My knowledge of Wonder Woman (and by extension, comic
books) is severely limited. This is partly due to my overall lack of interest
in them both now as well as during my childhood. Although I would occasionally dress
up as Spiderman, Zorro and a few times as a cowboy, I did not find having superpowers
or being invincible particularly appealing. My childhood ideals ranged from Russian
writers like Tolstoy and Dostoevsky, Scandinavian philosophers and filmmakers
like Kierkegaard and Bergman to French directors like François Truffaut and Eric
Rohmer all of whom were making waves in cinema, literature, and philosophy. There
was neither room nor interest for the likes of Star Wars or Lord of
the Rings. I am neither proud nor ashamed of my lack of knowledge regarding
comics and superheroes but just state it as a case and matter of fact.
Since then, and more so in recent times, I have tried
to fill some of my gaps – while others are still sticking out like a sore, if
not broken thumb – and yet, Wonder Woman has been the most enigmatic and
mysterious character to me. Especially considering that she is held up and
lifted as an emblem of the current strand of modern feminism, I wanted to know
more about her by getting to know a bit more about her background.
As a result, a night before this year’s celebration of
International Women’s Day, I decided to watch Angela Robinson’s movie Professor
Marston and the Wonder Women available on Netflix. I chose to watch it
for two reasons: one, it was made (written and directed) by a woman, and secondly,
as I was curious about the background and origin story of Wonder Woman, it fit
my purposes like a glove since it could potentially conceal my “wounded thumb.”
All I knew about this character was limited to Patty Jenkins’ movie version,
which, to be honest and hype withstanding, I found rather underwhelming both in
terms of story as well as filmmaking.
In contrast, Robinson’s film was impressive,
especially considering that this young aspiring filmmaker has not made previous
feature films before. The acting was also quite good, and there were evident
moments and pieces of dialogue that made it clear that the film was not only
made by a woman but that it was meant to prop up and support the
feminist movement and ideology. Case in point, it starts off with a strong
female character, Elizabeth Marston, who initially appears to be more
knowledgeable and capable than her husband, the eponymous professor actively
teaching at Harvard.
She should be the one to receive a doctorate, but the
university refuses to hand them out to talented and deserving women and are
even less likely to hire females and give them a permanent teaching post at the
time. Elizabeth also seems to be the one in charge of the relationship, wearing
the proverbial pants in the marriage. As they are looking for an assistant to
help them with research of the newly invented lie detector, the professor’s evidently
lust-tinged eyes fall on a gorgeous blond student of his.
His wife is not so thrilled at the beginning and
perceptively and intuitively calls him out on this. He defends himself, but
only feebly so. Then she agrees and relents, and this gives us the impression
that they are in an unorthodox open marriage, meaning each member has the freedom
and possibility of dating others outside of the relationship. Yet in a
subsequent scene and after she has just declared to her husband that she does
not care, she bluntly, blatantly and cruelly confronts the young female student
Olive telling her not to even think of having sex with her husband. This
disconcerts the sensitive student, and she runs out crying.
This was a first instant where words did not
correspond with actions, and the gap and hypocrisy go deeper in another scene. During
an unintentionally awry discussion regarding Freud’s term of penis envy, Elizabeth
takes this literally and claims that women have no desire of having such a
member for themselves. Professor Marston needs to step in to correct his wife
that Freud’s statement was not meant as a literal thing but rather as a
symbolic quest for power and dominance.
The fact that Elizabeth as a trained psychologist
would confuse this and see Freud’s idea merely as women wanting to have and
physically acquire the male organ borders on a surprising and unexpected level
of ignorance given her position and standing. This put a significant dent into
and creates doubts about her supposed and self-proclaimed claim of brilliance
and of being ready to receive a doctorate. Other incidents and situations in
later scenes of the movie would only serve to support and confirm this
suspicion.
Although it may look otherwise, at least at first sight,
it is really the man, the professor who is in control of the situation and the
relationship. He has received help from his wife to fine-tune the lie detector,
and the women, or at least one of them, may have inspired him to come up with
the character of Wonder Woman, but most noteworthy, he is the only person out
of the three to have accomplished something in his life.
Olive basically resigns herself to becoming a live-in
domestic partner / homemaker who would engage in regular threesomes and sexual
acts of bondage, while his wife, despite having so much potential, ends up as a
stenographer to support this unorthodox family. Professor Marston may have lost
his position at Harvard due to his extracurricular activities in his private
life, but in the film, it is he who comes up with the Wonder Woman idea. In
fact, not only is it another man, the creator of Superman, who helps him
realize this dream, but his own wife discourages him from the get-go. When he
tells her of his initiative of making a feminine comic superhero, she scoffs at
him and dismisses his idea, and given perfect hindsight, we can all realize how
wrong she is.
But I have two concerns here that the movie does not demonstrate
or delve into. One is about the abuse of authority; the second is the
dubitative message and legacy given to young and impressionable children via
the character and actions of Wonder Woman. As said before, Professor Marston constantly
ends up getting his own way, and he might have sneakily managed to follow and
exercise his own theory of DISC theory, which stands for dominance, inducement,
submission, and compliance.
He effectively uses his theory both on his wife as
well as his new-found mistress, and none of them seem to fully realize this as
they merely buy into and comply with his schemes and suggestions. He may appear
submissive and compliant to their desires, but it is he who induces
and dominates the two women that are part of his life. I am not so sure that
the filmmaker realizes these tendencies herself.
Be it as it may, in the end both accept and encourage
this three-way relationship. Yet the married couple of psychologists should know
better and must be aware that they are taking advantage of a young impressionable
woman. Their victim Olive is a young student who has had her fair share of
trauma. Her mother has left her, and her aunt, a famous and rich feminist,
wants to have nothing to do with her and prefers to continue with her own life
and career; her aunt does not to tarnish her reputation as a feminist and
refuses to help or support her niece in need. As a result, Olive grows up in a
convent and is emotionally vulnerable and susceptible. Although she may think
she is strong and independent, she is easily swayed and controlled by this
experienced, knowledgeable, and manipulative couple she meets at the university.
Not having any parental guidance, she is easy prey.
They are much older than she is, and she is their student who looks up to both,
more so to the female counterpart whom she falls in love with. Elizabeth is
most likely a representation and projection of Olive’s own missing mother. Yet Olive
is indignantly refused and rejected by Elizabeth on various occasions, while Elizabeth
always ends up giving in both to her own as well as her husband’s desires. At first,
Elizabeth denies her own sexual attraction towards Olive and women in general
and later she kicks Olive out of their home only to accept her back in after
her dying husband pleads with her.
Yet none of this makes their combined blatant abuse of
authority acceptable; in fact, their actions toward Olive are reprehensible and
unethical. Not so much the act itself, their choice of having an unorthodox
family, which I disagree with personally as a matter of taste and opinion, but
the fact that they abuse their position of authority to satisfy their own
sexual needs and desires with a vulnerable young woman. That should not be
glorified, much less in our day and age, but unfortunately the filmmaker
chooses to side with them and presents them as rebellious heroes to follow and
emulate.
And the same applies to the legacy of Wonder Woman.
She was born, it turns out, not as a liberating symbol of female empowerment
but out of the lusty eyes of an unscrupulous man. It is during an experimental
bondage session that he is most inspired. He dresses his Wonder Woman the same
way he has seen and experienced Olive - sexually suggestive with a whip in
hand. This dominatrix is seen, held up and glorified as a sign of female
empowerment, but is, in fact, a sexual object, a sexually charged fetish of one
man’s imagination.
It is furthermore disconcerting that the comic has so
many references to sexual acts of bondage. In this twisted imagination, freedom
becomes bondage and bondage freedom. The full spread of the Disc theory ranging
from domination to submission, inducement to compliance is being applied to all
of us, and we do not even realize this.
As an adult, one may engage in these practices - and I
am in no position to criticize what people choose to do in their own private
lives - but presenting and including these types of ideas and behaviors in a
comic that is predominantly targeted for and read by children is morally irresponsible
and unacceptable. I am aware that I will be accused of siding with the
unfavorably portrayed judge Josette Frank in the movie, but the sad reality is
that she is in the right and he is wrong. And this is not only the family man
and parent within me speaking, but I believe it is our moral obligation to do our
utmost to protect our children and youth, at least during those impressionable
age brackets.
Professor Marston may say he is liberating children
and young girls, but in the end, he is captivating and capturing them with
sexually suggestive images, and by turn, he is enslaving them. It entails the
move from being seen and referred to as a sexual object to becoming a sexual
object but remaining an object, nonetheless. Wearing a superhero cap or holding
a whip in your hand does not give you superpowers and does not contribute to
fulfilling your inherent potential. To have women hold up Wonder Woman as a
symbol of freedom and liberty and to use it as a form of female empowerment is
the ultimate irony that emerges from this movie.
No comments:
Post a Comment