Hanna director Joe Wright calls out Sucker Punch for fake feminism
By James Brady RyanApril 4th, 2011, 11:00 amComments (33)
Speaking at WonderCon recently, Hanna director Joe Wright — also known for directing the suicide-inspiration flick Atonement — had some pointed words for Zack Snyder and his newest film, Sucker Punch. You know, the movie about five girls fighting back in only the tiniest of miniskirts and chest-bearingest of shirts against the forces that control them. Wright called out the film for putting up a facade of feminism while actively objectifying its female leads:
For me, one of the main issues in terms of women's place in society and feminism is the sexual objectification of women. That’s something that feminists in the ’70s tried to fight against but has been totally lost in the 21st-century consumer-celebrity world. So for me, when I look at the poster for Sucker Punch, it seems actually incredibly sexist, because it is sexually objectifying women regardless of if they can shoot you or not.
Snyder himself had already addressed this question of whether or not his film is feminist, but he, not surprisingly, took a different view, saying that he wanted to show the viewers their own complicity in the objectification of the women, blah blah subversion blah blah reclaiming negative stereotypes. I'll leave it to you all to decide whether a movie written and directed by a man heavily marketed towards a male audience can do the work of "reclaiming" anything for women. (Wait, no, I won't: I'm sure it's not impossible, but I'm even more sure Sucker Punch can't.)
Wright's Hanna, which opens this week, also features a girl kicking ass, but the director was quick to point out that he never sexualized her — and the trailer seems to hold up that claim. Frankly, I was more excited about his film anyway, even if there aren't any dragons.
Commentarium (33 Comments)
Sucker Punch my objectify women, but 300 kind of did the same thing with dudes
And Toy Story did it with Toys. Wait, not objectified, the other thing.
Heheheh, good one, moops. Does anthropomorphized sound right?
True, but in a culture where women are so thoroughly objectified all the time -- to the extent that in can warp a person's worldview or even lead to violence -- the objectification of men in a movie like 300 doesn't quite have the same consequences. It's all about the greater cultural context.
(Of course, the best thing would be if all movies managed to make their characters realistic, or at least something beyond walking, talking masturbation material.)
I find it so hot when men talk like this.
I think it's entirely possible that men and women, portrayed realistically, are often walking, talking masturbation material. That's not necessarily a bad thing, and it need not lead to violence.
Well, it need not lead to violence against anything other than my boner.
Sucker Punch is nothing more than real-life Anime, complete with Sailor Moon outfits. With GUNZ!!!!!11ONE11!!! Puh-lease. If you wanna make a Spank Bank movie, then make one. But be honest about it and don't try to claim some 'feminist' ridiculousness about making the characters 'strong' or somesuch.
And sucking on frakkin LOLLYPOPS?
james brady ryan i have loved you since you did that piece "are angels the next vampires" or something. you are absolutely brilliant and i love your witty analysis of pop culture
can they give you a weekly column? seriously
Sorry, but his opinion means zilch to me - Atonement was awful. At least Sucker Punch was entertaining.
I could not possibly disagree with this post any more. Atonement was wonderful and Sucker Punch was awful.
You're both wrong. Atonement and Sucker Punch were each wonderful while Sucker Punch and Atonement were both awful.
I dont know about my other fellow females, but when I dress hot, I feel more empowered! I could care less about thinking "omg I'm a sex object, someone might think I'm hot and whack off to me, oh noes!". Why is it considered bad or impossible for a woman to be/dress sexy AND can kick your ass? Is the author implying that to acceptably kick ass we must look like a dirty, albino, stringy-haired, makeup-less chick in oversized clothing?
That being said, I have nothing against dirty, albino, stringy-haired, makeup-less chicks in oversized clothing. It's just that I am wondering why can't women be hot AND kick ass? Bulky, prudish clothes get in the way of a good ass-kicking, don't you know. I really hate this notion that a sexy woman can be nothing more than a sexy woman, fit only for spank bank fodder.
Don't get me wrong, MRC -- I'm all for women looking hot and kicking ass. But it seems to me that in Hollywood it is a requirement that women look hot in order to kick ass (or be funny, or have a lead role, or do anything, really). I just think it's a feint on Snyder's part to claim that Sucker Punch isn't REALLY objectifying the leads because they're also beating up robots or whatever. Making a female character look sexy doesn't automatically mean she is sexy AND empowered. Making her empowered makes her empowered.
Also, on a less theoretical note: if you want to make a fighting outfit hot, go for it. But don't make it stupid as well. I just can't believe a belly shirt and hot pants are the ideal garments for warfare.
I don't think anyone is trying to say it's impossible to be both super hot and empowered/powerful. The issue with SuckerPunch isn't even the outfits, really. It's that Zack Snyder, who has put visceral and extensive rape scenes his last three major films, is putting this film out in the guise of feminism, when in reality, it's reinforcing just about every negative gendered trope. The main character is put into an asylum by a man where assault is a constant threat and her "empowered" escape is to create a whorehouse in her mind (this is not flowery prose, it is literally what happens) where she uses sex as currency. She dissociates every time she does something "sexy" ie lapdancing. Physical and sexual violence is constantly heaped upon the female protagonists in the film and often by those supposed to be in positions of care, trust and authority. There is nothing particularly female-empowering about it.
Also, just because an ass-kicking female heroine isn't wearing "sexy" clothes like those in SuckerPunch doesn't mean that they're dressing like a dumpy old spinster. Buffy always managed to whomp ass in her stylish-yet-affordable boots. She was sexy but not at the expense of functionality.
I do realize by your tone that you're probably trolling ever so gently, I just get a little riled.
It is only empowering to dress "hot" if you are hot. If you are not attractive and you put on the same clothing, then you will be mocked and people consider it their "duty" to let you know you shouldn't dress that way. You lose credibility and are marginalized. Likewise, if you are attractive but you don't wear "flattering" clothing, people feel the need to critique your style and tell you how to dress more revealingly. How is that empowering?
I feel empowered when I speak in a room, and people turn to me and listen respectfully. I feel empowered when my boyfriend lets me handle an altercation at a bar because he knows I can peacefully and swiftly resolve conflict. I feel empowered when I can speak with authority about a subject that is typically dominated by males and my opinion is respected because it is sound .... not because I'm a "cool girl" or humored for my attempt. That is what empowers me. If a miniskirt can do all those things for you, then that must be some fucking skirt. Just be aware that all taut things come to an end.
*shakes Marisa's hand*
Marisa, completely on point. All of the supposed benefits from being "empowered" seem to only benefit "hot" women. Average-looking? I loved that movie that was all about average everyday women fighting crime in normal clothes. Oh yeah, they've never made that movie.
@ Katie: Thanks so much for pointing out Zack Synder's consistent and problematic, if not habitual and gratuitous, use of rape or the threat of rape against the female leads in his films. There's always been something about this director's gender politics that deeply trouble me, and I'm glad you were able to put your finger on what one of my issues with him has been.
(Given his recent track record, I won't be surprised if Superman's first encounter with Lois Lane in the upcoming reboot happens because he's rescuing her from an attempted rapist, or if it's implied that Lois Lane's disposition toward men in particular and life in general is grounded in the fact that she was been raped at some point in the past.)
Personally, I don't think Zack Snyder ever intended to make a feminist film. I think he simply chose to rationalize away the problems with "Sucker Punch" (and his body of work in general) by saying some nonsense about turning the tables on the 14-year-old boys that the film was marketed toward. But someone needs to explain to him that gunslinging does not equal empowerment, and that a character's sexiness quickly becomes her objectification when she has no inner substance and no real agency to care about.
Sure it probably objectified women, which may or may not be bad, I don't have a strong opinion either way. I think it is left up to the person in how they felt about it. Some women like MRC (above) are empowered by hot clothing and some women don't like it. I don't think it is fair to make an overarching statement like saying "Suckerpunch is unfair to all women ever."
And, I agree with the first comment by "yeah but" movies like 300 objectified men, which doesn't negate the fact that movies also objectify women; it just goes to show that it isn't entirely only women who get objectified.
It is true that a lot of women may have not found anything wrong with SP, but just because some women don't find SP objectifying doesn't mean it isn't
Yes, and I said that in my first sentence. I just included a "probably" because I haven't seen the film so I couldn't make a definite statement. I was just making a comment on how some women aren't offended about objectification and some are and those are their equally valid opinions.
Reading a comment of someone who I presume saw the movie is that it does sound like fake feminism and is pretty insulting sounding. Just revealing clothes and fight scenes is not enough to upset me but the way it is described above sounds pretty terrible. (referencing Katie's comment)
I don't see why guys think women who shoot people and all that are sexy.
Yeah, I've never understood that either. I dated someone once who said that he watched a girlfriend get in a fight once at a bar and it was an immediate turn off. I don't think I could stay with my boyfriend if I ever saw him get in a fight that wasn't 100% necessary to protect himself or someone else from physical harm. Protecting my "honor" by punching someone who accidentally spilled beer on me doesn't count. I just can't stand brutality or the bizzare sexualization of it.
On a related note, has anyone noticed that porn (generic porn, not specific to any fetish) is getting more violent? I challenge someone to create exploitation-free porn. I would get down with that.
Come on people, if you're going to draw out an extended dialogue referencing feminist theory can't you pick someting more worthy than some shlock aimed at horny teenagers. If anyone's getting exploited here it's them but they'll get their own back as they rate the film by those time-honoured measures of cinematic success, it's audio/video rip quality (out of 10) and its relative "gayness", on a torrent site near you. Applying feminist critique to films like this is as useless as opening yet another conversation on the art versus pornography debate, i.e ultimately futile and hypocritically mildly tittilating.
Am I the only person who saw Sucker Punch because of the awesome action scenes? Honestly I would have watched Leonidas and the boys again if they were killing zombie Germans with a giant robot. Yea the movie was dumb, yes the plot was thin and poorly written, and yes it had scantily clad women. But I'm pretty sure that's what Snyder wanted in it. I don't think he wanted an feminist empowering movie; I think he wanted a really cool movie and decided to put women in it. The guys used to already having everything written out for him, and for his first original film I think it was ok.
Though on a side note I did think the whole burlesque show/brothel fantasy was pointless but whatever.
Zach Snyder treats objects like women.
The whole strong-women-in skimpy-outfits-kicking-butt-while-looking-like-they-want-to-blow-you is very Spice Girls circa 1998.
Honestly, as a woman I don't think it's objectifying at all.
Forgetting the aspect if it does or not objectify, if it has value or substance or both in any manor, isn't the most interesting part of this ,the way the director himself dealt with these issues when they came out, in a way that seams.. a lot like justifying and passing any sense of responsibility towards somewhere else. So leaving the matter's of what the movie is or isn't to most or some, the fact that he feels the need to make comments such as "we, the viewer in the theater. We are the people in the brothel who want the girls to perform for us. We want them in those costumes — I didn’t put them in those costumes." or "Yeah, they’d be like, “Why are they so upset? It’s awesome to be a whore!” And I’m like, no, that’s not the point. So that’s why I moved it to the very end." makes me think that he loses credibility as an director. Stick to your shit and don't sugar coat it, or at least know your shit before you leave it out in the open.
This falls under the archetype dubbed "the fighting fuck toy" in Miss Representation. Women fighting isn't feminist if the purpose of their fight is for the male gaze. (Like bikini mud wrestling is not innately feminist). There's room for all different schools of feminism though. Femme-inism? https://slingingsomemud.blogspot.com/2012/06/femme-inism.html