It was exciting to see the first run release of Wonder Woman: 1984 on our 55 inch television, but disappointing to not see it in a communal atmosphere in a movie theater. Warner Bros. should rest assured most of us, including me, would love to see this film again on a large screen in a movie theater--even as we hail HBO/Max for allowing us the opportunity to enjoy Christmas Day seeing the film.
So, let's get to my, of course, detailed and wandering thoughts.
Industry stuff
First, from an industry standpoint, it was very powerful for me to see director Patty Jenkins' name above the title, as in "A Patty Jenkins film." She did not receive respectful treatment from the network suits for the first Wonder Woman film, and it is well known the WB suits initially saw her as expendable and fungible. This truly was Jenkins' film, as she not only directed, but shared co-writing credit with two male writers, Geoff Johns and David Callaham, the latter who wrote the initial WW film. Second, again, from an industry standpoint, was how glad I was to see Zack Snyder listed with his wife as co-producer, and, in the context of the March 2021 premiere of the Zack Snyder-directors' cut for Justice League, Snyder's rehabilitation is getting into full swing--sooner than I speculated.
Cinematography captures the 1980s
The cinematography was outstanding, as Jenkins, and her cinematographer, Matthew Jensen, truly capture the look and feel of 1980s America. When they bring us into a mall, I spotted one of those small B. Dalton Bookstores, amidst other mall stores of the era. The clothes, the hairstyles, and the way in which people spoke, are realistically depicted, so that a viewer may truly feel the time period.
Actors performances were outstanding all around, starting above all with Kristen Wiig
Kristen Wiig remains one of the most underrated actresses, particularly in how she physically transforms herself in various films. Wiig can go, in the same performance, from mousy to rage, and then to worldly and profound--all without losing her audience's trust. As a woman who began in comedy sketches, Wiig retains an underlying sense of humor within a harrowing performance as the gemologist who becomes Cheetah. I also think women audiences had to be thrilled with Wiig's character serving as a stand-in for women's rage at the hands of more physically powerful and lecherous men. Her performance in WW84 essentially stole the show, which should have been impossible based upon the very fact of Gal Gadot being literally Wonder Woman.
Personally, I have revered Wiig's acting skills going back to the most underrated film of the past decade, The Secret Life of Walter Mitty (2013), the Ben Stiller-led film, which film took a rather flat initial James Thurber story, and made it soar at multiple levels; layered, too, with a brilliant and beautiful soundtrack. But, I digress. Wiig's performance in WW84 is most worthy of praise, taking nothing away nothing from outstanding performances from Gadot and Chris Pine, who reprises his role as Steve Trevor (And yes, Pine is a hearthrob's hearthrob, who can sing and dance--if you did not see his stellar performance in Into the Woods (2014)).
Let's also say something about Pedro Pascal's Trumpian performance as the villain, whose personal Joker-upbringing, and peculiarly American archetype of capitalist greed and mental illness, fuels the mayhem, including a cliffhanger that almost leads to nuclear war between the United States and Soviet Union in 1984. Pascal took on a difficult role, as superhero film audiences have become much more sophisticated about superhero genre tropes, where many are now cynically wincing at villains' combination of dumbness and cruelty--and how we know villains are supposed to lose, anyway. The actor, Pascal, is Chilean by birth, and I believe his recognition of American megalomania may come from his upbringing. Pascal's parents were strong Allende supporters, who, shortly after Pascal's birth in 1975, escaped the US-created Pinochet military fascist regime, first to Denmark, and then the United States. Pascal has become a major actor with credits in Game of Thrones and Narcos, and the second Kingsman film. There are various points in his performance where he is clearly mimicking Trump's word style, and movements, which otherwise humanizes a terrorizing mood. Unlike Trump, however, his character Max Lord cared very much for his young son, which....well, I am trying to limit the spoilers and digressions.
Reagan was portrayed fairly accurately, even as the film avoided full exposure to the odiousness that is Ronald Wilson Reagan
The film writers played Ronald Wilson Reagan (Mr. 666) deliciously befuddled and ignorant. In our our world's history, Gorbachev does not show up as the Soviet Union's Politburo premier until 1985, and of course, the film takes place in 1984, when Reagan was still believing a nuclear war ("exchange") with the Soviet Union was inevitable (the link shows how close the US and the Soviets came to nuclear war in 1983 and Reagan's citation from the Bible to justify a likely war against the Soviet Union). The film depicts Reagan as befuddled and ignorant, which is fine as it goes. Historically, Reagan was, in fact, a befuddled, corrupt, lying informant, ignorant, nasty piece of work, contrary to the hagiographic depictions that even Obama fell into when discussing Reagan. That Reagan was successful in remaking the nation speaks more about the media protecting him at various points in his presidency, and Reagan's acting ability, which was far better than what people gave to Reagan, as credit. Part of Reagan's defense against corruption was the ability to act like he was only befuddled, as in Reagan's disingenuous testimony to Congress in 1962 regarding the waiver he granted as Screen Actors' Guild president to MCA--something no other Hollywood management or studio entity received--and how Reagan was neck deep with the Iran-Contra scandals, not merely misled by his subordinates.
Overall, I was good with the screenwriters deciding not to make Reagan as devious as he actually was, as that would have been too confusing to American audiences, and pulled audiences away from the dementedly, broken, deviousness of the film's villain, Max Lord.
The profound side of the film's narrative arc: Why does Diana continue to have any faith whatsoever in a species so ridiculously selfish and self-destructive?
The overall narrative arc was ultimately a re-affirmation of a significant arc in the first Wonder Woman film, where audiences should have been left wondering why Diana even stays among us humans. She saw the ridiculous and mass murdering waste of human and other life in World War I. Yes, she could still blame the mayhem on Ares, and a few human wartime leaders.* However, in WW84, Diana and we are confronted with something far more damning about human beings: When humans are given a power to make their wishes come true, our first wish-thoughts are not for world peace, a flowing of kindness and decency, or taking a loving care of each other, other creatures, and our planet. Nope. We just want power over others, lots of money to rule over people in our lives or larger communities, to kill others, and, generally, behave selfishly.
Cheetah (Wiig's character) is part of humanity's vengeful, selfish cruelty, as it never seems to occur to her to save or help others, rather than exact revenge against others for how cruelly (mostly) men have treated her. Wiig's character has a great moment of self-recognition of Max Lord's crassness and cruelty, when sitting on a private plane with him. However, that moment merely makes her barely want to keep Max Lord alive for the singular reason of maintaining her own physical and mental power, which she will continue to use against and over others. Worse, even Diana herself fails, when Diana is supposed to know better. Diana wish is for Steve Trevor (Chris Pine) to return, and later thinks she can "square the circle," giving Steve a second chance at life while somehow vanquishing Max Lord. Diana is clearly ready to kill Max Lord, and a whole lot of other people, which at least is consistent with the Zack Snyder universe--where we mortals should be wary of even Superman ever behaving badly.**
As we see deeply into Diana's apartment, we see she has been living for over 60 years like a modern-day Candide, just pining for her lost love, Steve Trevor, tending to her own garden--and maybe helping someone on a one-off basis, if need be. And, at the end of WW84, she appears finally able to accept Steve no longer being in her living life, but it is far less certain how much she has confronted the odiousness that is human nature.
An Amazon woman needs a man like a fish needs a bike
This brings me to what I see as Diana's Discontents, which center on this question: Why does Diana bother to care about Steve Trevor, or really, any mortal man? The Amazon women's origin story has changed over time, but it is still one where the women are superhuman and know better than to waste time, or take any chances with mortal humans--and especially men. There is an old saw from the late 1960s feminists that, for me, describes what should be the Amazon women's motto, "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bike." It remains a plot challenge that, in the most recent Wonder Woman origin story, the Amazonians appear to be the result of sperm from Zeus, a guy God, and an egg from Aphrodite, the female goddess of love, which means they are initially Amazonian babies, with big eyes so we can all just love them like baby cheetahs. But, really, why do these women even want any mortal man--ever? Steve Trevor is certainly wonderful, in that classic Cary Grant dashing sort of way, but he is still a knuckle head hot shot in too many instances. And he is certainly mortal.
So, yes, let's be blunt. When we see the Amazonian women in their island in the first film, and this film, we can't help but notice there is no sexual desire among them--and even Diana, in the first Wonder Woman film, is sort of like "Kiss? What is that? Ew, seems gross." I know it complicates the type of narrative arcs most people like, but there is a very ascetic, non-sexual lifestyle among the Amazonian women--where the best that may be said is, Maybe that is why they sublimate with physical skill building and sporting competitions? :)
I hope we may finally begin to see more young women screaming, Diana is ridiculously limited in her sexual desires and love life! Diana is first and foremost a goddess of strength, beauty, and thoughtfulness. And yet, the narrative arc places her firmly in the mindset of a suburban working woman in a 1995 Hallmark television show, where she can't find love with a stable, reasonably honest guy.
For the next screenplay, I don't see the most vocal superhero audiences accepting more pining away for Steve Trevor or, really, any mortal guy.
The Wonder Woman Franchise is at a Crossroads, and Must Embrace the Dangerous Narrative Paths
The Wonder Woman writers are at a crossroads, and should at least attempt to overcome the Warner Bros. suits' demands to not discomfit audiences only seeking escape. Yes, it will likely be a bridge too far for the suits to allow Diana to fall into romantic love with a woman (not even the woman who appears in the post-credits...I know who it is, but if you haven't seen it...). The suits may allow Diana to ascend/retreat to a higher ascetic and intellectual plane--but they will get nervous if Diana reaches a decision that what is needed is not vanquishing some individual villainous business or political guy, but instead foster a revolution in people's hearts and minds against the various privileges that oppress us. We see a glimpse of this in the penultimate scene in WW84, where Diana speaks through the villain Max Lord's satellite system with a Gandhian-Adlerian message of kindness and selflessness.
The problem, though, is it is not as if people forgot the mayhem and violence--and start of a nuclear war--which had been happening until she spoke. If people could just forget, perhaps in that Men In Black way, then the screenwriters can work from a clean slate. However, WW84 does not end that way, as everyone, including the villain and Cheetah, remembers. I am not saying hard right turns are beyond nervous suits who wish for audiences to forget what they just saw. Heck, look at how the X-Men franchise was saved by the cynical dissing of X-Men: III--and the suits laughed all the way to the bank, as the main characters ended up dying or dead anyway in later films. Yes, I still love X-Men: III--and actually, every X-Men film.
My concern with regard to Patty Jenkins and Gal Gadot blinking in the face of suit pressure, and not embracing a radical narrative arc, has precedent: The writer-director Matthew Vaughn and writer Jane Goldman did grave harm to The Kingsman franchise because they did not explore the Marxian implications of the first film's ending, where the people all over the planet realized how the top 1% had begun to commit mass murder against poor or working class humans in an attempt to forestall the effects of climate change. The second Kingsman film still had a frankly mediocre US president, and there was nothing to show any significant anarchy or revolutionary activity against the top 1% or any economically-based powers, nor any fascist populist movement in the US or other powerful governments. As I kept saying to anyone who would listen, beginning in the midst of the success of the first Kingsman film: Kingsman needed to go "Full Marxist" (yes, "Full Monty" reference) to maintain its credibility. What looked dangerous, i.e. going Full Marxist, presented the surest and safest path for continued monetary success. But Vaughn and Goldman blinked--or more likely, bowed to executive suite pressure--and Kingsman: Golden Circle was a muddled bomb. The next Kingsman is set as a prequel, which shows an inability to take the storyline forward without bumping into nervous film executives and media barons.
My advice to Patty Jenkins is, therefore: Don't take the easy path. You have enough power as the woman above the title--and the suits can't just dump you, as they did with Zack Snyder. Women directors such as yourself are in a rare, but exulted, place these days, as Jenkins is herself recognized as a woman-trailblazer. Jenkins should therefore go for the more profound, and give full reign to Diana's power and desire to heal humanity. Jenkins should not be afraid to be accused of sentimentality as she traverses this path, and not be afraid to explore radical themes. By radical, I mean the term's initial meaning as an adjective, which is to get to the root of a matter. Femininity and sexuality among goddesses is another radical path, and it can easily overlap with the political-social revolutionary path.
If The Daughter is any gauge in her continued Instagram social media reading, the film is already getting pushback among a number of fans. For us, meaning The Wife, Daughter, and me, we loved the film. I thought the film presented a nice balance between Diana's belief in humans and her recognition of how badly we humans behave. And damn, Wonder Woman flies, and is so awesome in every way! Oh, and I did mention Kristen Wiig is super as Cheetah, right? :)
*UPDATE: December 29, 2020: I am noticing people are more critical of WW84 than I expected. I think this has to do with something not articulated in the Twitterverse and beyond: World War I is a big subject and one that is deeply symbolic. It is a worldwide war. And it deals with big subjects of which we have only glimpses of understanding. When I say Diana aka Wonder Woman can chalk up the mayhem to Ares and a few generals and leaders, it is only for her benefit to keep wanting to believe in the human race. On the other hand, WW84 deals with a single rich business person who is part Lex Luthor, part Donald Trump. For the audience, this seems trivial by comparison to a world wide war that is already ongoing. Yes, Max Lord's villainy ends up almost provoking World War III, but, as the audience is not asked to consider this anything like an alternative history, the audience is never invested in believing the nuclear war will occur. It is only afterwards that it hits the audience that we may be into an alternative time line, but even then, it is a muddle for audience comprehension. I think this is why people are more negative about the film, and it is why my conclusions from the other day in this post about taking a more radical approach to the third installment are going to be necessary.
**The film also continues a mischievous exultation of Greek mythical gods, and saying "whatever" to Western monotheism. I remain amazed how right-wing Christian evangelicals are not up in arms about the way the film flips the societal script of whether it is Jesus or even God which are the real myth. Something else amused me, too, which is the sight of Gal Gadot, an Israeli woman, saving Bedouin children in Egypt. Considering what the Israelis just did--again--with Bedouins, and knowing Gadot has increasingly separated herself from a monstrous Israeli regime, I was happy to see that scene.
