Film Review: Network - 50th Anniversary

  "Network"

   *** 1\2 (out of ****)

Sidney Lumet's "Network" (1976) - which is celebrating its 50th anniversary - has not only remained relevant all of these decades later, it actually seems prescient, putting it in a class with other films such as "A Face in the Crowd" (1957) and the more modern "Game Change" (2012).

With a script by Paddy Chayefsky - a three time Academy Award winning writer and a noted playwright - the film is a deeply cynical look at American media and the ways in which it manipulates the American public - "I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to to take it anymore!" It is almost too perfect a coincidence that Oxford University's 2025 Word of the Year was rage bait - content deliberately meant to provoke anger or outrage.

Consider a Pew Research Center survey conducted in October 2025 that found that 42% of  Americans that frequently watch the news feel angry. An additional 39% feel sad or scared and only 14% feel hopeful. In a separate poll done by Gallop in 2025, 70% of respondents reported having "not very much" or no confidence at all in the media. The Partnership for Public Service found 47% of  Americans do not trust the government, in 2025.

This is the exact opposite of what  Americans were feeling back in 1976, when 72% of  Americans trusted the media. It has been said that the "most trusted man in America" during this time was evening news anchor  Walter Cronkite. However a new trend was also taking place at this time. It became commonly known as "supermarket journalism". This era saw the rise of publications such as The National Enquirer, Star, and Globe. Their concentration on Hollywood gossip and crime began to influence the mainstream media. The decade also saw the rise of corporate interest taking control of news divisions.

Nineteen seventy-six was the year of the Bicentennial. After the events of Vietnam, Watergate, and President Ford's decision to pardon his predecessor, Americans were losing faith in their government. In an effort to "heal the nation" - as Ford put it - the Bicentennial would provide an opportunity for Americans to come together and celebrate. Chayefsky and "Network" capture this anger and sense of hopelessness by channeling it through the film's most famous line - "I'm as mad as hell". But what is interesting about that line and the structure of "Network" is that we get the rebuttal first before hearing what it is reacting to. 

But that's exactly how today's social media and rage baiting works. Keep your audience "engaged" and "mad as hell" without exactly explaining to them why they are mad, who they should be mad at, and the ways in which systems work. The important thing is to feed and maintain the anger. What exactly aren't they taking anymore? And from whom aren't they taking it from? All that "mad as hell" line really is, is what it appears to be. People screaming out into the void. They have some fuzzy understanding about what they are mad at. In 1976 it was Vietnam, Nixon, and Watergate but what exactly could they do about it? Yes, you were against war but who do you blame for it? The President? Presidents changed but the war continued, so clearly that wasn't the answer. There was some other, more complex mechanism at work that expanded beyond an individual.

Therefore while some might assume "mad as hell" is centerpiece of "Network". I would disagree. The most important speech given in the film is delivered by Arthur Jensen (Ned Beatty), a corporate chairman, who preaches the word of globalization - "There is only one holistic system of systems, one vast and immane, interwoven, interacting, multivariate, multinational dominion of dollars." To me, "mad as hell" is a reaction to that philosophy only we hear it in reverse order. Jensen's speech verbalizes and gives specific articulation about what these people are "mad as hell" about. It is this mindset that "Network" is arguing against and what feels so relevant today. Is it the "greed is good" speech of the 1970s. The argument for the very thing in which Americans believe is wrong but is defended with such conviction, making the viewer believe they are hearing the Gospel truth on how the other side views the situation. The speech exemplifies what Chayefsky and Lumet were taking aim at.

Oddly, "Network" ends with a punchline that the film is about the first man to be killed for having lousy ratings. It was a concept critics of the day latched onto. In Pauline Kael's negative review of the film in the New Yorker, she writes this punchline is the "central gag" of the film and that it sounds like a good premise for a farce. I wouldn't call that last line a "central" gag of the film nor do I believe it is a proper summary of the film's critical insights and satire. It actually minimizes what the film is really about, which would have been equally as ironic and cynically humorous. It is the story of a newsman who gets fired for speaking the truth! 

That journalist is Howard Beale (Peter Finch), a respected veteran anchorman who has a breakdown at the end of an evening telecast and casually announces to viewers that he is going to blow his brains out on live television the following week. It creates a PR nightmare for the station and makes a joke out of Howard, as each competing news station leads their telecast with the Howard incident. Simultaneously we are introduced to a young female programmer, Diana Christensen (Faye Dunaway), who says the quiet part out loud during a meeting. The American public has turned sullen, she notes, due to the events of the day and "they want someone to articulate their rage for them." She urges her staff to find "angry shows". No more conventional programming, she asserts. Only counterculture and anti-establishment. This is the modern day equivalent of networks and news anchors defending themselves by saying they are simply giving the public what they want. Strangely, I have no missed calls from them asking for my input (I hate to spoil a perfectly good joke by explaining it but since some say sarcasm doesn't translate on the page, I am questioning, who represents "the public").

"Network" takes a turn when it implies Howard has been touched by divine providence and becomes a messenger of God's word. Howard informs us, he was chosen because he is on TV. That remark is within itself a biting commentary on the manipulation and power of television and its ability to create "manufactured prophets". Not all saw it that way back in 1976. Going back to Kael's review in the New Yorker, she faults Chayefsky for this by writing, "I'm not sure if he ever decided whether Howard Beale's epiphanies were the result of a nervous breakdown or were actually inspired by God." That kind of thinking is far too literal minded and misses the broader media critique. Kael, I believe, misinterprets Chayefsky's intention - musing if Beale was supposed to represent an idealize version of a "crusading mandarin journalist" - and goes on to write - within the same paragraph - that Finch was miscast. Regardless, it is after one of Howard's outburst on television that a light bulb goes off in Diana's head when she sees the show's rating the following day.

From that moment on "Network" kicks into high gear and exposes the ways in which a television network will attempt to profit by exploiting the genuine frustration of the American public by turning TV into a lively circus, as Howard Beale acts as something of a ringleader, now dubbed the "mad prophet of television", co-hosting a program featuring "truth tellers" and a psychic. His "mad as hell" grievance even becomes commercialized as the show's catchphrase, with the audience yelling it back at Howard, after he asks how do they feel. Almost like the well trained children in the peanut gallery on the Howdy Doody program, that would happily respond it's howdy doody time, when asked by Buffalo Bob what time is it?

The commercialize, profit driven mindset becomes a real seductress in "Network" with people willing to sell themselves out for the all mighty dollar. Howard Beale may be "mad as hell" but he'll happily take the network's paycheck. He could have refused the show but when informed of the concept, readily agrees. Or what about a left-wing activist, Laureen Hobbs (Marlene Warfield) who is courted by Diana to host her own show. Soon her Socialist group is arguing about production expenses and script approval. Everything is for sale. Even people's convictions. I'm reminded of the Groucho Marx quip, "these are my principles, if you don't like them, I have others."

Of all the characters in "Network", the two that are most representative of the profit mindset are Diana and Frank Hackett (Robert Duvall). It is the characterization of Diana that is most disappointing as it reinforces a stereotype that a successful woman must lose her femininity, as Diana explicitly states in one conversation with Max Schumacher (William  Holden) - who is supposed to represent the moral center, not the Beale character as Pauline Kael suggested. Diana reveals multiple men have referred to her as the worse lay they have ever had and that she has a masculine temperament when it comes to sex. All she is good at, she explains, is her job. By depicting the character this way, they are elevating Diana as one of the movie's villains. She is emotionally cold and demanding, which would give cause for some to unfortunately call her the "B" word.

Contrast that to the portrayal of Frank, who is a much more cut-throat character, firing people, such as Max, with such an intensity that it seems like an act of vengeance and not merely an issue of competency. Frank is the slimy character orchestrating behind the scenes to take over the network. Diana wants the financial reward of a hit television show, Frank wants company power and leadership. But when you add Arthur Jensen into the mix, you get three different motivations working together and sometimes against each other at the network. Jensen, to Frank and Diana's surprise, is less interested in ratings and more so in the manipulation and brainwashing Howard can deliver to his audience to explain Jensen's worldview. Having someone preach the gospel of corporatization, conditioning an audience to understand that messaging, is worth more than a number one rated program.  

One of the great visuals in "Network" is the conversation between Jensen and Howard Beale. Lumet and cinematographer Owen Roizman don't simply film the scene by use of interesting camera angles or spatial framing - though they do that - they visualize Jensen's "gospel of corporatization" by transforming the boardroom into a cathedral. The lights are dimmed as Jensen is positioned at the head of the conference table. It implies he is standing at an alter. Stained glass illuminates behind him. He delivers his speech with the same fiery passion as that of a pastor warning his congregation against the gates of hell. And pay attention to Howard's reaction to Jensen's words. It mirrors his earlier experience with divine providence. Howard is having a "religious conversion".

Chayefsky creates tension in "Network" by having the philosophies of Diana, Frank, and Jensen collide against Max. Max is an old-time news man. He worked with giants in the industry, like Edward R. Murrow. But that means practically nothing to the new faces moving in. That was yesterday, this is today. And today is about making money. Max wants the newsroom to have integrity but as Diana points out to him, the evening news covers sensational topics as well. All Max has now are his stories - we hear him tell the same story twice and both times it is told with equal conviction. There is also an element of longing for youth in Max and you can even make an argument that he represents masculine pride. Some critics have interpreted his romantic involvement with Diana as humanity versus the machine. But it can also represent youth versus age. Unfortunately, I find the scenes between these two to be the film's weakest. And that is primarily due to their dialogue. Their breakup scene was routinely criticized by critics in 1976. In his New York Times review, critic Vincent Canby described the scene as having a "dopey sentimentality that belongs in another movie." 

However, the film had its defenders as well. Chicago Sun-Times critic, Roger Ebert, awarded the film four stars and placed it among the best films of the year, as did his television co-host, Chicago Tribune movie critic, Gene Siskel. It won ten Academy Award nominations, eventually winning four of them, including for best supporting actor (Finch) and best screenplay (Chayefsky).

Interestingly, many critics and audiences - even those that admire the film - describe "Network" as a satire on media but Lumet and Chayefsky often stated the film was not a satire but rather "reportage". They believed "Network" was an honest depiction of what television and news media had become. In an interview from 2006, Lumet stated Chayefsky wanted him to direct his script because Chayefsky knew Lumet would understand "Network" wasn't a satire. Looking back on the film 50 years later, it feels like a natural progression to where we are today and hardly seems as outrageous as audiences in 1976 may have viewed it, to which Kael is a perfect example.

It is also not difficult to see the influence "Network" may have had on following films such as Martin  Scorsese's "The King of Comedy" (1982) or even David Cronenberg's "Videodrome" (1983), both of which were harsh critiques on the power of the television medium, celebrity, and viewers obsession. The difference is however those films and subsequent others, lean into the satire whereas "Network" has moments played straight. William Holden's performance is a perfect example. That is a real performance. A believable character.

Lumet, who never won a best director Oscar, would receive his second to last nomination in the category for "Network" but Lumet would continue to make films about lies and manipulation, ethics, and justice - "The Verdict" (1982), "Prince of the City" (1981), "Daniel" (1983) and "Deathtrap" (1982). "Network" easily ranks among Lumet's finest films.

Whether viewed as a satire or an honest exposè on the downward spirial of news media, "Network" remains a sharp and observant film. It has lost none of its edge these 50 years later, serving as a warning of what was to come. Packed with emotinally powerful performances, "Network" endures as one of the great films of the 1970s.

Film Review: Dance, Girl, Dance

  "Dance, Girl, Dance"

   *** 1\2 (out of ****)

Chorus girl movies. That's what I've always called them but that is not an identifiable genre. These were movies centered around working class female characters that were employed as chorus girls. They were attractive women with sharp tongues, a witty one-liner was their specialty. They flirted with starvation and not paying their rent, which led some of them on the prowl for a sugar daddy. Others were caught in a triangle between a wealthy man and a poor one. Which one would she choose? The movies were popular during the Great Depression and Warner Brothers released a good many of them under the Gold Digger series - made in 1929, 1933, and 1935 among others. The women had independence until they were hungry. Then it was every woman for herself!

"Dance, Girl, Dance" (1940) directed by Dorothy Arzner was a reaction to those movies and calls out what they merely implied. Here is a movie with feminist themes - denouncing the male gaze, highlighting the false work paths women must choose - but also a commentary on art and the distinction between high brow versus low brow, and the difference between art and entertainment.

The film follows two female dancers; Judy (Maureen O'Hara) and Bubbles (Lucille Ball). Judy is the "serious" dancer. She studies ballet. Bubbles has sex appeal and knows how to flaunt it. Men can possibly appreciate the technical skill involved in what Judy is doing but they want to watch Bubbles. These two characters will go on completely different career paths and their divide sets up the many conflicts in "Dance, Girl, Dance" - can you achieve success without losing respectability? Do men truly value art or a pair of pretty legs? By the end of "Dance, Girl, Dance" husband and wife screenwriters Tess Slesinger and Frank Davis will answer these questions in the most explosive way.

The plot gets a bit more complicated due to the appearance of two male characters. One man is a wealthy drunkard, Jimmy Harris (Louis Haywood). He carries a torch for his soon-to-be ex-wife, Elinor (Virginia Field) but is not above playing with the affections of Judy and Bubbles, depending upon his state of sobriety. The other man is Steve Adams (Ralph Bellamy), the manager of a ballet academy. 

Just as the women in the film represent larger themes, so too do the men signify something more.  One of the subjects of "Dance, Girl, Dance" is the male viewer and Jimmy and Steve are flip sides of the same coin. Unbeknownst to the women in the film, both Steve and Jimmy are wealthy. Steve may run a ballet academy and appears to be a proper gentleman but he is not above ogling at a pretty lady. He flirts with Judy the first time he sees her, not knowing she is a dancer. When he discovers that she is, he attends one of her performances with his dance instructor. The instructor compliments her footwork while Steve compliments her eyes. Judy is working at a Burlesque show, dancing ballet. The men aren't pleased by her fancy footwork and want to see something more risqué. But if Steve is such a gentleman, is attracted to Judy, and appreciates her dancing, why doesn't he defend her honor from the loud and overwhelming boos coming from the largely male audience?

That distinguishes Steve from Jimmy. Outwardly Jimmy is a vulgar drunk. Exactly the kind of man you'd think would yell insulting remarks at a pretty chorus girl dancing. And yet it is Jimmy that is always advocating for the value of these women. He is in the audience for one of the same performances Steve is but it is Jimmy who shouts at the other men to allow Judy to go on with her routine while Steve just sits by. Sure Steve doesn't make nasty remarks, which is worth something, but is he just as complicit by staying silent but noticing Judy's pretty eyes? The film however wants us to think of Steve as the "good guy" despite this.

Then there is the matter of how Judy and Bubbles respond to and treat men. Steve and Jimmy are attracted to Judy but Judy won't give Steve the time of day. On the surface, Steve is the nicer guy. Judy has never seen Steve drunk but always seems to meet Jimmy under those conditions. Jimmy blows hot and cold switching between Judy and Bubbles, and yet Judy is always willing to forgive him. Why is that? It's because Judy is attracted to Jimmy and not Steve. While "Dance, Girl, Dance" shows us a world where women are presented as viewing objects for the pleasure of men, sometimes, depending on the man, a woman likes to be looked at.

Arzner gets this concept across within the film's opening sequence. The film begins with the chorus girls singing and dancing to the Beer Barrel Polka but notice how Arzner and her cinematographer, Russell Metty, shoot the number. The women are wearing skirts that are above the knee with black stockings that meet them, so we really don't see any bare flesh. It has sex appeal but isn't vulgar. Importantly the camera doesn't linger on the girls or their legs. Arzner cuts away from the women to shots of the orchestra and then goes into an extreme long shot showing the women dancing but we see the back of the crowd's heads. The top of their heads serve as a dividing line so we only see the women from the waist up. The sequence isn't really about the dancing, since we don't see it, and its not really meant to emphasize sex appeal because the camera doesn't linger on the women, like a vulture going after it's prey. What happens however is as the women are dancing, they take off their top hats and point them towards the audiences. The top of their hats has a mirror which they use to put a spotlight on the men in the audience. Judy and Bubbles both notice Jimmy sitting down and give him a flirtatious smile. Bubbles takes it a step further and puts her mirror spotlight on him. Jimmy responds by blocking the mirror's reflection. That move bruises Bubble's ego, as we can see she feels rejected.

Lets compare this opening to "The Gay Divorcee" (1934), the first RKO musical to give Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers starring roles together. Here is how I described the opening sequence in my review of that film, "The opening number in the movie is called "Don't Let It Bother You". It is sung by an all-female chorus at a French nightclub. The ladies are wearing very short dresses so the viewer can see their legs and garter belts as they stand on a revolving stage. There is a counter top where they can rest their hands, which are dressed as miniature dolls, with their fingers acting as the doll's legs. After the chorus sings the song the lights go dim and the camera closes in on the dolls as they appear to be dancing. However, you will notice the camera doesn't go in for a close-up. Instead it is a long shot. The viewer can still perfectly see the ladies' legs in frame with the dolls providing a not so subtle hint of sex appeal. Certainly you could have filmed this sequence with a close-up of only the dolls in frame without showing the chorus girls and their legs." Do you see the difference between "The Gay Divorcee" and what  Arzner did?

That leads us to a famous speech at the end of "Dance, Girl, Dance". A character sternly tells the men in the audience how they, the female performers, are acutely aware of how men look at them while they dance. The character wants to men to know they aren't getting away with anything. But in this opening sequence we see how women can use the attention that is placed on them and flip it to their advantage, if they find a man that is attractive to them. The flirting can go both ways. It is a kind of dance if you will. This is why New Yorker critic Richard Brody wrote one of the film's themes is love versus lust. Although he didn't fully explain that thought, I interpret it as referring to the Judy / Jimmy / Steve triangle. Judy and Jimmy represent lust and Steve, the film wants us to believe, is love. He genuinely cares for Judy. That's why the final line of the film is given by a tearful woman, crying on a man's shoulder. She says it could have all been so easy. She complicated her life by following lust instead of love. 

While the speech near the end, calling out the male gaze, is memorable and gets all of the attention, there is another sequence that I find more egregious in the sexism it presents. The women are sent by their agent (Maria Ouspenskaya) to audition a hula routine for a club owner. The agent is concerned because there's a chance Bubbles won't make the audition on time. Without Bubbles, the agent knows the male club owner won't be interested. None of the other women have that same "it" factor that Bubbles has. But the women go anyway, while the club owner stares on in a zombie like trance. Completely uninterested. When Bubbles shows up late, the owner becomes alive and animated. His tongue practically falls out of his mouth as he watches Bubbles do a solo.

This sequence stood out to me because I wondered if the agent was a stand in for Arzner. Arzner understood how the male dominated world of moviemaking worked. What the expectations were. How women were supposed to be filmed. Sex sells. The agent doesn't seem to relish what she is doing. She clearly understands the women aren't being admired for their dancing ability but what can she do? She can't fight the system and the women need a job in order to eat. It creates a vicious cycle of women compromising themselves all for the satisfaction of male viewers. Watching this sequence I was reminded of something I read Amy Holden Jones, the director of the 80's horror slasher film "Slumber Party Massacre" (1982), said about the nude scenes in that movie. She knew she had to do it because that's what the client (the studio) wanted, so she figured she would just shoot them early to get them over with, and get on with the picture. It's sad to think this is what women have had to put up with for years to make it in the entertainment industry. To Jones' credit, she was able to create a social commentary even within those nude scenes.

Whereas the famous male gaze speech near the end, double-crosses itself. Critics, with the singular focus of only emphasizing the feminist themes in the film, neglect to describe what comes after the speech. After the speech is given, "Dance, Girl, Dance" goes for humor as two women begin fighting with each other on the stage. The woman making the speech wanted to end things on a high note, demonstrating her moral superiority over the audience. Then she gets knocked down, both literally and fugitively. On one hand that is the essence of comedy, you make a serious statement and then do the unexpected and go for the punchline. But as the marvelous  Alicia Malone articulates in her wonderful book, The Female Gaze, "in the end, the women denigrate themselves for entertainment, just as the audience wanted." 

However the brilliant critic Molly Haskell wrote in her most famous book From Reverence to Rape that the final exchange of the two women, now in court, after their fight is "most beautiful" because to Haskell it reveals that the women did not fight over a man but instead over art and convictions. To me, the real answer is a mixture of both, though I understand Haskell's observation. And Haskell even goes as far as to describe the film as Arzner's  "most explicitly feminist film".

"Dance, Girl, Dance" may be Arzner's most accessible and popular film and ironically she wasn't intended to be the director of the film. Originally the film was to be directed by Roy Del Ruth, a filmmaker who got his start with Mack Sennett and directed some notable musicals and comedies - "Kid Millions" (1934)  with Eddie Cantor, and "Du Barry Was  A  Lady" (1943), an adaption of a Cole Porter Broadway musical, that oddly removed nearly all of his songs but also featured Lucille Ball. Reports suggest Del Ruth struggled with "Dance, Girl, Dance" which was based on a story by Vicki Baum, of "Grand Hotel" (1932) fame. Del Ruth was fired by the producer and replaced by Arzner, who had no experience directing musicals. That didn't stop Arzner however from reshooting everything Del Ruth had done and making her own changes to the story.

One of the significant changes Arzner made was changing the gender of the agent character from male to female. This adds to the emotional complexity of the hula audition scene, and how sad it is to see a woman having to go against her instincts - morally and artistically - and have her girls "sell out". The change also creates a tender mentor / student dynamic, highlighting the importance of female influence on younger women.

Arzner is often credited as "the only woman director of the Golden Age". It sounds impressive (or maddening, depending on your perspective) but it's not exactly accurate. Wanda Tuchock, for example, wrote and directed "Finishing School" (1934). Grace Elliott directed documentaries and in the U.K. there was Elinor Glyn and Jacqueline Logan. A more accurate description would be, Arzner was the only American female director, making fictional feature films in Hollywood. Some of her notable films include "Merrily We Go To Hell" (1932), a pre-code gem starring Sylvia Sidney, that implies an open marriage. There was also "The Bride Wore Red" (1937) with Joan Crawford, "Craig's Wife" (1936) with Rosalind Russell as a domineering, ambitious woman, and finally her directorial debut film, "Fashions for Women" (1927). And in addition to all of this, Arzner is also credited with having invented the boom mike, on the set of her film "The Wild Party" (1929), starring "It" girl, Clara Bow.

I'd also like to take a moment and comment on Lucille Ball and her performance. Today Ball may be the best known member of the cast and why any modern viewers would choose to see this film. She had an energy that really carried the film. It is the kind of showy performance that captures your attention and steals the film, despite some good work by Maureen O' Hara. Ball wasn't exactly an unknown by the time she appeared in "Dance, Girl, Dance", as some have implied. She got her start as a chorus girl in M-G-M musicals, and credited Eddie Cantor for giving her a break in his delightful comedy, "Roman Scandals" (1933). By the time she appeared in this film she had small roles in a couple of Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers musicals (Ball and Rogers were friends), a Three Stooges comedy, a Marx Brothers comedy, and had some success in a series of "Annabel" comedies. Admittedly it was after this role, the better and more memorable ones followed. Here however Ball is playing a street smart, sassy girl, as she had played in her previous roles. I never quite felt that persona suited her. Eve Arden, yes! But Ball seemed too glamorous for these kind of roles.  

"Dance, Girl, Dance" is one of Arzner's best films for the way it explores the female themes her work often did. This would prove to be her final film as director, although she is credited as the director of "First Comes Courage" (1943), it is known she was replaced by the Hungarian director Charles Vidor, after falling ill with pneumonia. Later in life she became a professor at UCLA, where one of her students was Francis Ford Coppola.

Film Review: Wonder Woman

 "Wonder Woman"

  *** 1\2 (out of ****)

Over my past twenty-five years of writing film criticism, I have been a consistent voice stating my belief that films are a window into our society. Art is not created in a vacuum, it is a reaction, a response to the world around it.

It was seven months after the contentious 2016 presidential election and five months after Donald Trump had been sworn into office. His victory brought about what became known as "The Resistance" - political opposition led predominately by women. Democrats blamed the loss of their party's nominee, Hilary Clinton, on sexism, stating the country (sadly) wasn't ready for its first female president.

Then came "Wonder Woman" (2017), a film about a female superhero out to save the world. The film even went as far as to argue, the world didn't deserve her. The film's director, Patty Jenkins - the first woman to direct a major superhero film - had said it wasn't her intention to make a film with political undertones but MANY interpreted the film as a reaction to the 2016 election and Donald Trump. In fact, Hilary Clinton herself praised the film calling it "as inspirational as I'd suspected a movie about a strong, powerful woman in a fight to save the world from international disaster would be."  Jenkins also said she didn't approach "Wonder Woman" focusing on its feminist themes because in her words, "I have always wanted to be last-wave feminism, where you're so feminist, you're not thinking about it at all." So Jenkins may not be the best person to comment on the film's themes and interpretations, oddly enough. 

"Wonder Woman" is a film with three core objectives; be a superhero origin story, a thrilling action movie, and a piece of feminist storytelling, highlighting the superiority of women.

Of the film's three objectives, one and two are always used in service of the third - the superiority of women - which remains the constant running theme throughout the film. Lets begin with how we are introduced to our hero, Diana. She is a young girl (Lilly Aspell) living in a world called Themyscira. It is a land only populated by female, Amazonian warriors. The young girl looks at the women engaging in fierce combat training, led by her aunt, Antiope (Robin Wright). As the young Diana watches them, she begins to mimics their actions. This is an old conventional plot mechanic, generally used to indicate how the interest of a child informs who they become as an adult (i.e. a child who always plays cops because they want to grow up and become one). But watching this sequence in "Wonder Woman" I became struck by the idea of representation. When young girls grow up seeing women display strength and power, they too want to grow up that way.

And so it is with Diana but her mother, Hippolyta (Connie Nielsen) objects. Hippolyta wants Diana to have a normal childhood and not preoccupy herself with becoming a warrior, especially when there is peace and no known threat to their land. Antiope on the other hand sees no harm in training Diana, so she may be at least able to defend herself. Eventually the mother relents after Diana disobeys her mother's orders and secretly trains with her aunt. The two women also whisper of a secret they have kept from Diana about her identity.

That secret will come into focus after Diana (now played by Gal Gadot) notices an unusual object to her eyes, an airplane. Unbeknownst to her it is being flown by Steve Trevor (Chris Pine), a British solider who has gotten lost and accidentally entered her world. He is trying to deliver important papers back to army generals but German planes are following him.

The Amazonian women are caught off-guard and construe the actions of these unknown men as a threat against their land. The women are armed with bows and arrows as the Germans have guns. The bows and arrows are no match for the guns and my impression was this is the first time Diana has seen someone die, as she looks on with an expression of awe and sadness. What I also noticed in this sequence was how Jenkins and cinematographer Matthew Jensen film the Amazonian's actions in slow-motion. It wasn't to glorify violence, which was the critique often aimed at filmmaker Sam Peckinpah, for using the same technique. Instead I felt its purpose was to make every action the Amazonian's make seem meaningful and majestic, to display their skill and superiority. By contrast the German fighters never have the privilege of being filmed in this manner. 

The introduction of Steve presents the opening for the film to delve deeper into one of its themes, how men react to powerful, superior women. Steve may be a brave World War 1 solider, going on death defying missions but in the world of  "Wonder Woman" he is no match for the bravery, strength, and leadership of Diana. She initially saves Steve after his plane crash lands into a body of water. Their first real interaction however is when Diana goes to speak to him, as he is just about to get out of a bath. He stands there naked when she approaches. She asks if he is an average man, he replies he is above average. Yes, it is a penis joke but then Diana becomes intrigued by the presence of Steve's watch. After Steve explains it to her as something that tells him when it is time to eat or work, Diana replies how strange it is for men to allow something so tiny to control them. Yes, it is another penis joke but it is a penis joke plus commentary, based on the belief all men think with their small head. It is the beginning of how "Wonder Woman" elevates women by using action, humor, and symbolism.

Steve explains to Diana that he must return to London to report to the generals what he has discovered within those papers. Diana wants to follow him because she believes it is Ares, the God of War, that is responsible for starting the world war. If she can find him and kill him, the war will be over. Based on Steve's stories, Diana is convinced Ares has taken the form of a man named Ludendorff (Danny Huston). The two make an agreement that if Diana helps Steve return to London, he will lead her to Ares.

Despite Steve's commitment to assist Diana find Ares, his body language and tone suggest something else. We suspect Steve doesn't really believe Diana's story but simply agrees to her terms if it means he can get back to London. In Steve's mind he has a moral obligation to get those papers in the rights hands, and if it means lying or manipulating someone in order to achieve his goal, so be it. But this also sets forth an internal struggle in Steve. Does he or doesn't he believe Diana is from another world or is she just an extremely beautiful woman with some strange ideas? Once the two arrive in London, Jenkins and "Wonder Woman" heighten Steve's conflict with acknowledging Diana's superiority.

The two will arrive to London by way of a small boat. Steve has prepared a spot for Diana to rest. It is a sign of his chivalry but also an indication that he views Diana as an everyday woman. Diana suggest the two lay down together as Steve hasn't given himself a comfortable spot to rest. Diana is unfamiliar with men and has a childlike innocence to her. Steve reluctantly agrees to sleep next to her and manages to incorporate sex into their conversation. Diana confesses that she is aware of matters of the flesh and once read a twelve volume book on the subject. Trying to be flirtatious, Steve jokes it is too bad she didn't bring one of the books with her. Diana says Steve wouldn't like the books because they come to the conclusion, while men are necessary for reproduction, they are not necessary for pleasure. In two back to back sequences, Diana takes three jabs at manhood. We laugh because we understand the implication that a woman can masturbate and use sex toys. Those have long been viewed as symbols of a woman's autonomy. But notice what Steve doesn't do. He doesn't have hurt feelings and say, "oh yeah, well, the same goes for men". Technically that would be true but he doesn't say that because that's not the message "Wonder Woman" wants to leave us with. It wants Diana's joke to be the last word on the subject. 

Once the pair arrives in London, "Wonder Woman" makes some more obvious social commentary on gender issues and how this relates to the dynamic between Steve and Diana. One of the first things Steve wants to do is get Diana out of, what I will call her Wonder Woman costume, and into something more suitable for a woman and for their environment. From this point onward, Steve will often comment / complain that Diana sticks out too much. This fish out of water - think "Pretty Woman" (1990) - sequence of trying to find a wardrobe for Diana is played for laughs on the surface but underneath it is a commentary on gender roles and expectations. Diana is not dressed appropriately. Not for London society and not for how a woman is supposed to look. So Diana tries on various outfits, none of which she finds comfortable because they will restrict her ability to fight. At this point she thinks this will be her uniform on the battlefield, when she fights Ares.

What follows is a scene I personally find to be disgusting in its blatant sexism, overtly demonstrating how men are unwilling to recognize the intelligence of woman. Steve and Diana make their way to a closed door council meeting. Steve wants Diana to stay outside, while he goes to hand deliver the papers. Diana doesn't listen and follows Steve inside. Men stop what they are doing and stare in utter disbelief at the presence of Diana. By the time Steve realizes Diana has followed him and the reaction she has caused, he has a facial expression suggesting he is mortified and tries his best to scoot her out of the room. When someone finally does take a look at the papers, it is in a different language and no one seems to be able to translate it. No one that is except for Diana, who is being asked to leave the room. Steve stands in the background and when asked who this woman is, says she is his secretary. A colonel is the one - note not Steve - to meekly suggest they allow Diana to look at the papers and read it.

Jenkins and the film are creating a deliberate contrast here between the WW 1 time period, presumably circa 1918, and the world of Themyscira. In London there are rooms women are not allowed to enter. Women are not allowed to vote. They most certainly are not soldiers and are not expected to be able to translate foreign languages. Whereas in Diana's world, women are respected. They are leaders and warriors. This ends up putting Steve in an awkward position and made me question, is Steve embarrassed for Diana or embarrassed by her? Steve is a product of his times but after visiting Diana's world and seeing those Amazonian women did it make him see his world differently? Or is he slightly annoyed and uncomfortable by Diana's persistence to interject herself in spaces not allowed for women? Which leads to another question, does Steve believe Diana is not a mere mortal? 

Prior to the council scene, Steve and Diana are attacked by German spies. Steve, forever the protector, wants Diana to stand behind him. One of the men pulls out a gun and shoots at them but Diana blocks the bullet and proceeds to beat up all of the men. Given that he has seen Themyscira and has now witnessed a small sample of Diana's strength you'd think he'd start to view Diana differently but he doesn't. Steve is in a constant state of disbelief, unsure of himself, always wanting to keep Diana out of harm's way despite what he sees she can accomplish with his own eyes. It's not that Steve is a bad person, he is just a product of the times and "conditioned" by society to view women a particular way. His mind probably can't comprehend what he is seeing Diana do and either ignores it or tries to find some way to justify it.

This leads to one of the most pivot scenes, one that comes after Diana has criticized the men of the council for lacking courage and morals - yet another attack on men and their manhood. Diana and Steve have arrived at what is known as No Man's Land, an area of land in-between the British and German trenches. Diana believes something must be done to help but Steve is laser focused on his mission. Not to mention it would be considered suicide to try and go towards the German trenches. Once again however Diana calls out what she deems to be a lack of courage and morals and runs towards the Germans. It is only under her leadership that the soldiers succeed as they follow behind her.

Although the credited screenwriter for "Wonder Woman" was Allan Heinberg, one of the people that worked on the story was Zack Snyder, which makes a lot of sense. Within this period, two of the DC movies Snyder wrote and directed were "Batman v Superman" (2016) and "Justice League" (2017). Both of those movies turned these superheroes into mythical creatures and grappled with ideas of man versus God ("Batman v Superman") and what happens to a world that doesn't appreciate these Gods / Mythical Creatures ("Justice League"). "Wonder Woman" has a bit of both of those concepts. It is said in the film mankind doesn't deserve Wonder Woman because humans are prone to war and violence. In such a world, Diana's moral clarity and courage are not appreciated. 

This is partially seen in the relationship between Steve and Diana. Steve is a soldier with a narrow mindset and a single objective. He may not mean to be dismissive of Diana and her ideas but he comes off that way. He grapples with who she really is and never entertains the idea the person behind the war is Ares. This is delusional fantasy talk to him. Why he keeps Diana around can be attributed to her beauty. Steve is the more "realistic", "world weary" of the two. He understands how the world actually is and all of its complexities. Diana is beautiful but innocent. Her sincerity may be admirable but she simply doesn't understand the ways of the world. That may unfortunately be interpreted by viewers as a woman can't handle complex matters. In the world of the film, that is what I believe Steve kind of, sort of thinks.

By acknowledging that it makes me wonder why did critics interpret this movie as being about equality, rather than female superiority? I believe the reason had to do with something beyond the film and more so with society. It might sound a little simplistic and silly but it's not nice or socially polite to say one gender is superior to the other. Men already think feminism is anti-men and the idea of saying females are superior is a loaded statement, perhaps capable of upsetting people. But I am only responding to what is in the film. I don't bow my head in servitude when I see women on a sidewalk or remind men repeatedly that females are superior. I am reacting to and interpreting what I see on-screen. For if "Wonder Woman" was truly about equality, why didn't Steve stand up for Diana at the council meeting and tell everyone to keep quiet while she speaks? If the film was really about equality, why not have Steve and Diana run side by side through No Man's Land? That would have been a much more powerful image. If the film was about equality, why doesn't Steve ever entertain the idea that Diana may be right about Ares? If I were the screenwriter, I would have added some of that into the story, if I wanted it to be about equality. Instead I see a pattern of elevating women above men.

One thing that I deeply appreciate about "Wonder Woman" is how it allows the character to be a true superhero. Compare "Wonder Woman" to "Supergirl" (1984). "Supergirl", which was one of the first female led superhero movies, treated the idea of a female superhero as a novelty. It accidentally (?) minimized the character by presenting her as a teenager. In one scene she is about to fight the villain but is given flowers by a male character and actually stops to admire the flowers! Hey, what happened to defending Earth? Hello! "Wonder Woman" doesn't engage in these kind of stereotypes. It treats Wonder Woman as a serious character. My one concern however is Diana falls in love with Steve and that serves as a motivating factory for her. My fear is audiences will interpret that as a "weakness" and shrug it off as "girls being girls" or some variation of that. I wish a desire to simply fight for justice would have been enough. But I suppose one could make the same case about Superman and Lois Lane. He loves Lois and she can be interpreted as his "weakness".

Prior to the release of "Wonder Woman", the superhero genre belonged to Marvel with its Spider-Man, X-Men, and Avengers movies. Critics gobbled those movies up. They even appeared on some year-end best lists. But DC struggled for critic and public approval. Snyder's movies were arguably more ambitious than anything Marvel did but were perceived to be too dark and moody. "Wonder Woman" however was a game changer. It opened to generally positive reviews. Former Chicago Tribune critic, Michael Phillips, wrote the film was "formidable and almost entirely successful bid to make the DC Comics movies a little less lame." While Time critic Stephanie Zacharek commented, "Wonder Woman points a way forward toward the possibility of better blockbusters."

To be honest, a lot of that praise was because "Wonder Woman" did things the Marvel way, by use of humor, pop culture references, and action choreography. However director Patty Jenkins proved what a versatile talent she is, going from her feature-length directorial debut, "Monster" (2003), the story of serial killer Aileen Wuornos, to a major Hollywood blockbuster like "Wonder Woman". It's a bit of a stretch but both of these films are about love and humanity. In their own ways they reinterpret our ideas of certain preconceived notions - murderers and superheroes.

We also have to give credit to Gal Gadot. Neither she nor Jenkins go down the campy route, a la "Supergirl". Gadot provides the character with a sense of humanity, innocence, strength, and curiosity. This is a fully functional character that just so happens to walk around with lasso that forces people to tell the truth and wears a skimpy skirt. In the world of superhero performances, Gadot's is one of my personal favorites.

Which is a remarkable statement coming from me. Time and time again I have written that I am the wrong audience for these kind of movies. I don't like the superhero genre but "Wonder Woman" feels different to me. It is sharper and equally or more aware than some of the better movies of this genre. It might mean more if I was a fan of the genre but "Wonder Woman" was one of the best superhero movies of the past fifteen years.

"Wonder Woman" is a beautiful looking film with a beautiful message on the superiority of females. It placed Jenkins as one of the more exciting filmmakers working today and gave Gadot an opportunity to deliver a real performance. Unfortunately, I wasn't as impressed with the sequel, "Wonder Woman 1984" (2020) but this original film was a true standout of the genre.