Perhaps it's unwise for directors to make sequels based on prior, proven formats. Rian Johnson committed the blasphemous blunder by daring to make The Last Jedi his Empire Strikes Back, while ignoring the blaring, good-vs-evil splendor that distinguished Episode V. Patty Jenkins has been more or less accused of doing the same for Wonder Woman 1984, patterning the Gal Gadot-steered sequel after Superman II (apparently, any cut), though missing Kal-El's action-adventure mark.
However, unlike Johnson who was compelled to change the underlying Star Wars thread to appease "woke" sensibilities, the criticism aimed at Jenkins is more a matter of forced additives and sketchy continuity, rather than a failure to transfer Superman II's spirit.
Criticisms of WW84's Here Comes Mr. Jordan/Heaven Can Wait set-up for the channeled Steve Trevor and Diana Prince learning to fly, when it appears later down the line she didn't (couldn't) do so in Batman v Superman and Justice League: the Theatrical Cut, are all well and good (not to mention the armchair leftists' disdain that Maxwell Lord isn't the maligned, Donald Trump surrogate they had anticipated), but if any controversy were to have sprung from Jenkin's sequel, I'd have thought it to be more so political and in an allegorical, economic sense, at that.
Really, has anyone yet noticed WW84's possible stab at capitalism? I mean, it's not that great a stretch.
Now, I'm not saying it's there for certain, even in an undercover, "Dawn of the Dead '79" way, but somewhere within the sequel's Monkey's Paw retread, that insatiable need to want more (even when "life is good", as Lord proclaims) references a craving for possession and therefore, greed. That the theme surfaces during a time of unquestionable, economic prosperity (the Reagan '80s) should make the matter even more conspicuous.
One domino topples another in the script's grand, wish-making scheme. The desire to gain more (whether per physical possession or in the symbolic way of love) comes with dangerous consequences, or so we're shown. The story implies that contentment with one's current lot is the more harmonious path to take (be happy with what one has, even if it's Trevor-less), but is that the ideal path to follow?
Is the magnanimous Lord wrong in wanting to establish a successful, oil business and bring success to others through his ambitions? Is he wrong in going that extra, risky mile by snatching a Dream Stone to accomplish the deed, let alone forging a symbiotic relationship with it, regardless of the talisman's fickle results?
Are others wrong in embracing Lord's vision, his too-good-to-pass-up offer? What he presents to most comes only after the calamitous chips have fallen, which of course, is Lord's fault, but still... For example, Stuart Milligan's President Reagan's response to halt global hostilities with a greater affluence of weaponry only seems sensible in light of the escalating circumstances. (Woke folks might say otherwise, but are they rationale or realistic enough when it comes to any conflict or threat?)
If WW84 takes a stand against wanting more for the benefit of all, then I disagree with such, but on the other hand, the story does deal extraordinary, mystical circumstances that extend well beyond credibility to denounce excess. Within the plot's far-out context, the virulence of greed is widespread and extraordinary in scope, maybe enough to justify an allegorical warning in the Biblical sense.
I don't know where to stand on the matter without the filmmakers coming forth and confirming all this, but the avarice premise is WW84's strongest trait. That it isn't being debated on all fronts as an influential plus or minus is bizarre.
Despite its surface-value divisiveness, WW84 merits further analysis on this basis. I suspect there are other plot aspects that I'm overlooking or downplaying (perhaps even one regarding addiction), which others might toss into the ring, if they re-watched the sequel. The catch is, will they revisit?
Good, bad or somewhere in between, WW84 may have more to offer than most claim. If so, for better or worse, the feasible debates it spurs could keep the sequel thriving long after its theatrical and HBO Max runs end. Does that, in itself, signal this submission a worthy sequel? Only time will tell.
No comments:
Post a Comment