Skip to main content

She's a very good secretary.

Wonder Woman
(2017)

(SPOILERS) The way some of the rapturous responses to Wonder Woman would have it, you’d think it was tantamount to the second coming of the Great Prophet Zarquon. Yeah, it’s laudable to have a female-led superhero movie at last (at least, one that’s halfway decent: see Elektra). And it’s great to have a halfway decent DC movie too (although, Man of Steel was at least half halfway decent), but I can only see a gulf between how good Wonder Woman is purported to be and how good it actually is. Which is just okay.


Celebrating the movie’s perceived merits is entirely understandable, of course, for all the symbolic reasons of finally having that female superhero (in a picture that’s a success to boot), but to try to make out Wonder Woman as some kind of genuine artistic and/or miraculous achievement of gender representation is quite another matter. It’s better than Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice – most movies are – but really, is it so far superior to Man of Steel or Suicide Squad? This kind of over-enthusiasm is common, be it willing The Force Awakens to be a masterpiece or even giving a free pass to Alien: Covenant’s many failings (guilty as charged). It’s even more so with Wonder Woman, as it’s immediately attached to a progressive political context. Hence a multitude of think pieces about how important the movie is, and what it means, and – only maybe – a few lines admitting that, well, the plot isn’t all that, the third act descends into a salvo of not-so-special effects, and it isn’t really very different or distinctive at all when set against any other superhero movie, gender aside, let alone any other world war-based one (Hellboy, Captain America: The First Avenger).


That said, it isn’t as if Wonder Woman had this baggage foisted upon it. Her genesis was a reaction to “bloodcurdling masculinity”, whatever peccadillos creator William Moulton Marston brought along with that. The movie follows suit, hitting very clear, defined notes in establishing its female empowerment focus (albeit, despite Zeus being integral to her existence, whether investing her mother’s clay with life or – as Ares claims – being her actual, biological dad). Patty Jenkins consistently draws attention to this through location (the female-only paradise of Themyscira), social structures and era (pre-vote), so it’s curious how passively/predictably a great deal of this material plays, either through obvious jokes (sidekick Etta comparing secretaries to slaves, Steve Trevor imploring Diana to cover herself up, showing up the patriarchal rule as hidebound, Steve continually surprised at her superior fighting skills), or outrage (Diana repeatedly witnessing the evil that men do). In terms of the fish-out-of-water trope, the London scenes play agreeably, but there’s nothing that’s surprising or different. For such an “important” movie, Wonder Woman feels very familiar.


That isn’t necessarily a bad thing, if the whole feels dramatically cohesive and creatively charged, but the movie too often seems to think that simply having Diana Prince there will be enough, when it isn’t. In some respects, as clunky as the characterisations are and replete with eccentric eastern European accents, the opening section on Themyscira is the most satisfying, as it’s the most distinctive and unfiltered, something it shares with the Man of Steel prologue. Diana’s growing sense of destiny, taught by an understanding aunt (Robin Wright) at the (initial) objection of her regal mother (Connie Nielsen) is bathed in a refreshingly lush palette and, while it covers a fair bit of ground, moves at a considered enough pace to provide a proper introduction, rather than feeling as if it’s desperate to cut to the chase.


It’s also pleasing that the movie is willing to go for it with the aforementioned outlandish backstory: of the gods, of Amazons made for man’s delectation before breaking with them, of Diana fashioned from clay (whether Ares’ later claims are just a deception, or designed to link the movie to recent comics retcons, I guess future instalments will clarify). So much so, it seemed to be setting Diana up for a “Everything you were told was a lie” reveal, exposing her naivety and facile earnestness. That might have been a cruel choice, since many of the kudos the movie has received from the DC faithful (and those comparing the tone of the movies to the TV versions of DC characters) have been as much about it choosing hope and sincerity over grimdark as its gender-based strides.


It is indeed one of the picture’s greatest strengths that Gal Gadot plays Diana as unaffected and uncynical in her outlook (even fellow Amazons think she’s bonkers talking about the gods as real), so much so that, while her crisis of faith is an essential part of the hero’s journey, when she momentarily rejects the call on having her illusions (seemingly) shattered, it’s a groan-worthy, rather than powerful, moment (much of that may be to do with how it plays as a pure, undiluted cliché).


Yet, if the “It was all a lie” had been the reveal, I can’t help feel it would have been more compelling, even if it would have taken the picture in a direction that had less to do with a uniquely female protagonist and more to do with superheroes generally. We have seen how easily and convincingly Diana has persuaded a coterie of acolytes to her cause, such that natural doubters are willing to believe her most ludicrous story, a metaphor for our own gullibility and desire to believe what we want to believe, be it the realm of conspiracy theory, “real” news, or the soundbites of the charismatic leader. Wouldn’t it have been more powerful to invest Diana with the same self-belief she reaches without the prop of concrete higher beings to define her?


The reveal that Danny Huston’s Ludendorff is not in fact Ares wasn’t so surprising (he’s been Poseidon already, and he can’t play every god; more to the point, his WWI equivalent of pill-popping seemed altogether too mundane for a deity), and I did ponder at one point that Dr Poison (Elena Anaya, last visiting Hollywood in Stephen Sommers’ wretched Van Helsing) might be architect of all this madness, as a twist on expected male malefactions.


That it’s David Thewlis’ Sir Patrick amounted to probably the most unintentionally hilarious superhero standoff in memory. I think I’m on solid ground when I suggest Thewlis definitely didn’t spend any time down the gym for the role, but even with a composited buff body and regulation de-aging, he doesn’t once come across as other than entirely ridiculous. Not helping any is his decision to retain his cartoonishly clipped delivery when announced as the Greek god.


Generally, though, the climax is probably no worse – as in, just as par for the course – than most other superhero movie showdowns, albeit with additionally confusing logic, but it’s precisely this that makes it an undiscerning plod, fatiguing even. It seems Diana absorbed and fed back Ares' energy, so destroying him, which one might interpret as a metaphor for male aggression being its own undoing but still plays as Diana killing the baddie at the end (after which, she makes an impassioned plea to love conquering all; it’s unfortunate that Steve’s self-sacrificial plotline carries so much better, as does the replay, now with audible dialogue, of their last words to each other, as it means her big moment is rather deflated).


And I don’t really know my DC, but I didn’t really take away from the climax much more positivity and hope than the much-vilified Man of Steel; both movies position their heroes ankle deep in destruction. I know, Supes isn’t supposed to kill anyone, and Diana doesn’t have that shackle, but it still feels a little off that, after running through a poor innocent mass-murderer (he’s not even a Nazi, merely a proto-Nazi, albeit all Germans are obviously heading that way eventually, and he certainly wasn’t a god, so was unjustly punished on that count), and hacking through armies of Hun in her rage over Steve’s demise (they’re only Germans, so they don’t count), we’re supposed to swallow her platitudes; her actions surely aren’t anything to embrace as a model of female empowerment. Diana essentially adopts the standard masculine response, although maybe that’s a given in a male-dominated genre and industry.


Prior to this, Jenkins and screenwriter Allan Heinberg (from a story by Heinberg, Jason Fuchs and Zach Snyder, chaps all three) largely succeed in distinguishing Diana from the rather careless, carnage-based superheroes, as she can’t go a hundred yards without wanting to coo at a baby or aid the wounded, but there are times where the sincerity on display comes across as faux, almost glib: like the movie has plumped for an easy option, and appropriating WWI this way seems slightly distasteful. To be clear, I don’t mean utilising historic wars in fiction is something that ought to be avoided, rather that attempting to assert their horror in a meaningful way in a movie of this nature is tricky territory, and I don’t think Wonder Woman succeeds. When Diana and her band encounter a procession of wounded and her heart goes out to them, it reveals itself as little more than a tableau to impress upon us her empathy.


Much worse is the no man’s land sequence, in which the irresistible symbolism (no man can cross it – only a woman can!) falls victim to risibly cheesy realisation. I don’t honestly know how you could have a woman in a metal bra running across a recreation of a historic scene of horrific devastation and not elicit some kind of disconnect, as any impulse to consider the moment as cool or powerful quickly subsides into wondering if the incongruity of her being there was such a sensible idea.


The gratuitous gorgonzola is also pure Snyder in design. Patty Jenkins ensures her performers all acquit themselves, but the action scenes, replete with speed-ramping and electric cello, could have been slotted into any of the previous Snyder movies (as could scenes of Diana jumping/floating about the place). Which is to say, they’re serviceable, polished and rather anonymous. I wondered, when it was announced that Whedon would be handling reshoots of Justice League, how he would replicate Snyder’s style (since Whedon doesn’t really have one), and this looks to be the answer; you get your crew to stick to the house style.


Wonder Woman’s greatest strength is its leads, and it’s this, rather than anything else, that puts it head and shoulders above the other DC entries (I like Henry Cavill a lot, but he’s been given very little to work with thus far). There’s something likeably low-key about the relationship between Diana and Steve, and Gadot and Pine have an easy chemistry. There are moments where the picture’s trying too hard for “normalcy” (the cock/watch gag), because this isn’t really that type of picture in intended tone, and Etta (Lucy Davis) is served some funny comic relief lines but as many fail to land. The problematic side of this is that, if your picture isn’t relying on comedy by design, it can end up feeling a somewhat bland and undernourished if the script isn’t sufficiently distinctive and different (The First Avenger was a particular victim to this syndrome, with the added constraint of lacklustre direction).


Steve’s band never feel fully formed, caricatures traced onto the trenches, with the exception of the scene where Diana goes to comfort Ewan Bremner’s Charlie as he awakes from a nightmare and is repelled with “Don’t make a fuss, woman”. Huston seems like he’s played this role many times before, because he has. Anaya makes a much stronger impression (in particular the scene where Steve attempts to butter her up), but as a whole the villains are sorely lacking, even compared to those in the aforementioned First Avenger and Hellboy (one scene subverts this, as Ludenforff and Etta gas a gathering of German generals planning for armistice, sealing them to a toxic fate and hooting with laughter at their “mischief”).


I think that’s probably it, really: Wonder Woman is competently made, pleasingly performed by Gadot and Pine, but it’s all a bit vanilla. It needed a richer confection. The script is entirely unremarkable. The visuals, aside from the opening, simply aren’t different enough to Snyder’s established style. The third act is a non-starter. And there’s more than enough enraged violence from the hero to identify this as same old-DC. Where it gains ground is Gadot herself, who overcomes some rather backwards motivation to make the role uniquely sympathetic. But still, respect is due: we wouldn’t have this movie if it weren’t for Batman. He’s the guy who sent Diana the picture that prompted her remembrance. Good old patriarchal Bruce Wayne, facilitating feminist principles everywhere.


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

I added sixty on, and now you’re a genius.

The Avengers 4.3: The Master Minds
The Master Minds hitches its wagon to the not uncommon Avengers trope of dark deeds done under the veil of night. We previously encountered it in The Town of No Return, but Robert Banks Stewart (best known for Bergerac, but best known genre-wise for his two Tom Baker Doctor Who stories; likewise, he also penned only two teleplays for The Avengers) makes this episode more distinctive, with its mind control and spycraft, while Peter Graham Scott, in his third contribution to the show on the trot, pulls out all the stops, particularly with a highly creative climactic fight sequence that avoids the usual issue of overly-evident stunt doubles.

Exit bear, pursued by an actor.

Paddington 2 (2017)
(SPOILERS) Paddington 2 is every bit as upbeat and well-meaning as its predecessor. It also has more money thrown at it, a much better villain (an infinitely better villain) and, in terms of plotting, is more developed, offering greater variety and a more satisfying structure. Additionally, crucially, it succeeds in offering continued emotional heft and heart to the Peruvian bear’s further adventures. It isn’t, however, quite as funny.

Even suggesting such a thing sounds curmudgeonly, given the universal applause greeting the movie, but I say that having revisited the original a couple of days prior and found myself enjoying it even more than on first viewing. Writer-director Paul King and co-writer Simon Farnaby introduce a highly impressive array of set-ups with huge potential to milk their absurdity to comic ends, but don’t so much squander as frequently leave them undertapped.

Paddington’s succession of odd jobs don’t quite escalate as uproariously as they migh…

Where is the voice that said altered carbon would free us from the cells of our flesh?

Altered Carbon Season One
(SPOILERS) Well, it looks good, even if the visuals are absurdly indebted to Blade Runner. Ultimately, though, Altered Carbon is a disappointment. The adaption of Richard Morgan’s novel comes armed with a string of well-packaged concepts and futuristic vernacular (sleeves, stacks, cross-sleeves, slagged stacks, Neo-Cs), but there’s a void at its core. It singularly fails use the dependable detective story framework to explore the philosophical ramifications of its universe – except in lip service – a future where death is impermanent, and even botches the essential goal of creating interesting lead characters (the peripheral ones, however, are at least more fortunate).

He's going to emasculate our nuclear deterrent and bring the whole damn country to its knees… because of his dreams.

Dreamscape (1984)
(SPOILERS) I wasn’t really au fait with movies’ box office performance until the end of the ‘80s, so I think I had an idea that Dennis Quaid (along with Jeff Bridges) was a much bigger star than he was, just on the basis of the procession of cool movies he showed up in (The Right Stuff, Enemy Mine, Innerspace, D.O.A.) The truth was, the public resisted all attempts to make him The Next Big Thing, not that his sly-grinned, cocky persona throughout the decade would lead you to believe his dogged lack of success had any adverse effect on his mood. Dreamscape was one of his early leading-man roles, and if it’s been largely forgotten, it also inherits a welcome cult status, not only through being pulpy and inventive on a fairly meagre budget, but by being pretty good to boot. It holds up.

He mobilised the English language and sent it into battle.

Darkest Hour (2017)
(SPOILERS) Watching Joe Wright’s return to the rarefied plane of prestige – and heritage to boot – filmmaking following the execrable folly of the panned Pan, I was struck by the difference an engaged director, one who cares about his characters, makes to material. Only last week, Ridley Scott’s serviceable All the Money in the World made for a pointed illustration of strong material in the hands of someone with no such investment, unless they’re androids. Wright’s dedication to a relatable Winston Churchill ensures that, for the first hour-plus, Darkest Hour is a first-rate affair, a piece of myth-making that barely puts a foot wrong. It has that much in common with Wright’s earlier Word War II tale, Atonement. But then, like Atonement, it comes unstuck.

The aliens are not coming, just so you know.

The X-Files 11.1: My Struggle III
(SPOILERS) Good grief. Have things become so terminal for Chris Carter that he has to retcon his own crap from the previous season, rather than the (what he perceived as) crap written by others? Carter, of course, infamously pretended the apocalyptic ending of Millennium Season Two never happened, upset by the path Glen Morgan and James Wong, left to their own devices, took with his baby. Their episode was one of the greats of that often-ho-hum series, so the comedown was all the unkinder as a result. In My Struggle III, at least, Carter’s rewriting something that wasn’t very good in the first place. Only, he replaces it with something that is even worse in the second.

I'm going to open an X-file on this bran muffin.

The X-Files 11.2: This
(SPOILERS) Glen Morgan returns with a really good idea, certainly one with much more potential than his homelessness tract Home Again in Season 10, but seems to give up on its eerier implications, and worse has to bash it round the head to fit the season’s “arc”. Nevertheless, he’s on very comfortable ground with the Mulder-Scully dynamic in This, who get to spend almost the entire episode in each other’s company and might be on the best form here since the show came back, give or take a Darin.

He's a wild creature. We can't ask him to be anything else.

The Shape of Water (2017)
(SPOILERS) The faithful would have you believe it never went away, but it’s been a good decade since Guillermo del Toro’s mojo was in full effect, and his output since (or lack thereof: see the torturous wilderness years of At the Mountains of Madness and The Hobbit), reflected through the prism of his peak work Pan’s Labyrinth, bears the hallmarks of a serious qualitative tumble. He put his name to stinker TV show The Strain, returned to movies with the soulless Pacific Rim and fashioned flashy but empty gothic romance Crimson Peak (together his weakest pictures, and I’m not forgetting Mimic). The Shape of Water only seems to underline what everyone has been saying for years, albeit previously confined to his Spanish language pictures: that the smaller and more personal they are, the better. If his latest is at times a little too wilfully idiosyncratic, it’s also a movie where you can nevertheless witness it’s creator’s creativity flowing untrammelled once mo…

You’re never the same man twice.

The Man Who Haunted Himself (1970)
(SPOILERS) Roger Moore playing dual roles? It sounds like an unintentionally amusing prospect for audiences accustomed to the actor’s “Raise an eyebrow” method of acting. Consequently, this post-Saint pre-Bond role (in which he does offer some notable eyebrow acting) is more of a curiosity for the quality of Sir Rog’s performance than the out-there premise that can’t quite sustain the picture’s running time. It is telling that the same story was adapted for an episode of Alfred Hitchcock Presents 15 years earlier, since the uncanny idea at its core feels like a much better fit for a trim 50 minute anthology series.

Basil Dearden directs, and co-adapted the screenplay from Anthony Armstrong’s novel The Strange Case of Mr Pelham. Dearden started out with Ealing, helming several Will Hay pictures and a segment of Dead of Night (one might imagine a shortened version of this tale ending up there, or in any of the portmanteau horrors that arrived in the year…