Wonder Woman (2009)

Rate PG-13

Catholic-ometer: 1 of 5

Enjoyability: 1.5 of 5

I admit that I haven't read many Wonder Woman comics (and especially not recent ones,) but I'm familiar with the character and her core supporting cast, and what made the concept work during its initial run.  It's for these reasons that I have to point out just what a miserable failure this movie was, in virtually every respect.  "Wonder Woman" is a load of pushy, overly-violent, trash-talking, modern American feminism, and nothing else.  However, I feel it deserves a more thorough review than just that, so for the rest of the review, I'll be addressing the specific characters and other elements in the movie, to explain just why the film gets them wrong.

-----

Etta Candy

Etta Candy is a minor character in the film.  So minor, in fact, that she gets, I think, less than a minute of screen-time.  In fact, it makes me wonder why they even bothered to put her in, if they couldn't do a better job on her than this.

In this film, Etta is a tall, blond, skinny, seductive woman, who's briefly scolded by Wonder Woman for asking a man to move a desk for her.

In the comics, Etta Candy was a short, plump, brunette, who was the leader of a college sorority.  Wonder Woman discovered her when she was sickly and weak while visiting a local hospital.  In other words, Etta was unearthed on an errand of mercy; not a manhunt for an enemy, as in this film.

I'm just going to be up-front about this.  Making Etta skinny is something which, by itself, would put this film on my butt-kick list, but the fact that they only used her to demonstrate one of Wonder Woman's character flaws puts it way over the top.

-----

Hades

In a way, my problem with the film's depiction of Hades is almost the precise reverse of my problem with Etta Candy in one sense, and precisely the same in another sense.

In this film, Hades is a black-haired, lazy, obese man who reclines on a couch and orders people around in the underworld.  I have -never- seen him depicted this way before; not in the comics, and certainly not in any of the ancient Greek artwork that depicted him.  This is the problem which, as I said, is like the opposite of my problem with Etta.

The problem which is the same for both characters is that in neither case do the characters have motives which are even remotely similar to their original counterparts.  Hades was sentenced to rule the underworld by Zeus, to keep him busy, and it apparently worked, as Hades is generally depicted as fearsome, but always a very busy guy.  Yet, in this film, he's apparently not busy, not working, not really fearsome at all, and not the least bit worried about all the extra work he'll have to do when Ares starts killing people.  In fact, he seems to -want- more people to die.

This depiction just made no sense to me.  My conclusion here is that it was just done to avoid having to go too deep into the character, and to prey on the already-miserable fat-person stereotypes, just as a faithful rendering of Etta would have threatened them.

-----

Steve Trevor

Up to now, we've been dealing mainly with bit players, but I don't think any character does quite as much damage to this movie as Steve Trevor.  In the comics, he was a brave, WWII fighter pilot, who was rescued by Wonder Woman and returned home.  She stayed on as a goodwill ambassador to "man's world," and the two eventually fell in love.  Steve was a little awkward at times, in the comics, but he was a decent man nonetheless.

In the movie, Steve is -not- a decent man.  He's a filthy, womanizing, lecherous, drunken buffoon.  Yes, he can fight pretty well in his own way, but that's just about all he brings to the film, and given that he's playing alongside a superheroine, that means he's basically a worthless character, serving only to give Wonder Woman a reason to visit man's world, and get her into trouble.

But I think I know why they did him this way.  You see, midway through the film, Steve delivers a long and perfectly-accurate speech about how Wonder Woman needs to back off suspecting men of being patronizing every time they do something nice for a woman (she has a nasty habit, in this movie, of taking it as an insult whenever this happens.)  It's a good speech, and coming from, for example, a Sir Galahad or a Superman, it would have been one of the high points of the film, because it would have refuted, once and for all, the prejudices of the Wonder Woman character, and pointed out just what a jerk she was, and had always been, since the film began.

However, the speech loses all of its steam, because, of course, we know that it's coming from a filthy, womanizing, lecherous, drunken buffoon, and in the eyes of modern men, if you're "that kind of person," then any point you make must be a bad one.  This, I think, is why they went to such lengths to keep Steve Trevor from being a decent human being, or a good representative of the male gender, as he was in the comics.  It's because they want that message crushed.

-----

Ares

The villain of the piece is Ares; the Greek god of war, who's been imprisoned on Wonder Woman's home island of Themyscira for ages, and is seeking a way to restore his powers, so that he can challenge the powers that be.  Ares comes across as being very much like Imhotep from the 1999 version of "the Mummy;" an immensely-powerful and threatening villain, who's seeking forbidden means to make himself even stronger through murder and general evil.

Sadly, of all the characters in this film, he's probably the closest to his depiction in the comics and legends, with one exception.  Even once he "gets his powers back," he still seems to be mortal.  The one constant thing about the legends of the Greek gods was that whether or not they could fight, they were immune to all forms of conventional attack.  This is a -big- flaw in the film.  However, I'll cover this more in a couple sections, when I get to Wonder Woman herself.

-----

The Amazons

In the past, I've seen two basic depictions of the amazons; Wonder Woman's people.  First, there's the type that remains separate from "man's world" as a sort of religious devotion.  Second, there's the type that genuinely thinks of humans as inferior, and men especially so.  Needless to say, I favor the former over the latter, since an island full of intensely self-righteous and condescending jerks is hardly a proud heritage for a great superheroine.

However, the amazons in this movie take things even further than the worst comic writing I've seen about them.  Not only are they totally convinced of their own superiority, but they practice active prejudice against men, and teach hatred of all men as though it were a religious doctrine.  This is bad enough, but it's not the only problem the amazons have.

You see, it's revealed that this isolation from human beings is not by choice; that the amazons have adopted a life without families or children, with the exception of Diana, who was made from clay, and that they really have only two things in exchange; well-honed warrior disciplines, and the wisdom of ancient books.

I say that these are the only things they have because these amazons are war-hounds and little else.  One of them is shown enjoying books, but even she turns into a battle-thrall near the end of the film, and at no point in the film are the amazons shown to be honest, good-hearted, or moral.  In fact, as far as I can tell, these amazons have no form of moral teaching, though they're perfectly eager to criticize things that offend their emotional sensibilities.  Needless to say, I was singularly unimpressed with the amazons in this movie, and everything about them, and it seems that...

-----

Wonder Woman Herself

...has learned from them well.  Like them, she's a rabid man-hater and mindless battle-hound, and like them, she's constantly looking down her nose at things she finds emotionally-offensive, while demonstrating no clear, moral understanding at all.

In the original comics, Wonder Woman was a brave, strong woman who fought crime and evil with her special powers, but she was also a caring, gentle soul, more akin to Mother Theresa than Xena; Warrior Princess.  She loved helping people out when they were in danger, or needed assistance, whether it involved fighting someone or not.  It was by no means rare to see her carrying someone to a hospital, or transporting medicine to victims of a plague; all the time with a smile on her face, because she knew she was helping someone.  No other reason was needed.

On top of all that, Wonder Woman was genuinely virtuous; -in the Christian sense- of virtues.  She was humble, honest, charitable, joyful, loved peace, justice and righteousness, and she was as pure-hearted as a newborn.

Sadly, many writers simply don't or didn't understand this about her, and it's become something of a trend in comics to depict her as a sort of "perfect" character who's become imperfect because she -thinks of herself as- perfect, and superior to everyone else.

Still, as bad as this has gotten in the comics, it's even worse in this movie, which paints Wonder Woman as a genuine jerk with nothing even resembling gold in her heart.  Worst of all, this Wonder Woman is capable of murder.

Yes, I realize that she killed someone in the comics as well, under pressure and during what essentially amounted to a hostage situation.  I raise issue with that as well, but not nearly as much as with this film, because at least -that murder- was treated as a genuine, moral problem.  In this film, Wonder Woman has no qualms whatsoever with slicing apart bad guys like cucumbers, -with the intent of ending their lives.-  There is nothing in any way moral or purehearted about this character, and therefore, nothing heroic.

-----

The Whole World View of the Film

I've said my piece on feminism elsewhere (google "the problem of feminism" in quotes.  It's the first one that pops up,) and I feel no need to repeat it.  However, this movie has, I think, two specific problems with feminism.

1. First, Wonder Woman views the normal attitudes of a normal woman asking for help from a man as -entirely cultural.-  She insists that women can do anything which men can do, and here's the problem with that view.  It's -false.-  It's -false- that women can do whatever men can do.

Women are built differently than men.  Their upper bodies aren't designed for the same kind of strenuous, heavy lifting, their torsos aren't meant for dodging blows in combat, and they wear out faster under prolonged physical activity.  Now, granted, a certain amount of training and practice can limit these disadvantages to a certain degree, but regardless, against a male opponent of comparable skill and practice, a woman would simply find herself outclassed in many areas; usually involving physical activity.

The only reason why anyone would deny this is because Wonder Woman has superpowers, so she -is- built for heavy lifting, swift dodging, etc...  However, Wonder Woman is a fictional character, who is clearly the exception to the rule.  This is why the ancient Greeks found the amazons so humorous to tell stories about.  There was simply no way for women to overpower men in combat en masse in the real world.

This is one of the reasons why the film irks me so.  It attempts to derive its philosophy from the abilities of fictional characters, who only represent a tiny minority, even in their own home universe.

2. There have always been feminist or pseudo-feminist undertones to Woman Woman, but believe it or not, there was a time when feminism was a -good- thing; just the desire to see woman get a just wage for doing the same jobs as men.

By contrast, much of modern feminism (at least in major, feminist organizations) has become just what Wonder Woman herself demonstrates in this movie, a disorganized, disagreeable group of angry, violent individuals, united by radical sexism.

As sad as it's been to see feminism, as a cause, gradually turn into something horrible, it's been even worse seeing Wonder Woman trying to turn into something just as bad.  I guess that's all I really have to say.

The Problem of Feminism

I decided to write this today, because I've had the subject of feminism brought to my attention, and I felt there was a lot about the subject that people just didn't understand, but which deserved to be looked at.

A lot of people today wave feminism as though it were a flag of inherent virtue.  It's a widely-held philosophy today.  However, the truth is that feminism has some pretty nasty problems, and it probably won't take long to explain what they are.

-----

1. Feminism, as a philosophy, does not focus on how to do the right thing.

This is a big one.  The sad truth is that many of today's most popular philosophies are purely negative in nature.  They will eagerly point out where people went wrong, but not how people should go right again.

In the case of feminism, this is -very- pronounced, since nothing seems to unite all feminists except opposition to "oppression of women," which is just an expression of what some people have done wrong if taken literally.

In practical terms, what this means is that feminism cannot inspire unity in its adherents, because there's nothing to unite around.  Some claim that men are inferior, some don't.  Some claim that women should be allowed to dress however they want, and some don't.  Some are political activists, and some aren't.  Some claim that abortion is a woman's right, and others, correctly, think this view is absurd and immoral.

The whole point of even -having- a philosophy is to learn the truth.  What kind of truth can you learn when your philosophy divides people so much?  This is problem number 1.

-----

2. Feminist philosophy recognizes no difference between "equality" and "sameness."

Another big one.  If pressed, certain feminists will answer the first problem by saying "we believe in equality between women and men," even though many don't believe this.  The problem is that being "equal" to men is not the same thing as being "the same" as men.

Roman Catholicism recognizes the fundamental equality between women and men; that each is a child of God, and therefore, each has equal value and equal human rights.  Therefore, those who say they're feminists because they believe that women are people too should consider switching to a Roman Catholic view of philosophy.

However, what Catholicism does -not- teach is that women and men are the same.  They are -not- the same.  In fact, no person is the same as any other person, and therefore, while certain basic rights should be extended to women, as to men, it is ludicrous to suggest that each person should have the same opportunities.  We simply don't, and that's how the world goes.

Professor Stephen Hawking will never have the opportunity to be a bodybuilder.  My neice will never have the opportunity to lift a thousand pounds.  I will never have the opportunity to walk on the moon.  My grandfather will never have the opportunity to be young again (at least in this life.)  Yet, these are opportunities which -others- have, no matter how badly we might wish we had them.  We're not all the same.  Life's tough.

Yet, feminism recognizes no difference between being of -equal worth,- and being -the same in terms of the opportunities that one is afforded by society.-  These things -are not- the same, and therefore, feminist philosophy has a large problem here.  If you blame every difference in society between women and men on inequality, you simply have a wrong understanding of what it means to be equal.

-----

3. Many feminists and feminist leaders give feminism a bad name.

This comes, really, in two flavors.  First is the fact that many; perhaps most leaders in the feminist movement are radicals with little or no respect for men.  Many have even been quoted as saying that men are inferior, worthless or pathetic by comparison to women, and -most- support some kind of intrinsic evil, such as the scourges of abortion and/or contraception, or the absurdity of women priests.

The second flavor is that many feminists are kind of ignorant with regards to how governments are supposed to work.  By this I mean that they often expect -the government- to provide the missing opportunities discussed at the end of problem 2, and this is not the job of the government.  The government receives its funding from the people as a whole; the -commonwealth,- and is supposed to use it to promote -the common good.-  Not the interests of pushy lobbying groups representing minorities.

"But women aren't a minority!" You might say.  Yes, that's certainly true, but self-professed feminists are.  Make of that what you will.  In either case, many feminists and feminist leaders give the movement a bad name.

-----

4. Feminism has a tunnel-vision understanding of women's history.

Though feminists will claim to support "women's history month," they will almost always use it to discuss poor, downtrodden women who were oppressed by rich, white guys sometime within the last hundred years, and rebelled.  Almost never will you hear about Cleopatra, or Joan of Arc, or Eleanor of Aquitaine.  There's a reason for this, which I'll explain in a moment.

The true history of women in the world is that in most nations up to the time of Jesus, women generally were given very little respect.  Barbaric nations bought and sold women like cattle, and this was especially obvious in societies that claimed to respect law, such as ancient Rome, where the wife of the governer wasn't permitted to even voice an opinion on matters of state, and Jerusalem, where the testimony of women was considered inadequate in court.  Pretty much the only way that a woman could attain power was by being born royalty in the absence of a brother.

Suddenly, along comes Christianity, and for the first time, people are told that all men and women have equal worth in the eyes of God, and that they should strive to treat each other as equals.  Everything changed after that.

Some people still chose to treat women as inferiors, but all of a sudden, it wasn't the status quo anymore.  You could treat your wife with respect and honor, and single women could work for money without being looked down upon for it.  There were still certain jobs that women were badly-suited for, thanks to their weaker upper bodies, but by no means was it normal to see them as inferior and useless.

This continued until rather recently.  European (and thus American) upper classes began to have less worries about what Rome would think after the dawn of protestantism, and therefore, less fear of imposing their will on the lower classes.  They developed stuffy standards of etiquette by which certain types of activities and work just "weren't womanly," and this same reasoning was applied to industrialized work and voting over the course of the last century; the use of a popular custom to try to justify excluding women from things for which some of them were perfeclty-qualified, just because they were women.

Whether you agree that women should work in industrial manufacturing, or whether you agree that they should vote, the fact was that there was tremendous opposition to these things in the popular mindset, until about the dawn of the second world war.

At that time, men were going off to war, and women were needed to comprise the manufacturing workforce.  Rosie the Riveter was created to encourage women to do hard, industrial work, manufacturing supplies and ammunition for the troops, yet, there was no real controversy about it.  Men were doing something, and women were doing something.  Everyone was working to help their nation as best they could, and when the war ended, so did that.

Women were laid off or had their pay docked by the thousands after the ending of the war, and while some women agreed to take the lower-paying jobs, or to return home and find other work, many realized that this was a serious problem, which needed a serious solution.  This is where feminism began.

The feminist movement, as it exists today, started out as an attempt to correct this discrimination against women in the workforce, and soon, women were working in office jobs and doing industrial work again.  It was a success.  It had worked.  However, the leaders in the feminist movement, for whatever reason, decided not to take advantage of this success, and instead keep doing what they'd been doing for a while; telling people that women were being oppressed, and that they were needed to correct it.

While there are still cases of women being oppressed, the story told by modern feminists is very different from the one you would have heard in the late 50s.  The modern feminist remembers the ancient societies, which treated women like dirt, and the American 1950s, in which women were universally expected to be homemakers and nothing else, then just skips over the rest of human history.  They skip over all of Christianity, and the progress that it brought to the relationship between men and women in those times among the poor, since after all, the poor didn't write it down.  They skip over the more recent successes in women's suffrage and office jobs, because that would mean that the feminist lobbyist should be laid off, and you know they're not going to do that to themselves.

This is done for a reason.  By concealing the role of Catholicism in improving the rights of women throughout the last two millenia, the feminist makes feminism look like the only bright spot in thousands of years of misogyny; the only ones who ever let women do any work in all of human history.  However, that's a rather transparent lie.  They're not the only bright spot, and they -certainly- are not the only ones who ever let women work.  Women have always worked; especially poor women, who are always in the majority.  They just didn't do the same work as men (plowing, smithing, masonry,) because it was too strenuous or backbreaking.  This only became a matter of discrimination during the industrial revolution, when work of that sort became less common, and all of this is a -very- recent development.

Feminism simply doesn't speak the truth about history, and this is a big problem with it.

-----

5. Modern feminism, as a cause, is mere sex-based factiousness.

I hesitate to say this, because I don't like to make broad, sweeping statements, but if you take a look at any major feminist institution, and then at what they support, you will find that they will support anything that seems like a cause for "helping women," and oppose anything that seems like it might increase the rights of men.  They also oppose things which really -do- help women, like forbidding them to have abortions.

The reason I use the qualifier "as a cause," is that many people who consider themselves feminists are not associated with or involved in any of these organisations, nor have they even heard of many of them.  Still, these groups do exist, and they have a lot of support from feminists.  There's simply no excuse for that.  In just a few decades, these groups have turned a legitimate request for fair jobs and a greater role in society, into a gaggle of lobbying groups, united by radical sexism.

I can appreciate the need of feminists to support the rights of women.  In fact, I agree with it.  However, you can't support rights by encouraging evil.

-----

6. Feminists base their understanding of morality on what they believe the world owes women.

This is the last big problem, but in my view, the biggest one.  Our understanding of morality needs to be based on the value of the human person, and their human rights.  Those rights are life, bodily integrity, certain social and cultural liberties, personal respect, freedom to seek truth, freedom of moral speech, choice in terms of what one does for a living (within ethical guidelines,) truthful information, gaining an education from our society, opportunity for some form of great responsibility for the gifted, correct worship of God, free discussion of religion, choice between raising a family or remaining celibate, the right to educate one's own children, to work on our own initiative, in the kinds of work we're suited for, in exchange for a just wage, the right to private property, to meet with each other, form groups, set non-immoral goals for those groups, and criteria under which people can join, the right to live in our own country, or move to another, and finally, to participate in the wellbeing of our society.  Those are -all- the rights that human beings have, and they are the same for women as they are for men.

Feminism in the modern age, however, doesn't accept any concrete list of rights as valid, because that would involve setting a goal which, when it was reached, would necessitate the dissolving of the feminist movement.  Instead, they make up new "rights" out of wholecloth whenever a woman wants something, with the most bitter examples being abortion and women clergy.  No woman has any right to kill another human being because she feels like it, or to tell God what role he should let her play in his plan.

As long as feminism fails to grasp a proper basis for its moral claims, it will be, and become, increasingly immoral, and that's the problem with feminism.