Avery Tries to be a Critic: 'Wonder Woman'

It's official, ladies: 2017 is OUR YEAR. And if anyone tells you otherwise, feel free to tell them, in as much detail as you'd like, why they need to shut up and get out of your way.

First of all, we've already had multiple films come out directed by women and starring some really cool women this year. Kristen Stewart debuted her first short film at Cannes. Niki Caro, Stella Meghie, and Amma Asante all had movies in wide release before we were even six months into 2017. That's pretty freaking cool, considering that most female contributions come from festivals and not that many people get to see them. And then capping it all off with the first female-directed blockbuster superhero film? Great move, Hollywood!

But as anyone who's ever talked to me knows, I personally hate the idea of supporting a film JUST because it's progressive or somehow "groundbreaking." It's one of the many reasons that people's explosive reactions to Moonlight generally irked me. Had the film starred two lanky hipster white boys (which that type of movie usually does), no one would have said beans about it, because aesthetically it looks exactly like every other indie gay movie to ever exist. Mahersala Ali may have won best supporting actor, but he sure as hell deserved a better script to work with. (See him in Luke Cage if you need evidence of that.) So disappointed was I with Moonlight that I had to be persuaded to see Get Out, another film that was hailed as progressive, another film in a genre I don't generally like (we all know how I feel about horror, right guys?), but I'm glad I gave it a shot because it was seriously amazing. My point is, if a film is good, it will be good regardless of its message. If it's bad, you can put all the progressive social movements in it at once, but it won't improve the quality. It's just the way it is.

SO. With all that in mind, how does Wonder Woman stack up against its brethren? Can a superhero film that was--gasp!--directed by a real woman with actual ladyparts stand among the finer films in the hero genre? I'm gonna go ahead and say no.

Because it doesn't just measure up against previously released superhero films. Wonder Woman, as far as I'm concerned, surpasses even the best of them.

First of all, let's get the obvious out of the way: DC has been so off their game lately. Off their game is perhaps even too kind a way of putting it. In their rush to compete with the MCU, DC did what a franchise should never, ever do: frantically hauled off and made a handful of films, supported by only one basic tentpole movie, and tried to make us care about a bunch of characters that were so badly built you'd literally have to read all the comics to know what the hell was going on. Man of Steel was an inelegant rehash; Dawn of Justice a character-screwing trainwreck, and Suicide Squad was...well, you already know how I felt about that.  So DC has a bit to make up for. And I think that with Wonder Woman they thought, "well, we certainly can't do any worse. C'mon, Patty Jenkins, make us a hero!" And damn, she did.

There are three major reasons why Wonder Woman rocks. The first is Gal Gadot, who is absolutely the perfect Wonder Woman. She's a trained fighter, as is her stunt double, and it shows. Never do we question whether or not Diana "deserves" to be as hyped by her peers as she is, because we can all see that she is exactly as awesome as everyone says (and they do, repeatedly, to her face, say how awesome she is). But the fighting is only one element, the rest of it is in what Diana does when she isn't kicking ass. Since a significant part of the film revolves around her first entry into the "world of men," it would have been so very, very easy to make her a weird hybrid of Gamora and Drax from Guardians of the Galaxy: she may not know jack about things we find normal, she might not understand normal human customs or figures of speech, but dammit she'll do you some damage if you try to take her to bed. Instead, Gadot plays Diana with just the right mix of innocence and wisdom. She may not understand the causes of World War I outside of Ares' involvement, but she knows that her job is to prevent people from hurting, and moreover she knows she's really, really good at that job. No one is ever going to tell Diana what to do, and no one is ever going to regret letting her make her own decisions, because hey, maybe she's never had ice cream before, but she's smart enough to analyze a tough situation and figure out what needs to be done. Gadot plays Diana as having confidence beyond just about any DC heroine to date, save maybe Catwoman in Dark Knight Rises (and, hey, are we even gonna talk about how much damage those two could do if they felt like working together?), and it works because we know that if nothing else, Wonder Woman will not take crap from anyone.

The second reason is Patty Jenkins' directorial choice to play to the females in her audience. Everything about this film screams feminist, and yet does it in a way that doesn't feel like we're being preached to or scolded for not being feminist enough. Too many "feminist" movies made by male directors take the approach of basically slamming the message down the throats of the men in the audience. The characters in these movies tend to be cardboard cutouts, saying to a female hero's face what most men would relegate to a chatroom or meninist support meeting. But Jenkins doesn't take that route. Instead, she basically gives Diana every attribute that Superman is credited with having--she's tough and compassionate in equal measure, she's analytical enough to slay on the battlefield but she's emotional enough to fall in love with one of the people she saves, she's innocent, she's charming, she's beautiful--but also goes to great lengths to make her human. She tells the story through Diana's eyes, so that when it finally comes down to the final fight, we aren't just rooting for her to destroy Ares. We're rooting for her to learn the truth about herself. We care about her because we got to know her, not because we're technically obligated to cheer on the hero.

The third is the action scenes, because oh my God when is the last time you went to an action movie and could actually see all of the action? Just about every thriller, action, or superhero movie I've seen in the last two years has a problem called Why The Hell Are You Using Handheld Camera For This Damn Scene. From Hardcore Henry to the latest Marvel flick, there is at least one if not more instances where the fight scenes are filmed in close-up with a handheld camera, and I can't figure out for the life of me why. For a film like Hardcore Henry it makes sense; it's supposed to be a first-person perspective and that's not always reliable. But for Civil War, really? It's fiction, not a mockumentary. Use your damn steadicam or get out. Wonder Woman, however, does not do this. Again, I feel like this is likely one of Jenkins' feminist choices: she wants us to see, in full detail, just how badass our heroine is, and you can't get that impression if the camera is focused on her leg, fist, or face while she's fighting. Moreover a lot of the fights set on the island are shot through Diana's eyes as well, visually telling us that these ladies deserve all the respect and then some. I won't spoil the best fight of the film, but suffice it to say that whether she's fighting a god or tearing up the trenches of WWI, Diana's fighting is in the spotlight.

And all this isn't even touching on the way sexuality is portrayed in the movie. Now, when I say sexuality, I don't mean of the Deadpool variety. This is a rare example of a superhero movie I wouldn't mind if parents brought their kids to see it. But Diana is canonically bisexual, and the movie damn well knows it, even going so far as to have her all but explicitly state to her male companion that she knows exactly what sex is despite growing up in a world of women. When he asks how she knows, she holds up her hand. Wow. Let's just acknowledge that in a world where we are supposed to be demure, it's amazing to see a casual reference to female masturbation in a mainstream superhero movie. Especially one that's coming from the female equivalent to the holier-than-thou Superman. Later on, Diana lets Steve, her spy love interest, follow her into an inn room and shut the door. We don't know exactly what goes down in there--presumably they weren't playing a friendly game of chess--but Diana, at this point in the film, has taken out perhaps the equivalent of an entire German battalion. Whatever happens after their first kiss, it's not going to be without her consent. It's a sex-positive message without actually showing sex, something of a miracle in a day and age where we seem to enjoy sexualizing the hell out of tough females. (See: The Fate of the Furious, wherein Charlize Theron is at her most villainous, but damn right she's going to use her sexuality to get what she wants because according to male directors that's just what female villains do.)

When it comes down to it, could someone like Chris Nolan or Joss Whedon made Wonder Woman? Probably, yeah, but let's face it, it wouldn't have been as good. Just like Jordan Peele had to be the one to make Get Out, because--real talk--a white director couldn't have understood the nuances or implications in the script, Wonder Woman wouldn't be half as powerful without the influence of a female director. And if you watch the movie and still think Patty Jenkins wasn't the right person for the job, I have no idea what to tell you, because after seeing this movie, I'm ready to take Justice League out of Joss Whedon's hands and put it into hers. Maybe, after all the complaining and viciously poking holes in every major or minor female character in every Marvel movie over the years, Wonder Woman isn't the female hero movie we deserve...but it's sure as hell the one we ladies need right now.

The PC curse

[This blog post started months ago and finished today is brought to you by the department of I'm Sorry I Haven't Written Forever I Work And Have Two Puppies And Get Writers Block Very Easily. I'm back on the writing about movies bandwagon now--yay Oscars season! :) Really, though, what was up with movies this year? Was every studio too preoccupied with the election to make good stuff? Doesn't matter. It's awards season now and they'll all be putting their best foot forward. In the meantime...guess it's up to us amateurs to start writing the movies we want to see. And now without further ado, another one of Avery's Official Unwarranted Rants Against Society.]

I am pro-choice.

I don't just mean in terms of abortion. I mean that I believe in freedom of choice. You're a billionaire? Cool, do whatever you want with your money, whether that be giving it away to the poor and underprivileged or blowing it all on a swimming pool that looks like a cave. You're a gay Christian? Feel free to get married if that's what you want, or stay celibate the rest of your life based on the painful belief that being gay is sinful--it's not my call. You're an Academy member? Vote for Will Smith or Michael Fassbender, I don't care, I know who I would've nominated, but that's not the point.

I've always been a fan of the Wiccan principle, "And it harm none, do as ye will." Translation: as long as you aren't hurting people, you do you. Or, as my own Savior liked to say, "Do to others as you'd have others do to you." Hell, even the basic rules of Satanism promote enjoying yourself, as long as it's not at the expense of others. Okay, you see where I'm going with this. Hey, what can I say, I'm a full-blooded American, I love freedom...as long as that freedom doesn't hurt the innocent, I'm all for it.

Now, we are a country founded on freedom. Including--and you probably can see where I'm going with this already--that tricky bastard known as free speech. Freedom of the press. Freedom in art? Is that a thing? Because lately, based on the reviews of some of my favorite films, I'm really not sure that exists anymore. Or if it ever did.

For a country founded on the principles of freedom, we sure do seem to like censoring ourselves. I mean, when the film industry was only--what--ten years old?--we had the Hollywood Production Code, which, I shit you not, forbade screenwriters from using the words "pregnant," "virgin," and in the wrong context, "sex." Now we've got the ratings system, which I'll argue isn't a whole lot better, but at least we can put whatever we want in the film now as long as we properly categorize it...right?

Well, okay, hold on there. You can put "whatever you want" in the movie, sure. But you don't want to. Not really. Not when the slightest infraction can get your movie labeled racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise "problematic."

The point that I knew we were gone was when Meghan Trainor's song "All About That Bass" was slammed for "skinny-shaming." Which was funny because every week you hear people screaming about how body image is just so awful in our country (okay, I'll give them that one) and calling out videos like "Blurred Lines" as sexist because they feature naked women and saying songs like "That's What Makes You Beautiful" promote low self-esteem as being somehow desirable (???)...and then when we get a song that seems tailor made for those protesters, they still find something to complain about.

Last year, the Academy awarded, among others, a Muslim woman of color, a gay man, two Chileans, and a female editor (!!!) a handful of coveted Oscars. Not to mention, Alejandro Inarritu did what only two other directors before him have managed to do: win Best Director two years in a row. All this while Chris Rock--a very popular, well-liked black man--stood onstage and told everyone how hard it was for him to find work...while he was, um, working. Not just working, but hosting one of the biggest, most coveted gigs in Hollywood. Because there were no black actors nominated, the Academy was slammed as racist. Never mind all of the non-white, non-straight, and/or non-male techies, directors, and short film crew nominated (but hey, who cares about them, right?) or, even more importantly, all the wins by those people. I guess if they aren't black men, they don't count, because I found very few articles howling about, for instance, Benicio Del Toro or Arthur Redcloud being excluded--and none that mentioned Mya Taylor, Kitana Rodriguez or Zoe Saldana. The message was received loud and clear: it's not diversity we want, it's affirmative action.

It gets even more ridiculous. The protests about a lack of black men in the Oscars are at least warranted (how, precisely, did they arrive at the conclusion that Will Smith wasn't worth nominating?), but calling James Gunn sexist because the casting call for GOTG2 (which he wouldn't likely have had anything to do with anyway) included a request for tall, thin women to play a specific type of alien is...well, there's no other way to say it: it's ridiculous.

What frightens me most about the PC culture is that there's no forgiveness and no flexibility. One misstep, and you're forever known as "problematic." There is a Tumblr blog, I shit you not, that is entirely dedicated to all of the allegedly sexist, racist, "ageist" or "ableist" things that celebrities have done. While some of these are legitimate, others are so bad they're laughable--but on this site they are still taken seriously. Others are taken far out of context, for instance P!nk's frequently-misinterpreted video for "Please Don't Leave Me," a song that is clearly written from the perspective of an abuser and has a fitting video to go along with it--but is denounced on Your Fave Is Problematic (that's the actual name, I swear to God I'm not making this up) because, for what reason I don't understand, they think the video is implying that men "can't be abused." Can someone explain how they drastically missed the point of that video, because as per usual, P!nk is the opposite of subtle and it's almost impossible to not see that she is saying, quite loudly and clearly, that men can be abused--and it's sick when it happens.

So, let's bring that to a filmmaking context. The rules are clear: if you're making an action film or TV show, you'd damn well better make sure nothing bad happens to your non-white characters--and God forbid any of them play antagonists--or you're racist. If you're making a movie that features a badass woman, she'd better not feel the need to have children or you're sexist. You are literally expected to be perfect in your portrayal of non-white or female characters or you are officially and irrevocably a Tool of the Patriarchy. There is no room for baby steps in social justice. It's not good enough for Agents of Shield to have one of the most diverse casts of any superhero franchise. Since some of them die, and some of them are bad, they are all Officially Problematic. Never mind that the leading cast is half female and two-thirds of those women are not white--it doesn't count because bi-racial Chloe Bennet "passes as white" (side note: in what universe??). It's not good enough for the star of Jurassic World to be a badass woman who lures a T-Rex out of its cage and leads it to battle with a giant f--ing hybrid dinosaur. She wants babies and wears heels, therefore she is a Sexist Stereotype and is Officially Problematic.

I'm not saying that we can't critique our media. I'm not saying we don't need more diversity, because God knows we do. But when you sit there with a clicker and mark points based on how many non-white characters there are (and deduct points if they're not heroes) or how many women there are, two things happen. First of all, you miss the point of the movie as a whole--and that in and of itself is damn disrespectful, considering how much time and effort went into that movie, yes, even if part of that effort came, God forbid, from white men. Second of all, you go against your own point. We want diversity, not affirmative action. The goal is to get to a point where it's the norm to have diverse casts, not a discussion point that gets picked apart until there's nothing left but sound bites.

So celebrate when you get that diversity you're craving. Don't turn your nose up at it and say "ugh, that's not enough." As a plus-sized teenager, you know what made me super-happy? Sookie St. James, Melissa McCarthy's character on Gilmore Girls. Her weight was not the focus of her character; it was rarely even mentioned, let alone made a central part of her development. She got her love life together long before her skinny, hot, perfect best friend. She had a husband and three babies. She had total control of her love life and total agency over her career, and she did it all while not being a size 2. I didn't care that her character wasn't perfect. I didn't care that she was a control freak or that she was clumsy or that she was funny, all of which are traits commonly relegated to non-conventionally-attractive women in the media. I didn't care about it one iota, because I was so enamored with the idea of seeing a plus-size female character whose story arcs were not measured by her appearance or her weight.

So next time you decide to take to the internet screaming about how unfair it is that Michael B. Jordan wasn't nominated for an Academy Award, consider this: every victory, no matter how small, is a step in the right direction. But if you complain every time one of those victories isn't to your satisfaction ("I don't care how badass she is, she wants children! She's not feminist enough!"), you know what might happen? Sooner or later, studios will stop trying, because they rightfully think that nothing they do will measure up. So think positive reinforcement. Celebrate when Native American actors are cast to play Native American characters. Celebrate when plus-size women get to play the love interest. Celebrate when Natasha Romanoff admits that, yes, she does want a baby, even though she knows she doesn't need one. Celebrate the small victories. Celebrate the big ones. But don't punish those who don't measure up to your ideal.

Please, please, please don't punish the ones who don't measure up, because you know what happens when we all cry sexism over every little thing? You know what happens when we accuse everyone who commits a "microaggression" of intentional racism? We distract ourselves, and others, from the real bigots out there. And as artists, as writers and filmmakers and actors and photographers and critics, we need to draw attention to the real injustice in the world--not hide it under elaborately-staged protests over a lack of perfect Strong Female Characters or Strong Non-White Characters.