The Big Picture: You Are Wrong About Sucker Punch, Part Two

Yabu

New member
Jun 10, 2012
16
0
0
I'm not sure how many people have done research on this movie, but I came across an interesting article that describes it as an example of Monarch programming experiment performed by the CIA. Even the period being in the 50's suggests it might be related.

I also find it interesting that not a lot of people pick up on the fact the wise old man is actually a handler, controlling the girls, so the end sucker punch may be that sweat pea just gets on the bus with a handler that is taking her further away from reality.

Anyway, there is a lot of symbolism with the butterflies, mirrors and white rabbits throughout the movie that also suggest the movie is more about mind control in order to turn the girls into sexual slaves, and the deeper alternate realities are just the means by which the mind control is achieved.

Check out

http://vigilantcitizen.com/moviesandtv/sucker-punch-or-how-to-make-monarch-mind-control-sexy-7-2/
 

kickyourass

New member
Apr 17, 2010
1,429
0
0
I always had the feeling that a lot of the people who disliked Sucker Punch, just didn't get alot of it. I never realized how much of it I didn't get.
 

minus_273c

Knackered Old Shit
Nov 21, 2009
126
0
0
bz316 said:
I'm not sure what's worst: having a movie pretty much call me an asshole, or (assuming Bob is correct in his assessment of the film's intentions) the fact that I totally deserved it...
Got to say this is exactly how I felt.
 

Markunator

New member
Nov 10, 2011
89
0
0
daibakuha said:
Markunator said:
You are completely wrong about the Spill Crew; they do dissect a film's message. Thing is, they didn't think this film had a message to dissect, they just thought it was a gigantic, sexist, pretentious, badly soundtracked pile of shit. And no, I like them because they are great film critics, not because they reaffirm my opinions. Question: did you even listen to their review? I'm not responding back to you until you do.
Yes I have, and I've listened to several of their reviews before. They almost never go deeper than a simple plot analysis, unless it's blindingly obvious.

The whole thing sounds incredibly unprofessional too, it sounds more like a group of guys joking about movies than it does legitimate criticism.
Like I said, they didn't think there was anything to analyze. Besides, they fucking hated the film, so why would they try to analyze it?

Also, are you seriously saying that they didn't offer any legitimate criticisms? Did you even pay attention to anything at all they said in their review?
 

mfeff

New member
Nov 8, 2010
284
0
0
spartan231490 said:
I'm going to go with: The curtains were fucking blue. Cookie if you get the reference.
The only reference that comes to mind concerning the "blue curtain", is similar to that of the "iron curtain", that is that blue curtain is the veil of secrecy that exist behind the the outward face of police and police enforced authority.

If I go a step further and read a ton into it, the situation opens to one in which a young guy may want to "white knight" the girl, only to turn her into a member of his harem later. It's a pretty common angle worked by a lot of "harem" anime.

Most recently I think that the Tomb Raider video clip sort of attempted to work this angle... it's fairly common when one wants to get the audience to "care" about a protagonist in the shortest time possible. Narrative efficiency? Stuff like Avatar comes to mind almost instantly.

daibakuha said:
SpiderJerusalem said:
daibakuha said:
DVS BSTrD said:
No I wasn't Bob: I thought none of what happend actually mattered in the end and it turns out I was right.
It's a good thing you aren't a film critic, because you suck at film analysis.
Oh please, Bob is living proof you don't have to have any qualifications to call yourself a film critic.
I guess that pesky degree in film has nothing to do with his job as a film critic.

Though who am I kidding, you're one of his contentionists, you don't agree with anything he says because of some imagined slight. It doesn't matter whether or not he has a valid point, you will shoot it down, simply because it came from him.
I am aware that Bob Chipman has taken university courses in film (he has mentioned it in other videos), however, I am not aware that he has ever been awarded a degree on the subject... mind you I "could" be wrong. Though the burden of proof is simply noting the degree and the date in which it was awarded.

On the subject of whether or not one agrees, I mentioned it in a previous post, that in consideration of the film's own narrative not committing to any particular "context" then as a work there is no deconstruction that could ever be considered any more valid or not valid than anyone else's interpretation.

This dictates that one "cannot" be wrong in an interpretation of the film, because there is no "right" answer. It's essentially a plot-less narrative, in it's fundamental structure.

'There is nothing outside the text,'... "means there is nothing outside context." And since the context in which words might be read or heard can always shift, meanings are impossible to completely pin down -- and the distinctions we base on them ultimately rest on sand." - Jacques Derrida (developer of semiotic analysis known as "deconstruction").
 

daibakuha

New member
Aug 27, 2012
272
0
0
Markunator said:
Like I said, they didn't think there was anything to analyze. Besides, they fucking hated the film, so why would they try to analyze it?

Also, are you seriously saying that they didn't offer any legitimate criticisms? Did you even pay attention to anything at all they said in their review?
Who cares if they don't like a film, has nothing to do with their less than stellar analysis, and I'm not just talking about Sucker Punch.

I actually didn't say that. Read what I wrote and come back to me.
 

daibakuha

New member
Aug 27, 2012
272
0
0
mfeff said:
I am aware that Bob Chipman has taken university courses in film (he has mentioned it in other videos), however, I am not aware that he has ever been awarded a degree on the subject... mind you I "could" be wrong. Though the burden of proof is simply noting the degree and the date in which it was awarded.
I assumed he has a degree, for a couple of reasons though:

1) You don't see people talk about film the way he does without a degree, or at least extensive education on film. It would be very difficult for a lay person to have self taught themselves film crit on the level Bob does.

2) I would imagine it would be incredibly difficult to get a job as a film critic, if you don't have a degree in film criticism. Especially since their aren't a lot of jobs in that particular field.
 

mfeff

New member
Nov 8, 2010
284
0
0
daibakuha said:
mfeff said:
I am aware that Bob Chipman has taken university courses in film (he has mentioned it in other videos), however, I am not aware that he has ever been awarded a degree on the subject... mind you I "could" be wrong. Though the burden of proof is simply noting the degree and the date in which it was awarded.
I assumed he has a degree, for a couple of reasons though:

1) You don't see people talk about film the way he does without a degree, or at least extensive education on film. It would be very difficult for a lay person to have self taught themselves film crit on the level Bob does.

2) I would imagine it would be incredibly difficult to get a job as a film critic, if you don't have a degree in film criticism. Especially since their aren't a lot of jobs in that particular field.
I think it's a fair assumption to have. That being said I think your original comment was pretty close to being in the realm of an appeal to authority; which is fine... but assumes that the person from which one is referring is "in fact" an authority on the subject.

As it goes then, one may be challenged concerning the appeal, which is the burden of proof side of the coin. As I said there are some older videos where he mentions that he had some academic experience with film (subject), but a couple classes isn't a degree.

Shamus Young used to write some articles for the Escapist as a self proclaimed "Software Engineer", but he holds no degree on the subject from an accredited university nor has passed any relevant industry test which would merit such a title.

Extra Credits, Daniel and company "do" hold degrees of various merit, none of which are particularly technical degrees in software development. Daniel is a 2d artist, James on "wiki" is listed as a "games designer" which isn't particularly accurate. (His degree has more to do with staging, literature, philosophy... i.e. a fine arts degree), and Allison is another artist. (The joke here being that the only game any of them have ever worked on directly was James who worked on CoD) Then he founded a start up, and it failed... now he lectures academically... (an old saying that goes... those that can't... teach).

My point being is that in internet land, it's pretty easy to "sound" or "imply" one is a qualified speaker on a topic... and not really "be" qualified to offer up anything other than an opinion.

Now as far as your second position goes... most of the internet people that get on web-zines get started either through a friend of a friend association or they had some blog or YouTube channel that was leveraged onto the E-zine. Most people that are academically accomplished note those accomplishments pretty directly... if your not seeing the degree noted, school, dates, so on and so forth... the chances are, there isn't anything to note.

Most the "writing" that I have seen not only on this site but others... are not the penning of academically accomplished people. It's not a lie, unless someone is saying that "I graduated from such and thus", and it turns out they didn't. Assumptions fall onto the assumptive.

Themis media... I think that's who owns the escapist, will pay more or less anyone to create content regardless of the professional or academic background... they used to run ads on the site for it all the time. Heck get popular enough on YouTube and offer to move your channel over, I am sure they will at least hear you out and make an offer.

Don't really know about film magazines specifically, but for games... what you said is true, if you where interested in writing for "Game Developer", or perhaps something for gamasutra... but here...? Nah man. A pulse, a fan base, a spell checker, maybe a little better grammar than the average bear. To anecdote that, both Bob and Yahtzee started on Youtube, then migrated over here, for all practical purposes Escapist is the house that Yahtzee built.
 

Timzor

New member
Feb 22, 2011
2
0
0
Interesting. I saw the movie as a criticism of escapist fantasy. To me, the message seemed to be "Turning to fantasies to escape your own life (whether those fantasies are action movies, video games, etc) does nothing to improve your actual situation, and if you continue to ignore your real problems in order to focus on these imaginary worlds in which you pretend you are a badass action hero, real life is just going to kick your ass--ie, sucker punch you--in the end." In other words, these fantasies might feel good--might make you FEEL empowered--but in the end they're meaningless and they do nothing to help your real-life situation. But that's just me.
 

Mr_Jellyfish

New member
Jan 11, 2011
51
0
0
Suck Punch reminded me of Natural Born Killers, I got the joke, but I still hated the film. Burn After Reading is another example, the film was supposed to be inconsequential, and it was, but there's nothing enjoyable about that other than a half-hearted laugh and a "I see what you did there" acknowledgement.
Like you say, you have to offer something more, and Starship Troopers is a great example of a film that succeeds. Sucker Punch just plain sucked, and it's all well and good that Zack Snyder can have all these 'deep' ideas, but he's also the guy who made 300 and butchered Watchmen with his lack of understanding of the source material.

And to say Sucker Punch looks like a videogame as part of an underlining theme about videogame culture, doesn't explain why 300 and Watchmen also looked like Videogames!

Still, a valiant effort, Bob
 

lacktheknack

Je suis joined jewels.
Jan 19, 2009
19,316
0
0
Gympants said:
If you think that Zack Snyder sat down and made this movie, trying to convey those things that Bob mentioned, you are out of your mind.

If you stare complete darkness far enough time, you will start to see shapes. With movies, you can add any hidden subtext to any film, if you are crazy enough.
I wouldn't be so sure. Often, filmmakers will go even deeper than that.

Fun Fact: Stanley Kubrick said he made the War Room table in Dr. Strangelove a pine green, in order to evoke the feeling that the characters were playing poker with the fate of the world, a feeling drawn by the resemblance of the War Room table to a gambling table.

The film was in black and white.
 

Gympants

New member
Sep 5, 2012
3
0
0
lacktheknack said:
...

I wouldn't be so sure. Often, filmmakers will go even deeper than that.

Fun Fact: Stanley Kubrick said he made the War Room table in Dr. Strangelove a pine green, in order to evoke the feeling that the characters were playing poker with the fate of the world, a feeling drawn by the resemblance of the War Room table to a gambling table.

The film was in black and white.
Are we comparing Snyder to Kubrick? Seriously?
 

lacktheknack

Je suis joined jewels.
Jan 19, 2009
19,316
0
0
Gympants said:
lacktheknack said:
...

I wouldn't be so sure. Often, filmmakers will go even deeper than that.

Fun Fact: Stanley Kubrick said he made the War Room table in Dr. Strangelove a pine green, in order to evoke the feeling that the characters were playing poker with the fate of the world, a feeling drawn by the resemblance of the War Room table to a gambling table.

The film was in black and white.
Are we comparing Snyder to Kubrick? Seriously?
Not what I was implying, but Snyder is as capable of deep underlying meanings as Kubrick, yes.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
lacktheknack said:
Not what I was implying, but Snyder is as capable of deep underlying meanings as Kubrick, yes.
In the same sense that a slug is as capable of space flight as a human, perhaps.
 

lacktheknack

Je suis joined jewels.
Jan 19, 2009
19,316
0
0
Zachary Amaranth said:
lacktheknack said:
Not what I was implying, but Snyder is as capable of deep underlying meanings as Kubrick, yes.
In the same sense that a slug is as capable of space flight as a human, perhaps.
It doesn't require genius levels of intellect to bury metaphors into something...
 

1337mokro

New member
Dec 24, 2008
1,503
0
0
daibakuha said:
1337mokro said:
How does a title skew someone's opinion? If I title my video "I hate Sucker Punch" would that give a wrong representation of my opinion? Please. It is good though that you finally dropped the pretense and simply came out to say "I replied to this guy cause I just didn't like how he acts". There we go. The truth is so much easier to say isn't it?
the title of the video has nothing to do with what we are discussing.

1337mokro said:
Also how is colours not like film because film is art???? In fact the absence of colour in a film can be a stylized option. So colours can indeed be art or a part of art. What do you call a painting if not an arrangement of colours expressing an image?
Color is a tool used by artists to express themselves, it isn't art by itself. The color blue isn't art, blue used in a painting, in conjunction with other colors is art. Color by itself isn't creative, it doesn't have a theme, it's just a color.

1337mokro said:
The fact is very simple. You didn't like the guy, so you replied to him. But it wasn't because Bob's opinion was better because it had arguments (some people will think it was horrible because of the same arguments that in your eyes make it good). It was simple an ad hominem to the guy.
I don't like him because of the way his "opinion" is expressed, I don't think it's a valid criticism and he was being a jerk. It has everything to do with how he presents himself.
But the title does. It shows Bob stance towards all other people's opinions to sucker punch. That we are wrong... simply because our opinions are not his opinions.

Well I do have to thank you for proving my point with the colour argument. We have now gone from arguing the liking of colours to wether or not a colour itself can be ascribed as an art. Because you think something has to be an art form to warrant opinions about it, I say opinions can be formed about anything.

You see what you did there? You basically showed how silly it is to argue about an opinion.

Also you don't like the way he "expressed" himself? Please. The FCC is that way why don't you apply for a job. You already have a sufficiently large stick up your ass. :D
 

Hyperactiveman

New member
Oct 26, 2008
545
0
0
I've already put across a very strong point in the comments of part 1 but I have another.

I know movies are sometimes supposed to make us think but most of them are gutsy enough to tell you before you go see them in the cinema. (Inception/Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind/One Flew over the cuckoos nest/The Prestige/)

And this... Suckerpunch didn't even try to do that... I know it's name has meaning but it just doesn't convey the same depth as those I've said.

So my point is that I went to go see this movie with friends both male and female and sadly we got so bored because the girls saw what the movie was trying to do by exploiting women and we the boys couldn't enjoy movie at all because we noticed what it was doing for the girls and it was making the fun time of going to see a movie with friends turn out really uncomfortable. It also would've made for a very awkward drive home.

Just saying.
 

Markunator

New member
Nov 10, 2011
89
0
0
daibakuha said:
Markunator said:
Like I said, they didn't think there was anything to analyze. Besides, they fucking hated the film, so why would they try to analyze it?

Also, are you seriously saying that they didn't offer any legitimate criticisms? Did you even pay attention to anything at all they said in their review?
Who cares if they don't like a film, has nothing to do with their less than stellar analysis, and I'm not just talking about Sucker Punch.

I actually didn't say that. Read what I wrote and come back to me.
How can you analyze a film that's just completely shallow?
 

House_Vet

New member
Dec 27, 2009
247
0
0
SonOfVoorhees said:
The director sucked at it, if you are correct, because you cant direct a movie full of overly sexualised characters, market it and sell it that way and then make it against those things. Same way you cant film an anti war film with over the top action, its either serious war is bad, or an over the top action movie - when you add both then its bullshit.
Clearly you have yet to play Spec Ops: The Line. I'd suggest it if you think that you can't critically annihilate something by aping it.