Harper’s Bazaar becomes Everyday Feminism, says “Wonder Woman” movie is insufficiently intersectional

When the Wonder Woman movie came out a few weeks ago, starring the Israeli actor Gal Gadot in the title role and directed by Patty Jenkins, it was universally acclaimed as a triumph for feminism, not only because of its star and director, but because by all accounts the movie was good. It garnered a 92% critics rating and a 91% audience rating on Rotten Tomatoes, which is very high. And it was a commercial as well as a critical success: it brought in $100 million the opening weekend—a record for a woman director—and its U.S. take is now over $330 million. If the idea of a female action hero in a movie directed by a woman heartens girls, or helps expand the roles for women directors in Hollywood, I applaud it. (I haven’t seen the movie, but only because I never see action movies or “space” movies: I’m probably the only living American who hasn’t seen Star Wars or the Star Trek movies, nor have I even seen 2001: A Space Odyssey or Mad Max.)

But for tech and culture journalist Cameron Glover, the triumph was sour, for Wonder Woman wasn’t “intersectional” enough (Glover is African-American).  In a June 9 piece at Harper’s Bazaar, “Why ‘Wonder Woman’ is bittersweet for black women,” she complains that having a white hero, and putting people of color in supposedly stereotyped positions, the movie erases black women. Here’s her beef:

This past weekend, Wonder Woman opened with more than $100 million in revenue, breaking records to become the highest-grossing opening weekend for a woman director. Many white female fans were overcome with emotion at seeing themselves reflected in Diana Prince (Gal Gadot), who is physically triumphant and unwaveringly optimistic in the face of adversity; in their Wonder Woman-themed shirts and hats, their love for the character is undeniable, a marker of their own dedication to female empowerment and feminism. But the premiere of the Wonder Woman film is bittersweet for Black and other women of color, because even in this so-called “feminist” film, erasure and a lack of inclusion is not only expected, but a given. When it comes to mainstream feminism, race and other identities often take a backseat to gender equality—and that simply isn’t good enough.

It’s always a red flag for me if an author spells “Black” with a capital letter and “white” with a small letter, as that suggests that there’s some subtle racism at play. (I spell both words with small letters, though perhaps, in light of the fact that I write “Hispanic” and “Asian”, I should begin all ethnic groups with caps. However, the last two names are geographic localities as well. It’s confusing, but I think that if you write “Black,” you should write “White” as well.) But never mind; what’s clear is that the film, even though it had a woman as a star and as director, wasn’t sufficiently intersectional:

Yes, Wonder Woman was an entertaining film. The bright colors, the female gaze of director Patty Jenkins’ lens, and the slight nuances which nodded to the superhero’s origins and various incarnations all made for an entertaining watch. I found myself rooting for Diana to rid the world of Ares, god of war, and bring peace to mankind. But like many other films about feminist themes—Mona Lisa SmileThe Help, even Mad Max: Fury Road—I was unable to shake the reality that the film embraced feminism for a very specific community—one that does not have people like me in mind.

Now it’s not clear if Glover thinks that Wonder Woman should have been black or Hispanic, or whether the other parts of the movie were what really bothered her (see below). If it’s the former, then other communities have a right to complain as well. Why couldn’t Diana have been Hispanic or Asian, or even a superwoman in a wheelchair? Such are the problems arising with the Hierarchy of Oppression. But when Glover says the movie doesn’t have “people like me” in mind, she explicitly means black women, not just women. Celebrating one oppressed group wasn’t enough, But what if Glover were gay, too? Would she then require that “women like me” include gay black women in the movie? The potential beefs could never end.

Now Glover has other problems as well, claiming that the movie presents women of color in degrading or subservient positions. I doubt that, but I haven’t seen it, so readers who have should weigh in on the validity of Glover’s complaints:

In the film, the only Black women depicted are a handful of Amazons on Themyscira, the hidden island where Diana and her people live in peace without men. The first Black woman we’re introduced to is Diana’s caretaker, a representation which hits the Mammy trope on the head. With roots in the transatlantic slave trade, Mammies were Black women who were domestic caregivers, mostly charged with taking care of the children of slave owners and, once slavery was abolished, white families who hired them for low wages. A Mammy literally exists to care for others, with no autonomy and independence of her own. Today, the image of the Mammy—a smiling, grandmotherly type who loves to take care of others—offers white people comfort within their own supremacy by creating the illusion that she did her work out of love, not necessity or survival.

Within this context, it’s sobering to see the first image of Black womanhood on Themyscira within a stereotype Black women have been fighting against for decades.

If she’s referring to actor Ann Wolfe, a black boxer who got the role of Artemis, then that’s just an insult; and from what I read Wolfe’s role isn’t at all like the “Mammy” stereotype of movies like Gone with the Wind. 

But wait! There’s more:

As for the other Black Amazons—who are only seen within the first 20 minutes of the film, as the story moves away from Themyscira—their physical strength is marveled at and highlighted, as it is with the other Amazons on the island, but this emphasis on physical strength left a bad taste in my mouth. Connecting Black people to brute strength dates back to slave-selling auctions, where a Black person’s value was directly linked to how physically fit they were. Later, this racist rationale justified the assumption that Black people were physically stronger than other races because of genetic differences. Today, Black women athletes like Serena Williams are endlessly ridiculed, their physical strength mocked in anti-Black insults which demean their womanhood. Wonder Woman‘s emphasis on the Black Amazons’ physical strength and little else—they’re barely named and only have a handful of speaking roles—is a reflection of these same, tired Black stereotypes.

This is how the Perpetually Offended operate. It’s not enough that the Amazons are depicted as a powerful tribe of women; one has to complain that this is just another black stereotype—that blacks have physical strength and little else. But that’s bogus, for Amazons were depicted as white in the past (they come from Greek mythology), so I can’t buy this argument about racism. But more important, the Amazons in the movie aren’t even uniformly black: they’re of mixed ethnicities: whites and blacks. In fact, a PuffHo article celebrates the Amazons and their mixed ethnicity, showing photos of several of the actors. Jenavieve Hatch, the author of that piece, writes:

In fact, I would have contentedly traded Chris Pine’s Steve Trevor for more time with Artemis, Antiope or Hippolyta at any given point in the film’s 141 minutes. It felt profoundly satisfying to watch women of all colors, sizes, shapes and ages wield so much physical power on a humongous screen, and as the story went from Themyscira to World War I-era Western Europe, I found myself missing the women warriors and wanting to know more about them.

Two more quotes from Glover will suffice; the first complains about erasure:

In the comics, Black Amazons were canon (i.e part of the storyline’s continuity) and visible in their own stories, painting a broader, more inclusive picture of what life on Themyscira—and the wider world of the Wonder Woman universe—looks like. In the comics, Philippus, the leader of the Amazon military, plays a significant role in raising Diana and eventually teaching her how to fight. Diana also has a Black sister named Nubia, though they don’t meet until much later in Diana’s story. But even with Black women playing such significant roles in the original Wonder Woman story, their erasure from the film adaptation proves the inclusion of Black women and their stories is still not a priority for mainstream feminism.

And Diana is attacked for fulfilling the “white savior” trope.  I think that’s not the director’s intent, or even an unconscious motivation, but rather Glover’s desire to fit every bit of this movie into Critical Race Theory:

Meanwhile, Wonder Woman offers opportunities for white women to exist in a nuanced, multifaceted, humanized way. We see the complexities of Queen Hippolyta (Connie Nielsen) wanting Diana to be raised as a strong, kind woman. We see Diana, in her naivety and earnest resolve to save mankind from itself, settle firmly into the White Savior trope through her unabashed assumption that mankind is flawed and in need of her help, however she wants to give it—never taking the time to ask exactly how and if her help is wanted. . . But for the few Black women and other women of color in the film, this luxury of humanization was never extended to its fullest potential, leaving them paling in comparison to the complete, complex characterizations of Diana and other white characters.

Well, readers can tell me me if that was the case. Finally, Glover pronounces this:

The film’s erasure of women of color and missteps on race send the message that cis, straight, able-bodied, white womanhood is prioritized above all else. It’s important that this is not overlooked, because true feminism cannot exist without intersectionality, which demands the dismantling of racism and white supremacy.

So here we have the movie criticized because it doesn’t deal with gay and disabled people as well. Remember, this is in Harper’s Bazaar, not Everyday Feminism. In the end, what was seen as a celebration of feminism and women’s empowerment is denigrated because it doesn’t empower every marginalized group. It seems to me that the movie’s success was good for women, but since Glover is black, being good for women isn’t sufficient. It has to be good for black women, and if she were gay disabled it would have to be good for gay black disabled women. Where does it stop?

In the end, it feels as if Glover is working out her own issues by criticizing a movie intended to be summer entertainment, but with an overtone of female empowerment. Such are the issues that arise when identity politics can’t celebrate the advance of just one oppressed group. Like seagulls in Finding Nemo, the intersectionalists demand that their own identities be recognized, crying “Mine, mine, mine.”

Now, I’m certainly not saying that racism isn’t a problem, that there aren’t problems unique to black women, or that I’m against the inclusion of more diverse actors and less stereotyping in movies. That’s not my point, which, as should be clear, is that intersectionality in the sense expressed by Glover is divisive and hierarchical, always calling out attempts to empower the marginalized because they’re not good enough. It’s always a Purity Test. But from what I hear, “Wonder Woman” was good enough, depicting not just powerful women, but powerful black women.

However, I ask readers who have seen the movie to weigh in below.

 

89 Comments

  1. Jackbethimble
    Posted July 1, 2017 at 10:38 am | Permalink

    Honestly if any group has a right to complain about their depiction in the film it’s the Germans.

    • gravelinspector-Aidan
      Posted July 1, 2017 at 11:44 am | Permalink

      Ironic that one of the Indiana Jones movies is playing on the telly as I read this.
      Truly, English is schisming all the more rapidly. It took me a good several minutes of noodling to figure out approximately what the complaint was about, and I’ve still only a vague idea of who or what Harper’s Bazarre is (some sort of proto-eBay on dead-tree. Like Exchange and Mart?)

      • Posted July 1, 2017 at 1:24 pm | Permalink

        Harper’s Bazaar is a women’s fashion magazine, like Vogue or Cosmopolitan. It is not in any way like eBay.

        • Ken Kukec
          Posted July 1, 2017 at 1:59 pm | Permalink

          Not to be confused with Harper’s Magazine, which has been a fixture in American high-middlebrow publishing since the middle of the 19th century.

        • jeffery
          Posted July 1, 2017 at 9:18 pm | Permalink

          And, like “Vogue”,”GQ”, and any of the other magazines in that genre, it’s about 70% ads for crap that most people can’t afford…..

        • Zetopan
          Posted July 5, 2017 at 11:41 pm | Permalink

          Given the intellectual vacuousness of the primarily advertising “fashion” publication named Harper’s Bazaar, it should be named Harper’s Bizarre.

          • Diana MacPherson
            Posted July 6, 2017 at 11:30 am | Permalink

            Haha. I thought of that joke too. Glad someone else had a similar sense of humour.

      • JackbeThimble
        Posted July 1, 2017 at 2:37 pm | Permalink

        Yeah but Indiana Jones gets a pass because the Germans have to own Nazism and they know it. There’s no excuse for treating WWI Germans like Orks though.

  2. Posted July 1, 2017 at 10:41 am | Permalink

    Other than the General, the strongest woman to beat in combat practice was the black woman who did unarmed combat. Perhaps she should been cast as a tennis player.

  3. Posted July 1, 2017 at 10:44 am | Permalink

    It is depressing when people so focus on their identity (gender, ethnicity, …) that they are unable to identify with (empathize with?) a person not of that identity. With respect to this movie, why can’t women of all ethnicities identify with a hero independent of the hero’s identity? Turning it around, would the author argue that white women (and men) cannot identify and empathize with the plight of anyone other than their own sex or ethnicity? As Jerry says, there are indeed issues of racism and inequities in society, but perhaps focusing on our differences does not help to attract support to correct these problems.

  4. merilee
    Posted July 1, 2017 at 10:53 am | Permalink

    This American has also never seen any Star Trek movies, nor 2001, and only the first Star Wars (which I took my kids to when it first came out.) I like some action movies (just saw The Family with De Niro and Tommy Lee Jones), but have np interest in super heroes of any ethnicity or gender. And this intersectionality sh*t…

    • gravelinspector-Aidan
      Posted July 1, 2017 at 11:49 am | Permalink

      Oh, you missed out on 2001, IMO.
      Star Wars, star schnores ; I’ve only seen 3 or 4 of the movies, and been sufficiently underwhelmed and unengaged by the last one (or was it two ago?) to have no interest in the next several.

      • Rita
        Posted July 1, 2017 at 1:34 pm | Permalink

        Like Merilee, I took my son to see the original Star Trek. I had never seen 2001, but finally did see it on Netflix recently, because I felt I must be the only person who hadn’t seen it (I didn’t about Jerry until this post). But I was let down, it was boring! Probably not for those who saw it back then. But that was then, this is now. You can’t go back.

        • Diana MacPherson
          Posted July 1, 2017 at 1:37 pm | Permalink

          I think 2001 was popular when it came out because th future looked really bright for space exploration. There was a lunar base and video phones. At least we have video phones now with our tankers and smart phones.

          • Posted July 1, 2017 at 3:09 pm | Permalink

            The first time I saw 2001 it bored the hell out of me. The second time it blew me away. I love it more each time I see it. It’s a matter of tuning into its rhythm.

        • Posted July 1, 2017 at 3:37 pm | Permalink

          2001 is vastly overrated. Yes, the special effects were outstanding but the plot is mind numbing.

          • BJ
            Posted July 1, 2017 at 7:13 pm | Permalink

            It’s weird to see all of these comments focusing on such things (this comment isn’t a response to you, but all the ones before. Yours just happened to be last. Sorry!). The movie was never about space, special effects, or any other surface-level elements. All of the superficial stuff is just a vehicle for a meditation on life, evolution, technology, and the mysteries of humankind and its role in the universe. Most people find such films slow and boring anyway, regardless of whether they largely take place in space and have great special effects or not. But none of the space stuff/special effects was the point of the movie.

            • Michael Waterhouse
              Posted July 1, 2017 at 7:41 pm | Permalink

              Yep, and there was a lot of altered consciousness stuff back then, with weird hippie hopes of doorways to better things.

    • Kosmos
      Posted July 1, 2017 at 1:20 pm | Permalink

      While it one sense would be convenient if everyone had the same taste it would be a bit boring wouldn’t it? For me science fiction is THE very best genre; filled with excitement, philosophical conundrums and awe over the universe!

      Comic book-movies on the other hand, which I generally don’t consider as Sci-Fi, are so overdone by now that you wonder how there can be a market for all of them. But there doesn’t seem to be any end to the demand for these movies.

      • Michael Waterhouse
        Posted July 1, 2017 at 7:41 pm | Permalink

        Yep.

  5. Heather Hastie
    Posted July 1, 2017 at 11:05 am | Permalink

    I get really sick of articles like the one in Harper’s Bazaar. The movie is 141 minutes long. It’s entertainment. But suddenly, because it depicts a woman as the lead character and is a success, it has to be all things to all women. I don’t remember the same standards being applied to other successful movies featuring women.

    I haven’t watched it yet, but I will. I loved the original TV series, and I expect to enjoy this too. I was always left wanting to know more about Diana’s life on Themyscira in the TV series, but I expect that will come in future movies. Not everything can be done at once.

    As for which bits of feminism take a back seat, I’ve always found that feminism itself tends to take a back seat with modern leftism. They’re too busy pandering to groups that treat women like $hit, such as a majority of Muslims. How many Muslim-majority countries is it now that won’t screen the movie because the lead actor is Jewish?

    • JackbeThimble
      Posted July 1, 2017 at 11:23 am | Permalink

      I’ll warn you it’s a bit overblown. I’d give it a solid 7/10 but the plot is basically paint-by-numbers and all of the messages the movie tries to convey are under-cut by it’s own storytelling choices.

    • Diana MacPherson
      Posted July 1, 2017 at 11:32 am | Permalink

      I’m planning on seeing it soon if my headaches and tummy troubles hold off (I’m off work until next Wednesday). I find Wonder Woman seems to be just the movie to focus everyone’s outrage. Next, we’ll hear about how unions don’t like how the working people are portrayed or how there aren’t any miners in the movie. And why no smurfs? Is Wonder Woman anti smurf?

      I too loved the TV series. Amusingly, my dad texted me this week to inform me that Wonder Woman’s name is “Diana”. Yes, dad, I know. 🙂

      • Heather Hastie
        Posted July 1, 2017 at 12:07 pm | Permalink

        The needs of Smurfs didn’t even cross my mind. I’m clearly a Very Bad Person. I’ll never make it to honorary Canadian at this rate!

        Good old dad! I’m glad you’re taking some time off work – I think it’s half the trouble at the moment.

        • Nobody Special
          Posted July 1, 2017 at 1:08 pm | Permalink

          If there were Smurfs in the movie there’d only be complaints that only blue Smurfs were represented. “Where are all the SoDS?*”, they’d yell.

          *Smurfs of Different Shades, obviously.

          • Diana MacPherson
            Posted July 1, 2017 at 1:23 pm | Permalink

            Yes the light blue and indigo smurfs and what of the ocean blue smurfs?

        • Diana MacPherson
          Posted July 1, 2017 at 1:24 pm | Permalink

          Work is getting better. I have a cunning plan, which could also be a big part of my trouble.

          • Michael Waterhouse
            Posted July 1, 2017 at 7:45 pm | Permalink

            Interesting!

          • Heather Hastie
            Posted July 1, 2017 at 8:45 pm | Permalink

            I like the sound of a cunning plan! 😀

      • Ken Kukec
        Posted July 1, 2017 at 2:05 pm | Permalink

        “… my dad texted me this week to inform me that Wonder Woman’s name is ‘Diana’.”

        Don’t make me link to Paul Anka here.

        • Diana MacPherson
          Posted July 2, 2017 at 9:04 am | Permalink

          I always hated that song because my parents would always point it out to me as a kid.

      • darrelle
        Posted July 1, 2017 at 6:02 pm | Permalink

        Amusingly, my dad texted me this week to inform me that Wonder Woman’s name is “Diana”. Yes, dad, I know. 🙂

        I pointed that out to my wife after we saw the movie. It’s sort of an inside joke. Her name is Diane. We had been dating for perhaps 2 weeks and were at a party together. We were away from the crowd in the kitchen to get some drinks for oursleves and others.

        I can’t remember what the converstaion was about, but I made the mistake of calling her Di. She put her hands on my shoulders and firmly pushed me against the refrigerator and with a scary voice, and scary look on her face, biting off each word, she said, “Don’t ever call me Di again. My name is Diane. Not Di, not Diana, but Diane. It was plenty enough to set me straight.

        • Diana MacPherson
          Posted July 2, 2017 at 9:26 am | Permalink

          Haha. A friend of mine who I met at work is named Diane. When we worked together, people sent mail to the wrong one, email to the wrong one, and once I booked a meeting room and Diane gave it away after someone called her and asked her for it. Of course she didn’t have it booked because I did.

          Now I work with someone named Dianna (two ns) and we look after a couple of different interfaces. You can imagine the confusion on conference calls. In meetings I sit next to her, just to confuse people more.

    • Rita
      Posted July 1, 2017 at 1:36 pm | Permalink

      +1

    • Posted July 1, 2017 at 2:06 pm | Permalink

      This is why you ignore ideologues because you can never win. It was a teacher not a nanny that chased after young WW but that is racist. A strong warrior played by a real life strong warrior who is the greatest female boxer in modern history well somehow that is racist. I get the feeling there is nothing that could have been done short of giving this person the job of director that would have satified them.

      • Richard
        Posted July 2, 2017 at 2:59 am | Permalink

        And when the film as directed by her was utterly unwatchable and a complete flop, she would complain about all the sexist/racist/… people who had failed to understand and appreciate her post-modern masterpiece.

    • Posted July 1, 2017 at 5:46 pm | Permalink

      I liked the movie, and thought it among the better ones of the recent hero movies. But yes, it was still formulaic.

  6. Rachel
    Posted July 1, 2017 at 11:07 am | Permalink

    I think the character Glover likens to a Mammy figure is not Artemis/Ann Wolfe, but Diana’s tutor (I don’t know the actress’s name). Considering Diana is supposed to have “the wisdom of Athena” in the comics, and in the movie speaks over a dozen languages, her tutor was probably pretty good!

  7. Derek
    Posted July 1, 2017 at 11:13 am | Permalink

    Ann Wolfe may be the last woman on earth you would call a “mammy”. That description alone shows how predetermined these opinions we’re going to be when the movie had a white lead. All of these problems she had with the movie could be morphed about any movie if you are determined enough to make it seem racist. Which is really all sites like this do.

    • Rita
      Posted July 1, 2017 at 1:39 pm | Permalink

      If yjr two roles had been reversed and Wonder Woman had been black, then there would be objections to her having a white tutor!

  8. fizziks
    Posted July 1, 2017 at 11:17 am | Permalink

    Is there a chance that outlets like Harpers Bazaar are publishing these submissions now in order to expose a wider audience to the current depravity of the intersectional left? Are there some subversive editors and content managers toiling away over there?

    • Posted July 1, 2017 at 5:53 pm | Permalink

      Don’t know. But one can also see how this would be click-bait. I am sure online sites like this post articles that they know a large % of readers would object to.

  9. pck
    Posted July 1, 2017 at 11:37 am | Permalink

    Part of this supposedly feminist movie’s message is that if only women believed in themselves and were strong and independent enough, they could participate in traditionally male activities such as war and imperialistic interventions. Glover’s criticism is sort of like saying the only thing keeping her from liking Hilary Clinton is that she’s not intersectional enough.

    Thinking of it, the success of the movie is as bittersweet as it would have been if Hilary Clinton had won the election. Just cause it’s better than Trump/the average superhero movie doesn’t mean it’s not bad.

    Let me shill Fury Road as the better feminist movie and Lexi Alexander as the better female comic book movie director.

    • kubla
      Posted July 1, 2017 at 3:41 pm | Permalink

      “Let me shill Fury Road as the better feminist movie”

      YES! And a better movie all around.

      Yes, I did like Wonder Woman. The first fight sequence (on Themyscira) had me chuckling with glee.

    • BJ
      Posted July 1, 2017 at 7:22 pm | Permalink

      “Let me shill Fury Road as the better feminist movie and Lexi Alexander as the better female comic book movie director..”

      But…Lexi Alexander made one comic book movie and it was truly awful. The only saving grace was that Ray Stevenson played the titular protagonist, and that’s because Ray Stevenson is never not awesome, even when he’s in shit roles (and he’s usually in shit roles).

      • pck
        Posted July 1, 2017 at 7:30 pm | Permalink

        Her movie was a hoot, it had exactly the kind of trashy atmosphere that comic book movies should aspire to.

  10. Posted July 1, 2017 at 11:46 am | Permalink

    Wonder Woman‘s emphasis on the Black Amazons’ physical strength and little else—they’re barely named and only have a handful of speaking roles—is a reflection of these same, tired Black stereotypes. […]

    In the comics, Philippus, the leader of the Amazon military, plays a significant role in raising Diana and eventually teaching her how to fight.

    First, Ms Glover complains about showing black Amazons as physically strong, then complains that one character, who is about fighting, hasn’t enough screen time.

    Ultimately, this belief system of Ms Glover and her ilk is a giant cherrypicking-confirmation-bias machine, from the small aspects regarding one character, to the broad outlines, where e.g. asians are included as oppressed when it’s about screen representation, and to construe “whiteness” as oppressive, but they’re purposefully ignored when groups are compared how successful they are in relation to one another (where asian do rather well).

    When they want to celebrate something, they move the attention on some aspect, but when they want to complain, they narrow their requirements at will. For example, Mad Max does not feature black women in any role I remember at all. But it’s okay when needed to fill the Rubbish Pages on their outlets.

    Almost like Christians, who are very nitpicky when they want to enforce their will on a daily basis, but when pressed, William Lane Craig as the stereotypical example, they’re suddenly concerned with a “ground of being” or distant first mover. If desireable to cast a wide net, then even vague particle physics will do. And if possible, the most narrow requirement is placed on society, specific rules on sex life etc.

    I wish we could construct a cannon and shoot these imbeciles into the next galaxy (or black hole, where they can annoy each other for an eternity).

  11. DrBrydon
    Posted July 1, 2017 at 12:01 pm | Permalink

    I haven’t seen Wonder Woman, yet, although I want to. I am sure, though, the its creators are, to quote Liberace, crying all the way to the bank after criticism like this.

  12. Randy schenck
    Posted July 1, 2017 at 12:16 pm | Permalink

    How do you turn a fiction Hollywood film into a social commentary. And seriously, does Glover want people to pay any attention to her. There are so many other real life aspects concerning equality and economic fairness to write about.

    • pck
      Posted July 1, 2017 at 12:42 pm | Permalink

      Cause Hollywood IS society, there is not a limited amount of space to write about various concerns, and your own concerns aren’t the only ones that matter.

      My concern is that Wonder Woman is a crap movie but that doesn’t mean someone else focusing on other aspects of it is wrong.

      • Randall Schenck
        Posted July 1, 2017 at 1:04 pm | Permalink

        Hollywood IS society you say. Excuse me, I thought it was an art form of sorts where a few people make huge amounts of money for turning out mostly computer generated “crap” that millions of people from real society pay money to watch. Hollywood is real world about like campus is real world or Washington DC is real world.

        • pck
          Posted July 1, 2017 at 1:37 pm | Permalink

          “Hollywood is real world about like campus is real world or Washington DC is real world” – You’re being ironic here but this is literally true.

          And even if Hollywood is not society but “just” something consumed by millions of people from “real” society, that makes its content hugely important.

          • Randy schenck
            Posted July 1, 2017 at 2:19 pm | Permalink

            Yes. I am only attempting to put the movie and the movie business in perspective, at least for me. The world is not going to drop into chaos if suddenly there were no movies being made. I am aware that many people are movie buffs and spend lots of time going to all the latest releases but I cannot put much importance to any of it. It is entertainment just like many other forms. Some people read only for entertainment but that is not why I read. Heck, some people think football is very important but I am not one of those either.

          • BJ
            Posted July 1, 2017 at 7:26 pm | Permalink

            The funny thing is that the vast majority of art in all forms is left wing and created by people who are on the left, but complaints like this amount to, “yeah, but they’re not left wing *enough*.”

        • Posted July 1, 2017 at 2:25 pm | Permalink

          Are you saying that art cannot be social commentary? If so, I’d recommend expanding your artistic horizons because that’s just wrong. If not, you’ve contradicted yourself.

          • Randy schenck
            Posted July 1, 2017 at 4:01 pm | Permalink

            You take me way too literally. I do not say that art cannot be social commentary. I’m just saying I’m not reviewing science fiction movies to get my social education nor am I inventing the stuff printed by journalist Glover in this article she wrote. If you wish to take her seriously please do. I will determine where and when to expand my horizons thank you…

  13. Carey
    Posted July 1, 2017 at 12:16 pm | Permalink

    I think the movie studio’s goal was t make money and to create an entertaining movie. I doubt their goal was to make an intersectional feminist statement

    It would be difficult, if not impossible to make a movie that pleased all oppressed groups.

    • Randall Schenck
      Posted July 1, 2017 at 12:27 pm | Permalink

      Only if it were a movie about oppression and had all oppressed people in it. But even then, they would each have to get the same number of lines and the credits must be in alphabetic order.

      • Posted July 1, 2017 at 12:52 pm | Permalink

        You are on to something. Let the Easily Offened Folk make their own movies and struggle with the the credits: not in alphabetical order. In order of the most oppressed/deserving first.

        I would think that, a woman wearing a Hijab-
        the always championed article of clothing- must surely lose out to a Burka-clad woman. As she would only be act using her… limited body language, AND she would have enormous difficulty doing action stunts.

        • Carey
          Posted July 1, 2017 at 1:30 pm | Permalink

          If it turned out to be a box office flop or did not get any Academy awards the makers could blame the Patriarchy for being too racist, mysogonyst,and Islamophobic

      • infiniteimprobabilit
        Posted July 1, 2017 at 4:30 pm | Permalink

        Alphabetic order? That’s just reinforcing the oppression of people whose names are further down the alphabet. The credits must be in carefully randomized order!

        cr

        • Michiel van Haren
          Posted July 2, 2017 at 5:28 am | Permalink

          Or simply shown all at the same time, superimposed onto eachother 🙂

      • Xuuths
        Posted July 3, 2017 at 3:43 pm | Permalink

        Why do you hate the dyslexic?

        • Diana MacPherson
          Posted July 3, 2017 at 6:41 pm | Permalink

          He’s just recognizing the oppression of the OCD sufferers and giving them a safe space. 😼

    • Tom
      Posted July 2, 2017 at 10:25 am | Permalink

      Perhaps when all studios make “intersectional ” movies, those people that spend their precious days looking for something in popular culture to criticise will then complain that the whole concept has become so diluted by commercial interests that it is no longer the real thing.

  14. Gabrielle
    Posted July 1, 2017 at 12:57 pm | Permalink

    I’ve seen the movie, and thought it was pretty good, even though I’m not an action movie buff.
    I didn’t interpret the black woman taking care of the young Diana as a Mammy figure, but more of a teacher.
    When I saw the black Amazon who was winning all her fights, I had two thoughts: gladiator, Serena Williams. I certainly didn’t think: slave auction.

    All this being said, I found the part of the movie that took place on the island of Themyscira to be more interesting than the rest of the movie. In the sequel(s), I hope they have spend more time on scenes that take place at this location. This would also allow more time to develop more of the characters of the individual Amazons.

    Interestingly, one of the top evil characters in the film was Dr. Maru, a short, disfigured chemist, who apparently has a Ph.D. The antithesis of an Amazon. The only scientist in the movie, and her area of expertise is chemical weapons. I don’t know if this is a character from the comic books or not. Well, if a woman can be the hero, then a woman can be the arch-enemy. Dr. Maru was played by the Spanish actress Elena Anaya. Ms. Glover didn’t have anything to say about a Hispanic actress being cast in this role.

    • rasmo carenna
      Posted July 1, 2017 at 1:58 pm | Permalink

      Elena Anaya, by the way, is lesbian, if I am not mistaken.

  15. Gabrielle
    Posted July 1, 2017 at 12:59 pm | Permalink

    I just want to add that Harper’s Bazaar is not going to become a feminist magazine. They are too dependent on the ad income from the fashion world. I doubt this piece by Cameron Glover will run in the print edition.

    • Samedi
      Posted July 2, 2017 at 11:00 am | Permalink

      I hope you are correct. Still, the NRA ad makes me think that now is the time for moderates on all sides to clearly and forcefully distance themselves from extremists. Running a baizuo article like this gives tacit approval to extremism and, in my view, sends the wrong message.

  16. rasmo carenna
    Posted July 1, 2017 at 1:00 pm | Permalink

    This is annoying. Some people simply can never be satisfied. In fact, I found the movie at times striving too hard to be ‘inclusive’. You know, a native American working as a smuggler in the heart of Europe didn’t look very historically fitting, but whatever. And they throw in for good measure a Turkish looking guy as a companion to the bunch of heroes. In fact, the really underrepresented community was the Asian and Hispanic transgender people.

  17. JonLynnHarvey
    Posted July 1, 2017 at 1:18 pm | Permalink

    They are after all dealing with a pre-existing comic book franchise with a long history. Not every feminist movie needs to be heavily intersectional.

    =-=-=

    A side virtue to Wonder Woman is that it’s doing well as a “crossover” movie in the sense that a lot of folk who normally do NOT go to superhero movies are seeing it. Last time that happened was “The Dark Knight Rises”.
    (Still don’t think JC would like it though.)

  18. BJ
    Posted July 1, 2017 at 1:19 pm | Permalink

    Normally, I’d have to comment on the main subject of the article, but it was this that truly got to me: “..nor have I even seen 2001: A Space Odyssey or Mad Max.”

    You what, mate (to speak in the parlance of the British and Aussies for a moment)?

    But in all seriousness, I don’t know if this will increase your interest in the former film, but I thought I would point out that 2001 is far less a space epic than it is a meditation on the evolution of man and the role of technology in our shared future (and how that technology may destroy us). It deals with other heady themes as well. It’s deeply meditative and quite slow. I just wanted to point this out, in case such themes may interest you despite the film taking place largely in space; if not, it’s cool 🙂

    Anyway, this is far from the only article decrying Wonder Woman based on racial issues. Here are four I found just by doing a single Google search and looking only at the first page:

    “Would ‘Wonder Woman’ Be Celebrated So Much If She Weren’t White?” Link: https://www.bustle.com/p/would-wonder-woman-be-celebrated-so-much-if-she-werent-white-61183

    “‘Wonder Woman,’ Women of Color, and Building a Diverse Themiscyra” Link: http://www.slashfilm.com/women-of-color-in-wonder-woman/

    “Why Wonder Woman Is Not Wonderful For Black Women” Link: http://findinghappily.com/why-wonder-woman-is-not-wonderful-for-black-women/

    “WONDER WOMAN IS AWESOME—BUT WE STILL NEED A BLACK SUPERHERO” (note: we do, in fact, have black superheroes, including those already shown on the screen and those already confirmed to be upcoming in the Marvel and DC cinematic universes) Link: https://www.wired.com/2017/05/we-need-black-superheros/

    At the end of the day, it is an absolute that nothing can ever be good enough for regressives. They must always be continue to be outraged. It is the basis of their existence and the foundation of their media.

    • infiniteimprobabilit
      Posted July 1, 2017 at 4:33 pm | Permalink

      Yeah, putting 2001 and Mad Max in the same sentence is rather incongruous.

      cr

    • JonLynnHarvey
      Posted July 1, 2017 at 7:20 pm | Permalink

      Space Odyssey presupposes a teleologically guided evolution, and as such may not be JAC’s cup of catnip.

      Interestingly, it’s one of (at least) two movies highly recommended by the Vatican which still appears on Conservapedia’s list of “worst liberal movies”.
      (The other is “Spotlight”, about the Boston Globe’s expose of the Catholic child molestation coverup.)

    • Diana MacPherson
      Posted July 2, 2017 at 9:07 am | Permalink

      I think about HAL a lot these days as we come closer and closer to a sentient AI. I think about self driving cars and how we can never ask them to keep a secret because look what happened with HAL!

  19. Ken Kukec
    Posted July 1, 2017 at 1:52 pm | Permalink

    … I never see action movies or “space” movies: I’m probably the only living American who hasn’t seen Star Wars or the Star Trek movies, nor have I even seen 2001: A Space Odyssey or <i?Mad Max.

    I try to see most everything that comes out, but I’ll often take a pass on such genre movies (and on monster, horror, and comic-book movies, too).

    I make it a practice not to read about a movie — to know as little about it as possible — before seeing it for the first time, so as to approach it with an open mind. Since I don’t always see the above genre flicks, however, I make an exception there; I’ll go see them if critics or friends whose tastes I respect tout them as out-of-the-ordinary. The movie doesn’t have to be touted as great, just that it contains a performance, or element, or innovation that a film fan should see. I’ll also see them if they’re by a director or cinematographer or actor who’s on my list of favorites.

    Per those standards, I’ve seen Star Wars and Mad Max, but have skipped the Star Trek movies (although I’m passingly familiar with their tropes and memes). 20001, I’ve seen several times, in a number of venues and formats, over the decades since it first came out while I was a teenager (even though it’s not my favorite by Kubrick).

  20. Bob Bottemiller
    Posted July 1, 2017 at 3:10 pm | Permalink

    I second the motion that Jerry should take a look at 2001: A Space Odyssey. It’s a lot more than a space opera but, even then, who hasn’t thought that a descendant of HAL isn’t living inside ones own PC.
    Also, Jerry, Blade Runner is recommended. It says a lot about the “intersection” (ha) of humanity and robotics.

    • Bob Bottemiller
      Posted July 1, 2017 at 3:14 pm | Permalink

      Dang, I forgot to add that Ms. Glover might want to look up the Jackie Brown character played by Pam Grier — very strong, very black, very, er, appealing.

      • Ken Kukec
        Posted July 1, 2017 at 4:51 pm | Permalink

        Not to mention all the characters Ms. Grier started out playing in 1970s blaxploitation flicks like “Foxy Brown” and “Coffy” Coffin.

  21. infiniteimprobabilit
    Posted July 1, 2017 at 4:46 pm | Permalink

    Glover’s review is just rubbish, like all such, for one simple reason: Whatever movie a director chooses to make, and whatever they put in it, some smartass can come along and say “You left out the [my favourite obsession / victim group]”. No matter what the director includes, it will never be enough.

    (What is a valid review? – one that deals with what is actually in the movie, not one that is whining about what wasn’t).

    cr

  22. Posted July 1, 2017 at 5:36 pm | Permalink

    Of course this happens. Recently PZ Myers came out to say that he very much enjoyed the movie b/c of the empowerement it offered women, etc. etc.
    But as I have predicted, those on the current edge of the regressive left will find themselves to the right of the neo-Left. If that makes sense.

  23. eric
    Posted July 1, 2017 at 8:22 pm | Permalink

    But when Glover says the movie doesn’t have “people like me” in mind, she explicitly means black women, not just women.

    I haven’t seen it, but doesn’t most of the movie take place in Europe during WWI? That would seem to me to put some limitations on what you can do unless you want to make the setting as utterly ahistorical as the main character is fantastical. It would be easy to have the mythical island of Amazons be diverse and egalitarian – and I’m glad they did that. More power to them! But once the action moves into ‘the real world’ you’re going to run into the historical reality of there just not being many women on the front lines of WWI, and black women would be even more underrepresented (and only permitted to adopt ‘stereotypical’ servant roles) in such places than they are today.

    Maybe I’m being a bit nitpicky for a superhero movie, but if the goal is to put a fantastical main character in an otherwise realistic historical setting, then complaining about the lack of black women in this movie is kind of like complaining there weren’t enough ninjas in the movie Troy.

    • Tom
      Posted July 2, 2017 at 10:46 am | Permalink

      Unfortunately this twisting of history has been a fact in films for nearly a century. For instance it is difficult to find a war film set anywhere outside the US that hasn’t had an American character inserted into the plot.
      My favourite grouse in this respect is Casablanca (Bogart telling the poor stupid Europeans what THEY have been fighting for) and the Great Escape which was really beneath contempt.

      • Diana MacPherson
        Posted July 2, 2017 at 3:40 pm | Permalink

        Or Saving Privat Ryan where American soldiers never seem to encounter any of the allies fighting in Europe.

  24. jeffery
    Posted July 1, 2017 at 9:21 pm | Permalink

    As usual, the SJWs have done their “reductio ad absurdum” to the usual moronic extent- they’ve got you, coming or going: were there no strong black females in the movie, they’d be complaining about THAT. NONE of their arguments stand up to rational examination.

  25. Posted July 14, 2017 at 7:09 pm | Permalink

    There is a brief scene where Diana is talking to Senator Acantha (whom she addresses by title and name), played by German actress Florence Kasumba.


Post a Comment

Required fields are marked *
*
*

%d bloggers like this: