Wonder Woman - a film review and some contemplation on feminism and her discontents

For all the hurrahs about feminism, empowerment and being the first female-led superhero film, informed film-goers might look askance when remembering (possibly through knotted brows) the likes of Elektra, Catwoman, the Netflix series Jessica Jones and Supergirl.

They might also shake their forefingers and gently remind the overly ecstatic of films like the Alien series, Kill Bill, as well as in my opinion far superior films that consider the feminine and the nuances therewith such as the recent Arrivals, The Silence of the Lambs, Breakfast at Tiffany’s, Kieslowski’s Bleu, Eastwood’s Million Dollar Baby, Jeunet’s Amelie, most of Miyazaki’s animated films and many, many others.

Having recollected this, one can perhaps approach the DC film, Wonder Woman, with something akin to objectivity, without the unnecessary weight of social progressivism put upon her shoulders. It is therefore a pleasure to say that overall DC has delivered an enjoyable film with some depth – not always on offer in films of this genre.  

The casting of Gal Gadot, a former model with relatively little acting experience, in the leading role raised a few eyebrows and burst a few veins on the foreheads of hardcore fans when it was announced. But her assets were used well – the obvious statuesque and regal good looks, exotic accent and her natural charisma were maximised in their utility. For example, the choice to make the rest of the Amazon cast imitate Gadot’s accent was a rather ingenious touch that used what might have been a limitation and actually enhanced her other-worldliness. She obviously put in a lot of work physically for the action sequences and her acting was, against some expectations, pretty good.  

The supporting cast was of high quality and Gadot’s sparring partner, Chris Pine, managed to generate great chemistry with her, with well-written banter and the comedy evoked by a beautiful naïve in a harsh world, all restrained under the seriousness of the bloodbath that was the Great War.

The Wonder Woman portrayed is one that presented a well-rounded femininity. Not overbearing, didactic or forever teeth-bearing, but confident, inquisitive, humorous and tender. She would coo at babies, tear up at the sufferings of strangers, unsheathe her intelligence when challenged, while showing a steely resolve to do the right thing according to her principles and inspiring others by her actions.

There are a couple of moments where Diana’s all-female upbringing clashes with the atavistic chauvinism prevalent in the day but the theme wasn’t central but more to generate humour. It is perhaps a missed opportunity not to have spent even just one scene on the changing landscape of Britain, when the Suffragette movement’s public image changed favourably as they turned their attention to works related to the War rather than hunger-strikes and fringe-led terrorism. This led to, in 1918, the first election when some women over the age of 30 could vote, opening the door to equal voting rights.

This might also be a lesson to some extreme wing of the modern ‘feminists’, whose rhetoric, many of them syndicated on large platforms, leave little room to conclude other than that they dislike men. And they are not above stereotyping and generalising when it comes to men, something they rightly abhor if it was the other way round. For some of the self-styled ‘warriors’, the level of vituperation seems to increase as they seek and engage in lesser and lesser warranted and risky battles, but demand the same respect and adoration as feminists of the past who were battling systemic sexism.

This may well be why women who identify as ‘feminist’ has fallen dramatically. Most women have lots of men in their lives whom they quite like and who are quite decent people, hence most women don’t like misandry. Many classical feminists, such as Christina Hoff Sommers and Camille Paglia, have also been speaking out against the hijacking of the term by the radicals. But we don't really need the hook of 'feminism' to hang the values that classic feminism entails, as feminism is indeed a wing of classic Liberalism. One can certainly fight misogyny and bigotry without needing to sign up as a feminist.

The same UK poll found 81% thought men and women should have equal rights in every way 

It is also perhaps revealing of a shallowness and narrow-mindedness of those who advocate the idea, as many did regarding this film, that a role model can only be apt if they are of the same sex/race/sexuality as you. Why good ideas or actions would be predicated on surface level properties like skin pigmentation is rather beyond me. I'm sure many little boys have fallen in love with Wonder Woman after watching the film, just as many little girls undoubtedly love superman. Or that Martin Luther King and Frederick Douglass is respected by Caucasians just as black and Asian people can revere Shakespeare and Mary Ann Evans (George Eliot). 

Mary Wollstonecraft, the author of perhaps the first book on feminism philosophy, the 1792 ‘A Vindication of the Rights of Women’, espouses this self-evident principle:

I love my man as my fellow; but his sceptre, real, or usurped, extends not to me, unless the reason of an individual demands my homage; and even then the submission is to reason, and not to man.

Wonder Woman balances this by having two villains and two protagonists of different genders, suggesting that it is ideas, not whether you have an X or Y chromosome that makes people do good or bad things.

And this brings us to the most surprising and considered aspect of the film, that of the agnorisis our protagonist goes through. Her metamorphosis occurs through her thinking that humans are good and that evil arose externally, in this case, from the machinations of Ares (a Rousseau-ian ideal). By the end, she comes to the realisation that people can be inherently evil (akin to Hobbes or Hume). She is forced to confront the chiaroscuro of human nature that challenges her basic assumptions and come face to face with the question of whether humanity is worth saving.

The light and shade is epitomised and contrasted by three people, one of General Ludendorff (needlessly and very loosely based on a real German General of the same name, who remarked that, during the Great War, the British soldiers fought like lions, only to have General Hoffman reply that “True. But don’t we know that they are lions led by donkeys?”), a very disappointing cardboard caricature of the evil warmongering German, one of Dr Poison, an underused character whose participation in evil seemed to come from some deep personal tragedy and hurt, which unfortunately wasn’t really explicated, and Steve Trevor, who represents the good and just.

Furthermore, the motley crew of supporting characters fighting besides Diana and Steve includes a man who was denied his dreams of becoming an actor due to racism, a Native Indian whose land was taken by the colonials, and a man suffering from PTSD. It surprised Diana to realise that despite their differences, they can come together and fight like brothers, towards something good, and were ready to sacrifice everything in the process.

And it is through facing the nuances of the different states of moral fortitude (‘look upon this picture and then this – Hyperion to a satyr’, as Hamlet remarked) that Diana comes to the conclusion that in spite of the imperfections, humanity is deserving of struggle. This is exactly true - in WWII, hundreds of thousands of Indian soldiers volunteered to fight under the flag of Great Britain, their colonist, against something they see as the great evil. Their participation was crucial in ensuring that Europe did not capitulate to the Nazi war machine. 

In one of the best segments, a quiet scene where Diana and Steve danced in the snow with the villagers in the village they had just liberated, Diana asked, amidst song and laughter, if this is what people did during peace times. Steve replied that people love breakfast, go to work, get married, have some babies and grow old together. Through the list of seemingly mundane items, you could sense the pair envisioning a fulfilling future together comprising exactly those things. And it is those precise things, rather than the glittering allures of fame and fortune, which makes life good. Though personally, I'd say lunch rather than breakfast. 

Wonder Woman, the female-led and female-directed film did greater at the box-office than the other DC films, amassing over $800 million dollars. It also received very positive reviews. It is, however, after all, just a super hero film where Diana emerges resplendent, hair lovely and smooth, cheeks and lips damask-hued, after battling a god for the futurity of the human species. This, among other things, such as her trim figure, has led to some fringe feminists complaining that Diana’s idealised image is fat-shaming and unattainably gorgeous. But I guess there's no pleasing everyone.