Few movies in 2020 were as anticipated as WW 1984. These expectations were fueled in large part by the first movie. The 2017 movies is a tightly directed, well acted, blockbuster that is also coherent in its plot and antiwar message. WW 1984 had $50 million more to work with. But these added dollars didn’t seem to add much value. Despite director Patty Jenkins’ obvious talent, the movie gets lost in its plot, poor understanding of the issues that defined its era (1980s), and weaves in too much social consciousness to anchor a compelling story.

WW 1984 is a Stand-Alone Movie

According to Jenkins, who also co-wrote the screenplay, WW 1984 is intended to be a stand alone film. In this respect, the movie works. It has a defined and wholly contained beginning, middle, and end. The only character other than Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot) who makes the time transfer into the mid-1980s is her World War I-era lover Steve Trevor (Chris Pine, Star Trek reboot film series, Hell Or High Water, A Wrinkle in Time). Moreover, the re-emergence of Trevor is seamlessly integrated into the story.

In 1984, Diana Prince, aka Wonder Woman, is a cultural anthropologist who now works for the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C. She befriends an awkward but intelligent Barbara Ann Minerva (Kristin Wiig, Bridesmaids, Where’d You Go Bernadette, Despicable Me), a gemologist. The FBI asks Minerva to analyze stolen artifacts recovered from a clandestine antiquities dealer. These artifacts include a “Dreamstone,” which Diana eventually remembers carries a dark power.

Meanwhile, the ne’er-do-well, television business tycoon Max Lord (Pedro Pascal, Kingsman: The Golden Circle, The Equalizer 2, The Mandalorian) is also searching for the Dreamstone. He has discovered its powers. But he fails to recognize its true power and uses it to manipulate people in order to literally monopolize control over resources. As Lord seizes control of more resources, he becomes, predictably, increasingly megalomaniacal.

Sprawling Plot Subverts Focus

The general plot is fairly straightforward and in keeping with a wide range of action movies and franchises. WW 1984 breaks down when it begins to conflate problems and issues and pigeon hole them. The movie’s story grapples with at least three separate ethical messages: appreciate what you have and where you are; live in the moment not in the future or past; and recognize your decisions have consequences which you may not fully understand or anticipate. On top of these is subthemes like redemption, loyalty, desire, etc.

Sound complicated? It is.

WW 1984 doesn’t give each of these ideas enough time to develop, or weave them together coherently. For example, when viewed from 2020, WW 1984 appears to be making a statement about greed or Trumpian ethics: More for the sake of having more is virtuous. Yet images and references to nuclear war conflate an intentional and strategic defense strategy and doctrine – mutually assured destruction – with the impulsive narcissism of Wall Street excesses in the 1980s.

WW 1984 also establishes Max Lord’s villainy through his fixation on developing oil as an energy resource. This is a culturally plausible 21st century villain, but he is strikingly out of context in the 20th century. Oil was broadly recognized as critical to the smooth functioning of economies and climate change had yet to emerge as a salient public concern. The idea that whoever controls oil controls the world was largely discredited by the 1980s as simplistic and naive. (Indeed, this is implied in the implicit commentary on nuclear annihilation.)

Millennials can be excused for this contextual confusion. GenXers like Patty Jenkins and her co-writers George Johns and David Callaham, however, should have known better. They should have also done more research to establish the plausibility of the plot line. More importantly, they should have seen how the sprawling plot resulted in a less coherent, less comprehensible, and more confused movie. Even by the low standards of a superhero action movie, WW 1984 plot falters.

WW 1984 Remains Entertaining

Unfortunately, the confused story structure hides the good parts of the WW 1984. The special effects are well done and don’t overwhelm the acting or plot. The movie includes excellent performances by Wiig, Pine, and Pascal. Ironically, while Gal Gadot shines in the small moments of the movie, her performance is uneven. Her acting seems flat and one-dimensional in the most dramatic and pivotal scenes.

Yet, despite its weaknesses, WW 1984 is entertaining. If it had been released as intended, on a very large screen in theaters (where I was one of six movie goers in an IMAX theater), the special effects and action sequences alone could hold an audience. Kristin Wiig’s performance is outstanding. She shows her range and adds layer to a character that could easily become cartoonish. Many viewers, especially younger Millennial and GenZ viewers, will safely ignore the historical and contextual confusions and enjoy the movie.

Others will have to wait for Wonder Woman 3 to see if Patty Jenkins can repeat the cinematic craftsmanship she showed in the first movie.

The post <i>Wonder Woman 1984</i> Lassoed by Sprawling Plot and Confused History appeared first on The Beacon.

The dust up prompted by iconic filmmaker James Cameron’s critical comments of Wonder Woman, and by implication, director Patty Jenkins, may have triggered a long overdue discussion over the validity of gender stereotypes in Hollywood.

Cameron called Wonder Woman, the summer blockbuster, “a step backwards” for strong female characters in an interview with The Guardian. Wonder Woman is “an objectified icon, and it’s just male Hollywood doing the same old thing!” He offered up Sarah Connor, his heroine in the Terminator movies, as the alternative. Sarah Connor, he said, “was strong, she was troubled, she was a terrible mother, and she earned the respect of the audience through pure grit.”

Jenkins, not surprisingly, hit back hard, writing in part, “But if women have to always be hard, tough, and troubled to be strong, and we aren’t free to be multidimensional or celebrate an icon of women everywhere because she is attractive and loving, then we haven’t come very far have we.”

Jenkins is right. Kudos to her for standing up to the iconic director of Titanic, Aliens, The Abyss, Terminator, Avatar, and schooling him on what writing strong characters is all about, female or male. Just a little reflection on character development shows that Cameron’s superficial take on female characters is far more typical of Hollywood than Jenkins’ more grounded and polished artistic approach.

Strong characters have (at least) five key characteristics that define their actions and personalities:

1. They have strong personal identities;
2. They relate to peers as a peer;
3. They make important choices that shift the story;
4. They take personal responsibility; and
5. They exhibit courage.

The characteristics that Cameron identifies—troubled, deeply flawed, anti-heroes—are superficial, genre driven and ultimately manufactured personality defects that are culturally defined. They work because they are going against existing cultural norms, creating tension and conflict, which is the root of story. These characters often become caricatures, subservient to the plot rather than becoming an integral part of the story.

Sarah Connor in Terminator 2 is a case in point. The story would not be significantly different if the character were male. The part was simply cast with a female in the lead. Connor’s identity as a woman does not change the role, or the plot, or the movie in a fundamental way. (Try this exercise: what in the script or story would have to change if the lead role was the father, not the mother?)

Cameron’s Sarah Connor is a strong character because she fits the mold of what Hollywood has defined as a strong male action hero. She is strong in form, but not substance in terms of gender and her identity. Ironically, if screenwriters followed Cameron’s advice, all strong women characters would be simply male characters dressed in women’s clothing. (A recent example of this is Atomic Blonde, where the psychological distinction between main character, Lorraine played by Charlize Theron, and, say Jason Bourne, is virtually nonexistent.)

Wonder Woman the movie was refreshing because Patty Jenkins ensured that Diana, the lead character, had dimension and layers that were part of her gender. She never abandoned her identity as a woman. Yes she could fight, but Diana also has deep, core values that reflect compassion and the respect for human dignity, bred during her childhood among the female Amazon warrior demigods. Diana makes choices based on this moral core that makes her human and heroic.

As a character, Wonder Woman has a very strong personal identity defined by her own understanding of her place in the world. She interacts with all characters (male politicians and military officers) as peers. Her choices significantly change the trajectory of the story, and she takes full personal responsibility for those decisions and actions. She also exhibits courage even when faced with tremendous self-doubt and seemingly overwhelming odds.

The point is not that Wonder Woman is necessarily a stronger character than Sarah Connor. Rather, both are strong characters. But they are different types of characters. Wonder Women, embodied in Diana, has not rejected her feminine worldview or gendered sense of personal identity. James Cameron, however, forced his female characters to erase those identities to convert her into a typical, genre specific action hero.

Hollywood needs more Dianas and fewer Sarah Connors if it wants to portray the true complexity and diversity of the human experience. Our stories and movies will be better for it. Wonder Woman has done as well as it has at the box in no small measure because audiences have connected to Diana and embraced her in all her human complexity despite her superhuman powers.

The post Wonder Woman Schools James Cameron on Strength in Character appeared first on The Beacon.

Wonder Woman is Diana Prince (Israeli actress Gal Gadot, Batman v Superman, The Fast and the Furious), the daughter of Queen Hippolyta (Connie Nielsen, Gladiator, One Hour Photo) who rules over a race of Amazon women warriors. Ancient Greek Gods created the Amazons to protect humankind from their own corruption. Hidden on the island of Themyscira, Queen Hippolyta forbids Diana, the only child on the island, to train as a warrior, while the queen’s sister, General Antiope (Robin Wright, The Princess Bride, House of Cards, Moneyball), recognizes the child’s natural abilities and begins training her in secret.

In 1918, American spy Captain Steve Trevor (Chris Pine, Star Trek, Hell or High Water, The Finest Hours) breaks through an invisible shield protecting the island and is pursued by a German warship. A grown Diana saves Trevor whose plane has crashed into the sea. A German landing party attempts to recapture Trevor, but they are defeated by the Amazon warriors at great cost to the women warriors (including the heroic death of General Antiope).

The site of a man befuddles Diana, whose isolation on the island has prevented her from interacting with humans other than Amazon warrior women. Trevor and his stories of the carnage in the War to End All Wars (World War I) convince her that Ares, the Greek God of War, has returned to corrupt men and unleash his evil. When she learns the Germans are developing a chemical weapon that will kill millions in order to secure victory, she is spurred to fulfill the destiny of the Amazon warriors’ mission to protect humankind despite her mother’s objections. She is determined to find Ares and destroy him, bringing the Earth back into balance and restoring the good nature of men.

The events unfolding in Themyscira, while essential for backstory, end up as the least interesting part of Wonder Woman. Far more interesting is Diana’s entry into war-torn, early, 20th century Europe where she confronts discrimination, prejudice, and the inhumanity of war. Her innocence is challenged early on at every turn in London and in the Allied war room as Trevor implores the all-male high command to recognize the threat posed by the German experiments with chemical warfare.

He is unsuccessful, but Trevor and Diana are determined and resourceful. Diana holds fast to her identity as mankind’s savior, dismissing the prejudices and ignorance of the mortals. She wins over Trevor and the motley band of soldiers he assembles for a clandestine attempt to find and destroy the German general and the gifted chemist Isabel Maru (Elena Anaya, The Skin I Live In, Van Helsing, Room in Rome) who created the lethal gas.

Diana’s innocence faces a full-throttle challenge in the butchery of trench warfare in northern France and Belgium. Her instincts and identity, rooted in her training as an Amazon, are challenged by the practical realities of war that prevent her from saving everyone despite her compassion, superhero powers, and prowess as a fighter. Rather than succumb to the horror, her resolve hardens and she leads. Her heroic commitment spurs her to even more aggressively track down Ares, who she believes is embodied in the persona of German General Erich Ludendorff (Danny Huston, Wolverine, Hitchcock, Robin Hood)—a suitable real-world villain although the character in the movie bears no resemblance to the actual WWI German general. Wonder Woman climaxes in an epic battle involving the inevitable confrontation between Diana and Ares (David Thewlis, Naked, War Horse, Harry Potter film series).

In many, perhaps most, superhero movies, the winner of the climactic battle is determined by who has the most powerful toys, power, or resolve. They are high energy events triggered by explosive emotion and reflective of the physical prowess bestowed on the characters through their super powers. Wonder Woman differentiates itself from the pack on this score, no doubt thanks to sophisticated directing of Patty Jenkins (Monster, The Killing, Five) and a smart script by Allan Heinberg (who is credited with relaunching Wonder Woman for DC Comics).

The Moment of Truth is in fact a Moment of Truth, and Jenkins and Heinberg use it to push the story forward as the penultimate point where Diana’s faith is challenged to the core, her innocence is completely purged, and she becomes a fully realized adult. The appropriately scaled special effects do not overwhelm the story so the audience sees Diana’s power come as much from the attitude and thought she brings to their use as the superhero tools she deploys.

Wonder Women contains an excellent story in a well-executed film that grapples with the conflicts between idealism and practicality, innocence and experience, gullibility and wisdom. Jenkins has crafted a film that infuses substance into a smart story. She uses well-crafted storytelling elements, such as defined and complex character arcs, to allow the anti-war social conscience that underlies the film to shine and provide a compelling context for the film.

The post Review: <i>Wonder Woman</i>’s Anti-War Theme Elevates Superhero Action Film appeared first on The Beacon.