With Wonder Woman coming out on Friday all the talk will be about her place in Feminism's Pantheon of Heroes. The character was born specifically to become a feminist icon by William Moulton Marsten so much of that discussion will be entirely appropriate.
But I'm not interested in that. That's a given. What I'm looking forward to is something far more subtle. As a huge fan of DC Comics I'm looking at how they are positioning her versus the big men of the DC cinematic universe, Batman and Superman.
Patty Jenkins, the director, made it clear that Diana would not be morally conflicted. She would be driven by the desire to simply do the right thing. Now, what's interesting is that role in the DC Universe is normally filled by Superman.
It's Superman who is usually the big, blue, Boy Scout. And the DC films, starting with Zach Synder's Man of Steel, which I love, decided from the beginning to do something different with Superman and it ticked off the fan base to its core. Having Superman learn to grow into the responsibility of his power and not be a one-dimensional wish-fulfillment fantasy for us gave Clark's story a depth and resonance I, frankly, didn't think possible.
It was a brave decision which Snyder and company have paid for with scathing reviews and scorn from the fans. But, I think, it was the right decision. So, that when we get to Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice and Clark is confronted with Bruce Wayne's and Lex Luthor's psychosis it pushes him to become the Superman we thought we were expecting all along.
A flawed, tragic Superman. That's usually Batman's role.
With a resting bitch face.
So, for the brain trust at Warner Bros. to position her as the guileless, honest yet pragmatic hero, which the early reviews suggest, represents not only a role reversal from Superman's normal role but also of her feminist roots.
Modern feminist action heroes -- Sarah Connor, Rey, Jyn Erso, Ripley, Alice from Resident Evil, etc -- are all just men with great assets. It's my problem with feminism. It doesn't seek to glorify what's great about women as women, it's focused on forcing a narrative that women can be just as good as a man at everything, And they can't be. Just like men can't be as good as women at many things (and the most important thing).
In the context of movies, that means being as ruthless and sociopathic as male action heroes.
And that's nonsense.
Sexual dimorphism is not a social construct of the patriarchy. It's a survival trait built into our DNA through eons of trial and error.
By creating a version of Diana Prince that embodies the traits traditionally set aside for Superman, the filmmakers are serving women far better than the feminists do. It makes her a steward of humankind, embracing both her femininity and her heritage as a daughter of Zeus without hesitation.
I can't wait to see this movie.