Wonder Woman – three themes that made me cry

SPOILER ALERT: This blog discusses plot points and scenes within the movie Wonder Woman.

Okay, so it’s pretty slushy to admit to crying at watching a superhero movie. They never normally get me like that… but Patty Jenkins’ Wonder Woman did, and I’ve been trying to work out why.

There’s a complex mixture here, but much of it is not to do with the story but the themes it explores.

Theme 1: The awakening to new consciousness of the idealistic individual.

One of the main recurring themes in the movie is what happens when ideals meet reality.

A set piece early in the movie explains the mythical origins of the Amazons to the young Princess Diana of Themyscira. In the myth, mankind is created both good and noble by a benign creator, Zeus – but is corrupted by Ares, the evil god of war.

It is a mythical representation of the human condition echoed by several myth cycles – though not the Greek myths, which have an ambivalent view of the gods and their attitudes toward humanity.

In the Greek myths, the gods are spiteful, jealous, capricious, devious and vengeful.

In fact, the Greek gods are all the things people are because they are the personifications of the different drives of humanity. They are thus archetypes. So, evil doesn’t really fit easily into their pantheon in the way it does in the myth cycle in the movie.

The myth that most closely correlates to the myth told by Hipolyta – the story of a benign creator god whose creations are corrupted by a malevolent lesser god – is something far closer to home: it’s the Judaeo-Christian conception of humanity. Rather than echoing the realities of human psychology, Judaeo-Christianity presents an idealised humanity that adherents are invited to aspire to.

Hence the Amazonian myth depicting man’s fall into crime and war is a version of Adam’s Fall. So far, so exotic and so familiar. But the Amazonian story differs because Zeus is a limited God, and creates the Amazons to bring love to the world, intending through love to tame the evil of corrupted men. (This is a big departure from Christianity, which sees physical love as an evil and Eve not as a saviour, but a transgressor.) That Zeus’s attempt to bring an end to strife through love should fail and that men become the oppressors of the Amazons, who in turn rise up against them, is a novel mythical element, and radical.

The war that ensues among the Gods leaves Zeus, the creator god in mortal peril, threatened by his son, Ares. In his dying act, he grants to Queen Hippolyta her wish for a child – and animates the clay model she has made, thus creating Diana – and grants to the Amazons Themyscira. The Paradise Island is a place where Diana can grow up in safety, away from the malevolent influence of the injured and weakened god Ares, whom unbeknownst to Diana, she has been created to slay.

But what is interesting about this set piece early in the movie is that this story is told in a story-book way, with story-book images. It is not convincing on the screen, because it is a caricature of whatever “really” happened in the Amazonian past. That ambiguity – the story of a child’s myth and the truth behind it – is central to the film.

One of the strands that runs through the story is Diana’s crucial realisation that her world view which is founded on this simplistic conception of the nobility of man and the valour of war is wrong. She realises her moral view which is that all of what she calls evil flows from a single source – Ares – is simplistic, and misunderstands humanity. Like the Christian who grows up to realise that a Devil is not necessary to make men do bad things, she realises mankind is driven by internal desires for power and domination, and also by love and noble acts. Philosophically speaking, it makes the drives called “good” and “evil” immanent within each human being, and does not make humans the toys of supernatural elements.

Though not in the film, once this question is asked, it leads to further questions. Is there evil? Or is there simply the behaviour of individuals seeking to control resources and have dominion one over the other? Does the whole concept of evil itself collapse? It is that equivocal nature of morality as no longer a simple question of good versus evil that Diana struggles with toward the end of the movie. And it really got to me. I admit it!

There is also a beautiful integrity to the story in this regard. Remembering that the Amazons were created to bring enlightenment to man through Love, it is therefore apt that her love of Steve Trevor in the end means that she forms a bridge of understanding of mankind. In the end, she recognises the folly in man, but also sees his nobility.

Her internal story of development, the central part of her Bildungsroman, is her movement from a place of naive belief in a myth to a deeper personal understanding of humanity through her own experiences. Because of that experience, she judges that mankind is worth protecting, even though he is flawed.

This awakening to adult consciousness and the redemptive power of love after grappling with simplistic notions of good and evil are central to the story. It is a pretty universal theme, and a mature one.

Theme 2: A fascinating clash of world views.

Another of the main themes of the story is the clash of world views. Diana comes from an ancient warrior culture, full of myth and low in technology. In it, women are the soul arbiters of their own fate and are used to attaining high office and demonstrating physical prowess. It has magic in it, and Diana herself is a goddess.

The world she enters is the world of men, with all its mundane harshness and cruelty, grime and disdain for women. Several scenes jump out to show the jarring interface between the two worlds, perhaps well symbolised by the arrival of Steve Trevor’s aircraft as it crashes through the surrounding mists and magic of Themiscyra. Suddenly, 20th Century culture and technology arrive in 2nd millennium BC Greek culture.

There are numerous examples of the mismatch between the two, which leads to some glorious comedic moments. Congratulating an ice-cream salesman on the product he sells is a beautiful moment of naivety in Diana. The whole set piece of getting Diana clothes suitable for a 20th Century woman is hilarious. The discussion of whether she and Steve Trevor can “sleep together” on the boat away from Themiscyra is beautifully handled in its understatement and as an elucidation of his warm, morally solid character.

Then this clash of cultures shifts into drama. Diana’s lambasting of generals for hiding in an office rather than fighting alongside their men, her shock at the treatment of soldiers and her realisation that war leaves indelible marks on people’s bodies and minds form part of her development. Next comes the dramatic shift, when she arrives on the battlefield and faces No Man’s Land. “It’s called No Man’s Land because no man can cross it,” Steve Trevor tells her. The understatement here is perfect. And so the moment we’ve been waiting for – of the woman hero in battle begins. That scene is just extraordinary. The figure of a woman on the battlefield is so full of conflicting emotions for me that I tear up thinking about it now. It is perhaps one of the greatest emblems of the mismatch of our culture and hers that it so draws the eye – a woman fighter on the battlefield would have been impossible at the time and we know it, and yet we are beguiled by the thought of it and by the heroism of this wonderful and naive hero.

Theme 3: A woman who enters the world of men for the first time.

One of the things that makes Diana such an appealing character is her fearless curiosity and her mental poise. When she sees Trevor’s airplane crash land in the sea, her instinct is to swim toward it. When she sees a man naked for the first time as Steve Trevor gets out of the pool he is bathing in, she assesses his physiology with unabashed curiosity, never having seen a man before. Then she asks him about his watch, and what it does. The scripting is brilliant: “You let such a little thing control your life?” she asks.  And yes, we all know that clock and cock are being spoken of in the same breath.

Her curiosity about the world of men leads her to experience its indignities with good humour. She tries on the clothing of the 20th Century woman, bringing her own cultural traits to bear. Looking at a silk bodice she says: “This is what passes for armour in your culture?” The way she is assumed to be an intruder in counsels of war because of her sex is handled without preaching, but simply by showing her confusion at why one should be excluded for being female. She does not rant, she does not rail. She simply rises above the question and stays true to her goal, to get to the war.

Later, the incredibly tasteful way that she takes Steve Trevor as her lover, revealing a kind of vulnerability, is also done with exactly the right tasteful approach. And this is no unnecessary romance bolted on to the storyline. The relationship between Trevor and her, their love, is central to her commitment to the world of men and to her defeat of Ares.

These are just a few examples of the themes in this movie. It repays rewatching with treasure after treasure.

There’s no doubt about it, I too have fallen in love with Wonder Woman.


  1. Jenny

    You have a few things wrong regarding Christianity wrong here. They don’t disregard human psychology; they do present something/one to aspire too, but they also accept that humans are flawed, and that will always be the case. And physical love is not an evil. Christians see human sexuality see human sexuality as a beautiful and holy thing, within the arms of a loving, monogamous marriage.
    But on the whole, this was very helpful. I’m doing a film essay on this movie and this post brought up some really good point.

  2. Post

    1) Yes, the point about human psychology is that Christian psychology is rather limited. If it weren’t, psychologists wouldn’t need to reclaim metaphors from Classical mythology to illuminate it.

    2) Sure, Milton sings the praises of sexual love in the Garden of Eden, and many Christians do. But you just need to look at the history of how women have been either portrayed simplistically as saints or harlots in Catholic iconography, and you’ll see the fear many Christian men have of women’s sexual presence. I think the point may be simplistically stated for shorthand purposes, but the sheer distrust of women because they are women is central to Christian belief, which allows them very little expression and represents them in limited ways. But I think your questioning of the nuancing is correct. It is a piece about pop culture after all, so I’m not going to sweat too much.

  3. Noah

    Distrust of women is in no way central to christian belief. The actions of the Catholic Church in the past are not supported by the majority of modern Christians. I have nothing to say about what the Catholic Church does with it’s Icons because I personally don’t believe that they should be making Icons to begin with. I am only commenting because It is harmful people to make assumptions about Christianity and other religions. The Christian view of psychology is very complex. the bible itself uses complex stories to illustrate them. Modern psychology using metaphors form classical mythology, in no way discounts any other mythology or religion. That is the same as saying “run like the wind” means that any other thing I could compare the speed of an object to is inferior even if they are faster than any recorded wind. As for sexuality, just read the Songs of Solomon. Sex is great and glorifying, Christians should in no way view sex as evil, they should however view it as something that should be reserved for marriage, not because it is so bad that only the married could handle it but because it so good and special that only people in a marriage relationship should do it. If you want compare views, I’d be glad to. But considering beliefs that Christians share as simple just because they are “christian” is a very small view of the world.

  4. Post


    Thanks for your comment.

    I have read the bible, thank you, and have indeed found it to be loaded with hatred of women. The very first story of Eve’s temptation and the use by countless Christians thereafter of the idea of the “curse” of God as a justification for the menstrual cycle being a wound, or punishment is a bad starting point, and the book gets worse and worse.

    The point of that small part of the article you take issue with is simply that the myths in the Bible concerning women do not serve them well, because of the cultural setting in which the bible was written, in which women had a limited sphere of operation and a very particular role in society which was promulgated by male priests seeking to limit their freedom, and who thus delineated certain behaviours as societally acceptable, others as not so.

    Women are continually (with a very few exceptions) portrayed as subservient to their male masters. Some are wily enough in the fables to get the upper hand briefly – but mostly women are defined by a handful of traits: wives, princesses, help-mates to the men are good. Wise women and women with their own spirituality are witches. Jezebel is killed for her faith in Baalism, and the name culturally has come to be equated with the word “whore”. That’s a great indicator of the way the bible meshed with a male dominated religious culture to contain and disempower women. Judith uses her sexuality to seduce Holofernes, and this at least has a female hero doing something active. But then, the beheading of a man thanks to his sex drive once again is a lesson about the dangers of feminine power. We have Jephthah’s vow in which he sacrifices his own child for his god – a girl. Clearly an echo of the barbaric past of the Jewish tribes when human sacrifice was practised it is presented as fact. She dies. When a similar scenario unfolds for Abraham, his child lives. Coincidentally or not, he’s a boy.

    The New Testament doesn’t get any better, with Paul’s pronouncements on the evils of women – a strand of misogyny that has wound its way through the history of Christianity, meshing with the Old Testament and leading to the European Witch Trials and the subjugation of generations of women.

    Song of Solomon, an odd collection of semi-mystical, erotic, half-forgotten wedding songs and poems left over from a pagan past is hot, I agree. But it rather proves the point, since it is so clearly out of place.

    My point really about the bible is similar to the one you make. Half of it is a small, single-persepectived view of a very tiny world from a set of nomadic tribes who knew only their own little sphere of operation. The New Testament at least has some kindness in it rather than being largely a record of Jewish tyranny in the Middle East followed by subjugation and escape. But Nietzsche sums it up well. The only true Christian was Christ. Everyone else changes the meaning of the bible to suit their psychologies. The problem is, you have such a limited pallet to work with. My own view is, there has to be a better way of looking at the world with better stories than this outdated, single perspective. I am happy for the fables and myths of the bible to be used alongside other teachings, but if this is one’s only reference point for a guide to life – especially the Old Testament – there are better stories to be told.

    Wonder Woman makes steps toward that.

    On a general note, I won’t be responding to people taking exception to this one tiny aspect of this article. I’ve dealt with it here.

Want to comment? You're welcome.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.