Ryan McNeil
If you don’t want to be clever; be fun
If you don’t want to be fun; be intelligent.
If you don’t want to be fun or intelligent; get the hell off the screen
SUCKER PUNCH is the story of Baby Doll (EMily Browning). After her mother dies, her step-father has her wrongfully committed to a mental institution. It’s there that she is put under the care of Dr. Vera Gorski (Carla Gugino) who treats her patients in “The Theater”. How exactly The Theater is supposed to benefit the girls is unclear, but the film presses forward and lobs Baby Doll onto the theatre stage.
There she envisions the asylum as some sort of orphanage, but one where the orphans sing for their supper by way of a soft-core burlesque (which we never see). In this orphanage she is capable of working her goods in a way that momentarily shakes everyone from reality, thus giving her an existence within an existence within an existence. (Get all that?)
On this sub-sub-basement, she aligns herself with four other orphans: Sweet Pea (Abbie Cornish), Rocket (Jena Malone), Blondie (Vanessa Hudgens) and Amber (Jamie Chung). Assisted by the rather non-specific help of a Mister Miyagi-like wiseman played by Scott Glenn, the girls band together to rebel against the institution that has them locked up.
SUCKER PUNCH creates a paradox that lowers it to an unexpected level of useless. On the one hand, every fantastical thing happening in Baby Doll’s head comes without stakes. Early on we understand that while the scenes are metaphors for their escape plans, there is no peril they cannot fight their way out of. Meanwhile back in the world of The Theater, the characters have no personality, no texture, and no depth. What that leaves us with is two entire planes of existence where no attention is being paid to the girls as people.
Granted in the sort of action film that SUCKER PUNCH wants to be, three dimensional characters aren’t a necessity (certainly hasn’t held James Bond back all these years). But because SUCKER PUNCH frames itself as an act of young female rebellion, plot and character depth are a must. It’s not enough to say “You have all the weapons you need”, it has to come through in the character’s actions…her fortitude…hell, even her facial expression. You can’t dress up a bunch of riot grrrls in come-hither outfits and load them up with guns: it completely undercuts what the film is trying to sell.
What is the moral of The Ballad of Baby Doll? That if you close your eyes you can block out the pain? That when all else fails, resort to your sexuality?? That imagining you are invincible will make it so in reality??? What are we to take away from the execution of SUCKER PUNCH? That so much violence is fine as long as it’s bloodless? That young heroines must always be presented with an expression of bedroom eyes ?? And that genuine dialogue doesn’t matter when you can stack the script with cliche???
If it seems like I’m being hard on SUCKER PUNCH, I’ll admit I am. The whole film didn’t just strike me as a bore, but also as an opportunity wasted. Here was a chance to create a stylish original property filled with potential role models. I was reminded of a recent episode of Some Cast it Hot where the topic at hand was the Bechdel Test, and here seemed to be a film that could pass it with flying colours. And while it probably eeks by, it certainly doesn’t make the statement it should.
What we’ve been given is a film too earnest to be amusing, and too slight to be bold. It finds a rare spot on the map that will appeal to absolutely no one, and what’s worse will take down with it the chances of a better story of this ilk being made anytime soon.