(no subject)
Jun. 16th, 2017 10:00 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkat1. 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
Date: 2017-06-17 07:32 am (UTC)And quite right too. It's *her* story. Making it all about a man, and how he copes, is just one more way of stealing women's stories from out under them. *cheers for the film that got made*
no subject
Date: 2017-06-17 12:38 pm (UTC)From what I read of Whedon's script, we're in his point of view and Diana's point of view, and what Whedon does is to a degree the same thing he was trying to do, possibly to better avail on Buffy, Dollhouse, and various other projects. Which is show the powerful woman, and show how others handle her. Granted the difficulty with trying to do that -- is it can inadvertently become the story of those defining the superhero or woman. It's a delicate balancing act, and hard to pull off. If done poorly it can end up looking as it is the story of the observer, and not the hero. Weirdly, I've seen this done with straight superhero films and television serials, where the hero is male, and we're in the view of their worshipper or the ordinary man/woman looking at them and experiencing them. In other words, the audience's stand-in. (See for example -- Doctor Who, where we are in the POV of his companion. OR various Buffy episodes, such as Superstar or Storyteller).
So, it's not necessarily meant to be what you think.
The one criticism that I've seen of Jenkins film, and it is apt, is that the men and people around her are almost too accepting of Wonder Woman's powers, there's relatively little negative reaction to them. And that's just naive and unrealistic, when you consider women were not permitted to fight in the WAR and considered the "weaker sex" based on physical capabilities. The writer's chose to make this humorous in the film -- when she displays power, the men react with jokes or it's funny -- shown as absurd. Which is an interesting choice...but this film wasn't about sexism or necessarily "power" but about war.
Whedon's film in stark contrast was solely about sexism and power dynamics, and how difficult it is to be a powerful woman in a world ostensibly ruled by men and has been ruled by a male dominated system for over 2000 years. Unfortunately, in attempting to do this -- he made the same mistakes he did in the Avengers, and other things he's done, which is just reinforce the bias and views he's against. It takes a deft hand to do this well. Such as the film "That Obscure Object of Desire" or "Crazy Ex-Girl-Friend" who both deftly addressed it from different perspectives.
I mean there are two ways you can go here -- you can do the story of a powerful woman, and focus on her issues, and ignore the sexism/misogyny for the most part, although it is definitely in the film. The gender bias is shown, but less stridently. OR focus only on the gender bias and from the perspective of those with the bias, taking the risk of re-enforcing the very views and bias you are stridently against. I think when it comes to Wonder Woman and the superhero genre, it's wiser to go with the first approach, which has been proven here. Because the problem with doing what Whedon attempted...is well, he's not very good at it for one thing (although I know enough about him to think his heart was in the right place), and unfortunately it just echoes what came before. In a way he did it better already in television and I honestly think it is being done better on television with shows such as Scandal then it can really be done right now in film.
no subject
Date: 2017-06-17 02:18 pm (UTC)