There’s a new (new!) Batman vs. Superman: Dawn of Justice trailer. Watch it now!
Online reaction seems pretty skeptical, centering on Jesse Eisenberg’s jittery camp. People don’t want jittery camp from their supervillains anymore, I guess. No love for Frank Gorshin.
Anyway, as you’ll see if you can make it to the end, Gal Gadot shows up as Wonder Woman right at the close, in a moment also played for cutesy laughs. Doomsday (I guess that’s Doomsday) shoots some sort of special effect thing at Batman, and our dour hero is about to be incinerated, when Wonder Woman leaps in with her shield. “Is she with you?” Superman asks, with Henry Cavill demonstrating that he’s got nice comic timing. “I thought she was with you,” Batman replies in grim dark bat voice.
Part of the joke is about the wrong-footed testosterone. Wonder Woman, as a woman, should belong to either Superman or Batman. But (feminism!) she doesn’t. The conflicted bromance m/m romantic comedy (complete with meet cute at the trailer’s beginning) is interrupted; the gritty ballet of manly men thumping each other gives way to the sit-com shuffle of manly men belching in confusion as the woman of the house swoops in to be competent.
William Marston, Wonder Woman’s creator, would probably find a bit to like here; Wonder Woman as invader of man’s world (metaphorically and literally) resonates with his original themes to some degree, and of course it’s nice to have her saving the bat dude rather than the other way around. The perspective, though, is inevitably wrong way round. Wonder Woman, the original comic, started out after all with Steve Trevor invading Paradise Island, and even in Man’s World, Diana was surrounded by sorority girls and fellow Amazons, so that Steve was always the lone dude in a female community.
The whole point of the original Wonder Woman was that Wonder Woman was the standard; women were the normal thing, and men were the sometimes odd, sometimes sexy, but always secondary other. Wonder Woman in Dawn of Justice is heroic, but she’s heroic through the eyes, and from the perspective, of the two guys whose relationship is the title of the film. Which isn’t surprising, really, but does mean that, Supergirl, Jessica Jones, Buffy, or any superhero show where the woman is in the title, is going to be truer in many ways to Marston’s vision than the character called Wonder Woman in a film titled Batman vs. Superman.
Apt assessment of the new trailer–esp. the assuming that WW has to be “with,” or belong, to one of them. And I see what you’re saying about the flip in perspective from Marston’s vision. But one part bothers me: the part about Steve Trevor being the sole man surrounded by females. By Amazons, by sorority girls. Isn’t that typically one of every man’s sexual fantasies? I mean, add in a pillow fight in their pj’s and it’s the classic adolescent male dream. So maybe Marston wasn’t such a pure feminist after all.
Hah; I don’t think anyone would call Marston a perfect feminist from our perspective today. The original WW is definitely about Marston’s own kink for female communities, and especially his lesbophilia. But the original Wonder Woman #1 is very much from a female gaze position; Steve’s the one who’s sexualized (in part by being feminized, and so becoming part of the female community.)
I like Eisenberg’s Lex a lot.
But yes, even Squirrel Girl is closer to Marston’s Wonder Woman than this film’s.
@Noah
Maybe this is apropos of nothing, but I remember you bringing up in another thread that matriarchy is/would be an inherently different power structure than patriarchy, not just the same structure gender-flipped. Since we are talking about Wonder Woman, an archetypical matriarch (from Marston’s view, anyway (or not…?)), could you elaborate on that? Perhaps I’m too blinkered by the damned patriarchy, but I’m having trouble imagining how it would be different.
Well, I wrote a whole book about it! But really quickly, in Marston’s view, patriarchy works via dominance, with the boss forcing acquiescence through power. Matriarchy works through loving submission, where acquiescence and social control is accomplished through love (and sex.) So Marston’s vision of a matriarchy involves female love leaders who use maternal (and sexual) bonds of affection to lead the world to peace and harmony.
I’m wondering if the WW movie will be a prequel to Dawn of Batman: Superman vs. Justice, since Steve Trevor and all the trimmings will be included.
“Dawn of Batman: Superman vs. Justice”
Was that intentional…?
@Christina
This assumes that, if it’s one of every man’s sexual fantasies, then it isn’t feminist, because it’s one of every man’s sexual fantasies. (I don’t know what a “pure feminist” is.)
Which may in fact be the way a lot of people think, but presumably isn’t a way anybody wants to admit that they think.
yeah…Marston was pretty committed to the idea that male sexual fantasy could be feminist, and/or could and should be a lever to bring about the feminist utopia (in which women would rule.) I think the idea that feminism should be a male fantasy has some obvious problems…but on the other hand stigmatizing sexual fantasy, or drawing firm lines between what’s male sexual fantasy and what’s female sexual fantasy, doesn’t take you great places either.
Marston also was always very aware of a lesbian audience, so what’s male sexual fantasy and what’s female sexual fantasy are not in general all that distinct for him.
Reactions to trailer:
1. Is there anyone who didn’t laugh when somebody said, camera on Ben Affleck, “That’s Bruce Wayne”? (To be clear, I like Ben Affleck.)
2. Oh God, they said “civil liberties.”
3. Credit to Jesse Eisenberg for coming up with a different kind of Luthor, but now I sort of wish they’d cast him as Lois (the more important role).
4. I’m surprised Noah let the sword in place of the golden lasso slide. Lost cause, I guess.
I’ve already written about the sword a couple places, though for some reason I’m not finding the link…oh, here it is.
https://newrepublic.com/article/121306/sensation-comics-ft-wonder-woman-when-she-was-bondage
but yeah, lost cause is about right.
Superbrief summary: for Marston the lasso is a yonic symbol that allows Wonder Woman to control and pacify others (male and female) through the oomph of erotic love leadership. The sword’s a phallic symbol designed to hit people. The lasso allowed Marston to build stories around kinky dominance/submission play rather than around people thumping each other. Obviously, Snyder is more comfortable with a story about people thumping each other.
@ Graham Clark
About the male sexual fantasies, I didn’t clarify that I meant *sexist* male fantasies (that can be, as Noah pointed out, also lesbian fantasies). The term “pure feminist wasn’t clear. I think of feminism as a belief that women are equal to men–not better than men (which some people imply or outright state–actually, like Marston). Sexist fantasies imply that women are disposable, are objects, are solely for male amusement and titillation. If the sorority girls are just for lesbian amusement and titillation, I consider that anti-feminist (though not exactly sexist because it’s women’s unequal view/treatment of other women).
I’m sure that there are many non-sexist male fantasies around (although I’m not really knowledgeable about male sexual fantasies).
@Christina
In your first comment, you don’t say anything to establish that Steve Trevor being surrounded by women is a sexist male fantasy, as you now put it. You seem to be saying that because it’s something men fantasize about, therefore it’s not feminist, period.
But alright, let’s say you always meant specifically a sexist male fantasy. Then why is specifically a sexist male fantasy? Because a man had it? Then we’re back to where we just were. (Not to mention, your position completely depends on nobody ever discovering that, for example, Marston was actually a trans woman, or that women ghost wrote and illustrated his and Harry Peter’s comics.) Or because it’s only a fantasy than men have, and never women? Or because it’s not a fantasy that many women have? How many is many? Or because it’s an inherently male fantasy even when women have it? That’s probably insulting to some women, but that aside – then specifically what about it is inherently male?
On a different note, I would say that defining feminism as “a belief that women are equal to men” is an evasion of the fact that making women politically, economically, and socially equal to men requires taking power away from men. I would define feminism as a desire to increase the political, economic, and social power of women from wherever it currently is – with some people wanting to go further than others.
Forgot to add: I doubt there’s any such thing as a non-hierarchical sexual fantasy (I would say a non-sexist sexual fantasy, but you seem to be defining sexist as a word that only applies when men are above women in the hierarchy).
I don’t think the male fantasy aspect depends on Marston being a man. Steve Trevor ending up on an island full of women; that’s a pretty standard male fantasy (a thing men fantasize about, a thing presented to men as desirable). That doesn’t necessarily mean no men ever have it…but for instance, Darwyn Cooke in New Frontier I think has Superman stumble on the Amazons bathing each other. It’s very much framed through his gaze, and the pin up art tropes are hard to miss. That’s framed as a male fantasy — for a man watching, within the comic and outside the comic—though that doesn’t necessarily mean that only men would find it appealing (lots of women like pin up art.)
The thing for me is that Marston/Peter’s set up is pretty different than that. Your with the Amazons first, and when Steve shows up you’re looking at him; he ends up being the sexualized one. And that’s only emphasized by the fact that there are scenes of bdsm play where steve isn’t present, or even really being thought about, and where in fact the viewer is another woman.
Christina said she misspoke, so not sure why you’re then reiterating that she changed what she said…?
Again, you could probably dial down the aggressiveness slightly, and the conversation would be more pleasant for everyone.
@Graham & Noah
So, I do actually plan to acquire and read Noah’s book over the holidays, but…was Marston actually a trans woman, and ghost-written by women? Or is that just a hypothetical tidbit to shake things up? That particular info hasn’t come up anywhere I’ve read about it so far (mostly here), and that would change a LOT about my understanding thus far.
No, Marston was not trans…though he has a lot of trans characters in his comics (mostly trans men.) He had a cowriter and possible ghost writer on some of his comics when he became ill; Joye Murchison. There exact working relationship is unclear; Les Daniels is the fullest account, and he presents them as writing scripts together.
Harry Peter, the artist, had many uncredited assistants, some of whom were probably women.
@Petar Completely hypothetical, though based on a real quietly percolating conversation about a different artist.
Oh, and buy Noah’s book! (Ideally read it too.)
Also, Wonder Woman is pretty clearly intended as a trans fantasy. Marston wanted to be Wonder Woman, and boys who read it are supposed to want to be Wonder Woman too.
I just hope that Graham will start describing his own sexual fantasies and angrily challenging Christina to argue they’re sexist.
@Noah
Excellent.
@Jack
Bitch, you couldn’t handle my sexual fantasies.
Noah:
““Is she with you?” Superman asks, with Henry Cavill demonstrating that he’s got nice comic timing. “I thought she was with you,” Batman replies in grim dark bat voice.
Part of the joke is about the wrong-footed testosterone. Wonder Woman, as a woman, should belong to either Superman or Batman.”
See, no. What if it’d been Green Lantern instead of WW? Same dialogue with ‘he’ for ‘she’. They’re both natural questions that come up all the time in real life.
Call sexism too often and you become the boy who cries wolf. One shouldn’t always assume bad faith, as you also did wrongly about the Ant-Man movie.
“See, no. What if it’d been Green Lantern instead of WW?”
Then the screenwriter wouldn’t have thought it interesting to have Batman and Superman argue over him, presumably.
right, what Pallas said. I’d doubt they’d do that dialogue in that case. The scene is totally gendered; that’s where the humor comes from.
Also…I’m not assuming bad faith. That implies bad intentions. I in general don’t presume that the people who make superhero films are thoughtful enough to have anything but the vaguest idea of what they’re doing.
Pallas:
“Then the screenwriter wouldn’t have thought it interesting to have Batman and Superman argue over him, presumably.”
First of all, they aren’t arguing. They’re legitimately trying to find out the truth of the situation.
Second of all,your presumption is false. I’ve seen this type of dialogue very often on the screen concerning men. One example is in It’s a Mad, Mad World, another in an episode of the ’80s version of the TV Twilight Zone. It’s a trope so common as to constitute a cliche.
No sexism in that exchange whatsoever.
Not exactly sure what “type of dialogue” you’re talking about. What was said on “It’s a Mad, Mad World” precisely?
If you could find the clip on youtube that’d be even more helpful.
It was the scene where they all dig up the treasure, and Spencer Tracey’s there. He’s a cop, but everyone assumes he came with one or the other teams. That’s when the whole I-thought-he-was-with-you doalogue happens.
Hmm…I don’t think I’ve seen the film, so can’t compare.
I mean, I could see other situations in which the dialogue would work…but they all depend on the person discussed being odd or unusual or surprising in some way. The odd, unusual, suprising thing abt WW, in this context, is that she’s a woman.
Well, no. The odd, unusual, surprising thing about WW here is her popping up out of nowhere and saving Batman’s bacon. As I pointed out, exactly the same scene would have worked with Green Lantern, and Supes and Bats would have said exactly the same thing.
No, I’m pretty sure the odd/unusual/surprising thing is that she’s another superhero when they thought there were only two. That isn’t to say the line can’t work both ways. But are you saying that the gendered reading is evidence of the sexist assumptions of the filmmakers? Wouldn’t it be a dig at the male characters?
Speaking to Noah.
I think the way it’s done in the film, her gender is very relevant to their doofus dad sit com surprise.
Meta, as with sit-coms, the joke is definitely on the guys. It’s less a sexism of saying, “women are lesser” and more just a reinforcing of gender roles. Specifically, of the idea that men’s perspective is the normal, natural one, while women are the weird interlopers.
I don’t think it’s sexist to point out that Wonder Woman is being played in a gendered way with guy’s arguing over her, BTW.
It all depends on how it plays out.
How this played out at Marvel I think was all the female characters lined up with their favorite male authority figure (See Iron Man vs Captain America). That was probably sexist because it was clear the only ones who mattered were cap and iron man.
If Wonder Woman doesn’t fall into that trap and stays independent I don’t see a problem.
In Mad Mad world you are talking about a story with a huge cast of characters, and someone slipping in or something? I’ve seen parts of that movie, not sure that’s really the same thing.
That would be like if the Justice League and Avengers teamed up and everyone assumed some purple superhero guy in the lineup of 20 characters was either a justice league character or avengers character, right?
Badlanders and meta are wrong. If she’s not a woman, there’s no joke.
Noah is 3/4 right. I would say the implication isn’t that she should belong to one of them, but that they’re to some extent right to feel humiliated that a woman saved them.
I think it’s a joke on them for thinking she should belong to them…so it’s a somewhat feminist diss of them. But yeah, I agree that there’s also a not very feminist implication that they’re silly or diminished by having a woman save them.
I recently watched the (terrible) New 52 Justice League animated movie, and there’s a scene like that in the beginning with Batman, Superman, and Green Lantern (Green Lantern was the interloper in that case). I think they even say “Is he with you?” but I don’t remember. But obviously Wonder Woman being a woman changes the context somewhat for sure
whoops should have read Superman was the interloper
It’s not a woman leading the way out of a pointless, testosterone-fueled grudge match? And a female contender causing confusion when she steps into a male-dominated cinematic field? It’d be more Marstonesque if she hog-tied them, but it’s still Marstonesque…
@Tony
I saw clips of that movie on Youtube, and yeah, once Wonder Woman shows up, the movie makes clear how sexist and racist it is. You have Superman, Batman, Captain Marvel (who is literally a prepubescent boy), Hal Jordan (who acts like one), and the Flash (ditto, kinda), competing to (LITERALLY) call “dibs” on Wonder Woman, until Superman gives them the alpha dog glare and they all back off. The ONLY person who doesn’t bother? Cyborg.
That doesn’t necessarily have any bearing on sexism in Dawn of Justice: BvS, but your instincts on that movie were right.
Meta, sure, there’s a touch of Marston. It’s from the viewpoint of the guys, though, which is very much not the Marston way.
@Petar
Oh yeah I forgot about the competing for WW part!….yeesh.
Yeah that movie was rough stuff indeed
That’s the choice to introduce her as a third-act surprise in a team-up film, which speaks to a lack of confidence in the character and female characters. We have to wait for the Wonder Woman movie to see how they handle a female perspective. But portraying the male heroes as consumed by a stupid grudge match and the woman being the grown-up in the room isn’t sexist in itself, unless it’s the soft sexism of idealization.
“the woman being the grown-up in the room isn’t sexist in itself”
Women as the mature, serious ones is a sitcom trope. It’s one of those things where a positive steroetype is still a stereotype, and still limiting. Men are bad boys, women are boring party poopers.
Isn’t that what I said in the other half of my sentence? Anyway, the same criticism applies to Marston’s ideology.
Well…not exactly. Women in Marston aren’t boring party poopers; Wonder Woman is mischievous and fun and loves using her powers. The first thing she does with the lasso is make a doctor stand on her head, and the whole comic is basically her role playing bdsm sex play. It’s not a sit com wife role.
Marston certainly idealizes women…but it’s somewhat complicated in that he tends to see gender lines as permeable. Women are awesome because they are women—and men can potentially be awesome by being women too.
Right, and Wonder Woman isn’t a stick-in-the-mud in that trailer either, but “women are peacemakers” is incorrect and easily absorbed by patriarchy.
Well…Virginia Woolf said women are peacemakers. Not that she’s right about everything, but I wouldn’t say she’s easily absorbed by patriarchy either, exactly.
@meta
Wonder Woman in the trailer seems pretty stick-in-the-mud-ish to me. (How many times do you think she’ll smile in the course of the movie?)
Now that’s a movie I’d watch!
Grant Morrison’s Wonder Woman Year One is supposed to have some hog tieing…I’m somewhat trepidatious (it’s been decades since he wrote a comic I liked) but we’ll see.
Fine, then you shouldn’t have a problem with seeing Wonder Woman be a fight breaker in this trailer. Like I said, I think it’s a sexist world that we’re seeing her introduced in two other guys’ movie and that she or SuperAmazingWoman isn’t on her fifth reboot already. But to make her entrance in this trailer seem otherwise sexist you have to sift pretty finely.
It’s how she does it that’s the irritating bit. It wouldn’t have to be set up with sit com gender roles, but, unfortunately, it is.
I don’t think it’s the end of the world or anything; it’s not terrible. I’ve seen worse. Heck, the treatment of Lois Lane in this very trailer is worse. It’s just, Marston’s Wonder Woman is one of the most adventurous takes on gender relations in the last 100 years. It’s depressing to see it borified.
Wonder Woman Year One–is that a comic, or a movie?
And I just looked at imdb.com, and saw an animated Wonder Woman movie from 2009. The voices include Keri Russell and Nathan Fillion. Has anyone here seen it? Is it any good?
The animated movie was kind of crap, unfortunately.
https://www.hoodedutilitarian.com/2009/03/i-dont-care-how-animated-you-are-you-still-cant-wear-the-venus-girdle/
Wonder Woman Year One is a comic, supposed to be out next year.
I wonder how many of the commenters have actually watched the trailer.
WW doesn’t break up a “grudge match” between the two men at all. She jumps right into the fight with Doomsday. It’s clear that at this point Supes and Bats are allies.
Noah:
“I mean, I could see other situations in which the dialogue would work…but they all depend on the person discussed being odd or unusual or surprising in some way.”
Exactly the contrary. The person discussed would be unobtrusive and blend in. Not the case here, true, but the scene still is not gendered. And far from being ‘doofus dads’, the two men are actually unnaturally calm — which is the source of the humor: understatement.
Hah; right. Nobody but you watched the 4 minute trailer. Sure.
Can you explain, then, why so many got the contents of the trailer wrong?
I’m not sure why you in particular have gotten the content of the trailer wrong, but art is polysemic and open to interpretation. People see things differently. That’s part of what’s fun and maddening about art.
Maybe chill out? People disagree with you about a trailer for a dumb corporate movie. Probably not the end of the world, you know?
Hey, I ain’t mad at nobody. But it’s simply true that people are saying things that just aren’t so.
Fact: WW does not break up the fight between Supes and Bats. She just doesn’t.
Polysemic doesn’t mean ‘anything goes’, you know?
“Polysemic doesn’t mean ‘anything goes’, you know?”
Often it does. You’re “fact” is an interpretation—and a minority one on this thread, at least. You’re just going to have to accept that people see something in that trailer that you don’t, I’m afraid.
But it isn’t an interpretation. Look at the trailer again.
And, you know, truth isn’t something you vote on…
You’ve done this before. You seem to have difficulty getting your head around the fact that your particular interpretation is an interpretation, not fact. It makes you assume bad faith, and generally be over aggressive.
It’s a stupid trailer for a corporate movie. If you can’t agree to disagree on this, what can you agree to disagree on?
I contest the description of myself as ‘over-aggressive’. I’ve been perfectly polite.
It’s not a sin to disagree with the majority. In fact, it is useful. Too much of the Internet consists of ‘echo-chambers’ where people just reinforce each other’s beliefs and prejudices, even at the expense of facts. That’s what I see here, explaining your hostility.
@Badlanders Nah, he’s being hostile because you are. Which I completely understand – you’re hostile because you want people to have to defend themselves against your words, therefore engage with them, instead of burying them under a “Well, we can agree to disagree.” I of course do the same thing, but with the important difference that I’m always right.
Echo chambers can be good, by the way. When you hear the same thing a million times, you maybe begin to notice flaws that you initially didn’t. Of course there’s something to be said for contrasting viewpoints too, except that by definition anybody with a contrasting viewpoint is somebody who disagrees with you, and who wants to waste time listening to those jerks?
I’m happy to argue; when you’ve reached the point where the argument is, “You haven’t watched the trailer and you’re obviously wrong,” I just feel like you’ve probably hit diminishing returns.
Look.
Wonder Woman is seen exactly twice.
She doesn’t speak. She doesn’t move. Either time.
She. Does. Not. Break. Up. The. Fight. Between. Superman. And. Batman.
And there is no reason for anybody…anybody at all…to suppose that she does.
“She doesn’t speak. She doesn’t move.” Repression! (Or something.)
Yeah, I mean, the fact that she doesn’t speak or move is kind of the point we’re talking about, you know?
I don’t see that. It’s only in the trailer that she doesn’t speak or move. You can be sure that she does in the complete movie.
And you still can’t explain why you think the trailer shows her breaking up the fight between Batman and Superman.
Well, all we have is the trailer. No doubt she’ll say something or other in the movie. But in the trailer (a piece of art in its own right) she’s a silent, secondary character, clearly less important than the dude battle. That’s very different from Marston’s vision.
The trailer is somewhat ambiguous as to what exactly is happening. But up to that point, the trailer is about the conflict between Batman and Superman; then WW shows up and they’re suddenly buddy/buddy. I think it’s pretty clearly intended to present WW as distracting them from their own fight and focusing them on the real enemy.
I doubt that…they were obviously squaring off against Doomsday together.
Guess we’ll have to wait for the flick.
I re-watched the trailer, and it seems pretty clear that WW was participating in the Doomsday fight, but the editing is terrible so I could be wrong. The thing is, I’m not sure how this has anything to do with the questions raised about the dialogue between Batman and Superman. The two characters are antagonistic through the better part of the trailer, and to the extent they’re cooperating to defeat the big bad, I’d bet good money that their relationship remains tense. As such, even if Noah accepted unconditionally Badlander’s interpretation of the fight scene, I can’t see how that would affect his reading one way or the other.
Nobody cares at this late point, but I just watched the trailer for the first time, with the sound off, and visually it looks like there’s a lull in the Batman/Superman fight when Doomsday crashes in. Wonder Woman defends them (or at least, Batman) from some kind of Doomsday death-ray, and the three superheroes square off together against the new threat.
Noah, you know I love the real Wonder Woman too (i.e. the Marston/Peter/et al. version), and will bet a zillion dollars that the film version is nothing like her. But on the minor point here, I don’t think she breaks up the fight as such. Doomsday breaks up the fight, standard superhero team-up stuff (meet, fight, then team-up against villain). But who cares?
…watching without sound, I like Eisenberg’s Luthor. The scene where he breaks up the dude-off between Clark Kent and Bruce Wayne had me rooting for him. Those guys look like a pair of self-righteous douchebags.
Kids, Noah never said W is breaking up a physical fight between S and B. (He was talking about the successive impressions created by the trailer – S and B grunt at each other; W shows up, S and B talk for the first time without grunting at each other – about which he’s of course entirely right.)
And even if you actually think he did – which he didn’t – that mistake would be irrelevant to his points, so the only reasons to keep talking about it are that you want an excuse to dismiss the rest of what he said, or that you want to provide material for future historians of autism and the internet.
“for future historians of autism and the internet”
Come on, now, that’s not necessary. Folks maybe just misread a little; happens all the time. Makes the world go round.
Yeah, but did they have to misread 8 times? (I counted, now I’m autistic too.)
Well, these things happen— and you know, it’s not the fault of autistic people. Misreading is how all conversations happen.
Graham,
I was responding in real time, as I read quickly through the thread. And while I might have misread, it’s pretty clear that Noah and Badlanders were arguing over how to read that particular scene (even if Noah never claimed she was breaking up a fight). So, while you’re not wrong in your assertion about what was written, your patronizing tone is a bummer.
Does anyone else want to comment on how trite the whole thing is? Lois is facilitating exposition of the villain’s plot and underscoring just how evil he is, as she did in Return of Superman and many other stories in various media, going back to at least World War II. In fact, this is such a hackneyed, expected chore of the female lead that there is nothing about it that is particular to Lois. It could be any villain, any square-jawed hero, and any damsel in distress.
Lex calls his evil, selfish, callous plan (whatever it is) an idea “too big for small minds to understand.” Presumably, he will also try to claim moral equivalency with the hero by explaining how they are the same, or perhaps two sides of the same coin, and necessary to one another.
Superman and Batman are Murtaugh and Riggs or any other crime-fighting duo that decides the greater threat behooves them to cooperate despite their differences in methods. But prior to that, they have a big fight scene that is not merely reminiscent of every superhero fight, it is a close copy of the final fight in Dark Knight Returns (complete with dialogue), sans any of the extraordinary context that rationalized all that mayhem and property damage. They’re even reusing a joke that was old when it was in the Justice League animated feature.
I’m judging the film based on the trailer, and that isn’t fair, but then that’s what trailers invite us to do. In this one, the filmmakers seem to be trying to reassure the audience that they’re following the action movie checklist. But what they’re showing us is so formulaic that it looks like the action movie checklist is all they’ve got. Like a bad classic rock station, they have decades of material to choose from, but they’re sticking with Stairway to Heaven and the same three Metallica songs.
I hope I’m wrong. I think the actors involved could all do well with these characters, and I still enjoy these characters and their interactions, problematic as they are. I guess we’ll see.
The guy who plays Superman seems 100% charmless. A Christopher Reeves/Adam West/Linda Carter crossover might have been good.
Henry Cavill can be great; he was wonderful in Man From UNCLE. I think he actually does pretty well with what he’s given in the trailer. It’s a shit role.
Damn, coulda sworn it was Brandon Routh. Guess I got my brunette square-jawed guys mixed up.
@Jack
The whole trailer is charmless. Cavill is just stuck with crap material.
@Petar True. That said, whoever made the decision to cast a Brit as Superman should still be prosecuted for treason. (Yes, Superman is an immigrant, but he grew up in America.)
Huh; I didn’t know Cavill was British. He played an American in Man From UNCLE, too, oddly enough. I wonder if he’s in consideration for the next Bond? He’d be an appealing choice (not Idris Elba, but still.)
@Noah
The first role I saw him in was as a British Duke or some-such title in The Tudors. I remember him being fairly charming and entertaining, but this was a while ago.
I really enjoy Eisenberg’s Lex. The only real energy in that trailer radiates from him.
I predict he walks away with the movie, as the supervillains almost always do. The screenwriter William Goldman explains why there’s such a turnover in stars playing Batman: they realise that, basically, Batman is a stiff, and anybody playing the Joker — hell, even Mr Freeze — will steal every damn scene.
Oh, and my inner Freudian is slyly amused by Noah Berlatsky’s dismay at Wonder Woman’s swapping the yoni of the lariat for the lingam of the sword. Castration anxiety much?
It’s not anxiety! Man, you need to read my book. Castration is a *good* thing in Marston. Woman are better than men; being castrated, therefore, makes you stronger.
@Badlanders Uh… vagina to penis isn’t castration. Also, nobody who claims to be “slyly amused” ever is.
Oops, just realized that I’ve been misspelling “Baldanders” for I-don’t-know-how-long. Sorry about that!
No problem. The name is, of course, a reference to Grimmelhausen and Simplicius Simplicissimus, via J.L.Borges.
The fear of castration comes from being confronted by a woman empowered by a long, steel, razor-sharp phallus…
And I often am truly ‘slyly amused’, for example by your fumbling attempts at wit, Graham.
I was going to opt out of this thread, but it’s gotten entertaining.
“The fear of castration comes from being confronted by a woman empowered by a long, steel, razor-sharp phallus…”
I wrote a whole book about Marston’s relationship to Freud. Nobody will read my book, damn it…
I did make a valiant effort (about half), but I found it too “academically dense” (as one reviewer phrased it).
But the part I read was excellent! I’m not blowing smoke here–it was genuinely fascinating.
@Noah I read it! (Don’t worry, your time will come.) So, for example, I can now ask: Ever read Sexual Personae? Paglia is of course, among other things, a reactionary loon, but you might find her (explicitly Freudian) itemization of various forms of castration (soft and hard, as it were) useful in future work (then again, maybe you’ve already committed enough academic heresies for one career).
@Baldanders
Mine’s a reference to Jean Paul’s Leben des Quintus Fixlein as translated by Thomas Carlyle.
Oh, so we’re doing the “I don’t actually care feminism at all, but I want to pretend that I do, so I rationalize everything I like as somehow feminist” thing.
Pro tip: You’re not a good enough writer to risk adjectives.
Okay; so, could we cut out the insults, please? I’m going to have to close the thread otherwise.
Graham, I have just glanced at Paglia’s work, which I generally don’t like much. The discussion of castration sounds interesting though…so maybe I’ll try looking at that at some point…
@Noah No guarantee that you’ll find anything interesting to you in it, of course, but her book is somewhat different (broader in scope, just plain better) than the essays she wrote after she became a rock star.
I read your book, Noah.
Incidentally, if you really want to see Wonder Woman disrespected and disempowered, check out some of those old All Star Comics after she was introduced. She “joins” the Justice Society of America and goes on all sorts of cool adventures. j/k, she stays behind every time and serves as society secretary. (Tho that might have more to do with the way that comic was produced)
Yeah, I haven’t read those but have heard. I’ve heard (can’t remember where) that Marston was reluctant to have her written by others which is part of why she was sidelined….though again I don’t know if that’s true or not.
don’t think the male fantasy aspect depends on Marston being a man. Steve Trevor ending up on an island full of women; that’s a pretty standard male fantasy (a thing men fantasize about, a thing presented to men as desirable). That doesn’t necessarily mean no men ever have it…but for instance, Darwyn Cooke in New Frontier I think has Superman stumble on the Amazons bathing each other. It’s very much framed through his gaze, and the pin up art tropes are hard to miss. That’s framed as a male fantasy — for a man watching, within the comic and outside the comic—though that doesn’t necessarily mean that only men would find it appealing (lots of women like pin up art.)”
I take for granted that NB meant to write that “no women ever have [the fantasy]. What’s astounding is that anyone could take Steve Trevor’s experience as a male fantasy.
It isn’t a male sex fantasy just to be surrounded by a horde of beautiful women. Male fantasies are generally focused on action, so the dominant fantasy is to have sex with lots of women, with or without consequences. Occasionally one sees men being receiving non-sexual attentions of many women, such as having his whims catered to, being fed rich foods, etc.
Steve Trevor, however, is barely aware of being in the midst of many beautiful women, according to the way the origin is related in WONDER WOMAN #1. In this essay I summarized the action thusly:
‘Though Trevor is an intrusive presence, he sees nothing of the Amazon world for most of the story, and indeed his eyes seem to have been injured from his experience, since on page 12 he comments that “my eyes must be bad again” as he sees Diana in all her costumed finery, rather than as “the scientist who saved my life.” Rather than seeing, he is the one seen as Diana and her friend Mala rescue him from the waters. Yet only Diana, the one explicitly born on Paradise Island, falls in love with him and brings him back to life. Toward the tale’s end, when Hippolyte prepares to send Trevor back to his world in the company of Diana, the physician relates that she has removed Trevor’s “eye bandages.” Hippolyte orders that Trevor “must see nothing on Paradise Island,” and Diana retorts, “Nothing except me! I’ll bind him again–myself!” ‘
Hetero males (or lesbian women) may get a buzz from seeing a bunch of Amazon glamour-girls assembled in one place, but not *specifically* because they can put themselves in Trevor’s place. The way he’s totally taken into Diana’s care is clearly a particular type of hetero female fantasy: that of getting a beloved off to one’s self, away from any possible competition.
Not that you need to or anything, but I kind of wrote a book about this, which you could read if you wanted. I talk about Trevor and masochistic fantasy at great length.
Also about how WW is pretty specifically designed to make the difference between male and female fantasy meaningless.
IMO masochistic action is still action; it’s just being done to the subject rather than the subject doing it.
Does gratification for the reader occur, though, if the fictional subject isn’t aware of the multiple stimuli? I suspect we will not agree on the answer.
I don’t understand either of those comments. Of course action in the narrative is still action…? The point in WW is that Steve is injured and passive for basically the first three issues of the comic. He is feminized, and being feminized takes him to paradise. It’s a male fantasy of becoming a woman, or being accepted into a community of women—though that fantasy (as identification, as erotics) is opened to women as well.
Fictional subjects can’t be aware of anything *really*. Wonder Woman presents female community, and castration, as fun, flirtatious, whimsical, sexy, goofy, and supportive. I think it’s quite pleasurable—though of course different people will have different reactions.
My “action” comment was simply extending what I said about assertive forms of male fantasy to passive forms. There are certainly all sorts of fantasies in which men are having things done to them rather than doing things themselves. But even in passivity fantasies– whether they are designed for men or for women– the subject is usually aware that something is being done to him or her.
Trevor really isn’t aware, in the origin-stories at least, that he’s in the midst of a community of women; neither Diana nor Hippolyta allows him to see that community. Later on, maybe he becomes an “honorary Amazon,” but that’s later. I’m not getting into the stuff about the virtues of feminization and so on; I’m just speaking to Christina W’s question as to whether the origin-story represents a male sex fantasy and to your response.
I think limiting a reading to what Steve knows seems kind of odd. The reader knows.