Wonder Woman – a review and an exposé about online backlash

At first I had no intention of posting this review. Basically I found that I couldn’t write anything about Wonder Woman that, to me, stuck out as impressive or unique. The cinematography, story and character development –I’ve seen it all before. To me, It didn’t merit a review.

But then I stumbled upon a review on Vulture. And, more importantly, I scrolled through the comment section -which was a sight to behold!

Now I really wanted to write a bit about the things I noticed in this comment section. -But to do that I have to explain where I stand on the Wonder Woman movie first-. So my review was revived.

So in a twofold article I’m going to quickly review Wonder Woman and then delve into the online backlash of Edelstein’s review.

The review

A child named Diana lives on a hidden island with her mother. She’s hiding there from the wrath of the God of war. Then one day war comes to find her and she must use all her training to put an end to the evilness of men.

Let’s get the obvious thing out of the way first – everybody mentions this so I guess I should too- to paraphrase the common consensus: “Wonder Woman is a feminist movie”. Which, I think, is a far too broad statement to do this movie justice!

Especially considering there isn’t even a clear consensus on what contemporary feminism is.

I prefer to proclaim Wonder Woman as a nice movie that uses the given of a female lead to inject some common sense into the characters. If you want to call that feminism.

Instead of sex-changing the more chauvinistic action movie blueprint  Wonder Woman balances everything out.

In Wonder Woman there are no male-equivalents of damsels in distress. And yes our female lead does make a mistake or two. In short: logic starts ruling the action cinema and that’s a breath of fresh air.

But, then again, we are still dealing with a heroine that runs around and saves the day in barely any clothing. So there’s a strange balance between a more sexist original character from the comics and this new portrayal.

I think the scale tips in favor of the latter but only barely.

The best DC universe movie –yet.

Wonder Woman is the first DC universe movie that is actually coherent. But still there are many clichés to be found. It’s like the moviemakers only changed the female empowerment part of the story instead of crafting a daring movie as a whole. To name the main thing I disliked: Basically all the stuff that takes place on the island.

Also: ‘Strange people on the island – let’s immediately kill them all’! Really? 

Greek mythology gets mangled. Characters die to fill a plot point. There’s a whole: ‘tell her already’-thing going on that makes you roll your eyes more than once. And, to be honest, if you haven’t grown accustomed to the slow-motion shots by the end of this segment you’re not going to. Basically, the first bit you really have to sit through before it gets interesting.

 

Then again, this movie is littered with historic inaccuracies. If you made it to the end you’ve pretty much given up about it.

But the minute Diane reaches London balls start rolling. There’s some nice humor. Some fun characters. (who –in true superhero-movie fashion- get nothing to do). Two intriguing villains who check all the standardized ‘bad-guy-boxes’. 

I mean, shooting a guy out of the blue? Dropping one gasmask for fun?

An overload of CGI to fill in the gaps and, of course, DC’s annoying habit of being far too serious for its own good. If you like that sort of thing.

And yet, through this all, it’s still a fun movie. The action scenes are fun. The quarrels between characters are fun. Oh and some evil gets destroyed somewhere along the way.

That’s the point I’m trying to make I guess: in this superhero-hype that has been going on for over a decade now, for me, fatigue has set in. I’m not blown away by Wonder Woman. I’ve seen it all before in Superman, Batman versus Superman and the many Marvel extravaganzas.

In the grand scheme of things Wonder Woman –for me- is a forgettable movie that will only be remembered as that ‘one movie that once broke the glass ceiling for female superheroes’.

I don’t want Wonder Woman to suffer that fate! But I have to admit; that’s all it is. A fun time at the movies, but easily forgotten.

The online backlash

I’ve wrote this review a few weeks ago. And it’s pretty obvious as you read it that I never had any intention of posting it. I excluded whole parts about the acting or the directing simply because (even though they were good enough), to me, couldn’t overcome my real issue with this movie: I’ve seen it all before (done better).

But then I read David Edelstein’s review on Vulture (link). Which was an interesting read in which the reviewer did highlight some of the things I agree with but in a style and choice of words that caused me to mutter: ‘that’s going to cause problems’.

Just to name a few: focusing on Gal Gadot’s body shape, calling a nation of people a ‘breed’, bringing sadomasochism to the table, using the words ‘limpness’ and ‘climax’ and various other things. Let me give you some highlights:

“The only grace note in the generally clunky Wonder Woman is its star, the five-foot-ten-inch Israeli actress and model Gal Gadot, who is somehow the perfect blend of superbabe-in-the-woods innocence and mouthiness.”

“(Israeli women are a breed unto themselves, which I say with both admiration and trepidation.)”

“While this Wonder Woman is still into ropes (Diana’s lasso both catches bad guys and squeezes the truth out of them), fans might be disappointed that there’s no trace of the comic’s well-documented S and M kinkiness.”

So scrolling down to the comments section I found what I expected: people attacking this reviewer with a ferociousness I have hardly ever witnessed.

 The first fifty posts or so were pretty spot on.

“This is a very superficial and condescending review. Mr. Edelstein seems to focus only on Ms. Gadot's physical features, and even dismisses Chris Pine's blue eyes! (…) Mr. Edelstein - please go back to the drawing board, while wearing your thinking cap. In the meantime, I'll write my own review and post it online!” - Caprese777

The reviewer got called on his ‘breed’-remark. People wondered why he used certain words. Why he focused on Gal Gadot’s body more than on Wonder Woman’s character arch or her acting. And what was he thinking talking about S and M! Whether right or wrong (opinions): all valid points.

But then, and this is where the ‘angry mob’ comes into play things changed from attacking to downright ‘finding reasons to destroy him’.

And this is where my field of interest comes in. I’m a sociologist at heart. I love seeing a group of people at work. Let’s just say that the comments section of Edelstein’s review was a goldmine.

Changing journalism?

This quote:

“@RightyTightyWhitey - Wish the original were up.  a) For instance, I recall him addressing the bondage-comments complaint by pointing out that that was part of the series, somewhat famously so, but not so famously that non-followers of comic-books would know.” -alesh

I don’t know if this person is right (I was too late for the party). I can’t check it. But if so he/she pointed out that the reviewer did change his review to prevent any further attacks. Which, in that case, makes journalism part of the public opinion instead of a personal opinion –which isn’t a good thing.

Trying to correct it.

When people are furiously angry with you, you can try your might to correct them but you will never win.

“@seomensnowlocke You, my friend, can't read.” - David_Edelstein

A comment which, of course, went down in flames.

“@David_Edelstein @seomensnowlocke And you, my friend, can't write. God, this was too easy. Stop writing with your d*ck, d*ck”. -therealblonde

“@David_Edelstein @seomensnowlocke We can read your creepy, misogynistic, racist screed all too well.” -  franiac

One can’t fight fire with a bucket full of arrogant reasoning. You just can’t. Though I must admit that Edelstein was right in this particular comment. But it was more like saving a rose in a bushfire.

Context

The next one is obvious: quoting merely one sentence out of context.

Everybody has had that experience that somebody only heard the last part of what you were saying and then they call you out on it without knowing the full picture. This happened a lot in these attacks.

At times I was wondering whether the commenter was willfully selecting something to serve his/her need to attack. More on this later.

"She was, we’re told, sculpted by her mother from clay and brought to life by Zeus. (I’d like to have seen that.)" That is all you need to read to understand this review. -mruptight

To explain: I would like to see a sculpture come to life as well. The selected quote, however, implies
a sexual motivation. 

I’m a man/ I’m a woman/ I’m not a whatever.

 “Let me mansplain it for you (I'm a guy).  THIS is why people are angry with your review and your *not*-apology.“ -ricdaw

“This is one of the most sexist reviews I have seen. I am not a woman, and I am not a liberal, but I am a father, a son and a brother.” –seomensnowlocke

Why tell me? People have a tendency to do this all the time.

Bringing in the reviewer’s personal life.

Then of course the personal life of the author is brought up and people start mocking that bit. Familymembers, everybody is fair game at that point.

Cutting down reasonable minds.

“Like some others, I created this account just to comment.  Unlike them, it was not out of outrage but absolute confusion over all the vitriol towards this review.  (…) And on and on.  I just don't get it.  Am I missing something vital?  

I do want to see the movie though - not to slobber, but to see the right actress alchemize with the right role and bring it to life (from clay or otherwise) even if it's not inside a perfect movie.  Geez people...” -fellow.movielover

A different opinion than the masses. And yes, some of the other minds agree with him on his/her questioning of the outrage. But in a world of storm a candle blows out easily. This comment was immediately lost in the hate. 

This has to be a troll right? 
Then, of course, the trolls come by at some point. A fascinating group of people – they don’t even know that they are.

Bringing in older reviews (out of context).

At one point during the attack the reviewer was called a pedophile for something he wrote about the (first!) Harry Potter-movie. I haven’t read that review – all I read was a quotation that could be interpreted as either a creep or a loving parent.

"The prebuscent Watson is absurdly alluring to those of us who always went for bossy girls; when she fixed her sharp brown eyes on Radcliffe... my heart did about five somersaults."

SICKENING!” - tracySteph

“Ewwwwwww. She was a CHILD.” -MetricTonOfLipgloss

However, pedophilia has nothing to do with the reviewer’s review of Wonder Woman. Why bring it up? Because at this time the comments weren’t about attacking the review but attacking the reviewer.

Grasping at straws.

When everything good has been said often people are left with a desire to outdo the former speaker. But all the good arguments have already been taken.

“and disfigured female scientist Dr. Maru (Elena Anaya).

Why not just, you know, "disfigured scientist?"”  -CalvinballPro

To explain: because female scientists were rare during the first World War!

Then what happened?

When, later on the reviewer wrote a whole article about explaining some of the ‘style choices’ he made. It was already too late. It was considered a non-apology. So no more debate of whether or not he was right or wrong – no the consensus had already been reached that he was wrong: “apologize!”

Truth be told his follow up article didn’t take the sting out about a lot of the ‘choices of words’ he used in the original review. Moreover, him having to bring in women to save him from the pro-female online backlash was a bit like that congressman remembering that one Afro-American teammate in high school as proof that he wasn’t a racist.

What to make of all this?

I tried – truly tried- to select my quotes rightfully. I might have failed – I can accept that. What I wanted to do in this article is to write down how an (digital) angry mob works.

It starts reasonably with people pointing out things that can be considered bad/sexist/rascist/whatever.

Then people start attacking the reviewer on his words and opinions.

Then people start attacking the reviewer on his personal life.

The trolls get involved just to escalate matters.

Then the people who want to be part start grasping at straws.

-Meanwhile- people trying to achieve an honest discussion are silenced.

And finally the reviewer gets ridiculed and (digitally) sentenced to death. 

So what did I want to point out with all this? Basically that ‘outrage’ creates a rather interesting stream of thought. Keep it up long enough and people aren’t open to reason or context anymore. They only, and only, think about destruction – and (in our current timeframe of ‘fifteen minutes of fame’) being the one to light the fuse.

It’s not much different than an angry mob in the middle ages. They never went away. They just use words instead of knives.