Archive

Archive for March, 2018

GraphicAudio sale this weekend!

Heads up: GraphicAudio is running a sale this weekend on its comics/superhero-related audiobooks, with 20% off when you buy 2 or more. This sale includes their adaptations of two of my novels, Only Superhuman and Spider-Man: Drowned in Thunder, so that works out nicely. The ordering links are here:

Only Superhuman audiobook  Only Superhuman

Spider-Man: Drowned in Thunder audiobook  Spider-Man: Drowned in Thunder

It looks like OS is only available in digital audio formats, but DiT is still available in a 5-CD box set as well as digitally.

Admittedly, Only Superhuman has never been done in comics (not yet, anyway), but it’s a superhero story and is largely an homage to superhero comics, so GraphicAudio lists it along with their comics titles. Anyway, this is a good time to call new attention to OS, considering that my story collection Among the Wild Cybers: Tales Beyond the Superhuman, featuring the brand-new Only Superhuman prequel story “Aspiring to Be Angels,” is due out later this year.

Thoughts on BLACK PANTHER (spoilers)

I finally got around to seeing Black Panther yesterday, since I have a bit of money coming in and figured I could spare a few bucks to see the phenomenon while it’s still in theaters (and before Avengers: Infinity War comes out). I never got around to seeing Thor: Ragnarok in theaters — I’m in the hold queue for the DVD at the library, but there are about 1350 people ahead of me at the moment — but this was a film I had to see, given its rave reviews and its larger importance.

Usually when I go to see a film this late in its run, and in a matinee showing, I’m one of only a few people in the theater. For this film, though, the theater was fairly packed. And I can’t remember the last time I saw a movie with an audience that was so emotionally invested in the film — with people who said “Oh, no!” when a supporting character was about to be killed or applauded when the hero made a grand entrance. For once, I wasn’t annoyed when people talked in the theater, because I was interested in the way people were reacting to this movie and engaging with it.

I don’t really want to go into detail about the plot and specifics of the film, since it’s all pretty terrific and it’s all been talked about really extensively elsewhere. I thought it was fascinating on a lot of levels. I loved the portrayal of Wakandan technology and architecture, of African designs and sensibilities extrapolated into modernity and futurism without colonial influence. It made for something really fresh and intriguing to see. And I love it that the film didn’t just depict an Afrofuturist utopia, but made it textured, with its own internal problems and conflicts and mistakes, and also confronted what it would mean to black Americans — both the sense of hope and empowerment it offered, and the harsh question of whether they had the right to maintain their utopia by abandoning others in need. Killmonger is certainly the richest, most sympathetic villain the Marvel Cinematic Universe has had since Loki, if not ever, since he had a legitimate viewpoint to offer, even if his methods were too violent. He was right that his people deserved liberation, but wrong to think that just adding more violence and oppression to the world would achieve that. I could tell from very early on that the film was likely to end with T’Challa realizing he needed to open up Wakanda to the world and offer its benefits to others, to make amends for Wakanda’s past through peaceful outreach and support rather than armed conquest. I’m very interested in seeing the answer to the question T’Challa is asked at the end of the mid-credits scene.

The cast was really solid, excellent all around. Michael B. Jordan is a standout as Killmonger, bringing enormous charisma while still being a credible threat. Chadwick Boseman is effective in the lead. Lupita Nyong’o is very good as Nakia, and it doesn’t hurt that she’s one of the most beautiful women I’ve ever seen. (This is the first movie of hers I’ve seen where I could actually see her face.) Letitia Wright (who had a recurring role in Humans season 2 as a troubled schoolgirl pretending to be an android) is lots of fun as Shuri, and I love it how the film just takes it for granted that their resident Tony Stark-meets-Q is a teenage girl. (She has the kind of vast high-tech underground playroom that I dreamed of having as a teenager.) I was impressed by Person of Interest‘s Winston Duke as M’Baku, a character who had to be handled very, very carefully to skirt the offensive implications of his comics counterpart, the villain called “Man-Ape.” He had to start out as a convincing antagonist and then reveal a more admirable side, and he pulled it off well. Martin Freeman did his usual excellent work as Everett Ross, going from a smugly clueless American to a stalwart ally who slipped comfortably into a supporting role, rather than trying to dominate the narrative. (I’ve seen this movie compared to a James Bond film, so I guess that means Ross would be Felix Leiter.) Andy Serkis was unexpectedly impish as Ulysses Klaue, who we initially were led to think was the primary villain but who ended up being secondary to Killmonger. In the comics, Ulysses Klaw was the murderer of T’Challa’s father, but Captain America: Civil War gave T’Chaka a different fate, so that arc was transferred to T’Challa’s friend W’Kabi (Daniel Kaluuya), motivating him to turn against T’Challa and aid Killmonger. W’Kabi is a minor antagonist, but one who has a well-drawn arc and understandable motivations for doing the wrong thing.

One thing I found a bit distracting was the music, but that’s not really the movie’s fault. Before the movie, the theater showed a trailer for Spielberg’s Ready Player One, scored with a partly orchestral arrangement of the 1984 pop song “Take On Me.” (I don’t know pop music well, but I heard that song constantly on the PA at the UC Bookstore when I worked there.) Then the film came on, and the orchestral theme used for the Black Panther was exactly the same melody as the first six notes of “Take On Me”‘s refrain. So because of the trailer, every time I heard that leitmotif, I was reminded of the song. Otherwise, though, the score by Ludwig Göransson does some fairly interesting things blending African rhythms and styles with conventional orchestral movie scoring.

When I first heard that there’d be a Black Panther movie, I was concerned about how an American-made film would portray Africa, since there have been so many stereotypes and misconceptions about it in past films and TV shows. Some of the Marvel animated TV productions that have depicted Black Panther and Storm (of the X-Men) have been deeply rooted in ignorant stereotypes about Africa, tending to portray it as a single monolithic culture consisting of nothing but thatched-hut villages surrounded by wilderness. The ideal that I hoped for but wasn’t sure we’d get was a film that avoided all those assumptions and cliches, that did the research about modern Africa and portrayed it authentically. And this film essentially did fulfill my hopes. It’s certainly well-researched and rooted in real African culture rather than Western preconceptions, and it satirizes those preconceptions by contrasting them with the reality of Wakanda. Although its tight focus on the fictional nation of Wakanda means that it didn’t necessarily counter preconceptions about what the rest of Africa looks like. It would be nice, in a sequel, to see more exploration of Wakanda’s neighbors on the continent now that it’s not hiding from them anymore. Let’s see some major African metropolises like maybe Lagos, Nigeria, which is one of the largest and fastest-growing cities on Earth.

Still, that’s a minor note. Even if Black Panther doesn’t do all the work itself, its success will hopefully bring more attention to African-American voices and African culture, and perhaps other films can follow in its footsteps. (Pawprints? Sneaker prints?) That’s a change that’s long overdue, and I’m glad to see it starting to happen. Even aside from the importance of equal representation and diversity, it’s just good to have a wider range of ideas and perspectives informing popular culture, making it richer, inviting more people into the tent both as fans and creators. And it’s really satisfying to see an audience really engaged and excited by a movie like the folks around me in the theater yesterday. Black Panther, like Wonder Woman before it, was a movie that needed to knock it out of the park in order to dispel Hollywood preconceptions about what kind of films could succeed. And like Wonder Woman before it, the film met that challenge and surpassed it, and hopefully has opened a door that will never close again.

Categories: Reviews Tags: , , ,

Arrghh

Well, not all my writing news lately has been good. I just missed out on getting an assignment because the proposal I e-mailed in just before the deadline got lost somehow and never reached the editor. I only just found that out when I checked in to see why I hadn’t heard back. It’s something I can still do for them later, just in a different context — but that means I won’t get paid for it until some time later, and I still have a need for things that will pay off sooner. Really frustrating that I missed out for such a stupid reason.

The irony is, I went through a stretch of a few weeks where I didn’t hear back from anyone on anything and I was starting to wonder if there was something wrong with my e-mail. I even tried sending test e-mails between my two addresses to check. Since then, I’ve gotten replies on most of the other things, so I figured I was fine on that front and maybe the editor was just delayed. Only for it to turn out that I was right the first time (at least in that instance) and the mail just didn’t get through.

It just occurred to me to check back through my past correspondence with this editor, and it turns out that I’ve always gotten an e-mail acknowledgment when I submitted something. But it’s a relatively new working relationship, so I guess I hadn’t realized that yet. If I had, maybe I would’ve noticed sooner that something was wrong.

It also just occurred to me that another thing I haven’t heard back about was sent to another publisher just a week earlier. So I’ve contacted them to double-check that they got it.

The odd thing is, I also had a delivery problem with a couple of pieces of physical mail back in January. I was contacted by two different businesses asking if my address had changed because something sent to my correct address (a bill in one case, a tax form in the other) had been sent back as undeliverable. Evidently there was a brief mixup at the post office, though I’m not sure what it was, because it didn’t affect any of my subsequent mail. Odd that I’d have both physical and electronic mail delivery problems in consecutive months. At least the snail-mail delays didn’t cost me any work, although I did postpone my tax appointment by a few days to make sure the form got to me in time. (Unnecessarily, as it turned out, since I got it on the morning of the day of my original appointment.)

Oh, speaking of work, I still haven’t had much luck finding a job. I got an interview for a position at the public library, but it’s always been very hard to get in there and I didn’t get the job, as I expected. But on the day before my interview there, I got a request to interview for a bookstore job I’d almost forgotten I applied for back in the holiday season. It helped to know I’d have another option in the likely event that the library thing didn’t come through. I’m waiting now to hear back about the bookstore job. Failing that, I guess I’ll have to search online for work again. At least my impending check for the new Hub stories should give me a little more breathing space to keep looking. But the gig I missed out on would’ve helped a bit more on top of that.

Categories: My Fiction Tags: ,

BLADE RUNNER 2049 Review (spoilers)

My latest movie that I belatedly got from the library because I was too broke to see it in theaters was Blade Runner 2049, Dennis Villeneuve’s sequel to Ridley Scott’s 1982 sci-fi-noir classic. And it’s the second movie in a row that I’m kind of glad I didn’t spend money on. While superficially impressive, it doesn’t have a lot of satisfying substance or really add up to much.

It’s rather odd to see a 2017 movie set in 2049 that’s a sequel to a 1982 movie set in 2019. What was futurism is now alternate history. But the film basically ignores this paradox and evolves the Blade Runner world 30 years in the future through a cursory text crawl at the beginning — a backstory that was explored in a series of online shorts before the film’s release (including a fairly impressive anime segment) but is barely relevant to the film itself. For all the text exposition about the Tyrell replicants being prohibited after a revolution and a resultant technological collapse, there’s little in the film’s 2049 setting that seems like anything other than a direct continuation of the original film’s status quo. Whatever was lost in that revolution and collapse is back in place by the time of the film — replicant slaves are even more ubiquitous and programmed not to rebel, the cyberpunk techno-dystopia looks much the same but with flashier (and more R-rated) holo-ads, despite the presence of wastelands beyond, and so on. So all that background worldbuilding seemed to serve the shorts more than it served the film itself.

Which leaves the film’s own story and characters to generate interest, and I’m afraid it doesn’t do that very well. The film is certainly good to watch — the visuals would have been worth seeing on the big screen, and the tiny text of the captions would’ve been easier to read there (I had to freeze and zoom to read them on my antique TV) — and at first, I liked its slow pace, which made it feel like a film from the era of its predecessor or even earlier (think 2001: A Space Odyssey). But after a while, I started to feel it was often too slow, too overindulgently edited like so many films today are, despite the retro feel it conveyed. It didn’t really need to be 2 hours and 44 minutes long.

But on to the characters. One thing that makes this film distinct is that most of its central characters are explicitly replicants or other AIs. Human characters (other than Rick Deckard, whose true nature is left as ambiguous by this film as it’s been for the past 35 years) are secondary and basically just there to perpetuate the power structure, and the story is centrally about replicants who either support or resist their enslavement. Ryan Gosling (an actor I remember being very bad as the lead in Young Hercules 20 years ago but who’s evidently improved since then) plays Officer K, a nameless replicant who works as a blade runner, assassinating older-model Tyrell replicants that were outlawed after the rebellion. (He’s a newer Wallace-brand replicant, of the supposedly safer kind made by Jared Leto’s Niander Wallace.) Now, this is a plot hole that I didn’t realize until after the film was over. Why are there any Tyrell replicants left? What Batty and the others were fighting for in the original film was life extension beyond their planned termination at 4-5 years of age. And they didn’t get it. So how are there still Tyrell models running around 30 years later? This wasn’t explained, as far as I could tell.

So anyway, K starts out loyal, but he comes upon the lovingly buried bones of a replicant who, according to the autopsy, died in childbirth. A replicant who could reproduce is a game-changer, and K’s lieutenant, inexplicably called “Madam” (Robin Wright), wants him to destroy all evidence of it, while Wallace sees replicant procreation as a holy grail he’s been trying and failing to invent, sending his head hench-replicant Luv (Sylvia Hoeks) to find the replicant child. K begins to suspect that he is the child, and goes on a search for the mother, who turns out to be Sean Young’s Rachel from the original film, and that puts him on the trail of Deckard, who doesn’t show up until a couple of hours into the movie. For a while, it seemed that the arc about K’s identity was playing out obviously and predictably, but that turned out to be a red herring, fortunately.

The thing is, none of this is quite as interesting as the conflict in the original film. Blade Runner worked because of the complexity and ambiguity of its characters. It was basically a story about a man gradually realizing he was the villain of the story and his victims were the ones on the right side. (Well, at least in the later edits. The original version’s narration alters the meaning of the climax, which is why I didn’t like the film until I saw a later cut and realized what it was really about.) Here, we have K going through a similar arc, going from a loyal blade runner to a resistor, but it’s basically for more personal reasons. And it’s less interesting as a story because there is no ambiguity to the antagonists. Like, at all. Niander Wallace is a cartoonishly evil eccentric who shows up for 2-3 scenes, a mercifully brief exposure to Leto’s tiresomely affected acting, but hardly very interesting from a character standpoint. (He’s also blind and uses creepy hovering “fish” drones to see, which perpetuates the unfortunate cinematic cliche of equating disability with evil.) And Luv is nothing but a one-note terminator, without anything remotely interesting about her personality or motivations. She’s just programmed to obey and that’s it. Which makes it disappointing when the film’s climax comes down to K fighting Luv over Deckard’s fate in a very small, claustrophobic setting, a single skimmer surrounded by a visual void. It’s an interesting directorial choice to bring the climax in to something so small and intimate after such vast, sprawling vistas, but climaxes that close in to tight character focus are successful when we actually give a damn about the characters, ideally on both sides. The film didn’t really succeed in creating that investment, so we just get a really long fight scene that feels extremely anticlimactic because it’s utterly devoid of any emotional weight or character relevance. Even Deckard doesn’t really get enough character development in the film to become much more than a Macguffin the other characters are fighting over. There’s not much connection between Deckard here and the person he was in the original. He’s just an old guy who has a dog. (When I first saw the rather wooly-looking dog in the shadows, I wondered, “Is that a sheep?”)

It doesn’t help that the other major female character in the film, Joi (Ana de Armas), is nothing but a sex hologram programmed to act like she’s in love with K. There are times when it seems that she and K have a real relationship, but it’s made clear to the audience before too long that Joi is simply a consumer product whose primary advertised feature is that she tells her owners what they want to hear. It’s also easy to guess, since she’s a Wallace product, that the Wallace people are using her projector unit that K carries around in his pocket as a tracker.  It might’ve been a little more interesting if it had turned out, as I expected it to, that Joi was an active spy for Wallace, tracking K’s every move and manipulating him into leading Luv to the child. Instead, it just turned out that they were passively tracking her, and there was a moment when it seemed that she had enough intelligence to want K to avoid tracking, but ultimately her story just fizzled out. I can’t even say she was fridged, since her destruction didn’t really motivate any particular action or decision on K’s part. There’s a bit where K sees a giant nude ad holo of Joi and seems to realize that she was just a toy telling him what he wanted to hear, but why didn’t he know that all along? Or did he know and just convince himself otherwise because he was so lonely? It isn’t really made clear. And the film could really have stood to devote more screen time to female characters who had actual agency and goals of their own, rather than devoting the bulk of its attention to a “character” who was literally nothing more than a nonsentient sex object created to pander to male fantasies. I gather that Villeneuve has said his intent was to comment on society’s objectification of women, but it’s not that much of a commentary if you just do the same thing yourself. And all that aside, it’s just hard to invest emotionally in a major character that is not actually a self-aware being. It’s not as if the other characters have a lot of depth to make up for it.

We do learn, rather late in the game, that there’s a replicant resistance whose primary characters are both female (the old Tyrell-model leader and the sex-worker replicant who gets in close to K), but neither of them gets as much screen time as Joi or Luv. And the resistance plot is just introduced and then doesn’t really go anywhere. Like Wallace’s unresolved quest for replicant procreation, it feels like a sequel hook that’s just left dangling.

I suppose the resistance leader scene does serve the purpose of revealing to K that he isn’t the child after all, that he just has one of the child’s memories, as most Wallace replicants do. And I guess that’s important. We were told at the start that Wallace replicants were programmed to be obedient slaves, incapable of rebellion. That’s why Wallace was permitted to make them after the prohibition of Tyrell replicants. For most of the film, we were led to think that K was able to resist because he was special, because he was the child of Deckard and Rachel and thus not Wallace-made after all. But it turned out that he was just an ordinary Wallace model — yet he was still able to resist his programming and defy his orders. Which means that all replicants are able to do the same. That is kind of a big deal, but it’s left pretty much implicit. I didn’t realize it until afterward. Although it’s the one thing I realized on further reflection that had a positive impact on my reaction to the film rather than a negative one.

Honestly, the whole Macguffin of replicants that can reproduce like humans — or rather, the premise that they’re this amazing rarity — seems implausible. Why is reproduction so hard for Wallace to emulate? If you can create something as incredibly complex as sentient thought, mere cell replication doesn’t seem that difficult in comparison. Other than that, though, if we just stipulate to the premise, I can see why it’s a big deal; for replicants, it means they don’t need human help to reproduce and can be free, while Wallace sees it as a way to expand the size of his slave force and accelerate his business empire’s spread across the stars (something only talked about and never shown — but is implied to have expanded far more than is plausible in just 30 years). But given what the film implies about replicants’ ability to resist, doesn’t that mean that Wallace is doomed to failure anyway? Not because of any hero’s actions, but because he mistakenly wants to give his own slaves the very power that would give them their independence from him? Even if he acted unopposed, he would still ultimately lose through his own actions (although he would kill Deckard and the child in the process). Which is another thing that undermines him as a villain. Ultimately, the main characters’ actions have little impact on anything except the personal. If anything, keeping the reproductive knowledge from Wallace just prolongs replicant enslavement.

All in all, then, Blade Runner 2049 is a sequel that does a reasonably effective job capturing and building on the visual style and feel of the original film and its world, but whose story doesn’t really carry much weight and whose characters are largely ciphers. It’s an impressive surface over weak substance, like far too many modern movies. By itself, it would’ve been an adequate and beautifully made cyber-noir thriller. But it falls well short of being a classic like its predecessor.

HUB SPACE is now in trade paperback!

That second bit of good news about my Hub series has materialized sooner than expected! Crossroad Press is now offering Hub Space: Tales from the Greater Galaxy in trade paperback form as well as e-book form. At last, my first Hub collection, containing the corrected and expanded editions of “The Hub of the Matter,” “Home is Where the Hub Is,” and “Make Hub, Not War” plus supplemental material, is available in a print edition!

Hub Space: Tales from the Greater Galaxy

The new trade paperback edition of Hub Space can be purchased directly from Crossroad Press here:

https://crossroadpress.com/product/hub-space/

Or from Amazon:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1946025496

The cover price is $9.99, though Crossroad’s site is offering it for $8.00 for a limited time. I haven’t seen a physical copy yet myself, but I’ve seen the PDF, and it looks good. It comes out to about 126 pages in print form, comparable to the length of a lot of older science fiction novels and collections from the ’50s or ’60s, though larger in page size.

This paperback release is quite timely, since readers of the new story “Hubpoint of No Return” in next month’s Analog now have an additional buying option if they want to refresh their memories about the previous stories. It’s also just a few months before the release of my second story collection, Among the Wild Cybers. Before long, then, I’ll have three original books all available in print. With at least one more to follow next year, since there’s sure to be a second Hub collection once Analog has published all three of the new stories. I’m so glad that my original fiction is finally starting to take up more shelf space! Although I’ve still got a long way to go if I want my original output to catch up with my tie-in output.

Annotations update: dead links fixed

A TrekBBS member called Extrocomp was kind enough to go through the Star Trek annotations pages here on my blog and alert me to the various links that have gone dead in the years since I posted them, even providing updated file names from Memory Alpha. I spent the morning correcting the dead links — either updating the file locations, linking to Internet Archive snapshots of the now-defunct pages, or finding suitable alternative links to convey the same information (such as Wiki pages, or in one or two cases, the original source of an article that I’d linked to a mirror of). After which, since I can never resist being thorough, I went through my Original Fiction and Marvel annotations on my own and updated or replaced broken links as needed. So now all the annotations should have fully updated links, although there might still be broken links I haven’t yet found on some of the non-annotation pages of the site.

So, thanks, Extrocomp, for your diligence!

 

PROFESSOR MARSTON and the Blundered Biopic (spoilers)

Last night I finally got around to watching Professor Marston and the Wonder Women, last year’s biopic based on the life story of Wonder Woman creator William Moulton Marston, his wife and collaborator Elizabeth, and their (reputed) polyamorous partner Olive Byrne. I’ve rarely been so disappointed by a biographical film, although it’s not a genre I’m that much into. I was intrigued by the trailers and the early descriptions, and I liked the idea of the smash-hit Wonder Woman movie being accompanied by a movie that explored the life of Wonder Woman’s creators. Unfortunately, though, the movie badly misrepresents the work of the Marstons, both in science and in comics, in a way that shows a gross failure of research and lack of respect for the legacy of the people the film is supposed to be paying tribute to.

Professor Marston focuses mainly on the development of the trio’s polyamorous love story and exploration of bondage and kink, framed by a sequence of Marston defending Wonder Woman to some sort of public morality league, but the love story is often rather maudlin, as the movie spends so much time focusing on the characters wrestling with guilt and shame about their unconventional feelings and interests that it undermines the portrayal of their eventual embrace of those things and of each other, since they keep backtracking with every setback and have a new argument over the morality of what they’re doing. They’re so constantly shown as unhappy and in conflict that it’s often hard to figure out exactly why they’re in love in the first place. Rebecca Hall gives the best performance of the trio as Elizabeth (Luke Evans as William and Bella Heathcote as Olive are okay but unremarkable), but she also has to play the most neurotic and unlikeable character, and I don’t think Elizabeth is well-served by the film for all its effort to highlight her role as William’s partner in his work.

The first half is set in the late 1920s and focuses on the Marstons meeting Olive and gradually, mutually falling in love while working on the invention of what the film exclusively calls a “lie detector.” This is wrong on multiple levels. First, Marston did not invent the polygraph, the device vernacularly known as a “lie detector.” He developed a blood pressure reader that was later integrated into the polygraph by its actual inventor John Augustus Larson, all of which happened well before the time frame shown in the movie. Marston would go on to popularize the idea that the polygraph was useful as a “lie detector,” but that’s about the extent of his connection to it. It’s also a claim that has never been scientifically verified and is basically pseudoscience. In practice, polygraph readings are one factor taken into account by an interviewer who assesses the subject’s reactions over the course of several hours of observation, and are generally just used to support the conclusions the interviewers draw from their own assessment of the subject (which means that interviewer bias can give false results). Yet the movie embraces a cartoonish, cliched portrayal of the “lie detector” as a magic instrument that gives an infallible, instant true/false result for every single question. It’s simplistic and dumb and it lends an absurd quality to the scenes where the Marstons and Byrne use the device on each other to force each other to admit their feelings, even aside from the ethical quagmire of doing such a thing in the course of scientific research.

The early scenes of the trio getting to know each other are okay, but a lot of the dialogue is just big infodumps about the characters’ backstories, notably Olive Byrne being the niece of feminist icon Margaret Sanger. It’s well enough acted out, but it feels clumsy at times.

The film then races through the trio losing their jobs due to the scandal of their relationship and having multiple children together in their new lives while passing Olive off as a friend of the family, then eventually gets into the creation of Wonder Woman about a dozen years after the first half. The film screws this up as badly as the “lie detector” stuff. It shows Marston creating “Suprema the Wonder Woman” entirely on his own, inspired by a bondage getup that Olive puts on during the trio’s hesitant experimentation with the illegal, underground bondage community, then explaining it to the women with a bunch of crude pencil drawings, then taking it to a skeptical M.C. Gaines (publisher of the future DC Comics) and trying to win him over. In reality, Gaines saw an article by Marston about the educational potential of comics, then sought him out and hired him as an educational consultant. Marston wanted to create a kinder, gentler superhero who used the principles of loving submission that he believed in, but it was Elizabeth who suggested making the character female. So having the movie’s William make that decision on his own and try to sell it to a skeptical Elizabeth is robbing Elizabeth of one of her most important legacies. Also, Wonder Woman’s costume was created by Harry G. Peter, the original artist on the Wonder Woman comics. The movie completely excludes Peter from the narrative, and the substitute origin of Olive’s randomly assembled bondage costume is laughably corny, for all that it’s presented as this solemn, magical moment of epiphany. The film takes the established fact that the bracelets Olive often wore were cited by Marston as an inspiration for Wonder Woman’s bullet-deflecting bracelets and exaggerates it to give her credit for the entire ensemble.

Oh, another factual inaccuracy resulting from sloppy research: The frame story has Marston and his interrogator discuss Wonder Woman’s lasso that compels people to tell the truth. In fact, under Marston, the lasso compelled obedience. It was just part of the overall bondage/domination fetish element of the comics. It didn’t really start to become a tool for compelling the truth specifically until the Lynda Carter TV series in the ’70s, and it wasn’t formally redefined as “the Lasso of Truth” until the 1987 George Perez reboot. The idea that “Hey, the guy who ‘invented’ the lie detector also gave Wonder Woman a magic lie detector” is an appealing story to modern audiences, but it’s pure myth. This is typical of the laziness of this movie. It uncritically embraces every bit of present-day pop myth and assumption about Marston and Wonder Woman and lie detectors and the rest and makes no effort to correct any of it.

The film does a decent job acknowledging the broad strokes of William Marston’s beliefs in female superiority and the importance of loving submission, but it fumbles in some ways. When the moral-guardian interrogator complains about the “bondage and violence” in the comics, the film’s William doesn’t refute the characterization, even though it goes straight to one of the most crucial parts of the real Marston’s thinking. The justification he offered for the heavy use of bondage in his Wonder Woman comics was that it was a non-violent way to put characters in peril, a more palatable alternative to the gunplay and fisticuffs in other comics. The film’s frame sequence mentions none of this. And the frame has a laughably melodramatic resolution that feels like a spoof of overly melodramatic biopic climaxes, with his fury at the interrogation triggering a collapse and hospitalization that leads to his eventual death. He died of cancer a couple of years later, but the movie tries to suggest that it was the injustice of how he was treated that somehow killed him. Or something. It’s pretty corny, whatever it is.

Even the “where are they now” text at the end of the film is incredibly sloppy with the truth. It says that Marston died in 1947 and Wonder Woman therefore lost her bondage elements and her powers, until Gloria Steinem complained in the early 1970s and her powers were restored. That’s grossly misleading. Yes, in the wake of Marston’s death, Wonder Woman comics lost both their bondage elements and their feminism, with the writing being taken over by the deeply sexist Robert Kanigher and her stories coming to be focused mainly on Wonder Woman’s romantic life and “imaginary story” adventures with her own younger incarnations Wonder Girl and Wonder Tot. But she still had her superpowers and her costume throughout the 20-plus years of Kanigher’s run on the comic. The revamp in which Diana Prince lost her powers (which I discussed on this blog back in 2013) came in 1968, two decades after Marston’s death, and was actually a revival of the long-lost feminist element of the character, the idea being that it was more empowering to women to show that Diana could still be a great hero even without a supernatural advantage over men.

In short, Professor Marston bears only the most superficial resemblance to the true story it’s based on, taking a few fragments of fact and blatantly ignoring or distorting others in order to construct an essentially fictitious narrative. There’s nothing wrong with a biopic taking some liberties with the facts in order to symbolically get across the essence of who its subjects were and what they achieved. But too many of this film’s liberties are egregiously dishonest or ill-researched and undermine or misrepresent the true achievements and legacy of the people it depicts. Even as a work of fiction, it’s rather unfocused and pretentious, and often feels as if it’s just tossing around known elements of the Marstons’ life (or of the mythology that’s grown up around them, since the film doesn’t care about the distinction) without having any real point to make about them. I suppose it’s trying to tell a story about people who feel unconventional love and struggle toward acceptance of themselves despite society’s condemnation, but the portrayal and resolution of those struggles often seem superficial, and the attempt to juxtapose them with the badly misrepresented details of the Marstons’ professional accomplishments is clumsy and gets in the way of exploring those themes. Everything about the relationship is filtered through “Hey, look, this is the origin of this or that part of the Wonder Woman comics,” so the fact that the portrayal of the comics’ creative process is so sloppy and unconcerned with reality undermines the relationship parts as well. Ultimately, the pieces just don’t fit together. And it’s frustrating that a movie whose main characters are purportedly driven by the lifelong quest for truth and honesty has so much contempt for the truth.

Biographical films often have trouble working as coherent narratives because real life doesn’t work like a story. But Professor Marston and the Wonder Women has such complete disregard for the real facts of its subjects’ lives and work that it has no such excuse for its shortcomings as a work of fiction. It’s a shame, since I really wanted to like this film.