Director Report Card: Patty Jenkins (2017)

3. Wonder Woman

For years, the question was asked by superhero fans: Where was the “Wonder Woman” movie? The most iconic of all comic book heroines, for years Wonder Woman's on-screen legacy was limited to a campy-but-beloved TV series, failed pilots, and many cartoons. A lot of bullshit reasons kept “Wonder Woman” out of theaters, while the age of the superhero movie blossomed and DC backed “Green Lantern” and “Jonah Hex.” Executives thought an action movie starring a woman wouldn't be popular. Or that the character was too goofy. Mostly, the previous attempts to get a “Wonder Woman” movie made – in the mid-nineties, with Joel Silver and Sandra Bullock, and in the mid-2000s, with Joss Whedon and probably Kate Beckinsale – were sunk by awful sounding scripts.

Finally, after Marvel had already won the public's heart, WB/DC decided it was pass time to build their own cinematic universe around their world famous cast of characters. A “Wonder Woman” movie was finally a pressing concern. Gal Gadot was plucked out of relative obscurity to play the Amazonian warrior princess. Michelle MacLarin was signed on to direct. The character's debut would be the sole bright spot in the tediously grim “Superman V. Batman.” By then, MacLarin was out and Patty Jenkins was in, finally returning to theater screens after fourteen years. The director of a bleak character study like “Monster” might seem like an odd pic for “Wonder Woman.” Jenkins, it turns out, loves superheroes. She cites Donner's “Superman” as an inspiration, made a superhero short called “Velocity Rules” in college, and nearly directed “Thor: The Dark World.” In both cases, the wait ended up being worth it. Jenkins' “Wonder Woman” movie was exactly the one we needed.

The Amazons, the great warrior women of Greek mythology, live out their lives in peace on Themyscira. They are led by the noble Queen Hippolyta. Her daughter, Diana, is curious about combat and, despite her mother's best efforts, becomes an expert at it. One faithful day, a mysterious flying vehicle enters the ring around Themyscira. Diana rescues the man – the first man she's ever laid eyes on – from the wreckage. It's Steve Trevor, an American spy working against the Germans in World War I. Upon hearing about the Great War, Diana believes that Ares – the God of War, the Amazon's mythical adversary – is active in the world of man. She follows Steve back to London, soon heading to the Western Front, in pursuit of Ares... But Diana, known as Wonder Woman soon enough, quickly learns that the world of man is not so simple.

The best superheroes are, essentially, archetypes. Which mean they can be boiled down to very simple ideas. Superman is a god that looks up to mankind. Batman wants to save innocents. Aquaman protects the coastline. Wonder Woman, no matter how strong a fighter she might be, is ultimately motivated by compassion. The best adaptations of these characters understand these root ideas and Jenkins' “Wonder Woman” can be included in that company. Diana may be seeking to kill Ares but she's doing it to save a million other lives. We she sees the atrocities of war around her, people left in pain, driven from their homes, starving and cold, she cannot stand by. That “Wonder Woman” so keenly understands the core of its iconic protagonist is, by far, its greatest strength.

This cry for compassion spreads throughout many other scenes in the film. Upon arriving in London and meeting Etta Candy, Diana inquires about the difference between an employee and a slave. When she meets Chief Napi, an American Indian, he pauses to tell her about the plight of his people back in America. This proceeds an even more powerful scene, where Charlie – another one of Trevor's associates – wakes up from a nightmare in the grips of a PTSD flashback. For a film about a heroine motivated by compassion, it's only fitting that “Wonder Woman” allows for quieter moments focused on the real world problems its supporting characters would've faced. It's thoughtful and I appreciate that.

A big part of the “Wonder Woman” story has always involved contrasting Diana's nature with that of the world of man. Unsurprisingly, Jenkins' film uses this tradition for some fish-out-of-water comedy. A long montage is devoted to Diana trying on the various outfits considered proper for women in the 1900s, to much bafflement on her behalf. She attempts to exit a building with her sword and shield, before being confused by a revolving door. The best comedy in the film plays off Diana's inherent innocence. She squeals with delight when seeing a baby. Her reaction to tasting ice cream for the first time is one of absolute joy. It's pretty cute stuff.

Yet this comic relief is representative of Diana's overall character arc. Through the course of the film, she discovered that Ares is not responsible for the atrocities of the First World War. That man is more than capable of these things on their own. “Wonder Woman” was set in the World War I, partially to distinguish it more from Marvel's “Captain America” movie. Yet World War I was also a conflict without a clear good guy or bad guy.  The motivation of the war was hard-to-define political conflicts between various nations, without a clear adversary like Nazi Germany, and countless atrocities inflicted on innocent civilians. This proves the ideal setting for Diana to loose her innocence about human nature.

This character arc, of Diana trying to define herself in a world that is sometimes heartless, is one fiber that connects “Wonder Woman” to Jenkins' “Monster.” Another element that links Jenkins' million dollar blockbuster to her earlier work is the theme of motherhood. As in her “Five” segment, Jenkins devotes time to the sometimes challenging relationship between parent and child. Hippolyta hopes for a life of peace for her daughter. Diana, however, is drawn by her nature to fight for innocents. The two soon have to come to an agreement, that a parent can only direct their child's destiny so much. While it only occupies the first part of the film, you can see how invested Jenkins was in this idea.

With the announcement that “Wonder Woman” would finally be appearing in a big budget movie, came a world-wide search for the right actress for the role. Gal Gadot would beat out recognized names like Elodie Yung and Olga Kurylenko (who probably would've been my choice), despite having few other credits of note. While I was highly skeptical at first, Gadot is excellent in the part. She embodies the qualities we associate with the character. Gadot's Diana is powerful, compassionate, beautiful, graceful, and intelligent. Diana's strongly defined character arc also gives Gadot a chance to display her talent as an actress, proving more than up-to-the-task. While we can squabble about petty differences, about whether Gadot looks enough like an Amazon or whatever, but she's a pretty damn satisfying choice.

With Gadot proving largely an unknown, Chris Pine as Steve Trevor ends up being the marquee name in the film. It was a logical enough choice. Pine, after all, had already proven he could play a dashing, charming, rogue adventurer. What really makes Pine an inspired choice for Trevor is his chemistry with Gadot. Even though she often frustrates him, Pine shows just how charmed he is by Diana. Her noble attributes and ability to perceive the world through child-like eyes softens Trevor's heart, hardened by his experiences in the war. A dance they share in a liberated village, snow starting to fall overhead, is such a charming moment. “Wonder Woman” has to quickly establish how close these two will grow and, largely thanks to a few clever scenes and Gadot and Pine's chemistry, it totally works.

“Wonder Woman” obviously presented a lot of challenges to its filmmakers. One of which was that Patty Jenkins had never directed an action movie before. You can see her struggling a bit to handle combat scenes of this scale. Perhaps taking too much of a cue from Zack Snyder – who did, after all, produce and co-write the film – the early action sequences on Themyscira are heavy on melodramatic, slow-motion flips and dives through the air. That use of “ramping” occasionally rears its tacky head a few other times throughout the film. The more grounded action scenes, such as Trevor's raid on a bomb factory, are better. Jenkins' visual sense is at its strongest during the flashback to Ares' origin, depicted as a Greek fresco moving to life.

Even if the action scenes might've been a little sharper, “Wonder Woman” still features a stunning sequence that immediately down in superhero cinema history. You probably already know which moment I'm referring to. Diana climbs out of a trench, strips off her overcoat, revealing the iconic armor for the first time, and marches across the No Man's Land with ease. It's not just a beautifully assembled sequence, thrilling and powerful, but also gets at the root of the superhero fantasy. Wonder Woman steps onto the battlefield and single-handedly changes the course of history. She dispels the historical villain, saves the lives of innocent, and looks powerful and unstoppable the entire time. This is why we watch movies like this.

As much as “Wonder Woman” does right, Jenkins' films still can't overcome the growing pains of a superhero franchise launcher. In its last third, “Wonder Woman” largely falls apart. The real villain reveals himself, dumping a load of unconvincing exposition on us. A final fight that is heavy on CGI lightning and inexplicable telekinesis ensues. While the film does the best it can to overcome the awkwardness, it still seems like Wonder Woman saves the day thanks to a random new power revealing itself, not so much because of her own strength. This climax is weak enough that it squanders the emotion in Trevor's sacrifice, which really should have worked. (There's also the brain-splintering choice of Wonder Woman allowing a German poison specialist to escape... It's a good thing the Germans never did anything else bad with poison gas, isn't it?)

While it's clearly Gadot and Trevor's show, “Wonder Woman” has a pretty strong supporting cast too. Robin Wright is fittingly concerned but noble as Hippolyta. Connie Nielson steals many of the scenes she's in, as Antiope, Wonder Woman's trainer. Nielson is so convincingly tough and determined, that it's a shame she exits the film as early as she does. Lucy Davis is in the tough position of being the film's wacky comic relief, in the form of Wonder Woman's longtime sidekick Etta Candy. Luckily, Davis is an appealing comedic presence and saves what could've been an annoying character. David Thewlis has the right balance of gravitas and conceited wickedness as the film's final villain, even if he's awkwardly subbed out for a CGI creation for most of his big moments. He's also largely overshadowed by Danny Huston, gleefully over-the-top as the primary villain for most of the runtime.

Since it's a big budget superhero movie, “Wonder Woman” also looks pretty great. The sets on Themyscira look fantastic, especially the ornate shrine that contains the Godkiller sword. One can't really undersell how important it is that a superhero movie get the main character's look right. It would've been easy to screw up Wonder Woman's iconic outfit when translating it to the big screen. Luckily, the movie nailed it. All the iconic elements are there – the tiara, the skirt, the patriotic color scheme, the eagle-like breast-plate and W-shaped belt – but rendered in a way that looks plausible and realistic. She looks like Wonder Woman but also looks like she can exist in real life, a delicate balance to pull off.

Compared to the rest of the DC Extended Universe films up to that point, “Wonder Woman” truly felt like a breath of fresh air. It was neither relentlessly grim and pretentious nor senselessly plotted and assembled by committee. It was fun and funny but not needlessly flippant. The cast was great and the story strong enough to support the things the film needed to do. Most importantly, the movie understood and grasp the details of what makes Wonder Woman an important character. While the film certainly faced some controversy, especially from folks who worry about whether these sort of things are either too or not feminist enough, Jenkins, in many ways, made the “Wonder Woman” movie that we most needed. Without revolutionizing the superhero genre, it proves to be a more-than-satisfying entry and a damn good debut for an iconic character. [Grade: B+]

We all know how this Director Report Card was originally suppose to end. As initially intended, I should've been wrapping things up with “Wonder Woman 1984,” the highly anticipated and very neat looking sequel to Jenkins' superhero stunner. Instead, ya know, the apocalypse began. While still dated for a October release date at this moment, it's looking increasingly likely to me that movie theaters will not be reopening anytime soon. So who the hell knows when we'll get to see 'Wonder Woman 1984.”

As it stands now, Patty Jenkins is a pretty interesting talent. Though her output is still brief enough that patterns and themes are only beginning to emerge, it is interesting that she's maintained a consistent vision despite the wild differences between her three features thus far. And now that she's a big shot blockbuster director, I'm sure we'll be seeing more films from her in the near future. I look forward to them.