The Wonder of Woman

I want a girl with a mind like a diamond
I want a girl who knows what's best
I want a girl with shoes that cut
And eyes that burn like cigarettes...
...Who uses a machete, to cut through red tape
With fingernails that shine like justice
And a voice that is dark like tinted glass
She is fast, thorough, and sharp as a tack
She's touring the facilities and picking up slack
I want a girl with a short skirt and a long, long jacket.”

'Short Skirt Long Jacket' by Cake
Songwriter: John Mccrea

The desire for a powerful woman, one taking charge, assuming leadership even in situations when leadership is not necessarily a required role, is not a new one. The world over, societies are largely patriarchal. As a result, this desire is fetishized rather than pushed to the fore as a natural, social role. In some ways, it could be argued that the fetishizing of both the submissive and dominant female roles, much like the fetishized “Madonna and whore” have a firm hand in what helps to maintain the patriarchal strangle hold. Rather than the celebrated strong woman, she is either reviled or lusted after, but rarely universally haled as a figure of admiration or a role model for ALL PEOPLE, not just the female children of our society.

"Not even girls want to be girls so long as our feminine archetype lacks force, strength, and power. Not wanting to be girls, they don't want to be tender, submissive, peace-loving as good women are. Women's strong qualities have become despised because of their weakness. The obvious remedy is to create a feminine character with all the strength of Superman plus all the allure of a good and beautiful woman." - William Moulton Marston, Wonder Woman creator, The American Scholar, 1943

All Star Comics #8, October 1941

A Quick History

Created by William Moulton Marston, an America Psychologist, and the artist Harry G. Peter, Wonder Woman was first introduced in All Star Comics #8, in October of 1941. Marston was married to Elizabeth Holloway Marston but the two famously had a long-term polyamorous relationship with Olive Byrne. These two women and their strong feminist ideals were a key inspiration for the creation of Diana, daughter of Hippolyta, Princess of Themyscira and Warrior Goddess of the Amazons. (Originally called Paradise Island, the name Themyscira was not given until 1987 by Greg Potter and George Pérez.) The name Diana Prince, while many believe is a shortening play on “Princess” was originally the name of a nurse she encountered while attempting to keep an eye on Steve Trevor, the military pilot she rescued.

Sensation Comics #1 (1942); art by Harry G. Peter

In the comics, and on the tv show with Lynda Carter we see Wonder Woman take on the false identity of Diana Prince. But rather than continue on as a Nurse she becomes a secretary. This common subservient role is one that, like Princess and Nurse, is a socially charged bomb of commentary that is often overlooked, but one that is frequently used to great effect throughout the series. In many ways it is a wink and a nod to those who are 'in the know' but goes over the heads of those who are not, who look down upon these roles – a statement made in many other works of fiction, such as the often misunderstood “FightClub.” There is power in these positions. 

Princesses are most often dismissed in fiction as weak, useless and subservient. Nurses are dismissed as lesser than Doctors, less educated, less knowledgable and lacking power. Secretaries are viewed as a menial position, also less educated, submissive and lacking agency. When in truth, these things are only true if the person within the role allows it to be true. This ties back into Marston's underlying themes of the BDSM culture of which he and his lovers were an active part. The roles of the dominants and submissives are all about personal agency, about choice. And the 'Dominants' aren't truly in control. If that confuses you, there is more education to be had.

Wonder Woman by Lyns (Mushroomtale)

Princesses are political figures with significant ability to affect change. Nurses receive significant amounts of education, are often as capable and frequently more active in their field work roles than many doctors. They are also forced to think on their feet more often. This gives them a significant amount of power, the power of choice over other people's health and well being in dire situations. Secretaries also often must think quickly and make snap decisions in moments of crisis as they are the front lines of an office environment. This doesn't sound like a “crisis” environment but any secretary can tell you, a high strung manager or CEO can most certainly turn it into one. And an ARMY secretary? It most certainly is. A secretary is the one making the phone call connections, making the appointments, s/he is the one masterminding that manager or CEO's time. That is a serious amount of control and one single mistake, or deliberate misplaced file can off-set major events or accounts. Watch “Better Call Saul” and see what happens when one set of numbers are transposed. THAT is the power a secretary can have if they wished to wield it with nefarious intent.

And yet society views them as lesser than. So why would Marston choose to have Wonder Woman be a Princess and, as Diana Prince, masquerade as these socially dismissed positions: to prove that point. These traditionally female roles, (it was the 1940s remember,) still afforded women a power men simply ignored, and women too often believed them.

“Looking back now at these Wonder Woman stories from the ’40s, I am amazed by the strength of their feminist message.” -Gloria Steinem, 1972

My Wonder Woman

Classic Lynda Carter 1970s Paper Doll

I was born in 1976, at the very tail end, the day after Christmas. The TV series with Lynda Carter started in 1975 and ran until 1979. Now, I have memories going back to when I was one and two years old because, apparently, I am a genetic freak...so, I do remember when it was live, but most of my memories of the show were in the reruns going well into my elementary school years. I had the underroos. I wore the smock and plastic masks so popular for Halloween at that time (I believe I was Princess Leia the year before.) I remember dancing in circles in the living room and that mom had bought a length of yellow yarn for me to carry as my lasso... until I tried to tie up my younger brother, then it was taken away. In my defense, if he'd told the truth, none of that would have been necessary. It was about Justice.

I can't honestly say if my often vilified sense of honesty and over-developed sense of justice is a result of my very early fandom of Wonder Woman. It may just be a personality trait that, like a peppercorn medley, came together from many sources. I'll leave that to my therapist and psychologist. But, I can say she played a part in it. I don't think I can deny she did. She was the only Female Superhero I knew most of my childhood until my high school years. The next best thing was Princess Leia, Ellen Ripley, Sarah Connor and thewomen of Star Trek. And yes, they were freakin' superheros. They didn't wear capes (well, Leia kinda did... poncho counts, right?) but they kicked ass and took charge, but more importantly they stood on their own two feet without needing to be told what to do or be saved all the time. Sure, they had people to support them, but they could stand on their own when it mattered.

I didn't see a lot of shows like Buffy until I was older, so there were a lot of characters I lacked. Wonder Woman, Leia and Ripley became the cornerstones of my Heroism. And each one stood for a different set of strengths. Ripley was survival. She was the one who did what needed to be done with or without help. Leia was a leader, a woman who saved herself, who shut out the blabbing men's voices naysaying and talking over her and told them how it was going to be and then did it. She saved the men and she still did it with grace and beauty. She was still a 'Princess,' still a 'lady' when it was time to have poise. Then from Wonder Woman I learned the passions of Honestyand Justice. And many will tell you I have a SERIOUSLY overblown savior streak. If I get it in my head that I have to fight for someone or something, I go all out to a fault at times. They'll also tell you that my sense of honesty, while I strive for tact, is a level of directness most people are not used to and are often uncomfortable with – but I don't believe in “little white lies” or “polite lies”... they're all lies, and lying does not come to a good place, ever. It only ever ends in broken trust. Dishonesty is a show of disrespect, and I always feel bad if I am dishonest, no matter how small the lie.

Lynda Carter, Carrie Fisher, Sigourney Weaver (l-r)

Wonder Woman, for me, was- and is- a role model in a way I think a lot of people did not internalize her. I hear talk about strength and independence. My parents would probably tell you that I, annoyingly so, always had those. She gave me something else:

The courage to trust in my voice.

The New Film

Wonder Woman, dir. by Patty Jenkins; 2017

As a filmmaker, I've spent my whole life making lists of the movies I have always wanted to make. Wonder Woman was, at the very least, one I expected I would at least have seen long before I turned forty years old. But no, I am forty and it only just happened this year. Forty years it took before I saw one of my greatest inspirations on a big screen.

What the actual fuck people?!

...*deep breath*

I don't want to say a whole lot about the film, because it's still in the theatre, and it's amazing, and everyone needs to go see this movie. EVERYONE.  I cannot praise Patty Jenkins enough. Seriously.

What I do want to write about it is the power that it has, the importance of it, why we needed it. Too many people do not understand the necessity of representation, or even what that actually means. We have become so used to seeing a 'default' human, typically a Caucasian and especially in action films, a Caucasian male that it isn't until we don't that we realize that IS all we see. When Salt came out, then Lucy, suddenly everyone was shouting “YEAH, BADASS!” The men were fetishizing the powerful woman, taking charge, assuming leadership and, in this case, kicking their asses. Meanwhile women were marveling at the sight of a person, like themselves, doing all the things they far too often only ever see men doing. What the women were seeing was Representation. 

Hints of it crop up here and there. Great examples have existed. Angela Bassett in 'Strange Days' was a favorite of mine (or anything really.) The previously mentioned Sigourney Weaver as Ellen Ripley, Linda Hamilton as Sarah Connor, Sarah Michelle Gellar was a favorite for many on Buffy the Vampire Slayer. But there were non-violent representatives too. Nichelle Nichols as Uhura on the original StarTrek. Believe it or not, Amy Poehler as Leslie Knope of 'Parks and Recreation' is one of my absolute favorite examples. She was a woman working in government with goals - not dreams - of being president, goals that she pursued with a set plan, and she was persistent, likable and it was fantastic.

By Knighthawk Photography

But most of those women, you notice, are also Caucasian. Representation is lacking. What about the Asian women? What about the Latina women? The Native American or Pacific Islander women? The African women? The default is still set to Caucasian even when the toggle does get flipped to 'female'. And still that does not cover any number of other groups: LGBT, Mental illness, disabilities... and so on. Intersectionality should be the goal, not “This is a woman film.” “This is a Gay film.” Etcetera.

Wonder Woman, the film, puts a lot forward without directly punching the audience in the face and saying:

“NO MEN MEANS NO HETERO SEX!”

"CHECK IT OUT, HER THIGHS JIGGLE AND SHE'S GOT CROWS FEET! 

AND SHE'S A GODDESS!!”

“ETTA CANDY IS OVER-WEIGHT AND SHE'S AMAZING!” (Imagine that *rolls eyes*)

These things just ARE. THEY JUST ARE.

Messages are given throughout the film, things rarely – if ever – said in any other film. At more than one point the line between “Good Soldiers” and “Bad Soldiers” is smeared to make the point that “WAR IS BAD. PERIOD.” A very brief commentary is made that the US soldiers, the “good guys” were the same soldiers who genocided the Native Americans but were now the “good guys” fighting to prevent such atrocities in Europe without much remorse or care for what they had done in their own nation. WWII took place almost exactly 100 yrs after The Trail of Tears in America. It is not a lightly made statement but it is not a punch to the face. You either catch it and absorb it, or you don't. It is one of many smears of the morality that people attempt to make to prop up the Heroes of war to separate out the Villains. In this respect, Allan Heinberg is due great praise.

The subtlest and most beautiful of messages are the ones not spoken. The beauty and grace of age and form worn proudly by the women of the film. I've not spoken to a woman yet who did not notice the wrinkles, the fine lines, the folds of skin or fat, the JIGGLE of flesh, mucle and fat as women jump and land, kick and punch. These are demi-goddesses and goddesses and they are REAL. They are not air-brushed or CGI'ed to be perfect to be without the perceived flawsof society.

The ONE TIME people would expect it is acceptable to make them look “flawless” Patty Jenkins, in her admirable wisdom, chose to leave them as they were. And the statement of that is more than can be said in words. That the reality of humanity, of womanhood, IS perfection, IS the divine, IS POWER. This amazing goddess, impenetrable, with strength beyond measure, has crow's feet... like mine, has folds of skin at her armpits... like mine, has thighs that jiggle... LIKE MINE. The most beautiful woman standing twelve foot tall on a silver screen above me, like a true goddess waiting to be worshiped... is human. In every way.

That is the most powerful take away from this film, and believe me, every woman I have spoken to took that away.

Gal Gadot (pronounced: gal guh-DOTE) was not afraid to contort her face and scream that battle cry in an “ugly" scream. She wasn't posing and poised like a ballerina in every shot the way 'Sucker Punch' made sure the girls were always pretty. There were times she was squatted down like a football line backer, strong, powerful, not graceful or 'pretty.' And the fighting was dirty. The women didn't fight delicately. Yes, the shots Patty Jenkins used, that were cut into all the trailers, these amazing aerials leaps are incredible – they're freakin' goddesses!! - But they fight dirty. Antiope (Robin Wright) all but cold-cocks her niece. That's not how "ladies" fight. That's war. They're warriors. They aren't afraid to dig into the dirt, to shoulder down and plow into the fray. Diana makes some choices which, when you sit back and think about them later, they too fall into a moral grey. You may question yourself... if she truly believes what she believes, then why did she kill this person or that person?

She is a goddess but she is not a “Mary Sue” - she is not a character/being without flaw, without conflict.

And in that she is perfect.

Aside: here is where the philosophical discussions begin on the Amazonian touchstones with Bushido and where Justice and Revenge intersect what choice is made, or if the choice is the same. I also reference back to my previous link with the comment on the Benevolence of war.

This is all I will say about the film beyond it must be seen. Please, go see it in the theatre and weep like I wept. Weep for the victory of finally having this much needed representation of a heroine beloved the world over, and weep because it is a beautiful, moving film. 

WARNING: Sex Changes Everything

My standard spoiler alert applies. It's not a play-by-play but I say my piece.

WARNING: Sex Changes Everything

For my Alaskan dear, Heather, I've taken up the pen again...er...or, whatever. It has been quite a while since I've written one of these, and while I do mean a film review I also mean a deliciously sardonic one. Do not misunderstand me. I won't be going all out Marta Alicia-vicera-in-the-face sarcastic with this one, because I actually find a lot of redeeming qualities in this film...outside of sheer campy amusement. However, there is simply no way to accept this film without embracing the dark humor of it and just rolling with the weirdness.

The film itself defies genre. Is it horror? Is it comedy? Is it a coming of age tale? Most definitely it is all three, and no single description. And just to get the bad puns out of the way right now:

It's a film with a biting wit, written and directed with some serious teeth.

I'm done with the bad jokes. OK...just the REALLY bad jokes. I can't account for the rest of the attempts at humor to follow.

I was intrigued to check out this film on the query of my friend Heather, as mentioned. What really sealed it for me, however, was not the trailer so much as the discovery that the film was featured and WON awards at BOTH The Sundance Film Festival AND The Fangoria Horror Fest. I mean, let's be honest...how often does that happen? Exactly.

"Dentata. It's Latin for teeth. It's what's inside of me." -Dawn

So a horror movie titled TEETH, seems fairly unsuspecting on the surface, right? Probably some horribly over-bloody latex-fest with oogedy boogedy monsters and lots of big sharp pointy fangs. No. No. No...and Not that we're shown. What the preview does show you is a glimpse of every man's deepest darkest fear. Beautiful, nubile girl. Blonde, blue-eyed, pink pouty lips. She's a virgin....and her vagina bites off her gynocologist's hand.

I'll give you a minute.

The appropriate responses to that scene would be a healthy mixture of horrified "what the fuck!'s" and inane, childish giggling because if you don't manage to muster both of those, there is something seriously wrong with you. This, my friends, is just the preview. Just a 30 second teaser to 2007's Indy gem, TEETH.

Written and directed by Mitchell Lichtenstein, TEETH is his feature film debut. The star is the cherubic Jess Weixler, a Julliard graduate who has already amassed nearly more awards than roles, including the Sundance award for her performance in TEETH. It is truly these two that bring the bizarre magic to the film.

"That's what the ring is all about. The way it wraps around your finger - that's to remind you to keep your gift wrapped. Wrapped... until the day... you trade it in for that other ring. That gold ring. Get it?" -Dawn

As a coming of age tale, TEETH centers around a beautiful young teen, Dawn. A prominent leader of the school's chastity club, a compelling speaker about the virtues of purity and abstinence, Dawn is also a child of the nuclear family. Her single mother married a single father with a son...a son with a mildly disturbing affinity for his step-sister Dawn, which began at a very tender young age. Dawn's deep seeded beliefs in purity and virtue could stem from a psychological need to distance herself from her life in a run down rancher under the shadow of a nuclear power plant, her mother's deteriorating illness or from her disturbed brother's love of loud, vulgar music, violent pets and equally loud, vulgar and violent sex-romps with his girlfriend. However her strict adherence isn't so much a fanatical counter-reaction as a genuine naivete, which is wholly evident in a scene in which Dawn uncovers a detailed diagram of the vulva, a region she has obviously never really seen before. The wonder, curiosity and, indeed, the admiration in her eyes is all too genuine and a credit to miss Weixler's acting ability, as it most definitely solidifies the reality of this character's genuine purity.

Now I must take an aside here to comment on the absolutely hilarious build-up to this incredibly touching moment. I do so, not to spoil it for you, but simply as a personal commentary on the public education system and why I can honestly believe that this film may well have been made in my home state of Pennsylvania. During sex education class, Dawn's teacher has them all staring wide-eyed at an incredibly graphic drawing of the male reproductive organs (internal and external, both flaccid and erect). He then trips over his tongue when telling them to turn the page to the female reproductive organs, unable to even get the words out, which is succinctly supplied by a male student.

"You mean the VULVA?" -Ryan

When the page is revealed the students bemoan that every book is covered with a sticker making the actual drawing nothing but a giant silver starburst. Then the teacher informs them that the state education board does not allow any representation of female genitalia to be shown to students as it constitutes pornography. Angered, the students try to rip the stickers off only to rip the page. It is later in the film that Dawn soaks her page in water so as to easily slide the sticker away and view what, until then, had never been seen. This sequence in the film as a whole was so beautifully executed for the satirical aspects of both humor and a scathing commentary on the absurdity of the American educational stance on sexuality, something which really serves as a theme throughout the film. This duality of acceptance and openness between male sexuality and female is so starkly contrasting in American society that it seems perfectly sane that a horror film about a penis-eating, fanged vagina would be made. Thank Mitch Lichtenstein, however, for making it a satirical one, and not pandering to the puritanical conservatives who would still rather spend millions on Abstinence education than allow financially self-sustaining condom machines in the boys bathrooms.

Aside finished.

"The toothed vagina appears in the mythology of many and diverse cultures all over the world. In these myths, the story is always the same. The hero must do battle with the woman." -Dawn

So in the midst of this coming-of-age story, as young Dawn begins to discover her own sexuality, there is, of course, the horror element. The film is, after all, called TEETH. It is only after a romantic swim and kissy-cuddle when Dawn's crush does what is far too often the case with young men and presumes that he is then OWED sexual gratification. The build up to this scene has the audience at several points thinking "it's gonna happen now. No? It'll happen...NOW! ...no??" So by the time it does happen and under the circumstances that the violence occurs there is a strange sense of satisfaction. Now I don't say this as some kind of misandrist proclaiming castration as the most righteous judgment to be handed down upon misguided men. It's a fictional tale, with a heroine. There needs to be some form of villain in this fantastical tale, so for the sake of catharsis: boy shoulda kept it in his pants. And indeed, it is only those who inflict themselves upon Dawn that come to suffer.

In terms of horror films, TEETH is relatively mild. There is a little blood but overall its not graphic. There is the obligatory titty shot and what would a cheesy horror flick be without teenage sex? So yes, it has all these. It is, however, a horror film that does not take itself too seriously. Lichtenstein shows an obvious tongue in cheek approach when he ends the film with a dirty old toothless man who seems to be enjoying his freedom to make lewd gestures far too much to really be intimidating at all. One must wonder though if the director's aim in making TEETH was merely to mock society's often absurd views of sexuality or if, in Freudian fashion, he purports the eternal power women hold over men-- the ability to deny a man what he so desperately thinks he wants. The myth of Vagina Dentata, as he made sure to point out however, gives hope to men of honest and goodly intention. Be the hero that conquers her heart...and you can keep your manhood intact.

Uncommon Beauty

WARNING: Spoilers...as with most of my reviews. Not as many links though.

Faerie Tales have been softened over the centuries. Our modern day Little Mermaid lives happily ever after never learning her lesson of true love through self sacrifice. Our story heroes and villains have become toys and animals to remove the human elements from the violence and suffering. We have forgotten that these stories were meant to teach, to moralize and preach to our children. Now they sell. Fantasies of princesses and stories of race cars sell dresses and toys, bed sheets and pajamas. What are we supposed to learn from the fish? What does the robot teach us? Ask the kids, do they know? Faerie tales are now synonymous with fantasy. Sleeping Beauty is hack-edited to warn against forest fires. Snow White has too much sex and violence....not enough singing birds.

Some stories can still offer us a lesson. Morality is not just for plain-clothed Anabaptists or Muslims. The power to change, to learn, to grow exists in all of us....even the monsters can still turn out to be cursed princes. What about stories told from the villain's point of view? Stories are usually told by the victims who become heroes. What can we learn from a story told by a villain? Perhaps the story of a villain already defeated, broken and weak. The stories always end there, with defeat. What happens next? What does the villain become once defeated? Do they change, learn their lesson, or move on to commit their wickedness again elsewhere? A villain's story begins with defeat.

When the wolf had appeased his appetite, he lay down again in the bed, fell asleep and began to snore very loud. The huntsman was just passing the house, and thought to himself, "How the old woman is snoring! I must just see if she wants anything." So he went into the room, and when he came to the bed, he saw that the wolf was lying in it. "Do I find thee here, thou old sinner!" said he. "I have long sought thee!"
~The Brothers Grimm, Little Red Cap

The Woodsman begins with defeat. The Villain is the Hero. And Steven Fechter wants you to feel empathy for him. You won't find many of Steven Fechter's stories on IMDb or Netflix. He mostly writes plays. Director Nicole Kassell's resume isn't very long or impressive either. She had only recently graduated from film school in 2005. Yet a collection of actors of esteem and reputation gathered for them and worked for no pay. Either Steven and Nicole are the coolest cats in Hollywood...or that's one hell of a story. As I can't speak to the first theory, we'll examine the second.

Most any film with Kevin Bacon is one that I'll gladly watch. I don't necessarily rave about them or even wholly enjoy all of them, but almost without fail I am given something to think about by the end. He doesn't always do the big budget movies, like the newly released biopic Frost/Nixon (2008), or 2003's Mystic River. He doesn't shy from having fun in films like Novocaine (2000) and Footloose (1984). I feel, however, Kevin Bacon is at his best when playing pained characters, villains, people on the fringes of society that we don't necessarily even want to like, such as Hickey in Trapped (2002) or Sean Nokes in Sleepers (1996).

This Independently recognized but largely unnoticed film, The Woodsman, is by far one of Kevin Bacon's finest performances. A powerful cast backs him up as he is partnered with Kyra Sedgewick, his real life wife, and the likes of Benjamin Bratt, Mos Def, Eve, David Alan Grier, and Bug's Michael Shannon. Filmed in my hometown of Philadelphia, The Woodsman follows Walter as he readjusts to life while on parole after a twelve year jail term. It isn't made clear right away that Walter went to prison for molesting young girls, as any dark, dirty secret takes time to draw out. And this is our story's hero....or anti-hero. Walter is our villain, whose story begins after his defeat.

WALTER
You can’t talk to me like --

SGT LUCAS
(interrupting)
Like a piece of shit? In my eyes,you are a piece of shit. Think anyone would miss you if I threw you out the window right now? I could say you jumped when I came
in. Who are they going to believe? Not you, because you’d be a dead piece of shit.

It is no joke that this film actively seeks to erase the cartoon archetypes in which many view the world, and it drags us along kicking and screaming. The story sets Walter (Kevin Bacon) up as a sad, broken man and immediately seeks sympathy for him before you know what he's done. The viewer begins to feel for him, wants to know his story and then the truth of his past is revealed. The hero of our story is a convicted child molester. By most people's definition, a monster. A wolf. Using the story of Little Red Riding Hood (the Grimm version) to illustrate the world, Sgt. Lucas, played with depth and weight by Mos Def, explains to Walter that there are no Woodsman anymore, only wolves. Even he, as a lawman feels helpless against them, and because of his helplessness he refuses to like Walter, refuses to see him as anything but a monster. But Walter isn't a monster, just a man. He is just a man who feels just as helpless and repulsed by what he is and what he has done, though part of him still tries to reason it out.

"They seduced me. At least, that's what I used to tell myself." -Walter

On parole, Walter is trying to start a new life, to be a better person and not make the same mistakes. He finds a job at the wood mill he will work under the supervision of Bob, played by David Alan Grier. It's plain on Bob's face that he disapproves of Walter's past, but he is willing to give him a chance, for reasons never explained beyond "you did good work for my father." Even when Bob defends Walter from a near riotous mob of co-workers by threatening their jobs, little more is revealed. The symbolism of the sawmill is quite obvious and in someways foretelling. It is here that he meets Vicki. Portrayed with a grim strength by Bacon's off-screen wife, Kyra Sedgwick, Vicki is a woman that can hold her own, doesn't need protecting and isn't afraid of Walter's past, though he keeps it from her for some time. Once he confesses it, upon her urging, she is more curious than repulsed and it is her lack of repulsion that frightens Walter. He sends her away. Walter still views the world in stark lines of good and evil. He is a monster undeserving of acceptance, pity or love. Repeatedly he pleads of his therapist:

WALTER
When will I be normal?

ROSEN
What is normal to you?

Over the course of Walter's journey of self discovery, as he attempts to assimilate into society and learn to "be normal," there are several figures that reflect aspects of his past life. A brother-in-law, Carlos who behaves as if the crimes never occurred, and treats Walter as if there had never been a twelve year gap in their friendship. Benjamin Bratt does well in creating this layered character, that takes on a seemingly willing role of friendship with the hint of mild obligation because Walter was not biased toward him, though all his family was bigoted against his ethnicity. Though he displays acceptance and empathy, it is when Walter finally does open up, that the man's true feelings are revealed. During a powerful scene Carlos (Bratt) describes his own troubles with temptation, claiming to 'understand' how Walter feels. He remarks that even his twelve year old daughter and her friends where clothes now that make it difficult to avoid such temptation. HE bridges the gap of empathy, yet when Walter asks if Carlos ever feels anything for his daughter, asks if Carlos TRULY ever feels what Walter feels, that barrier between "Us and Them" is crossed and Carlos becomes outraged.

WALTER (V.O.)
(in the ratatat tone of a sportscaster)
Good morning, fellow sports fans. The match is about to begin. Candy enters the arena looking sweet and trim. He checks out the scene but plays it cool. He’s definitely holding back.
(Pause)
Uh-oh, Candy’s eyes have locked onto something. Oh yeah. A cherub of a lad has separated from his friends. Candy quickly makes his move. He pats the cherub on his head, ruffles his hair. With his other hand, he offers the boy a bag of gummy bears.

Another reflection is "Candy," a man that Walter spies lingering at the school yard across from his apartment. Walter has given him this name and watches, writing in his journal as he sees the "game" play out. It is disturbing to follow Walter's thought process as he rationalizes at one point that if the child gets in Candy's car it is because the boy WANTS to get in Candy's car. Although at times Walter seems disgusted by Candy's actions and feels a need to stop him, he identifies with him too much and fears the police would not believe him, or would scape goat him. By viewing these events through a window, from the outside, he begins to see and understand the nature of "The Wolf's Hunt." Director Kassell uses a unique and clever technique at one point using voice-over narration and fast-paced editing to liken Candy's successful luring of the boy to a boxing match, to a game, which is how the old Walter and Candy view it. It does not lighten the tension of the scene but does shift the perspective entirely without the audience consciously realizing that they are viewing the events through the mindset of a predator.

Candy's abduction of the boy is a serious turning point for Walter and pushes him faster toward understanding the predator that he was. Walter faces numerous challenges throughout the story all forcing him to face his past and provide temptation to repeat or deny the same urges. The biggest catalyst in his journey toward recovery and moral salvation is Robin, an eleven year old girl that rides Walter's evening bus. For those who quickly draw the connection between the character and Sgt Lucas' anecdotal tale, it is noted that Robin carries a red coat throughout the film--but only wears it at one poignant point. Hannah Pilkes does an admirable job as Robin, allowing us to easily believe her role as she metaphorically guides Walter through the woods, innocently serving herself before Walter as a meal of moral dilemma. With Bacon's pained, at times childlike, portrayal of Walter and Fechter's masterful development of the character, the audience cannot help but reach a point where they are routing for Walter to make the right choice. He is presented with this red-cloaked beacon of morality amidst the woods and Walter can chose to be the Wolf that he once was or he can be The Woodsman.

To be The Woodsman would imply that he rescues the little girl in some manner-as is the case in the original Grimm tale- and in Fechter's stage play this is true. Unfortunately to see Walter's whole transformation as he shifts from predator--and he does enter this scene a predator--through the agony of self realization into the figure that saves the child, you must view the deleted scenes on the DVD. I can only imagine that the exclusion of these scenes was done for pacing's sake--a frequent killer of powerful cinematic moments--I feel that there are significant character development lost in these hacked scenes. The film over all is a character piece, therefore, these pieces are missed when removed although the audience may not realize and I feel that our perception of Walter is weaker for it.

"Uncommon beauty is commonly overlooked." -Walter

Many people are turned off by a slow paced film, which I do not feel The Woodsman truly is if you take the time to look beneath the surface--an important lesson being taught by this story. Far too rarely recognized upon the screen, Michael Shannon takes on the role of the moral guide, Walter's therapist Rosen. The interludes in Rosen's office serve as a vocal introspection for Walter to the audience. Rosen guides us as much as he guides Walter, managing to steer the audience away from making those stern categorical opinions of the preceding events. Rosen allows for the moral center of the film to grow from a seed, up and outward, repeatedly reminding that it takes time.

WALTER
A long time ago, I was sent far away. When they let me come back, all my friends were gone.

ROBIN
It sounds like you were banished.

WALTER
Banished... yeah.

Just as the story's moral teaches--there are shades and levels to all things--much of this film and its characters are not exploded on the screen. They are revealed subtlety, only hinted at, or a mild enigma to be worked out- just as is true with life. Walter's past crimes are often alluded to, but never dwelled on. The Woodsman is not an easy film to watch; not one to pop in when guests are over or to lighten an already tense day. It is a film that shatters the archetypes and barriers we set to isolate "Them" from "Us"; lines and divisions made to give us the illusion of safety and purity. It is easier for us to deny the darker shades of grey and see only black or white. To believe there are only Woodsman or Wolves.

"Do you believe in Fairy Tales?
...What's that one with the Woodsman?
...Little Red Riding Hood! That's it! That's it. The Woodsman, he cuts open the wolf's stomach, the girl comes out without a scratch... You ever see a seven-year-old sodomized in half? She was so small, just broken. I saw 20-year vets on that job. Hard guys, they just broke down and cried. I was there, I cried... There ain't no fucking woodsman in this world." -Sgt. Lucas

The world is not flat. It is not black and white. It is not good and evil. The world is a forest. Thick and dense, deeper than most of us will ever know. There are wolves, yes, but who better knows the villains' tricks? Where does a villain go after defeat? What does he become? A villain's story begins with defeat.

The Cost of Faith

Author's sidenote: It's been a while since last I posted, but I am still here, still watching movies, and still have an opinion. I'm doing my best.

---

It is not often that I am moved or delighted enough by an old movie to even bother attempting to thrust it upon my friends, most of whom couldn't be bothered to watch anything but their newest Netflix or 'The Game.' So I am thrusting it on you lucky folks. Don't you love me?

Dating a film as "old" is like calling a 1980 Dodge Aspen a "classic car". It is all very subjective and there are no REAL guidelines, just every different group/person's arbitrary ones. So please, those of you alive in 1969, take no offense to me calling "The Royal Hunt for the Sun" an Old Movie. While I enjoyed the film, I cannot in good conscience call it a 'Classic.' As a stage play, perhaps, but the film fell marginally short for me.

The film by Irving Lerner is based on Peter Schaffer's Classic play, and has historical basis in the fall of the Inca Empire. There is a good measure of accuracy in it, as far as the core facts go, but the story is not really meant to be about the socio-political destruction of a civilization. While the events of Spain's conquering of Peru is an interesting tale, Schaffer's script focuses on the dynamic struggle between the opposing leaders of the war, Francisco Pizarro and the Inca God King Atahualpa, and each man's respective faith in God and in himself.

To summarize history and the plot, in 1532 Francisco seeks to find a city of gold with which to honor his king and prove his place in court. The king refuses to fund the expedition, nor offer any men to aide it, but will gladly take his cut, of course. Francisco finds in Peru the Inca Empire of Atahualpa and with his 167 mercenaries wipes out 7000 Inca (of a population of some 80-100 thousand). Taking the God King captive he swears to free the man if Atahualpa can fill a room with Gold in two months time. Although Atahualpa succeeds and provides his own ransom, Francisco's men determine that he cannot be freed and must be executed. During the time of imprisonment Francisco and Atahualpa have formed strong bonds of friendship and mutual respect and this decision tears the General apart. There will be war if Atahualpa is set free, the death of a civilization if he is not, and either way Francisco's Faith, Loyalties and Convictions shall be casualties.


War stories are always exciting. Blood. Agony. Destruction. The proofs of man's conniving nature carefully plotted across land and sea. Brother killing brother.

The very best war stories, without doubt, are those of the men. Heroes and Demi-Gods overcoming all trials to win, be they Hercules or Lincoln. Foot soldiers battling in the mud and the trenches for the greater good, or merely for their lives, willingly or by draft. It is the men that make the difference. Without the men there are no stories. Even more compelling still are the battles we do not see, the battles twisting men's hearts and souls in the stillness between the skirmishes. Battles of Loyalty, of Conviction, of Faith.

What do you do when you capture a god? That is a question that not many people have faced in their lifetime.
- Francisco Pizarro

Our battling heroes are Francisco Pizarro, an illiterate General of the Spanish army who has lost favor with the king, though he has devoted his life to the crown. Played by Robert Shaw, with energy and passion, Francisco is portrayed as a man that came from nothing and though he feels he deserves significant honor, his peers still look at him as if he were nothing. Shaw is not an actor that many younger generations recognize easily (hence I've supplied the visual reminder below), and I admit, I find this disappointing. As with Francisco, Shaw often played roles of tormented men, men that struggled with self worth, loneliness and disillusionment. Francisco is a man abandoned at birth by his mother, raised by a pig farmer, and disrespected by his peers for his lack of education and birthright regardless of skills as a soldier and his devotion to the king. A soldier who seeks only to find further glory for Spain, his determination is neither praised, nor rewarded, forever known only as 'The Bastard.' As a result, he struggles with his faith in his God, his King, and the fundamental values upon which his entire life has been founded.

Christopher Plummer and Robert Shaw

Second, only in appearance on screen, is the captured Inca God King Atahualpa. An alternately regal and demented figure, he is the bastard son of the previous king, and murdered his brother and taken the crown. Although born of human parents, he believes without question that his True Father is the Sun and his mother the Moon. Portraying this undisguised Christ-like character is a young and sexy Christopher Plummer, who lends what at first seems to be madness to the role, but for those who follow him through the tale find a brilliance missed by many. Plummer's antics are at first amusing and bizarre, but like Francisco by Atahualpa, you are drawn in. The Inca God King is not an idiot, although the ignorant and boastful Spaniards would assume him to be, and through his foolishness he causes dissent amongst the leaders. Although history writes Atahualpa as the loser of the war, his people captured and killed, his lands seized, Atahualpa himself was always and died a God.

Another figure plays into this tale. His is a smaller role, a character used almost as a trophy to be won between the General and the God King. A youth of the court named Martin is hungry for adventure and glory and in Francisco he sees a hero to follow, from whom to learn. Although he is a student, he is enamored with the life and glory of 'The Soldier', just as young men today are eager to be an "Army of One." Martin is played by Leonard Whiting, a passionate young actor of the time, whom anyone attending high school before 1996 will likely recognize from Franco Zeffirelli's 1968 Classic film rendition of Romeo and Juliet. Martin's character grows significantly throughout the story, and learns to see past the flash and glamor of BOTH men's lies...those they tell themselves and those they subscribe to. He comes to make his own decisions, like a man, and ceases to be a child.

I was told once by a professor that in every story there is the Confident Man, the Uncertain Man, and the Innocent (or Impressionable) Man. The titles are rather loosely defined, but in this story the characters are clear. Each of these different archetypes exists to show a different outcome to the same basic concept, which in this film is truly: Man vs Self.

One thing many of my non-cineaste friends have difficulty with when watching older films is the more theatrical aspects. The extremes of the visually saturated colors or that its black and white, the bigger soundtracks, the less realistic "much too pretty" costumes, and the somewhat melodramatic acting. So many are turned off by what seems very much like over-acting to us now-- I say this wryly as I imagine Al Pacino ranting about a woman's ass. The medium/art has changed over the decades. Our tastes in dramas and certainly historical dramas now leans far more toward the gritty, dirty, perceptions of realism. Sometimes, I think, however, that we believe now that it is only realistic if it is unpleasant to look at. This isn't always true. Sometimes unpleasant is just unpleasant.

Atahualpa hears the word of God

Francisco: (to Atahualpa) So you believe if you die, when the morning sun touches you, you will live again?
Atahualpa: Yes.
Martin: A man dying then coming back from the dead is impossible, sir! It's impossible!
Francisco: What does your scripture say, boy?
Martin: But it's impossible!
Francisco: What does it say?! Christ was crucified and--
Martin: --and he did die and was buried. And upon the third day he arose from the dead. But it's impossible!
Francisco: So you say you do not believe your Christ story?
Martin: Yes! Of course I do! But....
Francisco: But it's impossible...
(note: transcribed from memory...may not be exact.)

Royal Hunt for the Sun details an engaging story of three men as Peter Schaffer imagined them to be when history converged upon the Inca. At this moment a man unwavering in his belief in the Sun was faced by those who would break him, their own faith in the Son coming into question instead. It isn't a man's beliefs that define who he is, but rather his strength of conviction when those beliefs are challenged. There is power in many things. Kings neither have nor make power, Atahualpa teaches them. Power is what makes and embodies a King. Only a God can possess power. To have faith in such things makes a man great, but no one can know the solidity of that faith but the man and God. What then is the cost to prove it?

Atahualpe faces the Garrote, Death by Strangling