“All of the self-congratulatory back-patting Hollywood’s been doing over Wonder Woman has been so misguided. She’s an objectified icon, and it’s just male Hollywood doing the same old thing! I’m not saying I didn’t like the movie but, to me, it’s a step backwards. Sarah Connor was not a beauty icon. She was strong, she was troubled, she was a terrible mother, and she earned the respect of the audience through pure grit. And to me, [the benefit of characters like Sarah] is so obvious. I mean, half the audience is female!”
First of all LOL at Five-Wives Cameron being #MadOnline at a successful movie featuring a strong woman in a positive role, a movie that wasn’t his and therefore has no merit in his eyes. Luckily, Jenkins responded soon after:
“James Cameron’s inability to understand what Wonder Woman is, or stands for, to women all over the world is unsurprising as, though he is a great filmmaker, he is not a woman. Strong women are great. His praise of my film Monster, and our portrayal of a strong yet damaged woman was so appreciated. But if women have to always be hard, tough and troubled to be strong, and we aren’t free to be multidimensional or celebrate an icon of women everywhere because she is attractive and loving, then we haven’t come very far have we. I believe women can and should be EVERYTHING just like male lead characters should be. There is no right and wrong kind of powerful woman. And the massive female audience who made the film a hit it is, can surely choose and judge their own icons of progress.”
You’d think that’d be the end of it, but Cameron’s a rich, successful, White man, so of course that’s not the end of it. There are more clouds to yell at. So in a new chat with THR, he decided to double down on his Wonder Woman takedown:
Yes, I’ll stand by that. I mean, she was Miss Israel, and she was wearing a kind of bustier costume that was very form-fitting. She’s absolutely drop-dead gorgeous. To me, that’s not breaking ground. They had Raquel Welch doing stuff like that in the ’60s. It was all in a context of talking about why Sarah Connor — what Linda created in 1991 — was, if not ahead of its time, at least a breakthrough in its time. I don’t think it was really ahead of its time because we’re still not [giving women these types of roles].
Don’t worry, there are more foot-in-mouth quotes coming up. Cameron seems grossly focused on Gadot’s anatomy and not on the optimism, hope, positivity, strength, and compassion the character–and the actor who plays her–embodies. He also seems triggered by people praising Gadot’s performance, Jenkins’ direction, and Wonder Woman’s forward-thinking character because he apparently doesn’t feel he’s received enough praise or respect for 1984’s Terminator (which came 5 years after Ridley Scott‘s Alien starring perennial badass Sigourney Weaver, thank you very much). The myopic obsession continues:
Linda looked great. She just wasn’t treated as a sex object. There was nothing sexual about her character. It was about angst, it was about will, it was about determination. She was crazy, she was complicated. … She wasn’t there to be liked or ogled, but she was central, and the audience loved her by the end of the film. So as much as I applaud Patty directing the film and Hollywood, uh, “letting” a woman direct a major action franchise, I didn’t think there was anything groundbreaking in Wonder Woman. I thought it was a good film. Period. I was certainly shocked that [my comment] was a controversial statement. It was pretty obvious in my mind. I just think Hollywood doesn’t get it about women in commercial franchises. Drama, they’ve got that cracked, but the second they start to make a big commercial action film, they think they have to appeal to 18-year-old males or 14-year-old males, whatever it is. Look, it was probably a little bit of a simplistic remark on my part, and I’m not walking it back, but I will add a little detail to it, which is: I like the fact that, sexually, she had the upper hand with the male character, which I thought was fun.
Yeah still nothing about the rest of the actual movie. Cameron’s basically criticizing Jenkins and Gadot for “over-sexualizing” the character and yet, ironically and hypocritically, can’t comment on anything else that takes place in the two-hour-and-twenty-one-minute runtime. I’m sure that bodes well for the kids in Cameron’s new Avatar movies…
And as for over-sexualization of strong female leads, I’ma just leave these here: