![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
1. I found myself agreeing in part with this assessment of The Josh Whedon Wonder Woman Script by the Mary Sue.
Except, I'm starting to think during various discussions with people about various topics...that we don't necessarily define words or concepts in the same way, and people have different perspectives based on background, etc.
For example? Years ago I had a lengthy discourse on the nature of the human soul on my journal, or rather it was a lengthy discourse on what the term soul actually meant. Because no one agreed or defined the story the same way.
Here, I think...it's possible not to see Whedon's script as either sexist or misogynistic and see that he may well be commenting on it and our societal view of it. Which he's been doing in various ways in his work for quite some time -- commenting on it. Whedon's work tends to have a meta-narrative element, which many people don't realize, and often a satirical element, that many take literally. He is familiar with the comics and history, also how our world handles powerful women -- so he wrote his script through the point of view of a modern everyday male encountering a woman who is more powerful in many ways...and how does he deal with that? A question Whedon asks himself.
While the writers of the movie, made it more about the woman and less how she's viewed by society.
2. There's a fascinating podcast on SmartBitches about branding and why we read what we read, what attracts us to a novel. It's promoting a story anthology that doesn't reveal who wrote which story until September. And each author writes something in a genre or on a topic they've never written before or are uncomfortable with in some way.
What's interesting is it is a challenge to their readers. Because with genre readers, people tend to read one author whose style they like, or one genre. They don't tend to jump or take risks. So by requesting the author's take risks, their reader's do as well -- both jump outside the comfort zone.
Also the writers mention how unrecognizable some of their fellow writers works are -- style wise, they've changed their style.
Some writers can do this, some can't. Like some actor's can do it, some can't. For example? Cary Grant was always playing well Cary Grant. But Dustin Hoffman is often unrecognizable. You always tend to know it is Elizabeth Taylor, but Meryl Streep disappears in her roles.
They mention a "No Name" series that Louisa May Alcott wrote for, and in 1911, there was a concert series that works were presented anonymously.
I think it is harder to be anonymous on the internet. Though in a way by adopting an pseudonym, we are doing that here, aren't we? I feel freer here under my internet name, than under my real one on Twitter or Facebook or Good Reads. Here...I can say and write things with less...worry, somehow.
Except, I'm starting to think during various discussions with people about various topics...that we don't necessarily define words or concepts in the same way, and people have different perspectives based on background, etc.
For example? Years ago I had a lengthy discourse on the nature of the human soul on my journal, or rather it was a lengthy discourse on what the term soul actually meant. Because no one agreed or defined the story the same way.
Here, I think...it's possible not to see Whedon's script as either sexist or misogynistic and see that he may well be commenting on it and our societal view of it. Which he's been doing in various ways in his work for quite some time -- commenting on it. Whedon's work tends to have a meta-narrative element, which many people don't realize, and often a satirical element, that many take literally. He is familiar with the comics and history, also how our world handles powerful women -- so he wrote his script through the point of view of a modern everyday male encountering a woman who is more powerful in many ways...and how does he deal with that? A question Whedon asks himself.
While the writers of the movie, made it more about the woman and less how she's viewed by society.
2. There's a fascinating podcast on SmartBitches about branding and why we read what we read, what attracts us to a novel. It's promoting a story anthology that doesn't reveal who wrote which story until September. And each author writes something in a genre or on a topic they've never written before or are uncomfortable with in some way.
What's interesting is it is a challenge to their readers. Because with genre readers, people tend to read one author whose style they like, or one genre. They don't tend to jump or take risks. So by requesting the author's take risks, their reader's do as well -- both jump outside the comfort zone.
Also the writers mention how unrecognizable some of their fellow writers works are -- style wise, they've changed their style.
Some writers can do this, some can't. Like some actor's can do it, some can't. For example? Cary Grant was always playing well Cary Grant. But Dustin Hoffman is often unrecognizable. You always tend to know it is Elizabeth Taylor, but Meryl Streep disappears in her roles.
They mention a "No Name" series that Louisa May Alcott wrote for, and in 1911, there was a concert series that works were presented anonymously.
I think it is harder to be anonymous on the internet. Though in a way by adopting an pseudonym, we are doing that here, aren't we? I feel freer here under my internet name, than under my real one on Twitter or Facebook or Good Reads. Here...I can say and write things with less...worry, somehow.
no subject
True. But. Not in others. (I've seen the negative reviews from the sexist fan faction who can't handle the movie.) Also it's very anti-War, which is a risky in some respects. The Wonder Woman movie unlike Whedon's movie had a different agenda...which was to discuss WAR and the pitfalls of it in a way that did not alienate their audience (action movie fans). And to well show how powerful women can be...again in a way that would not alienate the core audience.
Superhero films are expensive. So you can't really take the same risks that you can with other movies. Also they had two back to back critical failures in the franchise and needed a win desperately. People think Christopher Nolan took risks with the Batman franchise, but he really didn't. Actually none of them really have, most of the risks have been done on TV, and barely.
It's not a genre you can easily take risks in. The ones that do, are either low-budget or under the wire...oddly, I think the comics can take more risks than the movies can, due to the nature of the medium, it's audience, and marketing profile.
I liked the movie better than you did, but I couldn't get through Whedon's script. After twenty pages, I gave up. The dialogue disappointed me and go on my nerves. It felt juvenile and stilted. People don't talk like that. I'm picky about dialogue and had started reading it for the dialogue and found the dialogue to be horrifically bad. While the dialogue in the movie worked for me.
(Gets back to my earlier point about what we bring to the reading. People have rec'd books to me online that I can't make it through because I dislike the dialogue or writing style, yet it worked for them. One person stated that the writing in a book was clear and crisp, I found it flowery and meandering with juvenile dialogue, and thought, okay...are we reading the same book?
(shrugs). No, we just think and process information differently.)
no subject
And I well understand why everyone wanted to play it safe, I was just pointing out that it's what gave us the script (or at least, final story, since who knows what the script actually said) we got. Which is apparently not what Joss was writing, but rather a story that might have worked better in the comics medium with its much lower stakes.
I agree with you about the dialogue, I also found it really disappointing and, even more so, odd given that Whedon's always been praised for it. What bothered me about some of the criticism of the script though was that it seems cherry picked. For example, I saw a complaint about Diana being in chains and her captor being genderswitched to male. Yet this disassociated that scene from the storyline and also ignored how the very same things were done in other superhero films. I think there was a good reason why Joss wanted her opponent to be male, because he wanted a clear representation of patriarchy and its concerns at the center of the story.
Her capture and the removal of her powers was a way of making a god understand the helplessness and despair of the people around her (which is why Steve also calls her a tourist earlier in the script). So this was no different than Odin making Thor mortal and casting him to earth where he learns both humility and to value the lives of "the ants" (as Loki put it) who were supposed to be under his protection. Also, as much as people are enjoying citing the Superman origins of the movie's scene with Steve and Diana in the alley, apparently no one's remembering that in the Whedon script Diana allows herself to be de-powered in order to save Steve's life and those of his friends. This is not unlike how Kal-el allows his powers to be removed so that he can live a human life with Lois in Superman II. In that film Kal soon regrets his decision because it's suggested that Lois loves him for his powers rather than himself. In Whedon's script Diana ends that story arc with a moment that seemed drawn completely from the finale of Buffy S2 where she catches the sword and replies "Me."
I think Whedon's biggest failure in the script (and there were a bunch of problems with it) is that his Steve is nothing like the film's. Whedon's was cynical and stonewalling whereas the movie's was idealistic and desperate. Whedon's path for Diana was a Jesus allegory with her metaphorically dying for the sins of man and being reborn into her own identity, whereas in the film it is Steve who is the sacrificial figure.
I personally think that the movie's biggest fantasy was not a superpowered Amazon but a man like Steve who was nothing like an American man of his time would have been (and isn't even much like a man of our time would be). The very fact that religion, for example, is never brought up in that conversation in the boat seemed yet another clear effort to avoid controversy (especially given this would be a global film) even though the entire movie is about the fight among antiquated gods.
no subject