To make this confession more shameful, I neglected to write in my review of Battle Los Angeles that I was touched by the last minute. I imagine that many critics probably discredited the film for shamelessly and predictably leaving the film essentially unfinished and open-ended to suggest a sequel and a Battle franchise. But I think it effectively conveys strong leadership and determination in a central character that is otherwise inadequately developed. I should have mentioned that.
J.D., with whom I saw Battle Los Angeles, updated his Facebook status yesterday that he was going to continue his trend of seeing bad films and see the new Zack Snyder film that night. He had called me the day before and asked if I wanted to see it with him. I said that I'd hang out with him and made no guarantee I'd see the film. But when I read his Facebook status, I realized that only with great resistance and an awkward social situation would I get out of seeing it.
But here I was again, thinking I didn't want to see it, presupposing its quality. I decided to change my perspective. Sure, it has an even lower percentage on Rotten Tomatoes than Battle Los Angeles, but I wonder how many other critics presuppose the quality of a female version of the Gerard Butler epic, 300? I figured if I put up no resistance and see the film with optimism, I could see things other people missed. Maybe I'll actually enjoy it. After all, I am paying to see it; it is only rational to believe that I am spending money for something that will I enjoy.
I wasn't stupid about this. I had read Peter Howell's review in The Toronto Star that the story does not make sense, and that the acting is flat. I knew I wouldn't enjoy it for the writing or the acting. I enjoyed Watchmen, one of Snyder's previous films, but I enjoyed it as a fanboy. Familiar with the comic book on which its based, Snyder's filmmaking talents were not on trial so much as his loyalty to the source material. But the visuals were extraordinary. This was my best clue to enjoying Sucker Punch. I figured that if I was going to enjoy this film, it was probably going to be on that basis alone. I adjusted my expectations accordingly.
As it turns out, there is a lot more going on in Sucker Punch than I thought it would have. It is certainly better than Battle Los Angeles and it might be the most interesting movie in theatres right now. It is not just the visuals that are worth seeing in Sucker Punch. The visuals are lovely; Snyder makes ugly and scary look good. But the film's narrative form is bizarre, which comes as a pleasant surprise. It's confusing and perhaps unintelligible, and I don't like the film enough to ever watch it again, but it was definitely more unique than I expected it to be. I've never seen a movie executed quite like this before. I challenge anyone to name a title with a story told like this.
The story, to refute Peter Howell, makes some sense. Actually, there are two stories and they both make sense. In the first story, a young girl, played by Emily Browning, is unjustly committed to a mental institution where she is subject to primitive surgical practices and the authority of corrupt guards. In the second story, a young girl, played by Emily Browning, is, at the consent of a priest, unwillingly adopted by a burlesque establishment, the owners of which subject their dancers to public dancing and prostitution. They're implausible, absurd, offensive perhaps, but they make sense.
Most of the film tells the second story. After some workplace drama, the young girl, dubbed Baby Doll, convinces four other captives to help her attain several items needed to escape. Their method is thievery amid distraction by Baby Doll's exceptionally arousing dance routine. Here's where it gets even weirder. Baby Doll's dance routines are never shown. When her dances begin, the film cuts to an epic action sequence. For example, Baby Doll and her four helpers at one point try to attain a map of the burlesque establishment. The plan is that while Baby Doll distracts the management with her dance, one of her helpers, Sweet Pea, will sneak into an office and get a copy of the map posted on the wall. I guess she makes an offscreen photocopy or something. But when Baby Doll starts her dance, the film cuts to a fantasy world: a battlefield in which the five girls are slaughtering robots with gas masks. They are looking for a map in this fantasy too. After much killing and explosions, they find the map. This might have been a fifteen-minute sequence. I can't say it wasn't entertaining. When the action sequence is over, the film cuts back to reality, where Baby Doll's dance is over and Sweet Pea has acquired the map, their mission accomplished. The five girls rejoice backstage in their dressing room.
The film thus defines a formula here that it follows throughout the film: workplace drama, followed by scheming, followed by dance routine and action sequence, followed by rejoicing, repeat. It gets tiresome.
Other critics, including Howell, have claimed that the action sequences are the best part of Sucker Punch. It is a sad truth. If all you like are the action sequences, you're going to be ripping the skin off of your arms waiting for them because they appear about as often as commercial breaks during a TV programme. Faithful to its formula, there aren't many of them, and they aren't important to the story, or stories. I think the film tries to suggest that they somehow represent the girls' turbulent inner strength or their passion for justice or something vague like that. Whatever they mean, as good as they look, they are inconsequential.
The film needs more focus. One of the stories should have been cut, and more care should have been taken to connect fantasies to their reality counterparts. There were moments where, due to the bizarre nature of the film, I was not able to predict the film, which evoked a genuine feeling of concern for the certain characters. But by the last ten minutes of the film, the film had slipped in and out of different stories and fantasies so much that I didn't care who was dead or who survived, who escaped or who got caught. I couldn't seriously invest interest in one story over another, in one character in one story over the same character in another story, or in one character played by one actor in one story over a different character played by the same actor in another story. Wow. Now this review is unintelligible.
When the film ends, I think the film tries to suggest that the action sequences were representations of the inner battles we face in life. Or something like that. I was unmoved. But hey, I wasn't expecting a well-written film, and neither should anyone going to see it. It is visually interesting with an ambitious narrative structure. The music is great as well, with covers of familiar tunes and an old Björk favourite played up to three times. Original music would have been preferred.
So yeah, I'll probably never see this movie again.
No comments:
Post a Comment