Based upon the DC Comics series "Wonder Woman" created by William Moulton Marston
Story by Patty Jenkins & Geoff Johns
Screenplay Written by Patty Jenkins & Geoff Johns & Dave Callaham
Directed by Patty Jenkins
***1/2 (three and a half stars)
In the comic book movie wars continuously playing out upon our movie theater and now, television/streaming screens, the clear winner is so obviously Marvel over DC.
This is not to suggest that the Marvel Cinematic Universe is perfect by any means, due to the overall sameness of the films combined with a few subpar entries. And truth be told, Christopher Nolan's Batman (a DC character for those taking notes) trilogy, which consists of "Batman Begins" (2005), "The Dark Knight" (2008) and "The Dark Knight Rises" (2012) all operate on a completely different, more sophisticated and decidedly more adult level than the Marvel movies.
But even so, Nolan's series is also considerably elevated, so much so, that one doesn't really connect them to the movies that have become the growing yet comparatively struggling DC Cinematic Universe, which consists of, but is not limited to, Zack Snyder's "Man Of Steel" (2013) and the bombastic mess that is "Batman Vs. Superman: Dawn Of Justice" (2016) and David Ayer's downright odious "Suicide Squad" (2016).
Where Marvel has so strongly played the long game, carefully building up its universe film by film into something where quality and content is relatively consistent with itself, DC has been playing catch up ever since, making for a series of films that are certainly expensive, but bludgeoning, bombastic, sometimes ugly, relentlessly grim rush jobs. And unlike the Marvel movies, the DC movies just aren't any fun!!!
This is precisely what made Patty Jenkins' "Wonder Woman" (2017) feel like such a miracle!! It was, and remains, the best DC Comics entry by a wide mile due to its sense of absolute joy, excitement, exhilaration, unabashed and unquestionable sense of empowerment and yes...wonder...so much so, that even the trademark protracted, pyrotechnic drenched climax could not slow it down due to the combined enthusiasm of Jenkins and her leading superhero Gal Godot as Wonder Woman.
Of course, the sequel to "Wonder Woman" was inevitable and now, at long last, after several postponed release dates due to the on-going pandemic, it has finally arrived via a joint release in theaters and streaming services. Patty Jenkins' "Wonder Woman 1984" is a high flying, splashy colored escapade that again showcases what a terrific screen presence Gal Godot actually is in this role and what a perfect team she makes with her Director. While it does not fly nearly as high as its predecessor, and despite quite a lot of the responses I have seen to this sequel, which have been decidedly muted at best, I enjoyed the film very much and for many of the same reasons that I loved the first film...although, this Wonder Woman arrives in a bit of a different tonal package.
Patty Jenkins' "Wonder Woman 1984" opens with not one but two stellar prologues. The first is a flashback sequence to the hidden Amazonian island of Themyscira, as the child Diana Prince (Lilly Aspell), daughter and niece of Queen Hippolyta (Connie Nielsen) and General Antiope (Robin Wright), respectively, competes in an Amazon Olympics event, which results in a failure bot one packed with a lesson to be fully learned over the span of time.
Flash forward to 1984, where Diana Prince (Gal Godot), employed at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington D.C. leads a solitary, insular life when she is not, however, secretly saving the day from all manner of crimes as Wonder Woman...in this case, a spectacular display of heroism as she foils a robbery of antiquities at a sprawling shopping mall.
Enter the shy, awkward, genuinely sweet and habitually ignored Barbara Minerva (Kristen Wiig), a geologist, crypto-zoologist and new employee to the Smithsonian, who gradually becomes friends with Diana. The twosome soon take considerable notice of one strange object from the failed robbery attempt, an item identified as the "Dreamstone" and is adorned by a Latin inscription which details that the occupant of the stone may be granted one wish.
Also in pursuit of the Dreamstone is Max Lord (Pedro Pascal), a failed businessman posing as a wealthy donor in order to gain access to the Smithsonian. All three principals intertwine as Lord duplicitously woos the Dreamstone away from Barbara, which by this point, they have each accessed the power of the stone through their subconscious and/or fully intentional wishes. For Barbara, it is to have what she views as so powerful and engaging about Diana. For Max Lord, it is to become the stone, attaining its power to grant wishes entirely within himself. And for, Diana...her wish arrives when the love of her life, pilot Steve Trevor (Chris Pine), miraculously returns from the dead.
Be careful what you wish for...
Patty Jenkins' "Wonder Woman 1984," is pure, unadulterated escapism, ebulliently executed is an array of boundless energy, candyfloss colors and an unrepentant cheerfulness, which I found to be quite welcome. In our time of superhero stories and which are just so seemingly consumed with trying to "out dark" each other with an overblown self-seriousness, what Jenkins has devised feels to be more of a throwback to the untainted innocence of Richard Donner's "Superman: The Movie" (1978) and Richard Lester's "Superman II" (1981), two films that remain at the pinnacle of the genre unquestionably.
No, "Wonder Woman 1984" is not operating at the same level as those aforementioned classics but it is finding itself somewhere within that similar cinematic neighborhood. One that is frothy, filled with derring do, is often a bit cheezy and corny but is so open hearted in its overall enthusiasm and belief in itself.
A sequence where Diana and Steve taking flight in her new Invisible Jet as a rainbow of fireworks flash around them reminded me very much of the iconic sequence when Superman (Christopher Reeve) and Lois Lane (Margot Kidder) first take flight and set to John Williams' lushly romantic score augmented with Kidder's interior vocal of "Can You Read My Mind?" The also aforementioned shopping mall robbery sequence at the start of the film, plus other action set pieces, also carried that red, white and blue buoyancy, including a desert truck chase clearly inspired by Steven Spielberg's "Raiders Of The Lost Ark" (1981).
I do understand some of the criticism towards this film, which is decidedly less serious than the first film, especially as Diana flies through the skies with her Golden Lasso of Truth as some sort of hybrid between Spider-Man and 1970's Saturday morning television's "Isis" (1975-1977). But, I am thinking this may have been an intentional yet risky choice.
With "Wonder Woman 1984," Patty Jenkins has created a film that feels to scale younger than its predecessor as its messages are broader in tone as opposed to the bolder, more epic tone of the first film. It is a conscious choice to be a comic book film that is striving for a sunshine positivity than the grim, darker tones that have become a bit too sadly commonplace and therefore taken much more seriously than they really need to be or actually are.
Honestly, the world can take only so many films like "The Dark Knight" or even Joe and Anthony Russo's "Avengers: Infinity War" (2018) and "Avengers: Endgame" (2019), all of those I loved. I think that there is something to be said for just being lost in the glow and succumbing to what is essentially a fairy tale and that is what Jenkins has given. "Wonder Woman 1984" is a fairy tale, a fable, a children's story and I completely fell for its "Super Friends" styled aesthetic.
Even with all of the bubblegum, Patty Jenkins and Gal Godot do take the time to inject some gently placed social commentary within the proceedings. One aspect about the origin al film that I was truly astonished by was how never at any point was Wonder Woman, all dressed in her provocative and revealing costume, ever objectified sexually, by the characters and certainly not by Jenkins. With "Wonder Woman 1984," the sexual objectification of women by men is weaved cleverly into the narrative suggesting how sexist behaviors have escalated and have become more open and overt as time has marched on since the 1920's.
Diana is consistently wolf-whistled and Barbara Minerva is nearly raped at one point, only to be rescued by Diana, which is later followed by Barbara's brutal retribution over her attacker once the powers of the Dreamstone continue to take hold. But, what I felt to be most notable was how Jenkins attributed sexist to both men and women in regards to how we perceive women based upon how they appear. When we meet Barbara, she is the proverbial wallflower with unkempt hair, large glasses and an inability to walk in heels, and so, she is fully disregarded...and that even includes Diana initially.
Yet, once that Dreamstone takes hold, affecting Barbara's appearance, wardrobe, gait and even sense of self-confidence, only then do people take notice, become attentive, hang onto her every word and is also seen as sexually desirable--all of wish fuels Barbara's wishes to increasingly darker and dangerous degrees as her rise in power comes at the expense of her humanity. Jenkins argues that Barbara Minerva was fully worth knowing, respecting and loving from the very start but because she did not fit into societal constructs of what women could and should be, she was rejected and that instilled her rage which becomes unleashed during her transformation into the Cheetah.
Furthermore, there is Max Lord, played to the hilt by Pedro Pascal, who is obviously having an ecstatic time being unleashed from the taciturn, stoic and even faceless quality in his performance as "The Mandolorian." To me, this character was so obviously Patty Jenkins taking broad swipes as Lord is really a stand in for...Donald Trump! Come on!! The failed businessman and low rent television charlatan who masquerades as a big shot in order to swindle people out of their fortunes for his own gain and is called a "loser" several times in the film. Who else could it be?
Lord's rise to megalomania via the Dreamstone, to me, truly felt like Patty Jenkins was wrestling with her own reactions to our exceedingly dark times under the Trump presidency as we witness a dubious character being granted everything he wishes for and how, again, the unlimited power is all consuming, resulting in a figure who becomes uncontrollable, unrepentant, unfeeling and operates with a full absence of malice and empathy, existing solely to serve himself at the expense of the world. Again, Jenkins presents all of this with a heaping spoonful of sugar but just swallow it and the bitterness is there.
Now...to address the inexplicable controversy of the return of Steve Trevor, with all of the calls from viewers and writers regarding sexual politics and sexual consent, to them, I would ask...are you aware of what kind of film you are watching? We have a movie about a mythical Amazon who flies an Invisible Jet and there are real concerns about sexual consent as Steve's presence arrives courtesy of the Dreamstone. Remember, this film is set in 1984, and to that end, Jenkins is just having a riff on all of the body swap movies of that time period like Carl Reiner's "All Of Me" (1984), Rod Daniel's "Like Father, Like Son" (1987), Brian Gilbert's "Vice Versa" (1989) and of course, Penny Marshall's "Big" (1988). So, and with all of that in mind, can we just eject this non-controversy once?
Additionally, to also address the controversy/criticism over Diana's longing for Steve, as if being in love and mourning over her first and one true love makes her a weaker figure. Really? Moving over to the Marvel movies, um...wasn't Steve Rogers a.k.a. Captain America (Chris Evans), mourning over his lost love throughout seven films over a ten year period?! We certainly never questioned his strength, resolve or even his manhood and neither should we for Diana Prince. In fact, this is a quality that has ensured the character has attained growth over the two films while still retaining the purity of her being, especially her womanhood.
In "Wonder Woman 1984," we now have a Diana Prince who is older, wiser and in constant mourning over Steve as well as everyone she had grown close with, loved and lost over several decades, an experience which has simultaneously isolated her from humanity as she embraces and is determined to protect it. That makes for a touching dichotomy for the character which again, is not taken too seriously as to upend the fun. But, it does give the film a taste of gravity so it does not float away into the skies.
If I had a real criticism for the film, it would actually have to be in its construction of 1984. We, as a society, have amassed a tremendous amount of archival material from and of the 1980s that I woud feel it to be easier to replicate in a truthful manner, more like "Stranger Things" and decidedly less like Frank Coraci's "The Wedding Singer" (1998), which seemed to exist inside of a 1980s funhouse and was resoundingly unrepresentative of the actual decade. At any rate, Patty Jenkins' representation was not terribly successful either, an all White breakdancing crew in Washington D.C. notwithstanding.
I guess it just felt like a plea for nostalgia rather than anything driven by storytelling. Jenkins didn't seem to utilize much of the decade purposefully and even by mid to late film, the conceit felt to be abandoned entirely. I mean --why was this film set in 1984? What was the significance of using that year when the movie felt that it could take place in nearly any year?
Regardless, I had a good time and for me, I think that was all Patty Jenkins' "Wonder Woman 1984" aspired to be. No, the wealth of inspiration and empowerment that made the first film soar is not present but with our world so fraught with uncertainty and anxiety, it felt good to me to spend some time with a film that possessed such a sunnier disposition.
Wonder Woman legitimately placed a smile upon my face and I cannot fault her, or her movie, for that. I can only be appreciative.
No comments:
Post a Comment