So, I’ve just finished watching Wonder Woman 1984 (WW84). First things first, I liked it. Gal Gadot is gorgeous as ever and I would really like Hans Zimmer to write the soundtrack to my life.
Anyhow, I thought it’d be interesting to explore the links between the movie and some of the things I’ve learned in university. (I studied fairytales and Sherlock Holmes. Good times.)
All this was kickstarted by a Forbes article I came across on the movie’s problematic morality. It raised the points that Wonder Woman and villain Cheetah’s violence seem to be judged differently, and it was pretty screwed up that the villain’s greatest evil was in wanting to change herself for the better.
I wrote an essay on violence in Disney films at one point, and the article made me want to revisit some of those ideas. A lot of the points in this post are based on the research I did for that essay. I don’t have all the answers. But I think it’s more fun to think about WW84’s treatment of the hero and the villain, rather than the physics of whether turning planes invisible can really make them drop off radars.
So this won’t be a movie review. WW84 just happens to be the latest superhero film I’ve watched so I’ll be referencing it when talking about these ideas. That said, spoilers ahead.
How to make a villain 101
Both superheroes and villains commit violence, but somehow, the good guys always seem to get away with it. Superhero and Disney films have creative ways of absolving the ‘good guys’ of evil, and getting the audience to cheer when terrible things happen to villains.
How do movie writers do this? I think there are two factors:
Consequence - does someone die or get seriously injured?
Intention - did the inflicter mean to injure or cause pain?
Let’s start with superhero films. In WW84, we see Barbara Minerva maliciously kicking a drunken man who’s harassed her twice. I think of this scene as the making of the villain. This is the point where she turns from innocent helpless nerd to a heartless vicious villain. How did the movie achieve this?
Consequence: Does someone get seriously injured? Oh yeah. The camera lingers on Creepy Guy’s bloody face and his groans of pain. He’s a slimeball, but no one likes to watch someone getting kicked while he’s down.
Intention: Barbara clearly revels in the violence in this scene. Her attacks aren’t for self-defense either, because from seeing Diana fight off this guy the first time, we know it doesn’t take more than a punch to knock him out.
The movie even throws in the homeless guy - whom Barbara has been exceedingly kind to - for good measure. When he doesn’t understand her actions anymore, we know her good streak is gone.
Bonus move: The movie sets up the moral standard for us first, then shows us how Cheetah fails to meet it. There’s an obvious contrast in how Diana and Barbara handled the harassment. Then, in one of the major fight scenes, Cheetah casually tosses White House security guards across a huge hall, while a weakened Wonder Woman leaps around to save them from severe injury. Again, the audience is forced to compare the hero and the villain’s choices. Of course, we side with the one who looks out for others even when she is weak.
And that’s how you create a villain. BOOM.
Obviously, Cheetah isn’t the only one who commits violence. Wonder Woman fights plenty of people too, but the movie is a lot more forgiving to her.
Consequence: The camera never lingers on the bad guys after Wonder Woman flings them away. Boom - fast cut - boom - graceful spin - boom - back bend plus front kick resulting in a sort of reverse arabesque! Even at the end, when Wonder Woman electrocutes Cheetah, she doesn’t die from it. So no harm is really done.
Besides, Wonder Woman always seems to be outnumbered. This makes her ultimate victory even more remarkable, but also makes each enemy more disposable. They don’t have an individual identity, so we feel less when she picks them away one by one. They’re more like rag dolls than humans, really.
Intention: Wonder Woman’s violence is all in the name of good. I know some superhero films have more complex characters where the lead sometimes has ambiguous intentions, and that adds to the depth of the story. But I think part of the charm of Wonder Woman is that she’s unfailingly good, and the audience can trust her intentions.
The assumption that heroes must be good is a whole other issue altogether that I won’t be able to unpack here. But if you’re looking for a more in-depth look at this topic, I think this is a pretty good article.
Disney violence
Disney films do this a lot too: heroes often get away with violence and bad things, and the audience cheers when villains meet their horrible ends. I think it’s even more interesting to look at Disney’s treatment of violence and justice, because these movies are meant to be for children. (What are we teaching our kids about violence gasps shocks horrors!)
Of course, most of Disney’s stories aren’t original tales by them. But we’re looking at how they chose to portray them in a children’s movie.
If you really think about it, Disney’s hero characters don’t always have the most heroic behaviour. Jack from Jack and the Beanstalk kills the giant and steals all his riches. The Beast is selfish and unkind, keeps Belle as a prisoner and throws said father in the dungeons. Flynn Ryder from Tangled is a money-minded thief.
Image by carleyjade13
But these tales easily forgive such behaviour in their heroes. Jack was desperately poor and in great physical danger from the giant. So when he escapes the dire situation and ends up helping his family, we celebrate with him.
The other two stories, Beauty and the Beast and Tangled, focus a lot more on the redemptive arc of the male leads. Both the Beast and Flynn change for the better after falling in love, and they both end up choosing to place their loved one above their own desires. The focus here is perhaps on the great power of love.
Villains, on the other hand, are punished in really gruesome ways. But let’s look at how violence and death in the movies, when inflicted on the bad guys, are made okay.
Snow White protects its good characters from committing evil acts. The Evil Queen is killed by lightning and falls off a cliff to her death. But none of the other characters were directly responsible for her death, so their goodness is left intact.
Other movies are a little more problematic. In Sleeping Beauty, Prince Philip thrusts a sword into Maleficent’s heart and kills her. But she was in the form of a giant dragon when it happened, effectively making her less human and more killable. The movie focuses more on the heroic act of killing a stereotypical monster than the act of murder.
In Tangled and The Princess and the Frog, both villains were punished according to the evil they committed. Mother Gothel disintegrates into dust when the immortal spell breaks. Dr Facilier is claimed by the voodoo spirits he enlists the help of. The films highlight the idea of justice here: if you commit evil, it will eventually turn on you.
That’s not to say we should all start rooting for villains. Just a cool nugget to hold onto the next time you watch a Disney or superhero film :)
‘The Greatest Sin’
Another point raised in the Forbes article is that the film condemns Barbara for wanting to change for the better. She wishes for more confidence and poise, but her morality obviously cannot handle the weight of the power and she becomes a monster instead.
I disagree on this point. I think Barbara’s problem isn’t her desire for or pursuit of change; it’s how she chooses to bring about change. The ‘how’ of attaining betterment matters, as the lengthy - albeit magnificent and thoroughly enjoyable - opening scene of the movie points out. Little Diana meets a hurdle in the road in a race, overcomes it with her smarts, but ultimately has her champion title taken away from her because she cheated. For a while we celebrate her ingenuity, but we are reminded that we are supposed to do things the right way.
Also, according to the movie, losing her niceness is sort of out of Barbara’s control - the magic stone takes away her niceness in exchange for the powers. Perhaps the point here is less that she wants to change, and more of what she’s willing to give up for the change.
The movie makes the point that good guys do things the proper way, though this may not be inherent to their nature. Diana had to struggle and learn this the painful way. WW84 suggests that heroes are made, not born - a message that would resonate a lot more with the mere mortals in the audience.
If Disney movies often tout the steadfast and overpowering nature of love, superhero movies expound on the infallibility of goodness. Perhaps that’s why we are so drawn to superheroes films. They embody our hope that no matter what brokenness we live through, goodness always wins. And they’ll do whatever it takes to bring home that message, even if it means excusing a bit of violence and gore along the way.
Biscuit on the side
For each post I’ll try to have a little section at the end where I list random recommendations! Sort of like a lil snack to go with your coffee.
Keeping in the vein of goodness and villainy, this post’s recommendation is Netflix’s A Series of Unfortunate Events. This is one of the most underrated series on Netflix of all time!! I can’t get over how good this is. I never read the books when I was younger because I was so annoyed at how they always urged readers to not read it. I was like, fine, if you don’t want me to read it that much, I won’t.
But it just works in TV form. It’s got everything - humour, word play, dramatic irony, amazing costumes and sets, breaking of the fourth wall, Neil Patrick Harris.
Plus, the show presents an interesting challenge to the notion that goodness always prevails.
Image from 9gag
Happy New Year all!
Some articles I referenced when writing this post:
This chapter by Robert M. Peaslee from the book Super/heroes: From Hercules to Superman
This Yale paper titled Once Upon the Bench: Rule Under the Fairy Tale, by Katherine J. Roberts
Comments