Ava Adore

For Mooky: Kore’s Descent.

Kore settles her stockings just below a smooth stripe of thigh skin, paler than the lace bordering it. She’s not thinking in terms of black and taupe, of diamond and pearl; she’s preoccupied by peacock feathered queens and show tunes and dock sunsets—how their thigh highs were torn off outside dark bars by men with darker intents.

She puts her bra on, lifts each breast to nestle it into its cup, smooths the lace of the balconet, but the gesture doesn’t hold her: Kore is moving back in time. Girls gone street-pro on her mind, women lacking opportunities and support because they lacked the desire to walk down an aisle. And these women’s lovers who trimmed up, bulked out, changed faces and names to pass as male for factory jobs… or any job. Kore finds them in the brush strokes of her blush.

Her heels are called stilettos; she straps them on, sharp and to the point, named for daggers. Daggers like the words and scars of the riots at Stonewall. Words like ‘survival’ and ‘sacrifice’ but also ‘reverence’ and ‘relish.’ Kore steps on stage and sways to her songs, spins out her homage to her ancestors. She strips herself bare, baring her reasons.

This is an entry for the Mookychick blogging competition, FEMINIST FLASH FICTION 2011. Enter now.

Response to “Slutwalk Racism.”

fyeahlilbitoeverything:

You make some truly great points, but again, part of the problem is that the response had to be “There is no such thing as a true safe place”…

I COMPLETELY AGREE. I don’t know how else to more agree with you, haha. Those following, please click and read the full response post. Then my response to the response:

Read More

(Source: avaadore)

Slutwalk Racism.

Subtitle: I just… I have a lot of feelings.
Author’s notes: Please, understand I’m trying to write out and make sense of my thoughts, that I’m coming from a place of love and respect, and that I aim to be as inclusive and non-offensive in my words as possible. If I err, please use it as an education point, I welcome it. Lastly, full disclosure: I am a queer stripper feminist with white privilege and a background in organizing activism. Trigger warnings. Topics include: racism, erasure, responsibility, education, censorship.

Let me go on record: the sign was in poor taste, to say the least. Reclaiming words is a sensitive topic and I would have liked to think we could all agree that the n-word, even in a John Lennon quotation (already socially complicated in origin), really shouldn’t have a place in a rally supporting the multitude of feminisms as we try to unite behind a common cause (anti-rape) and find a common goal.

Because that’s what we’re attempting here, isn’t it? A new era of feminism that includes the multitude of feminisms? Recognizes race and class, sexuality and gender, body and mind issues, and everything else that affects us as women (and all those things that ‘women’ can mean—and thusly all people?) To unite under ideologies we can all, in time, hopefully, agree on?

Read More

“Even if I dress for your attention, I never dress for your aggression.”

A (Feminist) Defense of Sucker Punch

It’s no secret that I’m a fan of the movie Sucker Punch. And recently, I read a well-thought-out, feminist attack extolling the vices of the movie in Faux Feminism in Sucker Punch. I am grateful for her post because it’s helped me to clarify my points, however, I think that Faux forgets that the brothel ‘world’ is an extended metaphor for the asylum.

If you would like a better taste than the trailers, you can see the first 5 minutes here (download - Mac users need VLC). The narrative is key. That being said, I agree with the tagline: You will be unprepared. Granted, the first read of that line is meant for the situations the protagonists are put in… yet the underlying theme is that you yourself will be unprepared.

I am not surprised at the backlash the movie is receiving. I think that as a culture, we are unprepared for the feminist points that Sucker Punch does make; I think that many of us who don’t engage in third- and post-wave feminism will indeed decry it for its vices—and will be unprepared to see its virtues.

SPOILER WARNING. (Also very lengthy, analytical post.)

As the movie itself in total suggests, it’s in ourselves—and our own framing—to make sense of the deeper layers of meaning. And if you’re unprepared, unequipped, unversed in these theories, well then naturally I could understand how the movie may fall short of a ‘feminist masterpiece’ for you.

This gets lengthy, so the breakdown is, in order, discussion of: male privilege, female authority, creating sisterhood, the danger of knowledge, and the use of sexuality in the film.

» Setting Stage: BLUE JONES AND MALE PRIVILEGE

Firstly, I think what the movie does achieve beautifully is the capturing the feeling of  the female experience in a world of male privilege. Blue Jones it the epitome of male privilege and the way his character is written is perfect in portraying this aspect; the actor, Oscar Isaac, also does an amazing job executing it.

Blue says he ‘cares’ for the girls (in both the ‘real-asylum’ world and the ‘brothel-filter’ world)—he says he’s their “friend”—and yet he emotionally abuses them (and its insinuated at the end when his friends put Babydoll in the chair for him that he’s done more than emotional abuse with the others… which explains the brothel setting and how the girls come to view the asylum as such).

Though his prerogative is evident throughout the movie, I think the “final” scene in the brothel dressing room gives necessary weight, pushing Blue’s role into those dark places. Don’t be fooled by the hype: this is a movie about control. Who’s controlling who, when, and how; we are asked that often, as well as ‘what defines control?’ His monologue:

“I try to give you all a good life. I try, I do. And all I ask for in return is just for respect. Honesty. A give-and-take relationship. But it’s come to my attention—it’s come to our attention—that a few bad eggs, led by one little egg in particular, have spit in the face of that generosity… and are plotting against me. Me! Your friend! Your protector! Your employer! Plotting to take from me my most precious possessions.”

Now, most of you can unpack that language on your own. But I’ll help a little: they’re not being paid, neither in the asylum nor the brothel-filter. This is not an employer-employee relationship. The dynamic is captor/captive. And you can see throughout the movie the ‘good life’ he ‘provides’ for them, the ‘protection’ he gives. The bottom line: that last word—possessions. Objects.

He goes on in the same scene to tell two of the girls in the brothel-filter that “It’ll be okay,” a lie to assert his control through ‘protection’—and then signs their lives away. In the brothel, Amber and Blondie are shot; in the asylum, they’re lobotomized. It’s pure control. He feels entitled to them; he doesn’t want them free because they are his “toys” (his words) and he’d rather have them ‘dead’ than ‘free.’

This is further highlighted by Blondie’s death/lobotomy. If what he said were true, if he really did, in his own twisted mind, believe himself to be truly benevolent, a protector and friend, albeit a skewed one, then he would not have destroyed Blondie, who had been honest with him and played by ‘his rules.’ That is not enough for him. “A give-and-take relationship” is not his actual desire.

_{(In case you were questioning this: yes, Rocket, Amber, and Blondie are all real. They’re in the beginning when Babydoll is first brought into the asylum theatre; they’re the group of 3 girls sitting at the table in front of the stage.)}

» Undermined Futures: VERA GORSKI AND THE GLASS CEILING

The male-privilege-world in which this story exists, and some might argue truly did exist in the time of the movie (1960s), is further underscored by Vera Gorski, alias Doctor/Madam Gorski. In the real world—the asylum, that is—Vera is the only person we see in a position of actual power and authority.

For the purposes of the movie, she’s the ultimate power. Unlike Faux Feminism’s Monika Bartyzel’s view, that Dr. Gorski is “so incompetent that she has no idea that her orderly is making shady dealings right under her nose,” I don’t see Dr. Gorski as incompetent: I see her as disrespected and undermined.

This is substantiated because of the brothel-filter: in “real life,” in the asylum, Dr. Gorski’s bright, empathetic, and ingenuitive. I wouldn’t call her incompetent—particularly as she seems to be successful with using her method with the patients—just because she’s not psychic to Blue’s plans. “Dr. Gorski seems to think it helps them, I’m not so sure,” Blue says, irreverent early on.

But the brothel-filter (designed to show us the girls’ perspective of the asylum, remember) shows Blue owning the ‘club’ and Vera only the madam because he disrespects her and her work. He constantly laudes this over Mme. Gorski, which is particularly evident in the scene when he asks Babydoll to perform on stage before Mme. Gorski feels she is ready.

This does not mean she is “fooling herself into thinking that she has any power or authority in the brothel”—the twist is to again make us ask ourselves: “what does ‘control’ mean? and who has it in this situation?” In Mme. Gorski’s words: “I teach them to survive you.” This is true in the brothel and the asylum.

She is the one who gives the girls their own sense of control back over their lives and their bodies, even when trapped by their situations—the things that led them to the asylum. She teaches them to ‘survive,’ to ‘fight.’ In a world where even Dr. Gorski, our ‘power figure,’ educated and authoritative, can be undermined, every girl must learn to fight.

And, just as a reminder, at the end she has Blue thrown out the moment she finds out. There’s no questions asked, no considerations met. “Kick him out of here,” Dr. Gorski says, reclaiming power. Sometimes male privilege fails. Sometimes we must be reminded that, though it’s hard to fight, it can be fought. That women can make and keep their own places. That every thought is both an illusion—and a dream.

» Sisterly Bonds: SWEET PEA AND THE FEMINIST HOPE

And that’s the big part of it: the “dream of freedom is all they have,” Mme. Gorski says, pleading with the enraged Blue as he takes out his gun. Freedom. That’s all the feminist cause really is: freedom. Freedom from the weight, the imbalance. Equality.

Don’t forget that in very recent history, our own real world history, women were locked up for ‘hysteria,’ a condition plaguing ‘only females.’ Females locked up in asylums because they were ‘hysterical,’ emotionally excessive, unable to be ‘handled’ by the men in their lives, or had lives they themselves could not handle.

We only get two stories: those of Babydoll and of sisters Sweet Pea and Rocket. Babydoll was wrongfully committed after fighting back when her stepfather tried to molest her sister (although that went dreadfully wrong) and it can be argued that Sweet Pea and Rocket shouldn’t have wound up there because they ran away.

From this, it could be assumed that these girls aren’t typically insane, but rather products of a world that allowed them no other recourse. Dr. Gorski does what she can with them, and naturally they’re wounded. Babydoll herself has just buried her mother, killed her sister, fired a gun for the first time, and got committed to an asylum.

It is often in hard situations that the most meaningful bonds are formed. Yes, female connections are challenged, but I think Bartyzel’s claim that every one is “torn apart” is a bit dramatic. The relationship between Rocket and Sweet Pea is tested, but ultimately they always remain together, each sacrificing for the other.

Sacrifice is a big theme in Sucker Punch, and it’s a theme that carries into the feminist fight in the real world. Sweet Pea sacrificed to protect the runaway Rocket; Rocket died to protect her sister from the knife; Babydoll ‘dies’ for Sweet Pea and threatens the cook for Rocket, for example. These things bind you.

“Baby saved me from the cook,” Rocket says to her sister, and the pause given indicates how unusual it is. “No one takes a risk for anyone in here,” Rocket later says to Babydoll. The band of girls is brought together through their common goal—freedom—and the sacrifices they make together to it.

_{(Taking this into consideration, it makes sense that Blondie would be the one to ‘snitch’: she has not made one bonding sacrifice to the team’s quest—she is the only one to not attain any of the 4 objects, nor does she risk her physical safety as the others do—yet she is the one physically threatened to be “made an example of” by Blue to “reestablish the parameters” of his relationship with them.)}

And while they don’t all make it to freedom—arguably only Babydoll and Sweet Pea are free—the ‘lives’ (literal, Rocket; mental, Amber and Blondie) that are sacrificed are no less relevant. The goal couldn’t have been achieved without them. Like much of our own history, legislative and otherwise, the path is strewn with lives, names.

Not everyone survives. We carry on their work by the benefits and rights we have today because they fought for them. Like Sweet Pea says at the end, “Who honours those we love with the very life we live?” Bartyzel argues that there is no empowerment going on here, but I have to disagree. Babydoll brings these girls together and she empowers them.

Sweet Pea is the character that embodies that change, that empowerment; going from Blue’s favourite girl (…and everything that means…) and being so afraid of dying, so afraid of upsetting the status quo, so afraid for her sister, to getting her spine, getting her fight, and finally getting free. Real freedom.

As Babydoll tells Sweet Pea,

“I’m saying you go home. Go home to your family. You tell your mom what Rocket said, make her happy. Go and live a normal life. Love. Be free. You have to live for all of us now. Yes, Sweet Pea, you’re the strongest, you’re the only one of us that ever had a chance out there. You going home and living, that’s how we win.”

It is this history, this sense of past and hope for the future, that the movie ends on and which I believe is the take-home message. The ending narrative: “Who decides why we live and what we’ll die to defend? Who chains us and who holds the key that can set us free? It’s you. You have all the weapons you need. Now fight.”

» The Fight: BABYDOLL AND THE DANGER OF KNOWLEDGE

Interestingly enough, many people criticize Sucker Punch for its sexualization—but I’ll get to that in the next (and final) section. But it isn’t Babydoll’s dancing prowess or fighting moves that make her most dangerous: it’s her mind. It’s her brain, her knowledge, which makes her dangerous—and desirable.

It is what she knows that jeopardizes her stepfather’s designs and lands her in the asylum in the first place. As Blue says when Babydoll’s stepfather hesitates over the price: “I don’t know what you did to this girl, and frankly, I don’t want to know, but what are you going to tell the detectives when they come snooping around? I’m sure they’re going to love to get her side of the story.”

And her stepfather promptly hands over the two grand, which is no small money, not now and especially not in the ’60s. As Blue said, it’s a ‘small fortune’ he’s making off of Babydoll. Only something goes awry. I’m personally not sure if he becomes infatuated with Babydoll specifically or if she’s just next on the list of patients he hasn’t had yet, but it’s certainly her mind that Blue is most interested in.

We know that he can’t tear himself away from her when she ‘dances.’ Now, coded, that’s when she’s in therapy with Dr. Gorski, either in her chair or enacting a scene in the theatre—that much is established in the first ten minutes (please read the short, poignant section 5 of Marco’s post!). So be it her situation that piques his interest, or simply that she hasn’t been broken yet, Blue wants her.

“She has been quite a handful,” Dr. Gorski says at the end. Inside and outside of therapy, Babydoll is causing big scenes, the kind that might make orderlies get distracted enough to let her friends get what they need. She uses her mind to manipulate the situation. I imagine crying, kicking, screaming, etc.

Her retained innocence is a strong theme, so I am less inclined to read her dancing as coded for sex acts in the asylum; it seems pretty obvious at the end that Blue, nor any of the other orderlies, had yet had her. (“You’ll never have me. Ever!” I love the tone of Emily Browning’s voice when she delivers that line.)

_{(I also value the line slipped in that Blondie says in the beginning, “She’s no virgin!” referencing Babydoll; it infers that the innocence she embodies isn’t a lack of sex or sexual agency, but rather instead her innocence means ‘unforced-upon.’ I like that she’s not the Virgin Character, chaste and unworldly. She’s a girl as of yet sexually uncorrupted in the ways that her fellow patients have been.)}

To back up the fact that it is her mind specifically Blue wants, we are shown the post-lobotomy scene, when he gets her in the chair. “You’re still here, you’re here with me, in all this shit. And you don’t go away unless I say so, okay?” He tries to kiss her. She’s unmoving. “That’s not right. That’s not right! Come back to me!” Frustrated, he tears up, recognizing she’s lost to him.

It’s not simply her body he wants. It’s just not that easy, the movie doesn’t fall into such simple rules of sexualization and desire. It’s not body, it’s mind. It’s not sex, it’s control. It’s not sex, it’s knowledge. The entire movie focuses on that power. She is the one who knows, who plans. Babydoll understands the world she’s working in from the very beginning and turns it to her advantage.

Advantage? You might be asking. She gets lobotomized. That’s no advantage! —And yet, I’d argue it is. It is her peace. It is her paradise. It’s why she wanted the lobotomy at the end, why the High Roller Doctor saw that she accepted it. It certainly didn’t start out as her idea of freedom, but as the story progressed she saw it was her truth.

It’s why she ‘gave herself up’ for Sweet Pea’s true freedom: Babydoll had no use for true freedom—she killed her sister, her mother is dead, her stepfather is a bastard, the girls she formed bonds with are dead or the walking dead. It would be a life forever on the run from the asylum or worse, forever without peace.

Babydoll’s personal freedom was the freedom from the burden of knowledge. When we finally see her face again at the end, it’s the ‘action-world-face’; she retains herself and her knowledge, but she is free from the weight and the horror that knowledge put on her by her situation and place in the world.

» Sexuality: THE UNSEEN AND THE UNSAID

Finally, and perhaps most importantly to the common perceptions of the movie, we come to the representation of sexuality. Right off the bat, viewers are expected to challenge their views on the topic. The very first lines in the ‘brothel-filter’ ask us to consider that this movie is actually very unsexy:

Sweet Pea says of the ‘show,’ “This is a joke, right? Don’t you get the point of this? It’s to turn people on. I get the sexy little school girl, I even get the helpless mental patient, right? That can be hot. But what is this? Lobotomized vegetable?” Or perhaps the intent is better summarized by critic Andrew O’Hehir:

If you want to understand Snyder’s central narrative gambit, it’s right there in the title. He gives us what we want (or what we think we want, or what he thinks we think we want): Absurdly fetishized women in teeny little skirts, gloriously repetitious fight sequences loaded with plot coupons, pseudo-feminist fantasies of escape and revenge. Then he yanks it all back and stabs us through the eyeball.

It is because of this intent, which laces the whole movie, that the sexiness used cannot be written off at face value. This is as good a place to start that analysis as any: Bartyzel writes, “Snyder has his heroine imagining herself as a scantily clad fighter right after she’s essentially forced to become a dancing prostitute.”

There are a few important points I’d like to make here. For one, they’re in an asylum… they’re not actually dancing prostitutes. The girls, specifically Sweet Pea, feel like prostitutes because of how Blue and the orderlies abuse them. In order for the audience to understand the girls’ hardships and relationships, the asylum is shown through a filter, as the girls see it: a brothel.

The dancing is an escape they liken their lives to—particularly how Sweet Pea deals with her circumstances—in order to cope with their realities. Dr. Gorski points this out in her opening lines. That being said: if you are being hurt, if you are being made weaker, then it is very likely that your fantasy involves you taking back control over that which has been taken from you.

If that thing is your sexuality, then remastering your sexuality becomes an obvious choice. Moreover, in ‘my’ fantasy world where I’m an empowered kicker-of-asses, who says I have to wear full combat gear? Look at superheroes (which, by the way, were around by the ’60s; they came out of the Great Depression).

Bartyzel goes on, “The entire film has been marketed as sexy female guntoters who like to show off breasts and crotches,” which I also find erroneous and untrue. You see not one breast in this entire PG-13 film. Not one ass. Not one bit of anything you might see in Twilight. Not even as much skin as a PG-13 Catwoman.

The most skin you see is a bit of cleavage and some upper thigh—like cheesecake pin-ups, which is right in line with the time period (and their ‘brothel’ outfits are pin-up, too). I hardly find that scandalous. Even Babydoll’s costume, which shows some stomach, doesn’t have the high jacket waistline. You see about 2” of skin.

On Babydoll specifically, Bartyzel says, “From moment one, Baby Doll is a sexualized, Hollywood version of barely legal porn. She is supposed to be twenty, but looks twelve, wearing her hair in pigtails with pink cheeks, ruby lips and dense fake eyelashes. In the asylum and brothel Baby Doll wears a barely there dress and when it’s time for fantasy fighting, the costume gets skimpier.”

Her asylum clothing is a jumper and her brothel dress falls just above the knee, actually, so that’s hardly “barely there.” It’s not like they’re running around in bikinis. And if anyone missed the fact that she’s supposed to a) resemble a baby doll, b) use sailor references as a journeyer and discoverer, and c) obviously reference Alice of Wonderland fame… then I don’t know what to tell you there.

And all of their costumes are indeed “heroine-ized” versions of themselves. Blondie, the rebel cowboy; Sweet Pea, the protective knight; Amber, the tactical soldier; Rocket, the bedeviled saviour. I also don’t see why they have to be in full combat gear in Babydoll’s imagination for us to take them seriously as heroines.

When did being a female ass-kicker mean giving up all semblance of our genders? “In male action films, the muscled male body is a symbol of defiance,” Bartyzel says, and I have to ask the question: Why is that not the case for women? Is it because we have no women action films? No muscled women? Or because we’re still thinking like this?

Lastly, I’d like to commend Sucker Punch specifically for not watering down any of this ass-kickery with a romantic subplot between one of the girls and anyone. I am glad we never have a moment where a girl must Choose Between Love Or Freedom. I am pleased as punch that we managed to escape that—and did anyone notice? No?

Bartyzel says, “Even in their fantasies of revolt they bow down to the male gaze, stripped of both agency and voice.” And again I respectfully disagree. There are no male gazes in any of the fantasy sequences. They’re given a task—yes, by a man, but men gives us tasks in a male-dominated world—and we choose what to do with them.

The “Wise Man” is the only repeated male figure in the fantasies and if you somehow manage to sexualize him—well, more power to you, because I just don’t see it; he’s a father figure. The heroines are driving the action, not a romantic support nor a sidekick in some male hero’s quest. It’s their quest. Their story. Your story.

» Odds and Ends: YOU GET A COOKIE

So, the ending: “What the fuck?” you might be asking. Even though the movie is framed by Sweet Pea’s voice, we are omniscient viewers, privy to the ‘real life’ asylum, the ‘brothel filter,’ and the ‘action world.’ The action-world is Babydoll’s imagination (when we zoom on her eyes, we’re entering her mind) as they fight to escape.

Babydoll’s action fantasies are positive reinforcement: she may not know if the plan worked (“How’d we do?” she asks after the lighter) but she visualizes it working. It is because of this that the ambiguous ending, which has all the marks of Babydoll’s mind rather than the real-world-asylum, is still a positive message.

Babydoll actually “helped another patient to escape” from the asylum because Dr. Gorski confirms it. So Sweet Pea is, indeed, truly free. What we don’t know is what that freedom looks like. In Babydoll’s paradise, she sees Sweet Pea going on as they’d all hoped her to. We are to hope, with Babydoll, that Sweet Pea is successful.

_{(You could also interpret that we are not omniscient; that the brothel is one level of imagination and the fighting another deeper level, all belonging to Sweet Pea—that the action-world is another fantasy projection Sweet Pea has when she watches Babydoll—because of Sweet Pea’s voice-overs at the start and end.}

_{…I don’t personally hold with this reading for a number of reasons, like the action-world incorporates details only Babydoll would know from her life before the asylum. For example, her M1911 charm pistol is the same .45 she used against her stepfather. Also, Babydoll’s imagination doesn’t match up exactly to the asylum/brothel happenings: e.g., in her imagination, the “kitchen knife” bomb is left behind, but in the asylum/brothel Amber manages to get away with it.}

_{Moreover, when she killed her sister, the pipe steamed, the bulb broke, and the light went out. All of the action-villains use that motif: the shoguns’ lights go out, the robots burst like bulbs, and the Germans’ steam was released. The orcs didn’t have any signs of death and the only death visibly ‘shown’ was the blood slicing the baby dragon, just like the blood of Babydoll’s younger sister.}

_{So I think it’s fair to say that there’s the ‘real world,’ the ‘brothel filter,’ and Babydoll’s ‘action imagination’ as she views the fight for freedom, rather than all of it being purely in Sweet Pea’s head. Also, Abbie Cornish says of the film, “The story is linear but operates on three different levels: a reality, a sub-reality, and a dream world,” which holds with the brothel being a filtered form of asylum-reality, as opposed to another imaginary level.}

_{Lastly, I still hold with that schematic because I don’t know why Sweet Pea would view her escape through a fantasy lens. The scene holds too much similarity to the action-world to be deemed part of ‘real life’—and it isn’t shot in blue gels. But either way, Sweet Pea does escape and we are to assume she is successful in her return.)}

No, I’m not going to say it was perfect, but I definitely found it to be far more feminist-leaning than given credit for. Sure, there were things I disliked, like at first I thought Babydoll killing the baby dragon was a metaphor for killing her sister… but then she killed the mother, so yeah, I have no idea. But the production notes (.pdf file) are a really worthwhile and thoughtful read.

Also Ellenicole had a great point, so I want to highlight her post; mine was a response to all the critics saying Sucker Punch is inherently anti-feminist—but Ellenicole takes a step further: “The movie is about finding freedom in yourself. Anyone can be stuck, everyone holds their own key to get out.” I do think oppression of many kinds is alive and well, though, so I back the sentiment.

BUT! For making it through my whole term-paper-length analysis, here’s a cookie: Sucker Punch online, free. It’s not the best quality but I know a lot of my followers can’t afford a movie. If you can afford to go see it, I obviously encourage that. A lot of theaters have bargain days, after all! I saw it the second time for only $6.

Thanks for reading! *I would also like to go on record as saying I don’t mean to belittle or infer malice in any way toward Monika Bartyzel, the writer of Faux Feminism in Sucker Punch. I think she wonderfully articulated the argument that many people feel and will continue to feel about the movie. It just served as a perfect bounce-off point for my thoughts. I hope you will read hers, as well. Thanks again.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

» P.S. Psssst: FUN FACTS

_{» Babydoll doesn’t speak for the first 20 or so minutes of the movie. This gives you a feel of having all of your decisions made for you by people you distrust and dislike. Her first line is one of agency: “Let her go, pig,” with a knife to the cook’s throat.
» The “hero board” —the chalkboard they write on, that is—has a lineup of dancers in the ‘show’ on the other side. The names are in reverse order of their deaths. Foreshadowing!
» Babydoll’s real-world asylum uniform dress and brothel-filter dress are the same, to reinforce a) that one’s a filter of the other and b) that she hasn’t yet been ‘assimilated’ (corrupted by the orderlies) into the ‘brothel’ setting.
» Sweet Pea really is the ‘strongest of them all’ - in every fight scene, she is the only one to not take hits, unlike Babydoll and Rocket, for example. Not to mention she consistently saves Rocket’s ass, but that seems par for the course.}