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+]

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.

Director Report Card: Patty Jenkins (2011)

2. Five

You would think, following an obvious breakthrough like “Monster,” Patty Jenkins' career would take off. She was attached to a few projects that never got off the ground, like a Chuck Yeager biopic and a Ryan Gosling vehicle called “I Am Superman.” When these follow-ups failed to materialize, Jenkins would spend most of the next decade working in television. This is, presumably, how she became attached to “Five.” A project done for the Lifetime Network, the film collected together five shorts directed by women, centered around the theme of breast cancer.  Jenkins would join Penelope Spheeris along with three big name celebs – Demi Moore, Jennifer Anisotn, Alicia Keyes – on the anthology feature.

The film begins with “Charlotte,” directed by Moore. Set against the backdrop of the Moon Landing, the segment centers around Pearl, a head-strong little girl. Her extended family has gathered at the home, ostensibly to watch the moon landing but also to say good-bye to the girl's sickly mother. The truth is being hidden from Pearl. She doesn't understand what is happening. All she knows is she can't see her mom and that a lot of strange people are in the house. This fact is quickly frustrating the willful young girl.

By assuming the perspective of a child, “Charlotte” does a good job of capturing the different effects cancer has on people. Her father withdraws totally and can't even bring himself to say the words “breast cancer.” Helen, Pearl's acerbic grandmother played by a well-cast Annie Potts, wants to write about the topic and fight the taboo. Others treat Charlotte like she's already dead, a cousin stealing her jewelry and the priest referring to her in the past tense. The general perception of the time is that cancer is something a child shouldn't know about, representing a wider cultural disinterest in discussing the subject.

What I really liked about “Charlotte” is Pearl's personality. The little girl is a fighter. Her family has conspired to get her out of the house but she stalls for time, hiding her shoes. When she spies the thieving cousin, she calls her out. She tries to get answer from everyone around her, almost all of which are reluctant to say anything. Pearl's tenacity is admirable and I like it. Ava Acres' performance shows the clear frustration on her face and that drive to get at the truth. This makes the eventual reunion with her mom, the story's climax, all the more meaningful.

The second segment is “Mia,” directed by Jennifer Aniston. The short runs in reverse chronological order. It begins with a fully recovered Mia re-marrying, continuing back to when she met the man who would become her next husband. Back further to the day she learned her cancer went into remission. Then back to when she threw an early funeral for herself, which she used as an opportunity to burn all bridges. We then go even further back, during the worst days of treatment when her first husband walked out, and finally concluding with the day she got the bad news.

“Mia” has a clever premise, beginning its cancer story with the idea that some people do live through it, that it's not always the end for everyone. Yet, sadly, the script proves equal parts mawkish and ingenuine in its humor. The dialogue is frequently obvious and awkward. The comical set-up, of Mia wanting to experience her own funeral, feels contrived. As does the way she proceeds to reveal secrets and call out shitty friends in that moment. It's all a little too-on-the-nose. Similarly, her reaction to learning she has likely fatal cancer is to fixate on the minor details of her life. It's supposed to be touching, and it could've been with a more graceful approach, but it becomes overdone here. Aniston's direction is similarly sentimental.

What “Mia” has going for it is the cast. Patricia Clarkson plays the title role. Clarkson is, of course, a fantastic actress. Even when the dialogue rings false and the character's actions are hokey, Clarkson brings Mia to life with a lot of energy. If paired with a better script, you could see how Clarkson could've created a really memorable performance. It's also nice to see Tony Shaloub, funny and self-deprecating in his few scenes. Recognizable faces like Kathy Najimi and Xander Berkely – playing yet another deadbeat husband! – also show up.

“Five's” third segment is “Cheyenne,” from Penelope Sphreeis. Cheyenne is an exotic dancer. Through her work she meets Tommy, a meat-headed mob enforcer. The two soon fall in love. During some foreplay, Tommy discovers a lump on Cheyenne's right breast. Soon she discovers that she has breast cancer and will require a double mastectomy. The two have to grapple with the effect this will have on her career, their relationship, as well as the ways Cheyenne and Tommy perceive themselves.

“Cheyenne” begins in a really interesting place. Too often in our society, women are valued only for their physical appearance, their sex appeal. Quite literally, some people only love women for their tits. Loosing that threatens Cheyenne's whole life, her professional life, her love life, her personal life. Sadly, “Cheyenne” continues the schmaltzy streak that ran through “Five's” previous segment. The dialogue is overdone. The conversations Cheyenne and Tommy have in the doctor office's lobby addresses the short's themes too bluntly. The scene where Tommy has an emotional breakdown, and then receives a pep talk from the gambler he harasses, is ridiculously obvious. Also, isn't it weird that “Five” pauses to focus on how breast cancer affects... Men?

The ending might've been touching if the proceeding scenes weren't so drippy. The dialogue gets seriously syrupy in this moment. Penelope Sphreeis brings a little bit of her trademark punk rock energy to the short's opening minutes but it soon disappears into TV movie uniformity. Lyndsy Fonseca is well cast in the title role, as a complicated woman who has been forced to live her life as a hollow sex symbol for men. Taylor Kinney is maybe a little too good at embodying a empty-headed hunky guy. Overall, “Cheyenne” comes so very close to touching on profound ideas but is undone by its simplistic script and mushy presentation.

The fourth installment, “Lili,” is directed by Alicia Keyes. Lili is a successful businesswoman. Her sister is a working-class mom. Her mother is a melodrama attention seeker, who always finds a way to make every conversation about herself. The three meet for lunch, where Lili plans to tell her mom she has a cancerous lump that will be removed the next day. Instead, her sister breaks the news. Mom and Sis follow her to the waiting room the next day, embarrassing Lili and making her more uncomfortable as they continue to force themselves into what she hoped would be a quick, private affair.

Of the various stars-turned-director in “Five,” Alicia Keyes makes the best impression. She even has a strong visual sense, as displayed in Lili's walk into the operating room. “Lili” is a madcap comedy, greatly needed after the bathetic last few stories. There's a number of amusing comedic episodes here. Such as the way Lili's mom immediately goes off on a tirade about their late father. Or an encounter with a man in the breast cancer office, played by a typically deadpan Jeffrey Tambor. The way Lili's mom immediately decks herself out in pink, literally the day after learning about her daughter's diagnosis, could even be a sly commentary on the exploitative commercialization of the disease. Much of “Lili's” humor arises from something most of us are familiar with: That one person in the family who uses any opportunity to guilt, or shame, or make the situation about themselves.

”Lili” also has the advantage of a really strong cast. If you're looking for a strong woman-of-color who is utterly believable as an overachiever, you'd be hard-pressed to find someone more perfect than Rosario Dawson. Dawson is hilarious as someone who is fed up with how those around her don't understand the specific path she's carved out for herself. Jenifer Lewis makes an ideal foil, as the more practical sister that is no less strong but has made some very different choices in life. Tracee Ellis Ross demands a lot of attention as the mom, embodying exactly that kind of insufferable person. Really, the only time “Lili” trips up is in its sappy conclusion.

“Five” comes full circle with its final segment, the one directed by Jenkins. “Pearl,” the little girl from the first segment, has grown up to be a breast cancer specialist. In fact, she's appeared in every segment, as the doctor delivering the good or bad news to each patient. As an adult woman, Pearl learns that, like her mother, she has breast cancer. She still struggles with the scars of her mother's death, especially with how her father kept the truth from her. Now, as a mother herself, she faces the same decision with her own daughter.

“Pearl” has one moment in it that I really like. After her father continues to be evasive after forty years, Pearl comes home. She has a talk with her husband about an unimportant factor of her everyday life. She then attempts to break the news to her little daughter, who is preoccupied with a cartoon she's watching. This is a hard truth: We want to be honest with our kids but sometimes they really aren't ready for the truth. Pearl fights through the fear and frustration she feels in that moment, because her parental love is greater than both of those things. This is, sadly, the stand-out scene in a segment that otherwise continues “Five's” maudlin approach. Pearl's second scene with her daughter features too much phony sounding dialogue. Her conflict with her dad does not feel lived-in or natural. By skipping over much of Pearl's cancer ordeal, the final scene is less emotional than it could have been.

Since it's the whole reason I watched this thing, how does “Five” stand up as a Patty Jenkin's film? Disappointingly, the opening scene feels like really bad television. In voice-over, Pearl dictates the lives and struggles of a dozen women in quick succession. This sequence even features some truly heavy-handed product placement from Walgreens! For what it's worth, “Pearl” does continue Jenkin's favorite theme of a woman trying to define herself against the mistakes of the past. Jeanne Tripplehorn is mostly solid as Pearl, a talented performer doing her best to overcome the weak script. Scott Wilson reappears from “Monster” as her dad, even if his scenes are the segment's most melodramatic.

“Five” was heavily promoted by Lifetime, premiering on October 11, 2011 to high ratings. It was nominated, and even won, a number of minor industry awards, suggesting it was well received. The network even created a sequel of sorts. “Call Me Crazy: A Five Film” took a similar women-directed, anthology approach to the topic of mental illness. (The subtitle suggested Lifetime wanted to turn the “Five” format into an ongoing series but no further installments have been made.) While I really wanted to like “Five,” it simply can't overcome the limitations of its medium. The Lifetime Network's original films carry with them a certain reputation, not always earned, but “Five” is as exactly as sappy and awkward as I feared it would be, save for Keyes' segment. [Grade: C+]

Director Report Card: Patty Jenkins (2003)

I don't like to talk about this sort of thing, because of the strong likelihood I'll put my foot in my mouth while doing it, but it's definitely odd that Patty Jenkins directed a critically acclaimed, Academy Award winning film and then didn't make another theatrically released project for fourteen years. One assumes that a director with that kind of prestige would be receiving a number of offers afterwards. You can't help but jump to the conclusion that Hollywood's notoriously unfair treatment of female filmmakers played a role. But this story has a happy ending, of course, as Jenkins eventually returned to make a big-budget superhero blockbuster and is now the highest paid woman director in Hollywood history. So let's take a look at her career, which may look brief but will likely prove influential.

1. Monster

Patty Jenkins began her filmmaking career working as a camera operator. Supposedly, while working on a Michael Jackson music video, Jenkins was encouraged to pursue directing. She entered the American Film Institute and directed two shorts, which attracted the attention of producers Brad Wyman and Donald Kushner. This would lead Jenkins to her first feature film. Aileen Wuornos, with her widely publicized (and inaccurate) status as America's first female serial killer, had already been the topic of one critically acclaimed documentary. Yet clearly Wuornos' true story inspired Jenkins. “Monster” was written in seven weeks, production set up in two months, and filming was completed in 28 days. The resulting film would be critically acclaimed, a box office success, and win its star an Oscar.

Aileen Wuornos, known as Lee to her friends, is a homeless prostitute in the American South. She is considering suicide, with the pistol she carries, but decides to go into a bar and spend the last five dollars she has first. There she meets Selby, a teenage girl on the outs with her religious parents due to her lesbianism. The loud and confrontational Lee is disarmed by the quiet, shy Selby and the two soon fall into a relationship. While trying to earn money to take care of Selby, Aileen is brutally attacked and raped by a john. She shoots the man, who clearly intended to kill her, to death. Aileen hopes to quit prostituting herself but, when she finds few other options to provide for her and Selby, she returns to sex work... And kills again.

The opening minutes of “Monster” shows Aileen as a happy child, looking at herself in the mirror. She relates her childhood dream of one day becoming a movie star. We then see a man violently yank her away from the mirror. Throughout the opening, as Wuornos' hopeful narration continues we see the grim reality of her young life. From the very first moment, “Monster” depicts how Wuornos had the normal comforts of life ripped away from her from the very beginning. She was left unloved and mistreated by the people around her. This provide context for the person she becomes, for the things she will do. “Monster” thrusts us into Aileen's world and asks us how we would have acted, if put in the same circumstances.

Movies about serial killers always have a very careful tightrope to walk. Focus too much on the crimes the killers committed, you run the risk of becoming trashy exploitation. Humanize the killer too much, getting the audience to sympathize with a murderer, and you risk being insensitive to the real life victims. “Monster” does not focus on Aileen Wuornos' well known and long history of arrests, violence, and antisocial behavior. (This did not go unnoticed by people who knew her in real life.) “Monster” does not glamorize Wuornos' crimes, far from it. Yet Jenkins and her film clearly hopes to make us understand how a person can become a remorseless killer.

The factor at the center of the story, and its depiction of Wuornos, is never named but couldn't be more clear. Lee describes how she was molested as a child by a friend of her father, who refused to believe her and even beat her because of it. She talks about her homelessness, forced to turn to prostitution at a young age to take care of her siblings... Who were not appreciative or sympathetic. After the rape that spurns her first murder, she is clearly left shaken. When her sole friend in the world describes his experience coming from Vietnam, it all falls into place. Wuornos was left traumatized by a horrible life, clearly suffering from P.T.S.D. “Monster” contextualizes Wuornos' crimes as acts carried out by a mentally ill woman, reeling from a lifetime of abuse.

The first time Aileen kills, it's unambiguously depicted as an act of self-defense. The subsequent times she commits murder, she psyches herself up before each killing. You can see her mentally talking herself into believing each man is as bad as her rapist, that they all deserve to die. She attempts to justify her actions. In her narration, Aileen talks about the empty platitudes she's heard her whole life. About how all you need to do is follow your dreams or be kind, beliefs that have been rebuffed by the cruelty she constantly faced. In a key moment, Selby's aunt says people like Wuornos are lost causes. (She also claims to not be racist, after using a racist epitaph.) These are all justifications people tell themselves to get through life, another way “Monster” attempts to make us understand its murderer.

In addition to her obvious P.T.S.D., Aileen Wurous was also diagnosed with bipolar disorder while in prison. Throughout “Monster,” we see her fly off the handle at random people. Sometimes, it could be justified. While attempting to apply for a secretary position at a law fair, the man interviewing her is an asshole for no reason. (Leading to the film's one moment of comedy: “Fuck you, Leslie!”) Other times, her angry reactions are totally unjustified. When first meeting Selby, she yells at her. When the owner of a restaurant calmly explains that there's no smoking, she screams at the man and pushes him down. After being treated so badly, for so long, Lee responds to almost any stimuli with anger and outrage. It's her default mode.

Most of the praise directed at “Monster” was meant for Charlize Theron, her performance and subsequent Oscar win too often being boiled down to “uglying up.” Granted, it is a stunning physical transformation, as Theron is totally unrecognizable. Yet this also overlooks her incredible display of acting. Theron stares, often unblinking, with eyes that are amazingly intense.  Every word that comes out of her mouth is said with utter conviction. She makes us understand exactly what Aileen is feeling at every time. Every traumatized reaction is perfectly depicted through Theron's trembling body language or clench jaws. It's an impressive psychological and intuitive performance and the film wouldn't have worked without it.

Starring opposite Theron is Christina Ricci, as Selby. If Theron's blistering intensity is Aileen's defense mechanism to a lifetime of hurt, Ricci's Selby is unable to hide her vulnerability. Even in her first scene, she's a sad puppy that is just looking for someone to accept her. Ricci's massive eyes and doll-like face could not be better used. But Ricci is not just physically perfect of the role. She doesn't let us forget that Selby – based on Wuornos' real lover, Tyria Moore – is basically a kid. She can be selfish, bratty, or childish. Yet she also has a capacity for forgiveness. When most would've discarded Aileen immediately, Selby showed her love. Ricci brings that empathy to life wonderfully.

While “Monster” devotes a lot of energy to making us understand Wuornos' mindset, it does not back down on displaying her brutality. The initial rape and murder is harrowing, Jenkins focusing on the fear and pain Aileen feels, on her panic as she tries to undo the knots around her wrists and confronts the likelihood that she'll die. From there, the murders grow easier for Aileen but are no less intensely depicted. Jenkins makes the interior of the cars feel as sweaty and cramped to us as they surely felt to the people who were actually there. The intensity with which Jenkins directs the murder scenes certainly impress, and make up for some of the cheesier touches she uses, like flash-forward shots of cars speeding through traffic or an askew shot of the Daytona sign.

Similarly, the film's use of music is, sometimes, a little on-the-nose. Brian Transeau's score is full of quivering, ramping notes that build up the tension before the murder scenes, sometimes drowning out the actual dialogue. “Don't Stop Believing,” a song built upon exactly the kind of empty platitudes she rebuffs throughout the film, becomes Lee and Selby's song during a night in a roller rink. The first time they make love, “Crimson and Clover” plays, the dreamy guitar solo being stretched out. Yet, as overdone as some of these choices arguably are, they largely work. Transeau's score does increase the feeling of anxiety. Journey is ruefully reprised during the end credits. “Crimson and Clover” fittingly matches the light-headed feeling of falling in love. You can't fault this stuff when it works.

Ultimately, as it nears its conclusion, “Monster” reveals itself as more of a tragedy than anything else. After being arrested for the crime and awaiting trial, Aileen has her final phone call with Selby. While Lee describes never turning her back on her girlfriend, Selby is discreetly worming a confession out of Wournos on tape for the cops in the room. The killer is soon aware of this and clears her young lover of all wrongdoing. In the end, “Monster” shows Aileen Wournos being abandoned by almost everyone that showed her kindness. Okay, yes, she was a killer and a psychopath. Yet you can't help but feel some empathy for her, in moments like this. “Monster,” in its own way, becomes heartbreaking in these scenes.

That the majority of accolades “Monster” received focused on Theron is not surprising. It's a titanic performance and she deserved every award she won. While Theron is the center that holds all of “Monster” together, it's a very good motion picture in most every other way too. By asking the uncomfortable question of considering the elements that made a killer a killer, it causes the viewer to feel empathy for a remorseless murderer. With a strong supporting cast, including memorable turns from Bruce Dern and Scott Wilson, and well utilized direction, it's a film with more to offer than just a “uglied-up” lead performance. [Grade: B+]