Director Report Card: Patty Jenkins (2020)

4. Wonder Woman 1984

“Wonder Woman 1984” was, like many other proposed 2020 releases, suppose to be just another big studio blockbuster. The highly anticipated sequel was originally slotted into a holiday 2019 release date before studio reshuffling had it settling into summer of 2020. We all know how that turned out. What should've been just another popcorn distraction then became the first major movie WB would release through its new HBO Max streaming service. A system largely skipping theaters to focus on streaming would completely upend the cinematic world. What the fall-out of Warner Brothers' strategy will be remains to be seen. (As will the fate of movie theaters, once COVID subsides.)  Yet another controversy would grip “Wonder Woman 1984” upon release last month: Many people didn't think it was very good. Now the time for me to judge.

Sixty-six years have passed since the end of World War I. Princess Diana of Themyscira, otherwise known as Wonder Woman, has been operating in secret all that time. While she rights what wrongs she can, Diana is still haunted by the death of Steve Trevor, her love. After a gem smuggling operation is raided, a rare stone arrives in the Smithsonian, where Diana works with a shy and awkward woman named Barbara Minerva. Neither realize that the stone is a magical relic with the ability to grant wishes. Maxwell Lord, minor TV personality and failing businessman, does know this. He gets a hold of the gem and takes its power. Soon, his wish-granting abilities sows chaos around the globe. It also brings Steve Trevor back to life and turns Barbara into the supervillain Cheetah. 

More than once, Patty Jenkins has cited Richard Donner's “Superman” movies as the primary influence on her “Wonder Woman” films. That sincerity and clarity of focus fit the first movie well enough but, for the sequel, Jenkins follows probably the least loved element of those Donner films. Namely, a seriously hokey streak. In the first major action scene featuring Gal Gadot, Wonder Woman swings through a colorful eighties shopping mall. Bank robbers with ridiculous hair-cuts are foiled. Kids stare on, wide-mouthed, in a goofy manner. This feeling, of exaggerated camp and out-of-place corniness, is not isolated to this one sequence. It seems Jenkins was also taking more than a few cues from the seventies “Wonder Woman” TV show, a tonal decision that clashes badly with what is expected of a modern superhero blockbuster. 

Moreover, on a narrative level, “Wonder Woman 1984” raises more questions than it can answer. The exact mechanics behind Max Lord's magical powers are never explained very well. He grants wishes and receives something from the wisher in return but how this affects everyone seems to vary from scene-to-scene. It seems he has to be touching people while making a wish, yet even this is inconsistent. As the film goes deeper into various elements set-up by his powers – how to undo the wishes, the mutatable properties of these wishes – things start to get increasingly fuzzy. The climax of the movie hinges on an absurd piece of technology, that strains belief even for a superhero flick. It's never a good sign when you have to pause the movie and think out a plot development before continuing. Nor when a movie includes a random, one-scene character to laboriously spout exposition.

The script makes a lot of questionable choices. Bringing Steve Trevor back isn't one of them. Yes, the exact way Steve is resurrected raises a lot of unfortunate implications. Yet the sequel most comes alive when playing up the chemistry between Gadot and Chris Pine. Dropping Trevor down into the eighties is a clever switch-a-roo on the first film's fish-out-of-water story. It also allows Pine a chance to flex his comedic muscles, as in a highly amusing montage in which Trevor discovers a love of fanny packs. If nothing else, Gadot and Pine's banter enlivens many of the sequel's scenes. 

Even if she didn't have Pine to bounce off of, Gal Gadot remains an inspired choice for Wonder Woman. Diana's arc, of learning the value of self-responsibility, is set-up gratuitously in the very first sequence. The power of truth is hammered home throughout, especially in the last third. It's another element of the film that feels shaky sometimes, as “the truth” is reduced to a platitude that is spat out countless times. Yet Gadot's pure sincerity, her style and grace, almost makes this work. The moment where she renounces her wish is a powerful bit of acting, just one example of how Gadot so ideally balances strength and vulnerability in this role. 

Yet certain connotations concerning Gadot are hard to avoid. Immediately after “Wonder Woman 1984” came out, one scene went viral in the worst way possible. I'm talking about when Max Lord meets with the leader of Bialya, a DC Comics stand-in for any number of Middle Eastern countries. When the prince wishes for the infidels to be out of his homeland, it doesn't just resurrect the moribund stereotype of the villainous Arab. Bialya is a fictional country with a long history in comic books, that doesn't match up exactly with any real world place. But this scene is clearly meant to bring the conflict between Israel and Palestine to mind. Considering Gadot's own membership in the Israeli military, and her on-going support of the government's actions, this moment becomes even uglier.

This is not the only questionable political aspect of “Wonder Woman 1984.” Max Lord is obviously patterned after Donald Trump, to a certain degree. The mop of blonde hair, his love of garishly gold interior design, eventually ending up in the White House, and status as a conman who has built a public image around the perception of being rich. (Even though his personal finances are actually in complete disarray.) He prays on people's hopes and fears and offers easy solution, but only out of a desire to make himself more powerful. As much as Lord is clearly patterned after Trump, he ultimately doesn't have much in common with our former president. Lord has a complicated relationship with his child, ultimately based in love. Near the film's end, he's given a sympathetic backstory. If you were going to pattern this cinematic bad guy so much after one of the real world's most prominent bad guys, why try and make the audience feel sympathy for him? I suspect the filmmakers were simply using Trumpian signifiers to easily identify Lord as underhanded and untrustworthy, a deeply shallow trick. 

Worst yet, Lord simply isn't that compelling a villain. Pedro Pascal's performance is cartoonish and increasingly sweaty, in an unappealing way. Luckily, the movie has a stronger secondary villain... That it makes some good and bad choices with. Kristen Wiig, despite early concerns she might be miscast, is well utilized as Barbara Minerva. A character who lacks all of Diana's natural grace, power, and charm makes for an interesting counterpoint. Watching her grow from friend to enemy is compelling, especially how Barbara's frustration grows into resentment and eventually villainy. Yet even then, I have issues. The moment where Barbara crosses the moral event horizon, a familiar step for villains of this type, is an odd choice. She kicks a harasser to death, which is only slightly more sever than what Diana did herself in an earlier scene. While her full transformation into Cheetah in the finale is decently executed, the big fight between Wonder Woman and her arch-enemy is sidelined by the rest of the movie's plot. 

Movies like this are spectacle and should be treated as such. Jenkins makes the interesting choice to not feature many action sequences for much of the movie's first half, focusing instead on character. The first big action doesn't occur until nearly an hour in, during the escape from Bialya. While there's some good stunts in this sequence, the visual framing is often kind of odd. A shot of Gadot running looks weird or the exact way a vehicle flips into the air doesn't track. Yet the action does get better as the movie goes on. A fight in the White House features some nicely choreographed fisticuffs. This continues through Wondie and Cheetah's big showdown. To continue the movie's weird choices, further action scenes are foregone for the finale. As with most of its elements, “WW84” has a really odd relationship with its action scenes.

Yet, despite its many flaws, there are still some moments in “Wonder Woman 1984” that made me cheer. Or at least smile widely. The sequel features at least two scenes I've wanted to see in a “Wonder Woman” movie for many years. That would be when Diana tosses her tiara through the air like a boomerang, a classic move. Later, the movie finds an only slightly convoluted way to get the notorious Invisible Jet into the story. That was really fun. In the modern age of comics, some people thought the Invisible Jet was silly and just gave Wonder Woman the power of flight. “WW84” follows this pattern, in a scene that is among the sequel's more uplifting. While the gold armor Diana is seen wearing in all the ads doesn't add much to the plot, it sure looks cool and leads to the film's most satisfying cameo.

When the sequel's title was announced, the natural assumption is that there was some great importance to the date and setting. If you put “1984” in the title of your movie, you expect it to tackle Orwellian themes in some ways. Disappointingly, this is not on the film's agenda. In fact, the eighties setting proves to be little but window dressing. Tension between the U.S. and the Soviet Union informs the story but that was hardly unique to 1984. The fashion and style of the time are indulged in but, otherwise, there's pretty much no reason this story had to be set in 1984. It could've been set in 1964 or 2004 without too much about the story being changed at all.

Ultimately, I understand why so many people were disappointed in “Wonder Woman 1984.” It's undeniably hokey in spots. The script is far messier than a blockbuster of this level, that had so many eyeballs on it in production, ever should've been. Its politics can only be described as tin-earred. At the same time, there are some fun action beats, a strong supporting turn from Kristen Wiig, and some entertaining moments. Were people expecting too much from this one or are my standards too low? Either way, Warner Brothers and Patty Jenkins are ready to move onto a third “Wonder Woman” movie, hopefully learning their lesson from the mistakes made here. [Grade: C+]