on the relationship between parents and children.
I haven't played Lollipop Chainsaw, but this Jim Sterling makes a strong case that it handles the exact same objectification issues that Sucker Punch does, but better. The boyfriend is objectified by the family in cut scenes, but he is also literally objectified by the protagonist using him as a projectile to stun zombies. And even then, it's unclear to me that this mitigates the cosplay-based rewards system. I want to verify this for myself eventually, but fuck paying $40 for a four hour game that everyone has described as mediocre mechanics at best.
Sucker Punch's criticisms of what I will now abbreviate as GOSV are neutered by the fact that sexualized violence is made to look awesome. If it wanted to criticize GOSV, it would sexualize the characters without making them so damn sexy. This is not a contradiction. There are a million ways to make people look sexualized while also making them unattractive: overdo the makeup to clown whore levels. Ill fitting clothing. Clothing, make up, or lighting that doesn't work with the person's skin tones. Clothing with an attractive silhouettes but ugly or clashing patterns. Using fashions from a different era, which we recognize as an attempt to look attractive without finding them so. Using body types considered fashionable in another era but not this one. Bad skin. Bad hair. Extreme youth or age (although the youth one is increasingly hard to pardoy). A hacking cough or other indicator of illness. Asymmetry. The Mr. Brightside video managed it. Or you could work on the violence end of things: it's not hard to make violence look unpleasant.
But Sucker Punch uses very pretty people in very pretty outfits doing very pretty violence. It's the equivalent of a video game that scolds you for rifling through all the villagers' chests but has no mechanical consequences for doing so. And given that, it's logical for viewers to assume the scolding that follows is just to make the censors happy.
*I wish I knew more. Unfortunately my cite for this is "my dad said this one time"
**Full disclosure: I only got half an hour in to Bioshock, the conclusion is based on reviews I've read.
Alas, Movie Bob did not flesh out my theory that there was only one set of sisters and Babydoll or Sweet Pea a projection and/or alternate personality of the other. Instead, he focused on demonstrating that the film was not a glorification of sexualized violence, nor a [criticism of glorification of sexualized violence] that nonetheless glorify sexualized violence, but a criticism of [[criticisms of the glorification of sexualized violence] that nonetheless glorify sexualized violence]. He makes a stunningly good case for this, which is not hard to do when the movie just up and calls you a piece of shit for finding it sexually arousing. No seriously, it does that, and I don't dispute it. The problem is that it still glorifies sexualized violence.
At one point*, movies were allowed a great deal more sexual content if they had "socially redeeming content". One pornographer responded by shooting the movies he wanted to make anyway, and tacking long moral speeches onto the end. It fulfilled the letter of the law, but it doesn't mean people weren't going to the theater for the express purpose of jerking off, or that the moral messages improved anyone, ever.
Coming at it another way: as video games mature as an art form, they're starting to get very high concept stories. But often the moral message of the story conflicts with the message inherent in the game's mechanics. The classic is Bioshock, whose story is severely critical of objectivism, but has large mechanical rewards for hurting other people. The only reward for being a Good Person is a sunnier ending.** Contrast with two video games that are also good comparisons with Sucker Punch: Psychonauts (where you spend several levels helping patients in a mental ward work out their traumas by going into their brain and manipulating their metaphors), and Lollipop Chainsaw, (impossibly hot high schooler kills zombies in such a manner as to give you as many upskirt shots as possible). Each level of mechanic and story in Psychonauts reinforces the next one. The collectibles are "mental figments", which are images related to the environment or the person's mental state. You also try to match up "emotional baggage" with appropriate tags, and see a formative memory if you succeed. The levels themselves are extended metaphors for the person's mental state (like defeating the actress's inner critic so her inner glow will once again light up the stage, or running across a battlefield in the mind of a wanna-be soldier). And many of the levels support the meta-narrative on the relationship between parents and children.
I haven't played Lollipop Chainsaw, but this Jim Sterling makes a strong case that it handles the exact same objectification issues that Sucker Punch does, but better. The boyfriend is objectified by the family in cut scenes, but he is also literally objectified by the protagonist using him as a projectile to stun zombies. And even then, it's unclear to me that this mitigates the cosplay-based rewards system. I want to verify this for myself eventually, but fuck paying $40 for a four hour game that everyone has described as mediocre mechanics at best.
Sucker Punch's criticisms of what I will now abbreviate as GOSV are neutered by the fact that sexualized violence is made to look awesome. If it wanted to criticize GOSV, it would sexualize the characters without making them so damn sexy. This is not a contradiction. There are a million ways to make people look sexualized while also making them unattractive: overdo the makeup to clown whore levels. Ill fitting clothing. Clothing, make up, or lighting that doesn't work with the person's skin tones. Clothing with an attractive silhouettes but ugly or clashing patterns. Using fashions from a different era, which we recognize as an attempt to look attractive without finding them so. Using body types considered fashionable in another era but not this one. Bad skin. Bad hair. Extreme youth or age (although the youth one is increasingly hard to pardoy). A hacking cough or other indicator of illness. Asymmetry. The Mr. Brightside video managed it. Or you could work on the violence end of things: it's not hard to make violence look unpleasant.
But Sucker Punch uses very pretty people in very pretty outfits doing very pretty violence. It's the equivalent of a video game that scolds you for rifling through all the villagers' chests but has no mechanical consequences for doing so. And given that, it's logical for viewers to assume the scolding that follows is just to make the censors happy.
*I wish I knew more. Unfortunately my cite for this is "my dad said this one time"
**Full disclosure: I only got half an hour in to Bioshock, the conclusion is based on reviews I've read.
