Simple foods really are bad for us. Nutritionally, they are too easily digested, which is actually a bad thing most of the time. Heavily processed and enriched grains and sugar go through our systems inefficiently and cause us to consume even more of them. Complex foods like raw broccoli, whole grains, and proteins, are healthier. I think of consuming sugar as being like rocket fuel (an idea many of my childhood friends probably wished were true); which isn’t really designed for a Camry or a Yaris.
At the same time, we have a deep desire for simplicity, just as we crave sweets and simple carbohydrates. Because we desire simplicity, our brains confuse that desire for something it is not. This problem is easy to see with food because we know the complex foods are better for us, not because they are complex, but because of the pervasiveness of health education. We understand which foods are better, but not why. We have been trained to understand which foods are healthy and to spot them on sight. Choosing to eat healthy foods is therefore up to us.
It is no wonder that we mistake simple and easy to digest for beneficial. The distribution of health information belies our very ability to understand it. They made it simple, but it is in the complexity that we come to understand it.
Notice the tagline calls it "A mind-bending vision of reality"
I just watched the film Sucker Punch and it illustrates this concept better than anything I’ve ever seen. It’s complexity comes not from an intricate plot or sophisticated dialogue, but from wrestling with a problem so pervasive and ingrained in our culture that we scarcely recognize its rootedness: abuse. Physical, psychological, sexual, engendered, paternal, and familial abuse. From the opening sequence, we are introduced to a young woman, legally an adult, who is named only in the fantasy world (Baby Doll). She is still metaphorically and literally imprisoned by her step father, aided by a system that more easily protects the abuser than liberates the victim.
The film’s method of storytelling likewise exposes this painful truth by showing how inadequate the simple response to this subject matter really is. She is trapped and alone. In a different, simpler story, this would devolve into revenge fantasy or torture porn: movies which thrive on the inhumane combination of sex and violence that certainly degenerate the moral character of the viewer. Or it might be the bubble gum chick power plot most reviewers mistook it for. But instead, the film reveals the permanence of systemic abuse, both personally (in the life of the young woman) and legally (as nearly all of the film’s women struggle to be heard despite the abuse they receive within the system. We see them outside of the fantasy only for a brief moment, but their participation throughout the film reveal a communal struggle that transcends both the fantasy and “real” worlds of the film, but represent the universality of women’s struggle with systemic abuse.
The film’s feminist critique and deconstruction of The Woman’s role in society is so clear to a viewer willing to wrestle with complexity, that is frustrating that so few critics were able or so willing. Julie Clawson, in her response from last summer, succinctly describes the bredth of its feminist critique. Zack Snyder, the film’s writer and director has made the subject so incredibly engaging precisely because he does not approach this complex subject as if it were simple, or employing simple methodology. Instead, Snyder, has created a story that is complex in both it’s critique of society’s response to abuse and in its approach to victimhood. He explores, not the superficial, but the realistic avenues victims have in claiming victory after or within the abuse using a facade of the fanciful or fantastic. Make no mistake, the entire context of Baby Doll’s world and actions are entirely realistic—including the violent fantasy world she uses to survive—as her use of fantasy is a demonstrably real response to victimhood.
It is no wonder such a film would be panned by critics who not only fail to recognize the critique of more traditional portrayals of womanhood and sexuality, but fail to recognize the necessity for true complexity. Preferring a spoon-fed challenge that is clearly labeled as such, rather than one presented as a riddle or perhaps “mislabeled” as simple eye candy.
It is, in fact, the challenge of discovery that is good for us, the dealing with complexity squarely so we don’t weasel our way out that is essential to our development. So go, eat some raw vegetables, watch some subversive cinema, read some Gospel of Mark and deal with its complex portrayal of Jesus, and wrestle with the very real problems in our country of physical and psychological abuse, human trafficking and 21st Century slavery, violent and oppressive sexual exploitation and I defy you to make the case that simple is good. Not on this. Pretending this is simple is but a fantasy we use to cope with rather than challenge the systemic violence of our world.
