WONDER WOMAN reminds us why we need superhero movies now more than ever.When comic book superheroes were initially conceived, the entire draw behind them was that they were personifications of what humankind should be. Comic book authors recognized that humans were weak and susceptible to evil forces, and that’s why superheroes were around to save them. They were like us, only stronger. Their intentions were always virtuous and noble; and, with their true hearts and impossible powers, a superhero was what humans should be. And, for a time, this concept was alluring and attractive.
But I think something happened along the way as the superhero mythos began expanding—people noticed that their once-beloved heroes were simply idealized humans, and they didn’t like the idea so much. They couldn’t relate to their heroes. Humans are morally messy creatures, and we wanted figures who we could relate to. So superheroes became more complex, and we got to watch our superheroes fight internal darkness as well as external darkness. Often it’s incredibly successful (Logan is a fantastic recent example), but sometimes it’s not (Man of Steel). Undeniably, though, this approach has changed superhero franchises forever. So Wonder Woman, in this case, is a bit of a shock. I’d actually say it’s an incredibly refreshing one. With everything going on in the world, it’s very easy to make a cynical superhero movie. But that’s not what Wonder Woman does, because that’s not who Wonder Woman is. Wonder Woman (played by Gal Gadot), whose real name is Diana, is raised among Amazonian warrior women. They live on an island called Themyscira, which, in its peace, has been quietly waiting for the imminent attack of Ares, the god of war. These warrior women have been training for this dreaded day of combat, and Diana is the strongest of them all. When Steve Trevor (Chris Pine), a spy for the WWI British army accidentally finds Diana’s island, he tells her all about the horrors of the war. Diana is convinced the World War has to have been Ares’ doing, and she sees it as her duty as an Amazonian to travel back with Steve, find Ares and end the war. But Diana learns it isn’t so simple. Not only is the “real world” very The war has spread all across the world, and the spirit of Ares has seemed to manifest itself into the hearts of all humankind. On earth, it’s normal that men, women, and children are slain every day. Diana is a complete outsider to this knowledge, and when we hear it explained to her, it’s jarring. We’ve been so desensitized to war that it takes the reactions of someone like Diana, hearing of it for the first time, to remind us just how ridiculous war is, and Gadot’s reaction is devastating. Diana is only motivated to do good, to vanquish war and help others. She is distraught when she sees how many individual lives have been affected by war, and harrowed when she learns mortals don’t have enough time to help each person with their own personal needs. But the human beings around her aren’t so pure of heart. It isn’t because of Ares why humans are flawed; it’s simply because that is the human condition. Ultimately, Diana has to find out how to save the world, but first she has to figure out if human beings, in all their ugliness, are worth saving. And she doesn’t come across her answer in the easiest way. What’s interesting about Wonder Woman is, despite how refreshing it feels, just how archaic its theme is. The duality of what humans should be and what humans are is an enigma we’ve sought after since the beginning of time. Every major religion tries to rationalize the coexistence of innate sin and Godly goodness, and most of them promise salvation— a god covering the banality of sin by his love. So, when Wonder Woman wants to save the earth, how can she be so sure if a flawed race is worth saving? Humans are not driven by virtue and nobility the way Wonder Woman is. Humans are morally messy. And the acknowledgement of the complexity of the human condition is just why Wonder Woman is the movie 2017 needs. It goes without saying that we’ve desperately needed a serious female-led superhero film (why did it take so long?!), but in these dark times, we just need hope as we deal with both good and evil. It doesn’t mean the journey to hope is perfect— Diana’s naïveté regarding earth c. 1919 gets her into some trouble, but she is always motivated to do the right thing. The friends she meets aren’t perfect, but they’re endearingly human. This isn’t a straight-arrow superhero fable like its early predecessors, nor is it a bleak look at the world. We are left instead with that conflict of what humankind is and what it ought to be. We may never attain perfection, and we may never deserve it. But we can believe in it. And if we all watch Wonder Woman and feel a little of her power to do good, the world could surely become a bit more wondrous indeed.
21 Comments
AN ALL TIME FAVORITE: ****/****You can ask what DAISIES is about, and the answer is difficult to really say in concrete terms. I can't give a plot summary because, really, there is no real plot. It's jittery and spastic. It doesn't want to stay in one place. What DAISIES asks of you is to simply keep attention on its high-wired antics and feed off its energy. It's a trip, and it's one of my favorite trips ever. However, I suppose that if I were to say what DAISIES is about, I would say it's simply about rebellion. Two teenage girls, both named Marie (performed with giddy recklessness by Ivana Karbanovà and Jitka Cerhovà) decide that, since the world is acting so rotten, they'll be rotten, too. They spend the rest of the movie indulging in their newfound "rottenness," and that's pretty much it, sort of... DAISIES was made in 1966 Czechoslovakia, right around the time of the outbreak of the Prague Spring, a revolt of the harsh Communist government at the time. What "rottenness" the DAISIES girls partake in directly contradicts this regime. Consider its Wizard-of-Ozian approach. When it begins. it's shot in black and white. The camera is stagnant. Then begins the anarchy! And you know how sometimes a movie is just sheer joy to watch? That's what it is to see the Maries break out. It's just a blast! Their anarchy isn't malicious as much as it is just silly, always striving to shake things up in their world. While the director, the brilliant Vera Chytilova, is definitely making a statement against her restrictive society, the Maries within the movie seem to be more concerned with fulfilling themselves in a way they never have before. As much at it mocks strict Communism, it also seems to be a pretty sound feminist statement. And in the midst of all its very driven purpose, it's executed with the kind of prismatic attention deficiency of Wonderland, and it is glorious. DAISIES is hyper-driven, surreal, absolutely manic fun. I cannot do justice to how breathlessly this movie snips, bleeds, and sugar-highs its way through its very short (79 min) running time, but I can tell you this much-- be prepared for the most radical food fight scene of all time. That's all I can really say. Dig in. Daisies is available on DVD through the BFI, Criterion Collection's Pearls of the Czech New Wave boxed set, or to stream through Filmstruck.A few days ago, the wonderful YouTube channel Cinefix put out this great list, "10 Best Uses of Color of All Time." It was an awesome list, and a really cool thing to think about, so I thought...why not? Here are MY 10 Best Uses of Color, in no particular order. And if you think differently, tell me what you think, but these are really just personal favorites). The Wizard of Oz (dir. Victor Fleming, 1939)Okay, this is kind of obvious, but what can I say? I think so much of what makes me love The Wizard of Oz is that, not only does it encompass all the colors of the rainbow, but it does its darnedest to make each of them just pop. Behind the camera, Judy Garland's real ruby slippers were actually kind of an ugly maroon, but that's simply the color they had to be so that they could pop as reddest of red through Technicolor. THE WIZARD OF OZ has been played in family homes for so many years that I think people can forget how truly kaleidoscopic it is, so next time, just let yourself get immersed into the rainbow. The Red Balloon (dir. Albert Lamorisse, 1956)If THE WIZARD OF OZ is all about overindulgence in color, then THE RED BALLOON can be seen as sort of its opposite. There are vibrant colors, yes, but they're used sparingly against a muted town and a little boy's grey outfit. The end result is stunning, and when you realize that something as small as a balloon can be filled with wonder, the color trick did its job. Suspiria (dir. Dario Argento, 1977)SUSPIRIA is an absolute joyride of a horror movie-- definitely a Halloween favorite. In the midst of its over-the-top gore and unabashed campiness with the witch subgenre, its visuals and colors are what really make it shine, making what would be just a decent movie into a kind of masterpiece. Argento wanted the color scheme to reflect that of SNOW WHITE AND THE SEVEN DWARFS, giving the film a fairy-tale approach to horror, and its wash of primary colors is hypnotic. I adore it. Cinderella (produced by Walt Disney, 1950)Speaking of Disney Princess movies, I want to discuss CINDERELLA. Where SUSPIRIA and its ancestor SNOW WHITE played with bright, popping colors, CINDERELLA is this absolutely gorgeous experiment with pastel blues and pinks, from the royal castle to Cinderella's dress, even in the interiors of the stepmother's interior. Mary Blair was in charge of this look, as well as the storybook prettiness of ALICE IN WONDERLAND and PETER PAN, but it's never been as downright romantic as that of CINDERELLA. Pierrot le Fou (dir. Jean-Luc Godard, 1965)Primary colors are the key in Godard's lovers-on-the-run movie. Ferdinand and Marianne's getaway car is a bright red, there are dashes of yellow, all to accentuate the beautiful infinity of the blue sky and sea. Watching PIERROT LE FOU is to get lost in a sort of heaven. McCabe & Mrs Miller (dir Robert Altman, 1973)McCABE AND MRS MILLER is just about as notable for its beautiful cinematography of nature as it is its interesting character-building, and I think it's my favorite thing about the movie. It takes place over the course of a rainy fall turning into a snowy winter, and you can smell and feel the outside. The movie centers around a town being built bottom-up, in the middle of forested nowhere, and the only real vibrancy is in the nature itself. It looks incredibly earthy-- every character wears dark clothing, and every building is a wood skeleton, so color lies only in nature itself, and it's lovely. Fanny and Alexander (dir. Ingmar Bergman, 1981)Painterly is the way I can best describe FANNY AND ALEXANDER, in both its darkest and lightest moments. When we are in the joyous Ekdahl house, especially at Christmas, we get this beautiful myriad of stunning reds and pinks and greens. But when the children are taken away to live with the evil Bishop, the colors are absolutely muted as the magic is gone. This isn't an unusual approach to color in film, but it's done so stunningly in FANNY AND ALEXANDER. Finding Nemo (dir. Andrew Stanton, 2003) Imagine you're Pixar after the release of MONSTERS INC. in 2001. You've made a strong name for yourself, you're totally infallible at this point. You could play it safe, but instead, you dive into the possibilities of animating the biggest setting on Earth, the ocean! And you take every advantage of it. There's a sophistication in the grandeur of Marlin and Nemo's home, with elegant purples and blues. There's dread in the blue and black darkness of the Sharks' hangouts. The pinks of the jellyfish are deceptively gorgeous. There's a fluorescence in the artifice of the fish tank where Nemo is taken, and in the eye-popping P. SHERMAN 42 WALLABY WAY, SYDNEY goggles. These different variations on the same ocean are so lovely and so expertly achieved, it's hard not to get lost in it. Cléo from 5 to 7 (dir. Agnès Varda, 1962)There is color only in the opening of Agnès Varda's masterpiece CLÉO FROM 5 TO 7, but it creates one of the most jarring and heartbreaking effects that cinema has ever dealt me. A young woman, Cléo, is waiting for results of a biopsy, and in the meantime sees a fortune teller. The teller is explaining to her what she sees, until she comes across a card that prompts her to ask: Then, rapidly to an already terrified Cléo: The switch from color to black and white is jarring enough, and paired with the absolute urgency of Cléo's tone and pleading eyes, it makes my heart jump every time. The movie remains in black and white, but the good thing is that there's beauty in it. And Cléo comes to realize that, too. The Umbrellas of Cherbourg (dir. Jacques Demy, 1964)Jacques Demy was Agnès Varda's husband, and they were a directing dream team of the French New Wave. But where Varda's work was more restrained and austere, Demy was an unabashed romantic, and THE UMBRELLAS OF CHERBOURG is his best example of this. Every frame shimmers with dazzling color, in the wallpaper, the clothing-- you can see this in the current awards favorite, Damien Chazelle's LA LA LAND. The brightness of color and UMBRELLAS' all-sung approach highlights the overwhelming sweetness of the central romance and young love. It's a Valentine put on film, and that's the sweetest kind. Agree? Disagree? Are there any you would have added? Sound off in the comments! |
Archives
June 2018
Categories
All
|