The Critical Eye: Wonder Woman
NB: spoilers will be preceded by an asterisk line break, and are very, very mild. I’m attempting to address critical questions that have been asked regarding representation and a very thorny question of political significance, though by no means do I think my read should be considered definitive.
There’s a lot of weighty expectation being shouldered by Wonder Woman. Which is not an unfamiliar thing for any woman. There are also some very valid critical questions of representation being asked, and I think it’s useful to parse the difference between the extremely biased demands and the things that are substantive.
I will first say that after waiting 40 years from the first time I picked up a comic, Wonder Woman on the big screen far exceeded my expectations and avoided nearly everything I feared could go wrong. It has an unshakeable heart and sense of how so many of us struggle to reconcile our humanity and the incomprehensibly inhumane things our species is capable of. Living in a time when so little makes sense in the day to day and there is so much vicious, hateful, violent rhetoric and behavior, seeing that reflected in Diana’s experience, was validation I wasn’t expecting.
The film doesn’t shortchange it’s characters in allowing them to be people, within a sharply-defined mission set against the backdrop of WWI’s Industrial Revolution-fueled leap forward in destructive, mass-produced mass casualties, and it is a solid, charming, moving and adventurous narrative. It’s just not one without flaw.
One of the questions consistently asked of the film is whether it would be another case of the mythological setting of Themyscira and the period setting of WWI London and the German front, to engage in mass whitewashing. Another is whether Diana would be straightwashed.
**************** really really mild spoilers
It doesn’t, yet it is far from executing an intent to :not: do those things as well as it could have. There are barely any speaking roles outside of the lead and main supporting cast.
Where the film falters, is in not giving much context for the Amazonian society and social relationships outside of Diana, Hippolyta, and Antiope, (who are all white) and for perhaps spending a little too much time on the clothing montage with Etta Candy (who is white) outfitting Diana for the streets of London instead of IN the streets of London.
That said, there are a few things that I read as evidence of work being done vs not:
1. Black and Asian women are visibly present on Themyscira, and not just as warriors. As there are very few speaking roles at all, the fact that at least one is a Black woman (Florence Kasumba as Senator Acantha,) and that two of the Senators are Black women, does illustrate that the participation of WOC in Amazonian society is not limited to subordinate or servile positions.
2. The WWI setting is not ahistorically whitewashed. Though most of the visible PoC are men, we do see South Asian soldiers, a Black civil servant, and Turkish workers, as well as Sameer and Chief ( Saïd Taghmoui and Eugene Brave Rock) who are 2/3 of Diana and Steve Trevor’s allies on their mission.
3. White supremacy is explicitly addressed in narrative by both Sameer and Chief.
Is it perfect? No. Could it have been done better? Maybe. Should it be done better? Absolutely. Does the film clear the bar of typical period whitewashing? Yes, it does. Does the film clear the bar of typical fantasy-setting whitewashing and supremacy? Yes, it does. Tragically, this is a really low bar. As in, Agent Carter, in two seasons, literally tripped over it and fell on its face in a setting 30 years later than Wonder Woman. As in, the LoTR/Hobbit franchise literally has zero visible PoC in a fantasy setting even AFTER the LoTR trilogy took heat for years before The Hobbit was made.
In regard to queer representation… it’s not explicitly confirmed that Diana or any of the Amazons are queer, though it is explicitly alluded to. However, Spanish actress Elena Anaya (Dr. Isabel Myra/Dr. Poison) is an openly queer woman.
******* End of mild spoilers
Here is the sticky part. Yes, Gal Gadot is Israeli (of European Ashkenazi heritage, she is not a WOC, stop that,) and served in the Israeli Army as a combat trainer. As every Israeli citizen over the age of 18 is required to provide 21 months of service and for example, The Mummy's Ardeth Bey, Israeli actor Oded Fehr served in the Israeli Navy for several years while Natalie Portman was exempt as a non-resident with Israeli citizenship. Based on what coverage I’ve seen, I cannot say that yes she is a Zionist or no she is not. Israeli/Palestinian relations have been quicksand for as long as the modern state of Israel has existed. Could she conceivably have posted the sentiment as an Israeli national who felt fear for and solidarity with the IDF as fellow citizens in service? Yes. Could she be a person who feels no sympathy with the plight of Palestinian civilians? Yes. Do I think we have a definitive answer from her own mouth? In my opinion, we don’t. Can people play heroic roles with absolute conviction while being monsters? Obviously.
I can’t make a call on where Ms. Gadot’s thoughts and politics lie, and so I’m reserving judgment until I have more information. Each of us has to make that choice, and it is a valid question and subject of criticism. I personally have a long history in human rights and political activism and this is a situation that often turns into two rights making a hellish wrong for everyone, while politicians and the military keep doubling down on both sides. I wish I had an easy answer here and I don’t.
What Wonder Woman does, beautifully, is deconstruct the idea that strength means aggression, that gender defines character, that caring is a weakness, and it puts forth, front and center, that women are no less complex or capable than men. It demonstrates that men are no less capable of emotion that isn’t based in aggression, than women, and that people are, in all our flawed complexity, in all our superficial differences, worth saving, from ourselves and each other, because of love. It posits one singular notion above all: that if we are to fight for a better world, what we fight for and who we fight for, even this enormous, messy thing we call the human race, it must be with, for, and rooted in love of each other as humans.
And it does it BRILLIANTLY.
