Once upon a time, superhero movies came along less than once
per year. Nowadays, the annual output approaches ten, and the superhero genre
has gotten into somewhat of a groove – for better or for worse. The
skilled creators who make these movies have learned various formulas that have
been proven to succeed. One may particularly note that Marvel has a good track
record over a decade of producing mainly good, and occasionally very good
movies. DC has been more erratic in its offerings, and perhaps it is the
resistance to mere formula that allowed DC to score an original win with 2017's
headliner, Wonder Woman.
The first thing that distinguishes Wonder Woman from the vast majority of other superhero movies is
apparent in the title's second word, and this word and identity also distinguished
the 1941 comic hero from almost all of her dozen-and-some predecessors. The
star is a woman – clearly a break from the norm for superhero movies with
a single, central star – but is that all there is to it, one chromosome of
difference, or does it mean something? If so, is it because she is typical in
some way of real women, or because of how the character is developed?
As I recently commented, Wonder Woman has been
subjected to many new origins and reboots in recent years – more than one
quite good one – which makes it an immediate challenge for any added version,
cinematic or otherwise, to do something new. But director Patty Jenkins and the
rest of her team succeeded. Or, if they didn't do anything completely new, they
did something that breaks the pattern of lots of pretty-good but increasingly
formulaic superhero movies.
The need for this is apparent. Deadpool lashed out against the conventions in one way: Its
(anti)hero disposes with traditional superhero virtues in exchange for
cynicism, humor, self-deprecation, and selective verisimilitude. He could
easily, without superpowers, star in a remake of Animal House (in fact, he did; it was called Van Wilder). Deadpool
laughs at the superhero conventions of virtue while dealing up a lot of action.
When he is injured – even when a limb is severed from his body – he
barely flinches and plays the moment with deadpan comedy.
Wonder Woman does
something almost completely opposite. She believes in her heroic destiny,
completely without reservation. She is noble and idealistic and stubborn and
absolutely nothing throws her off her game.
If there is one scene that stays in the viewer's memory, it
is probably her initial display of power in man's world, and the script picked
a hell of a place for her to show it – on a World War One battlefield. As
the less popular of the world wars, its savagery is probably less in the
collective mind than is that of its sequel, but the trench warfare of the First
World War put human fragility on display in a definitive sense. We can picture
World War Two soldiers swaggering through the European countryside during a
break in hostilities, ambling through some fields on the war to the next
battle, but the No Man's Land on the Western Front of the earlier war allowed
no human dignity. And so, there was no better place than No Man's Land to
introduce Wonder Woman. Holding her shield against a rain of hot metal, Diana
was everything the rest of the moment was not. Color where there was no color,
strength where there was no strength, life where there was no life, a woman
where all others were men. Her steady movement forward into the firepower of
the enemy is likely the film's central image.
But a series of non-action, staid, talky scenes may do more
to cement the film's uniqueness. In London and in Belgium, she's in completely
unfamiliar territory surrounded by Steve Trevor's team of flawed and
gray-moraled men. Both as witness to and object of their moral failings, she is
completely unaltered by their weakness, their avarice, and their clumsy
advances on her. She is completely inflexible in her morality, but she does not
use her powers to win the argument. Before the film is over, she has made each
of them, in some way, a better man than he was when she met them. She easily
could have picked them up and spun them over her head until they bellowed for mercy,
but that was not her way. Her primary contribution to Man's World was not to
serve as a human tank on a battlefield but as a messenger of purer virtues.
And the credit there goes to Gal Gadot. She gave life to
those values with the power sincerity. We've heard lesser actors read similar
lines off a card in a bland
and perfunctory way, but she means them, or does an
impeccable job of seeming to. Gadot is a former beauty pageant winner who also
served two years as a soldier. Remarkably, she seems to have brought the best
of each of those identities to her performance.
Wonder Woman's – and Gadot's – unbridled idealism
is not new in superhero movies. It occurs in flashes here and there in all the
better movies of the genre. To make the characters more subtle, more nuanced,
they are more complex than noble. In many respects, that makes them better
movie characters. It makes them worse heroes.
The last time we saw an actor bring a superhero to life with
such unflagging idealism was Christopher Reeve's Superman. That series, to add
some complexity, spent some time in the third film showing him as a
red-kryptonite-forged Bad Superman. But even the Reeve Superman (though not his
Clark Kent) had a mean streak, a whisper of sadistic pleasure, directed solely
at wrongdoers, as when he made a building-scaling cat burglar fear a deadly
fall, when he beat up the jerk trucker who beat up Clark Kent, and when he
pretended to be powerless and crushed Zod's hand in a theatrical taunt. Henry
Cavill's Superman is more consistently noble than Reeve's, probably at his
ugliest when he tells Jonathan Kent that he isn't his father. His decision to
kill Zod is the screenwriter's decision – a decision that the 1978
Superman never had to face, though the end of Superman II seemed to show him allowing the deaths of the three
Kryptonian villains (a shot showing their survival was cut from the theatre
version). Gadot's Wonder Woman also kills, in battle, because she has to. But
we never see her use her powers with glee, with pride, except when she is a
small child. When she begins her career, if it were, as Wonder Woman, she's
already the person she needs to be. Man's World is the place where she accepts
that role, but there is, fundamentally, no "Clark Kent," no
"Bruce Wayne" to muddle her identity. Whatever life she adopts as
Diana Prince (currently unseen by us except in a minute or two of dialogue-free
scenes), it is as the person she has always been, perhaps playing a role to
hide her identity, but Wonder Woman is who she has always been, if by another
name.
Like many of the better Wonder Woman stories, the 2017 film
is a Greek tragedy. The brilliant choice of history as the setting for her
story is that the audience already has the big ending spoiled for us, and perhaps this is why her origin was moved, relative to the comic book origin, to the earlier of the world wars. World War
One will end, yes; London, of course, will not be destroyed. And what Diana
considers to be her single greatest purpose will elude her. We already know
that World War Two is coming, so we know that beating Ares didn't stop war as
she'd hoped it would. Steve Trevor (Chris Pine, taking a break from his work as
James T. Kirk) gives his life preventing a tragedy that didn't occur in the
real world, and we have to presume that whatever Diana did after 1918, it
failed to prevent the DC Extended Universe's version of World War Two.
One of the great challenges for the Superman film franchise
was that its 1978 landmark captured the hero – and minted the genre
– so perfectly that it was a hard act to follow. So seductive were its
merits that Superman Returns flopped
by attempting to copy Donner's 1978 work on a structural and thematic basis so
closely that it lacked a life of its own. And so, Wonder Woman's greatest
challenge will be to keep the character engaging in a team movie next year and
a second solo feature later. It also remains to be seen how the broader
superhero genre will respond to this alteration in its pattern, a hero who is
completely, unblinkingly, noble – and a woman. Are you up to it, boys?
This was honestly one of the best superhero movies I have ever seen. I was so incredibly moved while watching this film that I went back and saw it three times. Gal Gadot is Wonder Woman stepped right off the page. Amazing movie.
ReplyDeleteJonny, so glad you enjoyed it. Travel plans prompted me to wait a long time after the debut date to get around to seeing it, much less blogging about it, but it was worth the wait. I feel like Gal Gadot was a scene stealer in Batman v Superman, and her solo movie lived up to that admirably. I look forward, also, to seeing it again.
ReplyDeleteHi Rikdad! I have been a silent reader of yours for years now, going back to the DC website message boards. I've never felt the need to comment before, but with your Twin Peaks commentary and now reading this review... I feel confident that many of our sensibilities align. Reading this review of Wonder Woman, I quickly skimmed your archive and read your Batman v Superman review. I am delighted that you enjoyed it. For my part, my brother and I have spent the majority of the year since its release discussing and extolling the virtues of BvS as a fantastic movie. To me, it may be the best comic book movie ever made -- a statement that I can back up, but is often met with eye rolling and exasperation by the world at large.
ReplyDeleteWhat is your read on the almost universal and, now over a year out, unceasing hatred for this film?
Thanks as always for the writing. Always enjoyable!
Danny,
ReplyDeleteGlad to see you here!
I think BVS had one central flaw, and it doesn't pertain much to the plot, but it gave fairly little in the way of joy, which is something that almost all superhero movies, good or bad, include at times. The montage of Superman using his powers showed people who were creepily awed by him, but nothing like the cheering crowd who watched the 1978 Superman catch Lois and the helicopter. And when you subtract the joy from superheroes, that's going to rub a lot of people the wrong way. But it was still excellent in many other ways.