The title of this piece is a joke; a
family joke at my expense. It is a joke I indulge because I have a
self-deprecating sense of humor. Yet, the more it is uttered, referred to, and
the more I think about it; the more it crystalizes my relationship with the
discipline of Sociology and the long term effects Sociology has on its
disciples with privilege.
When Sociologists talk of social research
they often do so with equal parts revelry and distain. Sociology being the
study of societies and the various social forces that effect our lives means
that data is everywhere (and it is glorious). Anything about human behavior has
the potential to be turned into a research project. Yet, as a person engages
with the discipline, and the veil of ignorance is lifted (What we call adopting
the Sociological perspective), our joy at the vast volume of (potential) data
is tempered by feelings of alienation, disappointment and disgust at the capacity
of human cruelty. While this is may not be true for all Sociologists, it seems
the most plausible for those of us that study inequality.
Critical Sociologists that study social
justice issues often wade through the innumerable amounts of horror, suffering,
and agony of the world in an attempt to make sense of it for other people
(their readers, followers and students). Yet, as noble as this pursuit may seem,
there is a danger to anyone studying discrimination or variations of polymorphic
injustices heaped upon a group of people. The researcher could be perceived to be
a misery tourist, vacationing in other people’s pain. While harsh, this is an
especially astute criticism from anyone with an ounce of privilege. Those who
study social injustice while having privilege within a privileged system have
to openly admit, recognize and attempt to dismantle their copious amounts of
privilege; if they are to avoid hypocrisy and retain any amount of credibility.
Credibility is a consistent issue in a culture
of identity politics, where how you are perceived, in regards to your
demographics (age race gender sexuality social class, disability etc.), often
determines your authenticity to speak on such an issue. This creates a problem that is twofold: One, Sociologists
with white male privilege may feel alienated, or unqualified to talk about
social justice issues that do not negatively affect them[1]
and Two: White male Sociologists may be perceived as having greater credibility
(by the public) because their judgement is not perceived to be “clouded” by demographic
loyalties. Because of the color of a person’s skin, what they say is given more
value. While this is a basic constructionist
argument it cannot be overstated that the social categories that we often
create are based in biology; thereby promoting archaic and morally bankrupt
cultural norms like biological determinism.
Additionally, A person is seen to have
greater legitimacy, and their augments taken more seriously, when it is assumed
either A: They have no “stake” in the issue at hand because of their
demographics and thus their argument is seen as more rational (therefore
better). Or B: the experience afforded to you by your demographics provides the
only manner of validity (AKA: Biological Determinism).This dichotomy is
especially true if those individuals are in positions of power and authority. A
white male perspective is seen as more acceptable because we are used to seeing
them in positions of authority. Whereas the public often bristles at the claims
made by people of color in authority even if the content between a white and
nonwhite authority is the same. What is true, regardless of who is in
authority, people are being effected by socially constructed categories that
gain primacy through these pseudo-biological explanations.
The question then is how can we combat
this? As a Sociologist in a privileged position (through whiteness, maleness,
sexuality and social class) our first role to combat these legitimacy issues is
to listen. Listen to the stories, experiences and analysis of other people from
different demographics. Read their words and attempt to empathize with their
struggle. However, it is important not to co-opt their struggle, or try to fix
the struggle alone without them. That is not our place. We cannot be saviors
fueled by guilt. That mentality still casts non-privileged people as helpless,
and maintains a complicated narrative based on victimhood. We need to be their
support for their self-liberation that they have strived towards and fought for
generations. And it’s about time more of the privileged jump on the bandwagon,
and the key to success is intersectionality.
I am an anti- social sociologist, I do not
like to be around people; because my research and field of study results in me
seeing the worst in them (people with power and privilege) and the system(s)
they create. I have attempted to be a conduit for the work of the non-privileged/under
privileged. I read their work and echo their voices in an attempt to use my
privilege for good. In that effort, I attempt to sway the powerful and the
privileged because maybe, just maybe, when they hear a heterosexual upper class
white guy say the same thing that people of color, women, trans folk, gays and
lesbians, and the poor have said for years; they might actually listen. Therefore,
like a snake who eats its own tail, I use my privilege to tear down a system I
benefit from; so one day that system, and my privilege, do not exist at all.
[1]
Many of White male Scholars go through some kind of existential crisis if they
talk about social injustice in the classroom.
The Tenth film in my comprehensive
analysis of the films of
Christopher Nolan
is the WWII epic Dunkirk.This film marks a number of “firsts” for
the acclaimed auteur. It is the first war film of his career, it is his first semi-biographical
period film (in that it is a real life event that happened) it is the first
time working with stars like Mark Rylance, and Henry Styles, it is the first to
have 75% of its run time shot in 70mm IMAX film, and it is the first (Non-Batman)
film since his break out hit Mementoto receive near flawless praise from critics. As of this
writing, Dunkirk’s advanced ticket sales (Thursday evening screenings) have totaled 5.5
million dollars.
However, unlike a lot of “seasonal blockbusters” Nolan films always seem to
stick around in the theaters longer than the typical summer fanfare. The best
example of this being Inceptionwho’s box office run was analogous to
“the little engine that could” and is still the largest grossing (Non-Batman)
Nolan film to date. Currently, Dunkirk is projected to take home a
modest, but respectable 30-40 million dollars on opening weekend. It is my hope
that with its positive buzz, and critical reception, the present estimate is a
conservative one; because this film is amazing.
PLOT
Christopher Nolan’s Dunkirk recounts the evacuation of British and
French soldiers
off of the beaches of Dunkirk, France by requisitioned civilian vessels during
the week of May 26th-June 4th 1940. The film, told in Triptych story structure, focuses on three
major parts of that evacuation:
1. The Land: The Soldiers (among them Harry
Styles and Kenneth Branagh) on the beach, getting boxed in by the German army,
hoping against hope that they can find a way home.
2. The Sea: Appropriated civilian vessels
(piloted by Mark Rylance and featuring Cillian Murphy) as they leave England to
help rescue the soldier.
3. The Air: A group of three British
airmen (Tom Hardy, Michael Caine and Jack Lowman) whom provide cover during the
evacuation.
FILM ANALYSIS
Overall
Impressions
This film is the best film of the year,
and I don’t see many other films surpassing it in the remaining months of 2017.
The film is a breathless, suspenseful, white-knuckling caustic assault of
sensory overload which, at a tight 107min, never lets you go. The film’s run
time is notable due to the last four of Nolan’s Films (The Dark Knight,
Inception, The Dark Knight Rises, and Interstellar) clocking in
between 145min to 179min. Here, Nolan seems to have gone back to the economy of
storytelling that we haven’t seen from him since The Prestige. This is a welcomed
return to the kind of pacing control and lean focus of his earlier films (such
as the aforementioned Memento, or
even Following).
Unlike those longer films, Dunkirk is not a story about the entire
battle and complete evacuation, (as I am sure it would be if the runtime was
any longer). It tells the middle of the story. It drops you in after the battle,
and carries you through the evacuation; but the film ends before the evacuation
is completely over. The film lives in the middle space between the beginning
and the ending of a historical event. This allows Nolan the space he needs to
“turn things up to eleven”. From the very first frame of soldiers clutching at
fear mongering propaganda dropped by enemy war planes, the audience is gripped
by an all-consuming tension that, while allowing a few brief moments of relief,
they are never truly released from until the screen cuts to black at the end of
the film. It is then that the audience
can exhale, only to then cheer at the films brilliance.
The Structure
The first rule of being a “Nolanite” (A
ravenous Christopher Nolan fan) is that a Christopher Nolan film will not have
a linear story structure. Part of the overall fun of a Nolan film is to attempt
to piece it together as Nolan lays the labyrinth before me. To this day, Nolan
has never disappointed me in this regard, unlike some other directors.
I was unaware of what a Triptych structure
was until this film. A technique
typically used in painting (of murals), A triptych painting structure involves
three separate panels that are at once independent and, when put together, part
of a complete story. The three parts of the film are the aforementioned The
Land (which Nolan calls “the mole”), The Sea, and The Air. Nolan even uncharacteristically gives out
subtle hints of how those pieces fit together. He provides a subheading time
stamp as to how long each one of the vignettes lasted in film time, allowing
the audience to easily follow along.
Nolan’s atypical transparency can be attributed
to his very real chances of receiving an Academy Award. With the subject matter
of WWII historically generating award gold, Nolan and his entire team, are
strong contenders to sweep the 2018 Oscars. It isn’t that he is explicitly
“dumbing down” his esoterically pretentious pedagogy (that I have come to
love). It is that he seems to be leading the audience a little more than he has
in the past; making sure that no audience member had any doubt about what
happened, in what order, and to whom at the film’s end. With a filmography that is rich in subtext
and subversion, it is plausible that Nolan, desiring (much deserved)
recognition from the Academy, made a choice to be less opaque in hopes that the
added clarity may help his chances at winning the coveted award.
Outside of motivation, the structure is
woven beautifully together; each part of the three piece structure fuels and
builds off of the other two. Instead of linearly moving from one part of the
story to the next, Nolan and editor Lee Smith begin each of the stories at the
same time; cutting back and forth between them.
This consistent shift of character, perspective and action; Nolan uses
to build tension to the point that eventually, with each cut to multiple people
in peril, there is no respite for the audience. All that is left is the
imbalance of constantly teetering on the edge of their seat. There is one
sequence in particular where Nolan and Smith cut between the three different
sequences, and in each sequence, one or more characters are in danger of
drowning. So, even though we jump between sequences, there is this mounting
dread that is slowly turning into doom in the hearts of the audience as we
watch characters fight the sea, in various different capacities. The structure
and the editing style hooks us deep into the individual moments in the film
which propels us into the next; and with an exercise in minimalist dialogue, it
is the craftsmanship of these intercut moments that progresses the story.
Cinematography, and
Soundtrack
A well-known serial collaborator,
Christopher Nolan always has a spot open for the hand full of
individuals
with whom he works well, both behind and in front of the camera. Tom Hardy (who
has worked with Nolan 3 times including Dunkirk)
has been cited in an interview saying that “When Christopher Nolan asks you
to be in a movie, you just say yes and find out what your part is later.”
However, given Tom Hardy’s previous roles in Nolan’s films there is a pretty
good chance, the next film will require the majority of his face be
covered. In addition to Hardy, Nolan has
worked with Cillian Murphy 5 times (in various capacities) Christian Bale, 4
times and his grand “lucky charm” Sir Michael Caine (including the voice cameo
in Dunkirk) 7 out of his last 10
films.
However, Dunkirk marks only the sophomore outing for Nolan and Director of
Photography Hoyte Van Hoytema. Starting
on Interstellar, Hoytema took over
for Wally Pfister while he was off making Transcendence.
Together Hoytema and Nolan have continued to champion the medium of film.
They attempt to push film beyond the boundaries of everyday filmmaking, into a
premium crisp and vibrantly palpable experience, through the use and continued
exploration of IMAX film and large print film stock. Dunkirk
is the latest fruit of that labor.
Dunkirk
is the first full length feature film to have 75% of the film shot with
IMAX cameras. The IMAX camera that shoots in 15/70mm allows this biographical
war epic to literally be larger than life (and many small buildings). The
result is a completely immersive experience to the audience that is so
enveloping that few have commented on the aspect ratio changes throughout the
film as the other 25% of the film was shot on 35mm at a different aspect ratio.
Nolan and Smith wove these changes so expertly in the middle of the story (many
times within the same shot) that it was seamless. But it was Nolan and Hoytema (who previously
created a shoulder rig for the infamously heavy camera on Interstellar), whoout
did themselves on Dunkirk where they
not only built an IMAX rig so that it would fit into a 1940 Supermarine
Spitfire cockpit, but they also strapped an IMAX camera to the outside of one
of those planes and then crashed it into the ocean. Ambition, thy name is
Nolan.
Very rarely in modern cinema, does
a war epic get a PG-13 rating. Unlike its predecessors such as Saving Private Ryan, Apocalypse Now, or Platoon, Dunkirk itself is pretty
bloodless. It trades the gore of war and crimson clad warfare, for wiry
tension, trusting in the audience’s imagination to fill in the graphic gaps
between each bullet, bomb, and the impossible decision of whether to drown or
burn to death. It is that trade off, along with the effort of using IMAX
cameras that pays off in spades. With it, Nolan and Hoytema are able to capture
the terror exhaustion and determination on the faces of those in the scene.
This personalizes their struggle and amplifies their terror in the hearts of
the audience.
An
example of one such scene is the way Nolan and Hoytema personalize the
capsizing of British Destroyer. In this particular unnerving IMAX sequence, the
point of view is from the perspective of soldiers on the collapsing
vessel. Nolan and Hoytema use a camera
technique called a “Dutch Tilt” (something that
can be overused if not careful)
to make it seem like a wall of water was engulfing the men where they
stood. A hauntingly well-crafted shot
displaying a horror that is hard to shake once you leave the theater.
Another of Nolan’s frequent
collaborators over the last 6 films has been Hans Zimmer. Hans Zimmer is the
genius composer that has brought us a
literal cacophony of sound in his tenure working in film. Often times, a
Zimmer score has been the bright spot in a lot of dim films. However it is his
work with Christopher Nolan that Zimmer always seems to outdo himself. From the
Brilliance of the Joker’s theme in The
Dark Knight to Catwoman's and Bane’s theme in Rises, to the
cosmic “docking sequence in Interstellar
Zimmer titled “No Time for Caution”, Nolan makes Zimmer better. Conversely, the
melodies that Zimmer creates for Nolan are just right to emphasize what is on
screen, allowing the film to reach the desired emotional pitch. This is somewhat
ironic considering that when Zimmer scores a Nolan film he is purposefully ignorant
about the film’s plot.
With Dunkirk, Zimmer uses a number of different practical and symphonic
sounds that are consistently building up tension. Whether that be the use of
the sound of Nolan’s own pocket watch during the sea rescue to conveying the
bleakness and hopelessness that the soldiers on the beach listening as time
literally ticked away; or the use of actual WWII plane engines in the theme for
the aerial dog fights to get to exacerbate the intense feelings. Zimmer’s score
preys on the audience, never really feeling the characters are out of danger
even when it seems they are. The best track for Zimmer’s score is his theme for
the air sequences called “Supermarine” as we follow Tom Hardy’s Ferrier giving
cover to both boat and soldier.
CRITICISM
Having only seen the film once, and
also having little prior knowledge of the actual events that this film is based
on, I cannot give a deeply rooted social critique of the actual plot and
development of the story. This may
change in my subsequent viewings and when the film is released on Blu-ray. Yet,
there seems to be a strong theme that is easily conveyed through a single
viewing.
Theme: Survival is
Heroic
Dunkirk is a war film that
glorifies the human struggle of war without glorifying the violence of war
itself. Part of this is done though the cleaver editing and shot composition of
this PG-13 film and their ability to not dwell on the violence. Yet, as I
mentioned above, that is somehow more breathtaking, and at times more sinister
on Nolan’s part, because the greatest horrors are the ones that we create in
our own mind. We feel the human struggle for war because we see the struggle
play out on the faces of the soldiers, mariners, and pilots on screen. We feel
their struggle because we read it through their portrayal.
A consistent criticism of Nolan is
that he is a cold filmmaker, that he lacks the ability to give the audience a
human connection, and character development that leads to feelings of compassion
for those on screen. I have never felt that. I don’t believe that Nolan is a
cold filmmaker, I believe that he thinks that empathy for characters needs to
be predicated on personal audience investment. Nolan’s Dunkirk is indeed propelled by story and less by character, predominantly
because the characters are (in my mind) purposefully left two dimensional so
that they could retain their anonymity; thus becoming a blank canvas on which
the audience can project themselves.
In a film where the dialogue is
minimal, each word uttered becomes rich with subtext and deeper meaning. There
was one exchange between two characters that caught my attention. One of the
evacuated soldiers is handed a blanket by a volunteer when they get back to
England.
Volunteer: Thank you, well done.
Soldier: We didn’t do anything, we just survived.
Volunteer:
Sometimes that is enough.
In
our current socio-political climate there seems to be a lack of consideration
and kindness to the point that individuals are criticized for not producing
anything, not being successful. This exchange caught my attention because it
recognized that in a dire situation that seems hopeless, life is a prosperous
outcome, in and of itself. The scene described above, and the train scene that
follows, gives off a feeling of community that we seem to have lost since. It
shows the celebration of a defeat. Not because we revel in defeat, but because even
though the battle was a complete military disaster, 84% of the men trapped were
able to make it home. The message, life
is worth celebrating. That does not sound like a cold filmmaker at all.
Nolan’s
Protagonist Problem
Another criticism that has been leveled
against the film, and for Nolan’s entire career, is that the majority of his
films tend to be populated by a lot of white cisgender men. This is a criticism
that is sadly apt considering Nolan’s previous work; and while it is a
criticism that some, including myself to be honest, have let slide and do not
address it due to the overall quality of the work itself (with Dunkirk the excuse of it being a period
piece is used); which should not let him off the hook.
Secondly, many of Nolan’s male
protagonists tend to also have backstories that involve a dead female spouse or
relative that motivates them into action. This is a constant problem in the
majority of Nolan’s filmography (along with the very problematic fridging, or
in some cases “water tanking” (ala The
Prestige) of those female characters). It seems that he does not know how
to write women or female characters in general. His best attempt at this,
Selena Kyle in The Dark Knight Rises, was
not even his first choice to be included in the film. He had to be convinced to
add her in the film by his brother, Jonathan Nolan.
Finally, I would like to see Nolan take on
this deficit by having a female writing partner, or at least someone that can
look over his scripts to make sure there is both representation and development
for women and people of color throughout his stories. It is obvious, that this
is a blind spot in his writing ability (as it is for many white men). The crime
is not having this problem, the crime is in not acknowledging it or trying to
resolve it. Christopher Nolan is a
brilliant filmmaker in almost every way. This change, would make him perfect. I
very much want that for him, and for his fellow fans.
CONCLUSION
This is Nolan’s
best work to date.
While I may sound like a broken record, it is my pleasure to say it because
Nolan keeps getting better as a filmmaker. He keeps pushing himself in both
technique and technical brilliance that helps to challenge the way that movies
are made, and improving the industry as a whole. It seems that Nolan is hell bent on taking on
every genre of film, and upon each success, causing its reinvention. I can’t
wait to see what genre he tackles next. While there are many rumors of what
Christopher Nolan will do next, it is sure to be a spectacular well-crafted
journey that will be worth every film frame.
AUTHOR’S NOTE
Film Formats
While Dunkirk
is out now in wide release, it is in a variety of
digital and film formats. There is regular Digital Cinema Projection (DCP)
1:85:1 aspect ratio (which is a digital format you will find at any local
Cineplex) IMAX Xenon projection at 1:9:1 aspect ratio, IMAX Digital and 4k
laser projection is at 1:43:1 ( this is the closest digital format to film to
date). On film, it is being shown in 35mm 2:45:1 aspect ratio, 70mm film 2:20:1
aspect ratio, and IMAX 70mm in 1:43:1 aspect
ratio. In my opinion, the last in this list is by far the best presentation, with
the clearest picture and the most encompassing detail. If you have both the
ability, and the means to see the film in the IMAX 70mm film I recommend that
you do so; at least for your first viewing experience. Regarding all subsequent
viewings, IMAX 70mm is not required, but it would be better if you could be
able to see it on film, rather than one of the digital projections. Seeing it
on film was, as a cinephile, a pure delight. Being able to see the crispness of
the image and have an internal smirk of watching the reel change added to my
overall experience. This should be taken into consideration, if you decide to
seek out an alternate presentation that is not the typical DCP.
Coming out of the Wonder Woman screening I was conflicted. I had opposing thoughts,
as I tried to process my feelings about the film. I felt let down by the film, that it promised
one thing, and did not even deliver on that promise. Choosing, instead to give
me a watered down version of what I had expected. However, I knew how much the
success of Wonder Woman would mean
for female lead superhero films in general. So, on some level, I wanted it to
succeed, if only to have more female lead heroes on screen. Additionally, I was
working with a handicap, I am a white Heterosexual Male, so I was unclear, at
least at the outset, if I did not like the film because the film wasn’t for me.
I was cautious because I did not want to hate on a film just for not being its
target audience/demographic. Therefore,
I struggled with even writing this review because I did not want to come off as
a “Mansplaining Asshole” (which I still might) given that many of the other negative
reviews of the film (also written by men) have been peppered with thinly veiled
sexism producing pieces of misogynistic crap. In an attempt to
temper this feeling, I relied on a few negative
reviews from a feminist perspective (one author I greatly respect) whom are in the obvious minority; I was also motivated
by my wife’s unbridled hatred of this
film to complete this review even if it is a dissenting opinion.
A “REQUIRED” SUCCESS
With our current socio-political reality
that has seen a small hand genital grabbing narcissistic man-baby become
president, and his actions criminalizing
being a woman;
it seemed the success of Diana of Thymyscira’s first major film was in
question. Would this be a continuation of most recent anti-female rhetoric and
sexist political policies, or would it be a breath of fresh air? This was
further complicated by the fact that the character of Wonder Woman, the literal
poster child for second wave feminism, had to be incorporated into Zack
Snyder’s sexist “Douche-Canoe” Universe. Yet, these red-flags, such as Zack Snyder’s
involvement (he was given a story credit on this film that was also written by all men) were ignored due to the near
dehydration felt by the lack of Wonder Woman content over the last 75 years. We
are so thirsty for Wonder Woman content that we see the mediocre as
extraordinary; as the saying goes, “Hunger is the best spice.” We are willing
to feast on this second rate Wonder Woman because unlike her peers in the
Trinity (Batman and Superman), her story has seen limited adaptations and
expansions. Yet, as Wonder Woman rides
on the cultural novelty of treating a woman as a person, it was the focal point
of socio-cultural pressure that made the success of Wonder Woman inevitable or bust.
From its inception (and many false
starts, hang ups and various delays) the new Wonder Woman film was put upon by
unfair pressure. Because we live in a patriarchal society that values men over
women in a false egalitarian democratic meritocracy, the future of women in
leading roles in a film genre dominated by men, was biasedly riding on the
success of this one film. Whereas many films directed, written, and staring men
have allowed to be sub-par to “god awful” in terms of quality with only
marginal financial success in order to get a sequel. This is the quiniessential
example of a gendered double standard. This is an industry (like other larger
social institutions) that see men as complex and different, with different
attitudes and tastes and women as a single solitary group and a “niche” market.
Thus, by seeing all women the same way, and that formula of previous female
lead superhero films having been less than successful, resulted in the stalled
overall production of female led superhero films because they “failed” in the
eyes of a male driven studio (EX: Electra,
Catwoman etc.) thus setting back the development of such films for a decade
or so. Therefore, when Wonder Woman went into production it needed to be a success because if it
wasn’t, as history has shown us, it would have been an excuse to, yet again,
shelve any attempt to have women break the glass ceiling of successful
superhero films. With so much riding on it, all
of a sudden, Wonder Woman became too big to fail and on that road
to inevitable success the character becomes sanitized in her own story,
manipulated into being a shell of herself (as she is written in the comics). 2017’s
Wonder Woman’s Diana is a facsimile
of feminism; a representation of mainstream “Marketplace feminism” used as a
tool to sell a product rather than what she could be: A beacon of egalitarian
female empowerment that challenges the very sadistic misogyny of our culture.
A WATERED DOWN
HEROINE
Forgive the cliché, but Wonder Woman and the character of Diana
of Themyscira could have been the perfect heroine for our time. A strong, queer
identified, feminist badass that is ruled by her compassion and love for all
people. This is what I was hoping for as I sat in the theater and the lights
dimmed. As the film began, I was instantly brought to tears as I gazed upon
Themyscira and watched as a society that showcased (albeit briefly) women in
all social and societal roles beyond any kind of gender stratified socialization.
I was overcome with joy as I watched young Diana mimic fighting techniques and
desired to be as powerful as her “sisters”. Yet, that joy was slowly eroded
away as the story continued and I realized, to my grave disappointment that by story’s
end it did not understand the character of Diana at all. At least the one I
have come to know and love through the work of writers such as Gail Simone and Greg Rucka.
The most egregious of these errors
is the film’s misinterpretation of Diana’s core motivation.. In the comics, each
of DC’s holy trinity has a single driving force. Superman is driven by Truth
(he is an honest, good moral person) Batman is motivated by Will (he will
sacrifice and overcome any obstacle) Wonder Woman is motivated by Compassion,
for everyone…especially her enemies. One
of the reasons the above quote (that introduces this section) is so salient is
because as Diana fosters love and compassion in other people, it leaches out
the very masculine desire for war and violence.
While the film flirts with the importance
of Diana’s compassion though passing glances and flippant facial expressions by
star Gal Gadot, this notion is completely undermined by films end when, being
motivated by the love and loss of Steve Trevor, Diana declares (in a direct
heavy handed way) that she is motivated by love and compassion and will not
kill Dr. Poison. However, this declaration does not stop her from violently
killing Ares that results in the
ending of the war. The overall message of this action is: That violence can be solved by violence: This is not
only historically inaccurate, but it undermines the character of Wonder Woman
herself, and her core motivation from the comics. Instead, this Wonder Woman
expresses her emotional complexity through violence; a typically masculine
trait.
In our society, women are often chastised
for being aggressive and angry while being allowed to have more emotional
flexibility than men, who conversely are socialized to embrace only the
aggressive emotions of hate and anger. Therefore, men are often taught to
filter all of their complex emotions of love, and fear through acts of
violence. Thus, the core problem of Wonder
Woman as a film is that it resolves itself through a masculine
interpretation of Love and Compassion instead of a feminine one.
What would have a more novel
approach[1]
was to have Diana use her love and compassion for people to motivate an end to
the war through diplomacy. The armistice
that she would have brokered would have weakened Ares (who is fueled by war and
discord) to the point where he could be subdued and locked away in Tartarus…
because Wonder Woman only kills as a last resort, with great reservation and
guilt. But I guess in a Zack Snyder Universe where both Batman and Superman are
uncompassionate murderers, we shouldn’t be surprised that the Wonder Woman of
this universe is less than ideal. This
is not the feminist Wonder Woman I wanted, it is the male interpretation of
Wonder Woman, feminism through the male gaze, feigning progressiveness while
reinforcing regressive ideals.
A Frustrating
Facsimile
In the comics, as
in the film, Diana of Themyscira is depicted as a beautiful woman; said to be
blessed with the beauty of Aphrodite herself. This beauty in the comics, which
is also mirrored in the film, is consistent with the typical male gaze. A woman
who is thin, conventionally attractive symmetry of face and depicted as
constantly wearing make-up. Thus the film does its part, like so many film
before it, to reinforce problematic beauty and body norms that have plagued
women since forever.
This is again another missed
opportunity for the film to subvert convention. Wonder Woman on screen could have
been a chance to increase the visibility of women with different body shapes
and sizes; promoting their diversity and normalizing their existence. Given
that Wonder Woman is an Amazon she could have been portrayed as a towering
giant with a certain level of muscle definition. Unfortunately, the film coward
away from such a prospect[2],
and instead, doubled down on Diana’s adherence to western beauty standards. While
I will concede that it is nice to see Wonder Woman depicted as a woman of color
(Gal Gadot is from Israel); she is still depicted as a white woman (with white
parents), when in the comics, she is of Greek heritage with Olive colored skin.
While the film does not make Diana’s beauty a defining characteristic, it also
seems to go out of its way to comment on Diana’s attractiveness and
desirability to other men; in almost every scene that she is in. This reinforces
the tired gender stereotype that girls learn early on: that their value is
in their body. A stereotype that asserts that girls and women can be
strong, and empowered, courageous and violent…as long as they maintain societal
beauty standards and be sexual attractiveness to heterosexual men. This
stereotype also warps the perception of a woman’s access to power. Girls and
women are taught though such stereotypes that power is obtained through their
bodies. But that power, and to some
extent their body, is not theirs. Their body is a mechanism, a form of currency
women are trained to use to glean power from men; instead of having power
themselves. While these specific
messages aren’t directly found in Wonder
Woman, the film’s unwillingness to challenge the status quo indirectly
supports it.
A perfect example of this capitulation is Diana’s
Naiveté a product of her proverbial “fish out of water” story. While some reviews incorrectly identify her
ignorance for stupidity, the lack of understanding social cues and cultural
mores does hamstrings Diana’s righteousness and outrage against the sexist
Patriarchy that she should have dismantled in. every. scene. A typical response
as to why this didn’t happen would be the origin story excuse. A producer might
say “Oh, our Diana isn’t fully formed yet, she hasn’t “become Wonder Woman
until the end of the film.” Given your
level of origin story fatigue is the litmus test on whether not this comment
would incite violent rage or a mild annoyance. To me, as in the comics, Diana
is a fully formed Wonder Woman when she leaves home. She just requires a brief
adjustment period to get used to “man’s world” Yet in this film, and the 2009 animated
film of the same name, Diana’s experiences change her, away from the
feminist icon and closer to a woman that could blend in; which is code for a woman that is non-threaten to men and their fragile
masculinity. This is not what we need.
In fact, 2017’s Wonder Woman takes this even further by making Steve Trevor Diana’s
motivational, mansplaining guru of the rest of “man’s world”. He is the one that explains the evils of
humanity and human nature (but don’t worry, #notallmen). Yet, in these scenes
especially, she is there to react to him. His desires, and his mission are
driving the story. His needs, and his accomplishments are important; she is
just the secret weapon along for the ride.
Unlike his female counterparts in other films, Chris Pine’s Steve Trevor
has his own completed story arc. Yes, his death is used as a form of motivation
for the Titular heroine that her love and loss of Him propels her to greater
insight at the end of the film. However,
the important difference is thathe
is not violently “fridged”
like so many women are whom are in the same position. Steve has a “glorious
moment of masculine triumph” though violent self-sacrifice.
Another opportunity the film
squandered was the possibility of a queer narrative. From the first pages of
Wonder Woman’s origin stemming from an all-female island that comes from the
Greek myth of the Amazon warriors of Lesbos (root of the word lesbian), the
Wonder Woman story is steeped in queerness. Even with the fight and general
acceptance of multifaceted queer identities today, especially among millennials,
Hollywood still depicts Dina as being heterosexual; when nothing about her
existence even remotely suggests that she would be strictly heterosexual; considering
that she has already reached sexual maturity by the time she meets her first
man. At the very least, I would have like to see her at least identify as
bisexual or some other form of fluid sexual identity that is afforded by
Diana’s backstory. All we get is a line
about the lack of importance of men to female sexual pleasure; which is played
more for laughs and as an emasculating “mic drop” moment, than as a salient
plot point or character beat.
Additionally, here again the film, failed
to meet my expectation of possibly showing an intimate
relationship between a man and a woman that did not rely on romance. They had
every opportunity to have Steve and Diana love and care for one another without
it ending in sex. Furthermore, the scene that sets up the implied sexual
intercourse off screen between Steve and Diana did not have any inclusion of active sexual consent by either party. She looks at him, and he steps inside her room
and shuts the door. Considering the staggering
statistics of female survivors of rape and sexual violence, and that Wonder
Woman is an icon of Feminism, I expected at the very least a verbal “Yes” from
each of them. Instead, all we got were looks and assumptions of implied consent
that are more likely to continue the problematic practices of non-consent that
leads to the reproduction of the Rape Culture.
That praise is not
praise
One of Many points of praise I have
read in the plethora of glowing reviews for this film is the positive female
representation in the film. Yet, this is
another instance where, what seems progressive on the surface to mainstream audiences,
tumbles like a house of cards when up against any strict critical analysis. The
only true moments of the film that have such equal and consistently positive representations
of women is on Themyscira. There women are generals, politicians, artisans, laborers,
warriors, and clerics. Seeing this in the opening scenes gave me visions of Charlotte
Perkins Gillman’s Herland and it is truly
wonderful. Yet, this representation all falls to pieces the minute they leave
the island. Moreover, since the island scene are in the first 30-45min of a 2 hrs.
and 21 minute film, that means that the majority of film takes place off the
island…where there are only three named female characters Diana included. Given
Wonder Woman being a feminist icon, the writers of this film could have easily added
a lot more female characters throughout the rest of the film by doing a simple
internet search on women
in World War 1. They would have learned about the vast extent that women
participated and
even fought on the front lines during the war. Imagine a Wonder Woman film
where she meets and fights alongside other women in the trenches. The simple possibility
of that subplot is far better than the transparency of scenes like Diana stepping
out into the DMZ of WW1. There is a lack of subtlety in both the set up and
execution. Just after Steve Trevor says “No man’s land is where No man
survives.” we see Wonder Woman stride across “the No man’s land” and incite
victory. She was able to do it because she’s a woman. Get it? She is literally “No
man”. (*eye roll). While this was pretty
heavy handed, we were blissfully spared the cringe worthy dialogue of “I am no
man!!!”[3]
(I.e. Return of the King). But as she
steps out onto the battlefield that phrase is screaming in our heads. This
scene is the perfect example of what this film encapsulates, a prepackaged,
boiled down, mass market, faux feminism that does not challenge the patriarchal
system and is non-threatening to heterosexual men.
CONCLUSION
Wonder
Woman as advertising
This
Wonder Woman drapes herself in the trappings
of Feminism, but when it comes to the actual Feminist work she falls short.Wonder
Woman is an example of what Andi Zeisler calls “Marketplace Feminism” in
her recent bookWe were Feminist Once.In the book she explains that in this
new era of brand identity and identity politics where young people are told to “rebrand
themselves”, or to “stay on brand” Feminism has just become another tool to
sell products, and it has opened up a whole new market. Advertisers and
corporations use feminist ideals and rhetoric to sell their products without
any emphasis on feminist work or the constant struggle that the fight for
gender equity requires. To them, feminism is something you can buy, achieved
through your capitalistic purchasing power, not something that you actively
have to work towards. The difference between
“marketplace feminism” and actual feminism
is the work involved. It is easy to put on a t-shirt and watch a movie and call
yourself a feminist, it is more difficult to work, sacrifice, circumvent and
sometimes usurp authority in order to keep the revolution of gender equality
ever moving forward.
Solidarity towards
(potential) greatness
However, the need for forward
momentum of a movement is a complex issue that comes with compromise. It is
easy for me to say, that real
feminism is in the work, when much of the inspiration to be an activist is
often found in examples of “Marketplace Feminism”. Millions of children and
adults across the gendered spectrum are motivated into activism because of the
empowerment that they feel from of a song, movie TV show or book. We can be surprised
by the things that end up motivating us to do great things, to better
ourselves, those around us, to help with our community, fight tranny and
challenge the authority. As Patty Jenkins’ Wonder
Womanrockets
past 300 million worldwide in its second weekend of release, its success needs to be praised and supported.
Because even though this film is not perfect, and this representation of Wonder
Woman is a hollow shell of what she could be; we are not sure how many girls
and women she, and this film will inspire to greatness. And finally, the more
merchandise the character sells creates corporate confidence in female lead
stories; so that eventually there will
be so much female lead pop culture that we won’t have to comment on it anymore;
it will just be the norm. And that would
be a true “Wonder” to behold.
[1]And one that I was expecting due to
this film’s hype and high praised reviews I read before going into my screening
[2] marginally giving women of
different color and shape tertiary background status among the other Amazons
Soon will be experiencing an important Pop
Cultural moment. The end of Hugh Jackman’s iconic portrayal of James
Howlett/Logan/Wolverine, in the soon to be released Logan, which is already garnering rave
reviews.
To commemorate this seminal event, I will
be recapping and analyzing the three films that I believe are essential primers
for Logan, as well as provide a
retrospective (both personally and socially) on Hugh Jackman’s time in the
role. Then, in a separate post, I will write a review of Logan after I have seen it enough times to develop a coherent and
cogent analysis of the film.
‘LOGAN’ ESSENTIAL
VIEWING
Hugh Jackman has been playing the
Character of James Howlett/Logan/Wolverine on screen for 17 years (more than
that if you count the production of the original X-Men) through 7 films (as lead and star[1])
and two additional cameos. Aside from Logan
which is shaping up to be the ultimate and most moving performance Jackman has
given as the character, there are three other films in Jackman’s history as
Wolverine that, if revisited before the initial screening of Logan, will make the emotional gut punch
of seeing Jackman as Wolverine for the last time resonate to the very emotional core of the
audience and fans. Those three films are, for better or for worse, X-men Origins: Wolverine (2009), The Wolverine (2013) and X-Men: Days of Future Past (2014). Each
of these films have their problems. In some cases, a lot of problems. Yet,
since these specific films are adaptations of seminal works in Logan’s
character history, they are important. This creates a strong foundation for the
final chapter in the Jackman/Wolverine Saga.
Like Wolverine himself, X-Men Origins:
Wolverine (the first in the solo Wolverine Trilogy) was a failed
experiment. Planned as the first in a
series of Origin films (hence the title) that would feature various X-men
characters (at the time of development there were similar films planned
involving Xavier and Magneto), the film was never crafted with serious care[2]
Jam packed with too many characters that devolve into shades of their comic
counterparts[3].
This film had a bloated budget that was trying to tell too much story (we go
from 1845-1979 for christ's sake). Part of the reason for this is that they were trying to thread
a very fine needle. They were trying to create a suitable story to explain how
James Howlett became Logan: The Wolverine from the first trilogy, setting up a
film franchise (with the Origins line) and adapt two seminal comic books while
providing some amount of fan service. The
result is that the film falls into plot holes and tired clichés ending with the
film collapsing under its own immense weight. [4]Regardless
of the many flaws of this film, there are a few saving graces that make the
film have enjoyable moments. It is these
silver linings that are also the lynch pin for enjoying Logan
The two best things about X-Men Origins: Wolverine are the
characters of Logan and Creed played by Hugh Jackman and Liev Schreiber. It is their character’s relationship onscreen and the actor’s friendship offscreen, that contributes to the chemistry between the
two of them which anchors the film. Their relationship outlined in the opening
sequence (which is the best part of the
film) creates the strong parallel between the two characters that exists in
the comics. The slow drift apart over the years as Logan[5]
becomes disturbed and weary of war and killing, while Victor revels in it.
One
of the major changes that they made for this film that I actually agree with is
making Logan and Creed half brothers. This adds to the dramatic tension and
character development for both of them. It see this as even an improvement on
Wolverine’s Origin in the Comics. Throughout that entire graphic novel, once
the character of James Howlett was revealed to be the man we would call Logan,
the other character named Dog (who was a red herring for Logan through the
first part of the book) I assumed would turn out to be Creed by the end of the
story. I was sadly disappointed.
It is my hope that this antagonistic
brotherly relationship, left open ended at the conclusion of Origins, resurfaces and is resolved in Logan. My hope clings to a Cinemablend
article in which Liev Schreiber expressed interest in reprising his role as
Creed after hearing they were going to loosely adapt the Old Man Logan storyline from
the comics, and internet rumblings of a secret villain fight at the end of the
new film. Add to this the reality that
both the star and director of Logan
have worked with Schreiber multiple times and both have strong friendships with
him. Plus, wouldn’t it just be an amazing emotional conclusion if Old Man Logan
and X-23 take on Sabertooth to cap off this version of the characters? It seems
too poetic to pass up[6]
Modeled after the famed and much belovedWolverinetitle by Frank Miller and
Chris Claremont. 2013’s The Wolverine makes
good on Jackman and 20th century Fox’s promise to tell “the Japan
story”. Like all of the other films in the X-men Universe established and
(mostly) built by Brian Singer, they both too a lot of liberties with the story,
as well as make some odd choices on what to include and what to omit. Some of the changes work (like making Yukio a
sidekick and Logan’s Bodyguard) other changes did not (the entire climax with
the Silver Samurai).
Mangold’s first foray into the
superhero genre is met with welcome acclaim, breathing new life into a
character’s solo career that was nearly snuffed out in the previous installment.
Positioning Logan in the film as a Ronin (masterless Samurai), Mangold and
Jackman reveal layers of the character that had only been hinted at up until
this point and something that fans truly wanted to see. The trick that Mangold
pulls to make Logan a deeper character is to hinder his healing factor for most
of the film. This coupled with a world
weary performance by Jackman whom turns hopeful and ready to fight by the end.
It is the shot in the arm that both the character and the Franchise needed
going into their big cross over event Days
of Future Past
I have talked about The Wolverine previously on this blog. The film is
utterly fantastic even with the telegraphed reveal at the end and its flawed
climax. What makes this film essential
viewing for Logan is the creative
team behind it, particularly James Mangold.
Given what he accomplished with his freshman outing, in a film franchise
that has become as increasingly complicated and convoluted as its comic book
counterpart, is a miracle. Listening to
interviews Mangold has given about the learning curve he had on The Wolverine inspires me to believe
that his sophomore outing is going to be something special.
Additionally, the two films seem to be a
Gemini. The Wolverine is a film about
James gaining the will to fight again, to become the weapon and the force for
good that we see in Days of Future Past.
Logan feels world weary in a way that inherently different way, beaten
down, not by over guilt of the death of the woman he loved, but the toll life
takes baring the hard decisions and their consequences on broad but tired
shoulders. This parallel of storytelling is most visible in the two films
companionate theme(s). The Wolverine is
very much a Samurai (Jedigeki) picture, whereas Logan is a western; two genres that were built on and influenced
each other. The best example of this is the work of Akira Kurosawa. He was
influenced by the work of John Ford (particularly The Searchers) that inspired
him to create Samurai classics like Hidden
Fortress,
Yojimbo, Sanjuro, and Seven Samurai. In the years since, Yojimbo and Seven Samurai have been remade as westerns; most Famously is the Seven Samurai remake The
Magnificent Seven,
and its remake of the same name. Let us hope
these two films go down in history with similar acclaim.
X-Men: Days of Future Past (DOFP) is the
best X-Men film to date. Not only did it successfully adapt a short, but
impactful storyline from the comics that fans have been clamouring for ever
sense they got a taste of it back in the 1990’s, but it also
acted as its own continuity machine. This film connected the previous X-men
Trilogy featuring Patrick Stewart and
Ian MacKellan with the “First Class” Trilogy featuring James Mcavoy and Michael
Fassbender essentially making this film a world building crossover in the vein
of an Avengers film[7]
Any negativity I can hurl at this film is just a simple nitpick about under
used or undervalued characters.
Even though DOFP is the first X-men film in the franchise that actually feels
like its comic book counterpart, it is essential viewing for Logan in the way that it furthers the
character development of James Howlett and Charles Xavier. This film allows for an interesting reversal
of roles. A despondent and broken Xavier has to be motivated to hope by his
most difficult student. It is this
relationship, particularly by the end of the film, that is stronger and given
more weight. It is Wolverine that pays
back his mentor in a very specific way thus forging their relationship as
father and Son. A relationship that is the bedrock foundation for Logan as a film, positioning the two as
an ailing father being taken care of by his dutiful, albeit grumpy and acerbic
son. It is this connection that looks to
be the emotional core of Logan and one that I am sure will bring me to tears.
THE LEGANCY OF HUGH JACKMAN’S WOLVERINE
Personal
I
first learned rumors of an X-Men film in the Spring issue of Cinemascape
Magazine in 1997. The magazine had a film development section titled “Development
Hell” and the proposed X-men film was often among its ranks. Being weaned on
the excellent X-Men cartoon show in the early 90’s, my friend and I fan casted
the film going off of the X-Men cartoon roster. We unfortunately selected a lot
of “known”, B list or action star actors in many of the roles. I am sorry to report that we chose Michael
Ironside for Wolverine. However, we correctly selected Sir Patrick Stewart as
Professor X. In all fairness I think it was because of our exposure to Star
Trek and that he was the only prominent bald actor that our young minds could
think of. We had also fan casted him for Mr. Freeze in Joel Schumacher’s Batman and Robin based on Batman: The
Animated Series episode “Heart of Ice.” Thankfully we were wrong.
I kept up with the production of the
film. I remember the casting of Dougray Scott in the role and then he had to
drop out due to scheduling conflicts. However, I remember the day I heard about
Hugh Jackman’s casting. I walked into my Senior-level high school science class
in 1999 and my friend told me “They cast Wolverine in the X-men film.” “Who is
it?” I replied anxiously. Just then he seemed a little crestfallen “An unknown
actor from Australia.” He showed me the picture in a magazine that outlined the
characters and the respective actors playing them. I just shrugged my shoulders.
“ He better do a good job.” I was always a little bit hesitant given what the
X-men
meant to me as an adolescent with a disability. Little did I know that almost
18 years later that Hugh Jackman would make his Legacy through the character,
and that character become richer for it.
Social
Though some people might disagree[8],
but the current superhero genre owes its existence to X-Men (2000). The immense positive reaction to the film and the box
office (making a near 300 mil off of a 75mil budget) is what set the tone for
the Sam Raimi Spiderman franchise, the X-Men Universe, Hellboy, Spawn, the resurgence
of Batman with The
Dark Knight Trilogyand the entire Marvel Cinematic Universe. Hugh
Jackman’s popularity as Wolverine started it all. And in a world/genre where
people get recast or replaced, Hugh Jackman has
remained a constant. He has been the eye of the Superhero maelstrom over
the better part of two decades. Very soon it will be time to say goodbye, to
Hugh Jackman’s “O’l Knucklehead”…but not just yet. There is one last ride for
Jackman’s James Howlett/Logan/Wolverine in Logan
and I can’t wait. I can’t wait to see it, I can’t wait to own it. I. Just.
Can’t. Wait.
CONCLUSION
Hugh Jackman is Wolverine. He will always be
Wolverine…because he has earned it. There has never been, nor will there ever
be, an actor with so much devotion to a character. 17 years, 9 films. You can
keep your RDJ’s or your revolving door of Batman none of them hold a single adamantium
claw to Hugh Jackman. In fact, Jackman’s
Wolverine has been such a mainstay that anytime a comic book character is
played by the same actor more than once, the number of their performances
should be measured in “Jackmans” ( RDJ for instance, would have 6 “Jackmans”)
Since his portrayal has spanned the character’s entire lifespan and major life
events, Hugh Jackman has played the character to completion. I have always
believed that something becomes special because it has an ending, because there
is an end. The more something continues the more invaluable, less precious it
becomes. So, if Logan truly the end,
no one has earned his rest more than Hugh Jackman. He has paid his dues, and
increased the principle. Now it is time to just live off the dividends.
[1] I
am including his portrayal in Logan
in this number
[2] If
you listen to the special features of X-men:
Origins Wolverine: Jackman really wanted to do the “japan story” by Frank
Millar. The studio told him that before he would be able to do that, he would have
to make this film. So, it is unclear whether or not he had the creative control
he seems to have with Logan. Given
the quality of the film, I think not.
[3][3] Gambit
and Everyone else in the Weapon X program not named Logan or Creed.
[4]
Painting themselves into a corner, they had wolverine get shot with adamantium
bullets exclusively to wipe his memory. COME’ON!
[6]
And too good to be true…I guess time will tell…soon enough
[7] A
concept that we will see obliterated with the ambitious Infinity War which will
combine the Avengers franchise
characters and the Guardians of the
Galaxy the result being the apex of the Marvel Cinematic Universe dubbed
“MCU”
