We're all conflicted here at H&H Central. See, over the weekend, Sucker Punch came out—but was beat handily at the box office by Diary Of A Wimpy Kid: Rodrick Rules.
Prior to its release, the internet and airwaves were ablaze with images of seductively-clad
women girls kicking ass. Not much different from your average video game, actually (hi, Lara Croft!). But much was made, also, of director Zach Snyder saying the movie isn't female-exploitaitive, but is more like “300 with a female cast.” (Pardon us while we figure out that 300 is male-exploitative—hello, how few pieces of fabric can Gerard Butler wear?)
To continue, Snyder says:
“They [the girls in Sucker Punch] start out as cliches of feminine sexuality as made physical by what culture creates. I think that part of it was really specific, whether it's French maid or nurse or Joan Arc to a lesser extent [laughs], or schoolgirl. Our hope is we were able to modify them and turn them into these power icons, where they can fight back at the actual cliches that they represent. So hopefully by the end the girls are empowered by their sexuality and not exploited.”
So are we relieved that a film that seems like it's another male fantasy of girls kicking butt while wearing short skirts didn't do well at the box office? Or are we pissed that a movie featuring relatively unknown women who take the lead and bust their way out of their male-dominated society within the context of the film did not appeal to the film-going public?
What do you think?