Wednesday 23 December 2020

OUT NOW: Wonder Woman 1984 (some spoilers)

In 1984, Diana Prince (Gal Gadot) operates incognito as Wonder Woman, while working at the Smithsonian. 


When a new artefact arrives at the museum, Diana is soon forced to contend with the man who would like to possess it, Maxwell Lord (Pedro Pascal).


As she goes on the trial after Max, Diana also has to deal with the mysterious return of Steve Trevor (Chris Pine), the mortal man she loved and lost back in World War One. 



This movie is fun. After a year like 2020, Wonder Woman 1984 was a welcome reprieve. It was also great to have a superhero movie that wanted to have fun. And while it is entertaining, it also has some more serious ideas that make it stick more in the mind.

I was interested to figure out why the titular year was so important. Was it another example of the recent trend of Eighties nostalgia, an  excuse for using familiar aesthetics of the time period?

What I found interesting was how understated the visuals were. The eighties milieu serves as a. ready signifier for the central macguffin of the movie - the plot of the movie is based around an object that can grant you a single wish. The filmmakers use this idea to play with familiar ideas from the decade, from 

All the characters have desires and they ultimately sell themselves for their wishes:

Max Lord, a combo of corporate monster, con man and televangelist, is obsessed with success and recognition. Cheetah is a wallflower who is tired of being ignored or walked over. And Diana has built a life around the loss of her lover Steve Trevor (Chris Pine).

While the movie has a breezy sense of fun, as Max Lord’s scheme grows the movie skews increasingly dark. It’s not Cormac McCarthy, but the movie’s darkness carries more weight than the ‘grimdark’ posturing of the Zack Snyderverse.

The filmmakers are invested in the characters, and give the film a sense of sincerity that never goes too far into schmaltz.

When it comes to Gadot in the lead role I am torn. I thought she was good in the first movie, where her bluntness worked for the character’s naïveté. This movie is more premised on dialogue than the big set pieces, and Gadot seemed slightly out of place. There is something about Gadot that always bumps me a little. I think she has too much jock energy to come off as a pacifist.

I really felt it during the scenes set in the Middle East, when she rescues the kids from the villains' truck. While that is a very Wonder Woman thing to do, I could not help but think about Gadot’s views on Palestine. Is this scene acknowledging this offscreen context, or trying to soften it?

Not to relate everything back to Bond BUT I almost felt a similarity in her performance to George Lazenby as Bond. There are a few bumpy moments but there is a cumulative affect which works. 

In the same way to Lazenby, sometimes Gadot's bluntness does kind of work for the film's tone which is sloppily, almost monochromatically earnest. While it is fun, what I appreciated about WW84 was how earnest and open it is with its characters' emotions. While the comparison is not exact, the movie WW84 reminded me of was Batman Returns, which is another movie with its own self -contained sense of movie logic and heightened characters (although that movie is more nuanced, complicated - heck, living - than this movie could ever hope to be).

Kristen Wiig delivers an understated performance as Cheetah; as Minerva she feels like a quieter, sadder version of her role in Bridesmaids. Sadly, the character her is pretty underwritten so the role feels like window dressing - she ends up just being someone for Wonder Woman to fight.

Pedro Pascal plays Mac Lord as the ultimate retail politician - he is aggressively trying to be liked. Since this is the eighties, it is easy to see him as a cartoon analogue for a Trumpian con man, with a little of the televangelist thrown in. There is an ever-present sense of desperation which alternately comes off as sad and terrifying. It is a big florid performance and it is great to finally get one of those in a superhero movie again. 

Chris Pine is a treasure - he is always great, and he is a great partner to Gadot. He never takes the limelight, but never feels like a joke to bounce off his immortal foil. The surprise and sense of joy he brings to Steve’s discovery of the 1980s is addictive. I could have watched 90 minutes of the pair wandering around the world. 

Gadot and Pine have good chemistry, and Gadot’s acting in their final scene is the strongest in the film.

One thing I loved about the movie is that it ends on an argument not a fight scene - one of the strengths of the first movie is Diana’s belief in people’s better nature and it is a testament to the characters that they let her intellect and empathy take the win, rather than just her fists. The character remains the moral centre of DC’s current cinematic output, and I am really interested to see how that will affect future movies.

The movie is also not worried about being realistic - this is more akin to a musical of primary colours and primary emotions, but with all the vividness of the best musicals. 

Speaking of music, I appreciated Hans Zimmer’s score. He is the king of the shortened melodies, but I liked the use of choir and the 80s synth tones. I do not know if it will stick in the brain but as a piece of the movie it worked. 

If I have one complaint, it is the over-emphasis on CGI, particularly in the last fight scene, which includes some confusing camera-work and blurred motion. It also takes place at night, which makes it harder to follow. 

It might be how jaded I am, but big CG set pieces do nothing for me anymore. I think that is part of the reason why WW84 won me over. Aside from the amusing opening robbery, there were few moments where I felt a sense of wonder (no pun intended)The only one I can think of is when Diana lassos lightning. That was more interesting than anything that other lightning guy from those other movies has done.

I do not need them in every scene but I never felt a visceral rush during the big set pieces. Maybe I am getting old. Maybe the over-saturation of the genre has deadened my inner child.

One thing did occur to me in the lead up to this movie, and how this movie resolved that issue leaves me curious about how the portrayal of this character will proceed.


In the first Wonder Woman, what really struck me was how engrossed I was in the dynamic between Steve Trevor and Diana. Their relationship helped to ground the title character, in a similar way to Lois Lane and Clark Kent. 


When it was revealed that Pine would be back, I did wonder what this meant for Diana. Do the filmmakers only think she can be relatable in juxtaposition with a man?


In this movie, I think the filmmakers threaded that needle in an interesting way. Diana’s conflict is about letting go. In order to save the world, she has to give up an opportunity to have Steve back. 


As the credits rolled, I wondered how the filmmakers are going to tackle Diana in future sequel/s, and give her worthy opponents. It is a similar problem with Superman: How do you make these invulnerable people vulnerable? 


They found a way to bring Steve back here, but they cannot go back to that well again. On top of that, do they really want to build their main female superhero around her relationship to a man? 


I have to say while I had some questions and criticisms, I really enjoyed WW84. Maybe not as much as the original, but I liked that this movie did not try to replicate its predecessor, and found a new kind of antagonist that fit Diana, and did not turn into a giant CGI monster.

Overall, WW84 is a fine piece of entertainment, and in an era of weightless, repetitive set pieces,   is worth watching for the character dynamics rather than the fight sequences.

If you are new to this blog, I also co-host a podcast on James Bond, The James Bond Cocktail Hour


You can subscribe on iTunes, or wherever you get your podcasts.

No comments:

Post a Comment