A few days ago, director James Cameron doubled down on his criticisms of Patti Jenkins Wonder Woman, saying he thought the movie was a regressive presentation of what should have been an empowering movie for women. Cameron went on to draw unfavorable comparisons of Gal Gadot, in her “bustier, form-fitting costume” and 1960s sex symbol Raquel Welch.
“She was drop-dead gorgeous,” Cameron told The Hollywood Reporter. “To me that’s not breaking ground.”
As you might have imagined, Cameron’s comments drummed up some considerable backlash from fans of the hit film, feminists, and even his Hollywood peers. One of which, incidentally enough, was Lynda Carter, who famously portrayed the Amazonian princess in the 1970s.
It's not only that Cameron’s contention that empowerment and beauty cannot coexist in a credible feminist icon is simply incorrect, it's the haughty-self righteous implications of his statements that irk me the most.
This isn’t to say James Cameron, as a man, has zero right to speak on the subject of feminism. There cannot be a monopoly on discussing social issues. Still, it's more than a little tone deaf to disparage the victory of a film written and directed by one of the few women that have managed to make a name in the blockbuster boy’s club, especially when said disparagement came from a guy that has enjoyed critical and commercial acclaim after popularizing the hoorah-machismo aesthetic.
In all fairness to Cameron’s statements, putting his hubris aside, it seems the Hollywood female protagonist does sort of have to be “traditionally attractive.” Studios are willing to capitalize on the social awareness wave, but are still a little hesitant when it comes to clearing the brush and the barbs of objectification: “A movie about Billie Jean King? You got it, but Emma Stone is going to play her (remarkably by the way, but that’s not really the point).
The whole thing is complicated, and has to be broached with a lot of tact – a lesson hopefully Cameron learns in the future.