The Shakeable Moral Ground in Wonder Woman (2017)

Introduction

I was shocked and breathless but also with great excitement at the scene where Wonder Woman first appeared in Batman v Superman. As her empowering theme song started to play, almost everyone in the theater applauded. Some even could not hold but let their “Ohhhhh” let loose. People welcomed Wonder Woman. Being one among the few movies featuring superheroines, Wonder Woman/Princess Diana refreshes the big screen where the presentation of male protagonists and the promotion of masculinity usually dominate. The audience, therefore, has the right to demand more from the feminist empowerment. Right after Batman v Superman, her own stand-alone movie, dedicated to the origin and construction of the superheroine, is released in 2017.

It did not fail us. Wonder Woman (2017) receives overwhelmingly positive feedback from movie critics and audience. The movie sets numerous box office records and is placed as #1 on the list of 50 best superhero movies of all time by Rotten Tomatoes. In short, Wonder Woman (2017) is an undeniable commercial hit.

Yet, many details in Wonder Woman (2017) perplex me. Her take on the subjective truth of war is questionable. Her use of (superhuman) power and her intervention in the men’s world (war), including the use of violence and lethal force, also poses a pressing question regarding the moral ambiguity of the First World War. There is no doubt that the original creator of the Wonder Woman character and director of this film do determine to construct Wonder Woman to represent an ideal feminist symbol: compassion, love, peace, gender equality, and most importantly, taking the leadership of the men’s world.

In this article, I want to show that in World War I context, such feminist image of Wonder Woman is incredibly fragile due to the weak moral ground upon which the character is built. Specifically, Wonder Woman, who supposes to become a moral compass for mankind, turns out to be a simple-minded goddess who lacks critical thinking ability and objective judgment. Instead, Diana/Wonder Woman is blinded by her love interest and becomes a “victim” of the subjective truth of the Great War.

The Origin of Wonder Woman: From World War II to World War I

Wonder Woman in 1940s comics

The fictional superheroine was created by the American psychologist William Moulton Marston. Wonder Woman’s first appearance in All-Star Comics #8, published during the World War II. At the time, Wonder Woman represents an early feminist model that is both a symbol of justice and an independent woman taking the leadership of the post-war world. The inspiration comes from Marston’s polyamorous relationship with two highly educated women (ironically), Elizabeth Holloway Marston and Oliver Byrne, both of whom involved in the women’s rights movement. Wonder Woman, hence, fulfilled not only the anti-fascist propaganda role (as she fought against the Nazis and enemy spies illustrated in 1940s comic book) and but also an influential feminist image.

The story of Wonder Woman, as told by Marston, starts when Steve Trevor’s plane crash-lands by the hidden Paradise Island, on which the Amazonian female warriors live. Wonder Woman (named Diana) is chosen to bring Steve Trevor (US Air Force) back to the human’s world on a mission of peace and diplomacy. However, after setting foot in America, Wonder Woman discovers the evil plot of Ares, the God of War who aims to start a global conflict, promote hatred and violence, thus boosting his power. It is then that Wonder Woman realizes her duty to protect the innocent, maintain peace, justice, and equality. Over time, the origin of Wonder Woman is revamped by DC Comics.

Diana and Steve Trevor in the 2017 movie

In the movie Wonder Woman (2017), it is shown that her origin is again altered. Growing up on the hidden island of Themyscira (formerly Paradise Island), the young Diana is told of Ares’ wicked ambition to fill men’s hearts with greed and hatred, making mankind kill each other. She then meets Steve Trevor, crash-landing by the island and being pursued by a group of German soldiers. Steve points out that he is holding a secret that can help end the Great War, a.k.a World War I. It turns out, the Amazonians have been unaware of the outside world and now, realizing humanity is once again purging each other (since when humanity stops massacring each other anyway?), they believe it is Ares behind all of this. The young Princess Diana sets off with Steve Trevor on a journey to “stop Ares and end the war.” The shift from Marston’s original WWII era to WWI is undoubtedly interesting but also poses perplexing matters.

The Complexities of War and the Making of Wonder Woman’s Subjective Perception of War

German soldiers and a Christmas tree in their trench, 1914

If the Second World War (1939 – 1945) was all about stopping the atrocity committed by the Nazis, then the First World War (1914 – 1918) is much more complicated. When Europe was shaken by the Nazi war machines marching across borders, the Western powers and the Soviet Union united to stop the advance of the force of evil. It was then, that every Allied soldier, whether British/American troops storming the beach of Normandy in 1944 or Soviet conscripts defending the fall of Stalingrad in 1943, firmly believed in their just cause. World War I, on the other hand, did not share such simplicity. Being called the Great War, the First World War witnessed the unprecedented scale of destruction, to the point that everyone called it “the war to end all wars” because there could not be another war that was more destructive than this Great War. The cause of the war, despite being sparked by the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria in 1914, had a complicated nature in the complex tangle of diplomacy and politics. Major European powers formed military alliances, one countering another. Industrialization helped boost the arms race in the region as if everyone foresaw the immediate demand for deadly weapons. And it happened. For the first time in human’s history, humanity saw the fruits of the industrialization, such as new types of rifles, armoured cars, bombers, explosives, in action. It was then that soldiers marched into frontlines, having intense hatred toward enemy soldiers but not knowing why they should kill each other. Perhaps the killing was for king and monarchies? Perhaps it was for the survival of their empires? Therefore, it was not easy to identify the line between the good and the bad since both sides, the Allied and the Axis Powers, fought to ensure they would not become victims of the others’ expanding military and economic forces. In this context, the intervention of a figure with superhuman strength and thus the ability to change the world, like Wonder Woman, should prompt some critical discussions.

The first and foremost question to be addressed is: Whose side is she on anyway? And why?

Before crash-landing on the island of Themyscira, Steve Trevor is an Allied spy in the German army. He has stolen an important notebook of Dr. Poison who works for the Germans, containing information about the deadliest weapon ever known to mankind. Steve believes that this notebook can turn the tide of war in favor of the Germans, who are on the losing side. Under the effect of the Lasso of Truth, Steve is compelled to tell the truth when questioned by the Amazonians: his mission is to infiltrate the Germans, steal the notebook and bring it back to England or else millions of innocent people would die because of this weapon. Diana and her Amazonian sisters, immediately believe it is Ares, the God of War who plant the seeds of hatred and violence in men who came up with these deadly ideas. She subsequently embarks for England with Steve Trevor, trying to find where the war “is” because that must be where Ares is. Throughout the film, Wonder Woman is portrayed as a leading woman with superhuman strength and stamina, siding with the Allied powers and charging toward the German trenches, obliterating German soldiers. Wonder Woman’s intervention gives the Allied tremendous advantages, upon which is based on the truth of Steve Trevor.

The plot of Wonder Woman (2017) as well as the way it handles history start to become problematic as soon as Diana saves Steve from his crashed plane and drags him to the beach. Diana and perhaps all other inhabitants of the island created by the (Greek) gods have yet to experience the concept of nationalism in the 20th century. Upon meeting each other, Diana was astounded by her first ever encounter with a man, a handsome one to be considered. She curiously asked the outsider who he is. To my surprise, Steve firmly states he is “one of the good guys and those (the Germans pursuing him) are the bad guys.” The Germans then proceed to land on the beach of Themyscira, starting to shoot and kill some of Diana’s sisters, including her close mentor. It is from this moment that Diana’s perception toward the Germans begins to be formulated: she views the Germans as aggressors, murderers who represent the image of Ares the God of War. Little does she know the complex nature of the Great War that is going on outside of Themyscira, let alone being aware of modern concepts like nation-state and nationalism. Diana’s subjective perception of reality is additionally reinforced by her reliance on the Lasso of Truth, the mythical weapon that can compel anyone to tell the truth. Steve is, therefore, interrogated and forced to tell his “truth,” or what he believes to be the truth: his intention is good, the Allied (his side, his nation) is inherently good, the Central powers (Germans and their allies) are inherently bad. The notion “us vs. them”, in which “we” are the good ones who protect women, children from “them,” the bad ones whose acts are based on hatred and violence, is established. Obviously, Steve Trevor, an American pilot working for the Allied force, has to have an absolute belief in his own country. And indeed, he has to portray the enemies as bad and inhumanly cruel men who commit war crimes. It is so predictable and obvious that I ask myself if the truth matters after all.

The philosophy of using the Lasso of Truth closely associates with Immanuel Kant’s moral theory (also called Kantian ethics). Kant emphasizes the importance of the truth because the truth represents an unimpeachable moral goal. Kant holds that there is a single account for all moral considerations, one “truth” that objectively dictates the well-being, equality, justice, and so on, of rational humans and human societies. The concept of truth (arguably interchanging with the concept of justice) is, therefore, not only objective but also universal. It is called the deontological approach to ethics. According to this approach, one has the duty to do what is morally right and avoid what is morally wrong while consequence does not matter. As long as the intention is good, one can act in certain ways that he or she believes to preserve or contribute to the objective truth. It is what the Lasso of Truth tries to extract, the most sacred concept carefully concealed in each human being: the truth. However, how much did truth matter in World War I? With the rise of nationalism and fueled by nationalistic propaganda during the 1910s, men’s sense of truth is distorted irrevocably by their hatred. Such is what constructs Steve Trevor’s truth: the product of nationalism and war propaganda. Therefore, the use of the Lasso of Truth at the beginning of the film is questionable because it contributes to Diana’s biased perception of the outside world and the Great War.

Wonder Woman’s voluntary contribution to the Allied force gives them a superior military advantage. The scene when she charges toward the No Man’s Land, not only does it represent a powerful moment in various aspects but it also shows the symbolic image of a Wonder Woman that everyone in the theater has been waiting for. Diana witnesses the horrors of war: an amputated soldier crying for help, a destitute woman and her children, the poor living condition within the trench. All of these sufferings empower her, a woman, to walk the land where no man can walk. Wonder Woman/Diana represents compassion, love, and protector of the innocent. Sadly, she does so in a distorted view of the nature of war. When she charges toward the German trench and easily break the stalemate, does she share the same compassion toward each German soldier? What if some of them have a family back home waiting for them to come back? What if some are forced to join the army and be in the trench involuntarily? It is utterly important to note that the Germans in WWI are not equivalent to the Nazis in WWII. Nazism and its inhuman policies only emerged in the 1930s, more than a decade after the end of WWI. Therefore, Wonder Woman, on the mission to bring an end to war, makes more than one ethical mistake when helping the Allied gain the upper hand. She sympathizes with the innocent, the Allied soldiers, but fails to find the same compassion for people on the other side, who happen to be perceived enemies of the Allied.

Wonder Woman’s intervention in the Great War (1914-1918) can be compared to the involvement of the United Nations (UN) in the Korean War (1950-1953). Created right after the Second World War in 1945, the UN mission is to prevent another conflict among nations, maintain peace and promote stability throughout the world. At its early age, it can be said that most nations on Earth, and perhaps the UN itself too, tried to grasp the true purpose of this organization. As the Cold War rivalries between the West and the communists emerged nearly immediately after the end of WWII, the UN was once thought as a tool for the United States to mobilize global support against communism. In 1950, North Korea, backed by China and the Soviet Union, invaded South Korea, quickly overrunning the poorly equipped army of South Korea. As the North was pushing to the final port city of Busan, the United States was able to call for a vote for a military intervention from the UN Security Council and achieved what it wanted: a US-led UN force combining the strength of more than 16 UN nations, against the North Korean aggression. Without defending the communist North, I argue that the US (and the UN itself) violated UN principle of non-intervention in other countries’ affairs. Even until now, the US still maintains what is called “UN Command” as a disguise for a US military command center in South Korea. Just like Wonder Woman, the UN can be considered as an entity that just stumbles upon the modern world. Lost and confused, they (Wonder Woman/the UN) are easily influenced by a biased factor that eventually gives them a distorted and biased perception of the reality. Here, the UN was blinded by the political ideology of anti-communism. Such UN intervention, if occurring today, would prompt outrageous responses from all over the world: whose side is the UN on and on which moral, rational or political ground? Therefore, the three principles of the UN peacekeeping mission today are revamped to fit with the image of an unbiased UN. First, the UN must have consents from all parties in a conflict in order to intervene. Second, the intervention must be for humanitarian purposes, such as providing cares for non-combattant individuals. It is of critical importance that the UN maintains its impartiality – taking neither sides and helping no side gaining a military advantage over others. Third, the UN peacekeeping troops are not allowed to use force unless under self-defense. Back to the Amazonian superheroine, she violates all three principles. Wonder Woman, hence, is far from the image of a peacekeeping figure.

Dr. Poison

To a greater extent, Wonder Woman’s intervention can be considered a contribution to war crimes. The film never addresses the big concern regarding Steve’s course of action: he steals the notebook, which contains formulas for the deadly gas weapon, from Dr. Poison and attempts to deliver it to his superiors in the Allied headquarter in London. This detail is crucial. If he already understands the catastrophe that this gas weapon can cause, why does he not destroy the notebook but hands the formulas over to the Allied instead? I firmly believe that Steve is never about protecting the innocent or fighting against German monstrosities. His true self, which he actually believes to be the truth, is dedicated to his country and its national interest. Historically, during WWI, both sides committed war crimes by using chemical weapons, which were already prohibited by the Hague Conventions in 1899 and 1907. Both sides caused massive civilian and military casualties. By handing the notebook to his superiors, Steve inspires the Allied to develop the deadly weapon themselves, thus gaining the upper hand during the war and even allowing the West to maintain a new world order in the post-war period. Wonder Woman, by helping Steve deliver the notebook and further aiding the Allied herself in direct combat against the Germans, could be considered a part of the monstrosity committed during WWI. Should Diana be exposed to the Allied’s use of chemical weapons upon civilians, instead of relying only on Steve to tell her who is good and who is bad, I wonder how she would react under such circumstance? To realize men are all corrupted and filled with hatred and violence. To realize the men’s world is not trustworthy and does not deserve her help. In fact, I imagine that would make a great twist to the film. Nevertheless, at the end of the movie, there is only Steve’s heroic sacrifice (by igniting an explosion that destroys the last shipment of the deadly gas), which seems like a boring cliché of war movies.

Steve’s sacrifice awakes Wonder Woman’s true power. As she finally enters the rank of gods, Wonder Woman confronts Ares the God of War and easily defeats him. But her new raison d’être? “It’s about what you believe,” she said, pissing off Ares. Really, Diana? You fight and kill German soldiers who also fight for what they believe. And look at the atrocities they have done while believing they do the right and necessary things for their country! I was expecting the founding member of the Justice League to say something more profound regarding the approach to justice or equality, but “I follow what I believe” is quite a disappointing statement. I would wish her luck when dealing with the Nazis a decade later, who believed the Jews deserve to die. The moral ground on which the plot of the whole movie is built is so subjective that one can replace minor details and come up with an alternative plot that is more unpleasant and atrocious.

In my thought experiment, it is not Steve Trevor, an American pilot, who crash-landed on Themyscira but a handsome German pilot named Manfred von Richthofen. He retells the whole war’s perspective, describing the atrocities committed by the West upon the people of German Empire. Under the effect of the Lasso of Truth, Richthofen claims he has to fight in order to protect the innocent. Fallen for love, Diana/Wonder Woman escorted him back to Germany. She then charged toward the Allied trench, beating the crap out of British/American/French soldiers while German soldiers backing her up. See how easy it is for the plot to develop depending on the narrative of the handsome pilot in the beginning? Even one can imagine that a handsome Waffen-SS officer who crash-lands, meets the goddess and tells her how the Jews are terrorizing the world and what needs to be done, the storyline can immediately take a very dark turn. “Die Wunderfrau” is a very unpleasant thought.

Conclusion

Overall, the transformation of Wonder Woman’s origin story from WWII (as initially published by Marston) to WWI setting is risky because of the moral ambiguity of this conflict. Allan Heinberg, the screenwriter of this masterpiece, said in an interview that he chose WWI setting because he sees parallels between WWI and the present-day world: “We are in a very WWI world today with nationalism and how it would take very little to start a global conflict.” Director Patty Jenkins adds: “World War I is the first time that civilization as we know it was finding its roots, but it’s not something that we really know the history of. Even the way that it was unclear who was in the right of WWI is a really interesting parallel to this time. Then you take a god with a moral compass and a moral belief system, and you drop them into this world, there are questions about women’s rights, about a mechanized war where you don’t see who you are killing. It’s such a cool time.”

Both Heinberg and Jenkins betrayed their own words. If WWI is so complex and that no one knows who is right or wrong, then why the plot illustrates such subjectivity in which the Germans are clearly bad, and the Allied is clearly good, all of which are told by Steve Trevor who is clearly loyal toward the Allied. When, in the movie, is Wonder Woman actually a moral compass to guide mankind toward peace? There is none. Wonder Woman, a seemingly feminist icon, is reduced to the image of a dependent woman whose love and emotion are subject to her male partner Steve. In WWII, women were portrayed in US propaganda as vulnerable to spy threats because they were mentally weak, emotional, unreliable and could be fooled by love (of Nazi spies). Could this film indirectly re-assert such mindset, that is, Wonder Woman is as vulnerable as other women who are influenced by her love interest? Constructing a Wonder Woman character who lacks both the objective judgment of reality and critical thinking ability is not empowering women after all.

My question remains open for discussion. However, I take into account some other explanations that do not end up undervaluing the feminist construct of Wonder Woman. Perhaps the film Wonder Woman (2017) is dedicated to simple-minded audiences who are more familiar with WWII setting than with WWI. Instead of taking more screen time explaining the historical context of WWI, Heinberg and Jenkins want to build a linear storyline where 1) the West is good as usual and 2) the Germans are bad as usual, in order to resemble the theme of the Second World War. In other words, they want to use WWI setting (not many movies are about WWI so this theme can be a gold mine) while enabling the audience to enjoy the movie with a pre-existing WWII mindset where the good and the bad guys are clearly defined.

Still, I would love to see a movie with a reinforced moral ground on which the protagonist becomes the moral compass for mankind.

7 thoughts on “The Shakeable Moral Ground in Wonder Woman (2017)

  1. Even I felt very same the very first time I saw the movie. That dialogue by Steve “I am the good guy and they are the bad ones”, I thought Diana would then and their question him that in war both sides are bad for each other and good for own cause or something on those terms. That did not happen. So I was waiting for second half to throw this moral quandary but movie pretty much tiptoed around it. Yes Diana here and there said you all are bad, or at the end a man from “good side” came out as Aerys but it was all very superficial. Movie lacked morale depth of MOS or DOJ but I guess given how criminallly under appreciated are those movies, they decided to go ahead with simple Marvel like approach. But I feel somewhere in between a subplot where Allies start using that diary to make chemical weapons and Diana realising pain of German soldiers too could have made her question War itself. And then perhaps Steve would have formed small party to actually end the war for humanity and not win-loss.

    In a way she betrayed herself because she kept mentioning its Aerys who is making humans do all this. So by that logic her sole enemy should have been Aerys (personification of greeds/ colonialism etc which led to WW1 much like White Walkers perhaps representing Global Warming in GOT) and not soldiers fighting under his influence. What a laugh Sherlock would have on her- she ignored the facts and formed a perception and then started seeing facts in a way to support her theory.

    • Hi Rahul, thank you for your thoughtful comment. Yes, I totally agree that this movie has so many potentials yet it ends up with a cliche ending that cannot be more black-and-white.

      Personally, I expect more from the female founder of the Justice League. This movie, in a way, undermines the value of the original Wonder Woman released during World War II period. Wonder Woman stopping Nazi genocides would make more sense than Wonder Woman charging toward the German trench, enabling Allied soldiers to butcher German soldiers. If a god is so easily deceived, the godly rank becomes irrelevant.

      I like the idea of a sequel where Diana sees the other side of the story when the Allied uses the diary to create an equally powerful chemical weapon upon civilians. The diary detail in this movie perplexes me. If Steve Trevor steals the diary to make his country gain the upper hand, then his course of action is not covered in the domain of justice. He is simply a soldier serving his country. If so, there is nothing great in his agenda throughout the movie (at least until the final sacrifice) for which Diana fights.

      I look forward to Wonder Woman 1984 to see if the director can develop a more sophisticated morality of Wonder Woman.

    • Hi Rahul, thank you for your thoughtful comment. Yes, I totally agree that this movie has so many potentials yet it ends up with a cliche ending that cannot be more black-and-white.

      Personally, I expect more from the female founder of the Justice League. This movie, in a way, undermines the value of the original Wonder Woman released during World War II period. Wonder Woman stopping Nazi genocides would make more sense than Wonder Woman charging toward the German trench, enabling Allied soldiers to butcher German soldiers. If a god is so easily deceived, the godly rank becomes irrelevant.

      I like the idea of a sequel where Diana sees the other side of the story when the Allied uses the diary to create an equally powerful chemical weapon upon civilians. The diary detail in this movie perplexes me. If Steve Trevor steals the diary to make his country gain the upper hand, then his course of action is not covered in the domain of justice. He is simply a soldier serving his country. If so, there is nothing great in his agenda throughout the movie (at least until the final sacrifice) for which Diana fights.

      I look forward to Wonder Woman 1984 to see if the director can develop a more sophisticated morality of Wonder Woman.

  2. You know I’m actually intrigued with the level of intricacies you’ve included here. I’d be curious to hear you’re thoughts or ideas for a successful Wonder Woman story. How do you think she should work alongside the government to maintain her place as a national superhero who represents American ideals? What would she have to do? And how would she have to interact with the world?

    • Hi Jesse,

      It is difficult to establish a setting that would fit best for Wonder Woman. As I am writing another article for Wonder Woman 1984 (and it is so bad!), I realize that historical period does not matter at all when depicting an ideal Wonder Woman story. First, it is okay to portray Wonder Woman not being an omnipotent god. She can make mistakes, learn from it, and grow. And more importantly, she helps others around her grow as well. That is why I’d imagine if Wonder Woman (2017) is about Diana blindly trusting Steve, only to realize the WWI atrocity she causes in the end, she learns and overcomes that obstacles, and then she assists her partners in arms in realizing the truth too, that would be an ideal setting.

      Second, Wonder Woman is best fitted to be a moral compass for the whole world, while such moral values do not have to be ethically good. I don’t think it is a good idea to have her cling toward and/or react upon American values, like justice and freedom (like Batman for example). By this sense, I really love Wonder Woman in the comic book series “Injustice: Gods Among Us” when her (twisted) moral values are expanded beyond American society. There is a scene when she helps prevent a military massacre and saves some (Middle Eastern?) women. She then disarms the soldiers, gives those women the weapons, and gives them free choice to do whatever they want with the soldiers. Those women decide to massacre them back. That scene is brutal, but powerful because it gets to show one possibility how Wonder Woman could have become. The same thing occurs in Justice League: The Flashpoint Paradox (2013). The point is, I think a good Wonder Woman story is the one that shows how she receives certain moral values from someone or something, and then enforces/applies it to the entire world as she deems necessary, so the audiences get to see how the world reacts towards that and if any consequence would happen.

      • Brilliant, ha! You should be assisting in writing comics yourself! I love you’re ideas as well and feel very much the same way.. I kind of wish they de-powered Diana if not to simply build upon her abilities and expand on them the way a body builder or athlete does when they work out without superheroes. I find myself struggling to understand what her powers are in the films at times or what limits she has or to what extent her abilities hold, I like the golden age Wonder Woman very much as a way to start Diana, someone learning her powers establishing them with the audience. Perhaps using too much strength against an opponent on accident or learning to retrain to herself against regular humans who don’t have her strength speed and stamina. I’ve always thought it would be interesting to expand on Wonder Woman through her philosophy, moral code, spirituality and have her go through “spiritual upgrades” from time to time. A way to ascend to her highest potential but no even necessarily making her a God. I kind of like her when she’s not a god and I hate that she’s been made the daughter of Zeus. For me, it takes away from the fact that she’s made of clay and that no man god or mortal created her. If she’s supposed to be an emblem of true femininity and feminism, wouldn’t Marston’s origin be ideal for that? Diana is meant to be a wise intelligent Amazonian warrior even if you stripped away her costume as Wonder Woman. Who would she be and how would she function as that warrior h the real world? I’ve always wanted to put her in a scenario where she has to fight to survive without her Wonder Woman attire. Not unlike Justice league: The gauntlet. Surprisingly good mini novel!

  3. I agree that the Wonder Woman film of 2017 lacks a moral base, especially in how Diana is appalled by the horrors of war and then busies herself perpetrating horrors of war, but I’ll begin with your point that Diana has no understanding of nationalism. The film itself is nationalistic. It’s story would be no different if America had developed the lethal gas and Diana fought on the German side to foil the genocidal plan of Ares, but that would have meant she’d be killing American and British soldiers, unacceptable to audiences in those countries. It was saddening to see that ‘progressive’ reviewers were overcome with delight at seeing the Amazon’s and Diana slaughtering German soldiers, some feminists saying it made them cry with joy. I support feminism but some feminists need to take a look at themselves! The German soldiers weren’t bad guys but honest soldiers doing their duty but their role in the film is cannon fodder, there for the audience to cheer as Diana brushes them aside.
    I decided there needs to be a reply. I’m a writer with a modest following online, ( though as my past work has been for the fetish community you probably won’t have heard of me ) so I wrote a short story that’s a sequel to the films tale.
    It’s 2020 ( no pandemic in this tale ) and Diana is troubled by her role in the Great War. Killing Ares didn’t bring an end to conflict and she feels guilt that she killed German soldiers without a thought, never thinking of them as human beings. When she reads the diary of a German woman whose 17 year old son died at her hands, sees the woman’s grief and anger Diana is almost traumatised, and wishes with all her heart never to commit acts of violence again, but she has a problem. Enyo, sister of Ares and goddess of war, has come avenger her brother and she’s allied with rebel Amazon’s who seek to overthrow the rule of Hippolyta and claim Themsycria as their own. Diana is plagued by doubt but with the life of not only herself but her sister Amazon’s and her mother under threat she must fight again, and come to terms with herself.
    If you’d like to read it ( it’s free to read, this isn’t a commercial venture ) it’s here,
    https://1drv.ms/b/s!AqJy1U8mqwvsuhbojLLQYSzZ4TT6

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

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