Patty Jenkins :
“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 always have to 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 icons of progress.”
"L’incapacité de James Cameron de comprendre ce que représente Wonder Woman pour les femmes du monde entier n’est pas étonnante. Même si c’est un grand réalisateur, il n’est pas une femme. Les femmes fortes sont fantastiques. Ses compliments sur mon film Monster, et le portrait d’une femme perturbée que j’y dressais, ont été très appréciés. Mais si les femmes doivent toujours se blinder, êtres dures et perturbées pour être fortes, et que nous ne sommes pas libres d’avoir plusieurs facettes ou de célébrer une icône parce qu’elle est belle et aimante, alors nous n’avons pas beaucoup avancé, n’est-ce pas ? Je crois que les femmes peuvent et devraient être TOUT CE QU’ELLES VEULENT, exactement comme les héros masculins. Il n’y a pas de bonne ou de mauvaise représentation d’une femme puissante. Et toutes les femmes du public qui ont fait de ce film un succès sont capables de choisir et de juger leur propre icône du progrès."
* * *
-- L'auteur du livre "Wonder Woman: Bondage and Feminism in the Marston/Peter Comics", Noah Berlatsky, réagit aux critiques de James Cameron :
"His claim that she’s an “objectified icon” misses a lot of the point of the character, in the past and the present"
"Wonder Woman is a feminist icon. She’s also a sex symbol. She’s a wish-fulfillment power fantasy and a sexual fantasy, which is part of why she’s had such lasting appeal to fans all over the gender spectrum. But her sex appeal has been a consistent cause of consternation for critics, fans, and casual passersby since her earliest days as a comic-book character.
Director James Cameron is the latest commenter to claim there’s a contradiction there, that feminism and sexiness are somehow at odds. In a furor-raising recent interview at the Guardian, he said that in Patty Jenkins’ new Wonder Woman film, the character is “just an objectified icon, and it’s just male Hollywood doing the same old thing!” He claimed it was a “step backwards” from his own Terminator franchise, starring Linda Hamilton, who he described as “not a beauty icon.” That’s an odd thing to say. Hamilton’s Sarah Connor is a wonderful, powerful character, but she certainly didn’t challenge Hollywood standards of attractiveness.
Cameron’s evaluation of his own work is questionable. But he at least has a glimmer of a point about Wonder Woman. It’s just an old point that’s been made over and over for decades, largely by people with no sense of the character’s history. William Marston, her creator, believed that female sexual oomph could lead both men and women to matriarchal utopia. His version of Wonder Woman was meant to be sexually provocative, educational, and appealing to men and women alike. Marston lived with two bisexual women in a polyamorous relationship, so he was always very aware of Wonder Woman’s potential lesbian audience. He was also aware of how female sexuality could be empowering, not just objectifying. (...)
Gal Gadot was obviously picked for the Wonder Woman role in part because, by conventional standards, she is breathtaking. The film certainly doesn’t shy away from acknowledging that. In England, men stare at her as if they’re aware she’s dropped in from another world. (...)
For better and worse, Wonder Woman’s sex appeal has always been an important part of the character. That may confuse James Cameron, but as Jenkins notes, the film’s fans, regardless of gender, seem to understand it well enough"
* * *
-- Le personnage féminin créé par James Cameron dans Terminator, Sarah Connor, est-il plus féministe que Wonder Woman ?
Tracy King : "No James Cameron, Sarah Connor in Terminator isn't feminist. And neither is Ripley in Aliens". "Sarah Connor exists only to get pregnant and give birth to the future hero".
"By comparing his character to Jenkins’, Cameron invites deeper gender analysis of his work"
"Sadly, Cameron’s perception of the feminist credentials of Sarah Connor, the heroine of the Terminator franchise, is flawed. Sure, she is brave and badass, but there’s an elephant in the…womb. In The Terminator (1984), the character of Sarah Connor exists only to get pregnant and give birth to the future hero. Not feminist. I say that as a huge The Terminator fan. I love the film but a gender analysis immediately reveals the obvious flaw, that Sarah is a prisoner of biological destiny.
She is going to fall for her rescuer and have unprotected sex with him while he’s still wearing the dirty jogging bottoms he took from a homeless guy at the start of the film. She is going to get pregnant, and the son she has no choice in bearing is going to be named John. He will lead the resistance and send his own dad back in time to save his mum and, well, you know the plot.
Sarah’s destiny is shaped by men and fertility, and that robs her of the essential agency required to declare a character feminist. Her character can only be cast as female, because her fertility is required for the plot. She’s a walking womb." (...)
"Women in TV and films are still so often motivated by their status as a wife or mother or, exhaustingly, by the loss of a child. I" (...)
"I will always love The Terminator, and Aliens, but following his criticism of Wonder Woman, I would invite James Cameron to divorce himself from the limited characteristics that he’s decided define a strong female lead."