Gal Gadot didn’t respond to James Cameron: ‘he was looking for publicity’

wenn33468756

Entertainment Weekly recently named Gal Gadot as one of their Entertainers of the Year. I am totally on board with her inclusion on that list. She carried the hugely successful Wonder Woman and was a big stand out in Justice League. Plus she’s a great ambassador for Wonder Woman. I like Gal, obviously. Right now, I adore her. This was Gal’s year and she knocked it out of the park.

Last Summer, you may remember that director James Cameron had some thoughts on the Wonder Woman film and how Patty Jenkin’s vision did not represent a true symbol of feminism. In fact, Cameron implied that only he represented feminine power correctly. At the time, Patty and former Wonder Woman Lynda Carter responded but Gal didn’t. In her EW interview, Gal explained how she didn’t want to give Cameron’s comments any space because that’s all he was looking for.

EW: Another big headline during your year was that James Cameron criticized the film as an objectified icon, which Patty had some strong feelings about. But I don’t think I’ve seen you weigh in on that?

GG: Because I didn’t want to give him the stage. First of all, I’m a big fan of his work. His movies are great. He was very innovative in many things that he did, and I’ve got nothing but great things to say about the creative and professional side of his work. When it happened, the timing of when it happened, he was promoting another movie of his. It was like he was looking for publicity and I just didn’t want to give him the stage.

[From Entertainment Weekly]

I understand what she’s saying. While I agree that he has made some valuable contributions professionally, I have many problems with Cameron. Yet, even with his colossal ego, it seemed like such a strange time for him to make a grab for the feminist spotlight. I know some of you agreed with his comments about WW and I respect that opinion, that wasn’t what was surprising. It was his insistence on holding himself up as the example of how to portray women. Even if you remove his silly “strong women can’t be pretty” argument, I think it needed to be factored in that Patty and Gal were presenting a superhero who is iconic to many. They had to balance the expectations of the fans’ perception of Wonder Woman with a modern interpretation. If Cameron intentionally threw WW under the bus for publicity, then I think Gal handled it exactly as she should. I also think by her remaining mum on the subject, the whole thing went away quicker. I look forward to the day when society will allow for all types of female heroes/role models, there’s room for everyone.

As for the rest of the interview, it’s nice. Although Gal gives empty answers when she’d rather not discuss something, she’s always honest. She told a fun story about calling Patty the night the WW review embargo was lifted. Patty had been meditating and didn’t hear about it yet so they both squealed on the phone to each other. Gal completely side-stepped the “how’d you feel about Justice League sucking” question. (Again, for the record, I really enjoyed Justice League and saw it twice but I do recognize it is a flawed film.) She also talked about hurting her back on the plane to China to promote WW. I missed the fact that Gal got hurt right at the start of the promotion. According to this interview, Gal was in so much pain she couldn’t even sit through the LA premiere. Even worse, she said she couldn’t hold her newborn baby so while the world was celebrating her success, she couldn’t. I hope she celebrates the hell out of Wonder Woman 2’s success to make up for it.

wenn33529379

wenn33545618

wenn33533244

Photo credit: WENN Photos

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

55 Responses to “Gal Gadot didn’t respond to James Cameron: ‘he was looking for publicity’”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. nemera34 says:

    I’m really liking her. And James Cameron is overrated and trying to get back in the game. He mad that the world has moved on and he is not the big topic of conversation.

  2. Esmerelda says:

    It was a good strategy, she avoided being bogged down in any useless “how dare you girls criticise Cameron” debate that would have popped up.
    She’s good at keeping the focus on the movie, on letting the work speak for itself – she comes across as both mature and kind.
    And she wears clothes beautifully! So elegant, so classy!

  3. Lucy says:

    There’s something so warm and sweet about her eyes and smile! Her eyes are particularly expressive. And her reaction to Cameron’s comments was on point.

  4. V4Real says:

    We know back in the day female superheroes were meant for the male gaze( so tired of hearing that as some people only defense as to why heriones like WW were created) . Flash forward there have been many attractive women playing action stars, even Linda Hamilton was considered attractive. And we know not every woman who play these types of roles have to be what most consider beautiful.
    But if you look at almost every male big time action star they were considered handsome or ruggedly handsome. No one complained about them being to good looking with their well toned or muscular bodies. And they always had their shirts off. Even if you look at the men of Marvel, they are all pretty much attractive. Why are there no complaints that the males are too good looking and dont represent the average male. The women always get the criticism.

    • SilverUnicorn says:

      Precisely.
      Although some men are ‘forgiven’ if their face is not that good-looking but their bodies are perfectly sculptured… never seen that for a woman. If the face of an actress is considered ugly or unattractive, no matter how perfect her body is…. she will never be in an action movie…

      We still have a long way to go to accept women in action roles anyway… however, James Cameron as a spokesperson is a big no-no…. (and someone should remind him that the star of Terminator was A. Schwarzenegger, not Linda Hamilton!!).

      And I adore Gal Gadot, period!

    • Otaku Fairy says:

      “But if you look at almost every male big time action star they were considered handsome or ruggedly handsome. No one complained about them being to good looking with their well toned or muscular bodies. And they always had their shirts off. Even if you look at the men of Marvel, they are all pretty much attractive. Why are there no complaints that the males are too good looking and don’t represent the average male. The women always get the criticism.”

      Exactly. I think part of the reason for this part of the sexual double standard is because unlike male hotness, female hotness has always been seen as to blame for problems in society. Another part of the problem is that people tend to go to this extreme with feminist issues where concern about how much pressure is on women to be/do a particular thing gets turned into this war of “Any time a woman is/does this thing, it’s automatically bad.”

    • Lady D says:

      I caught an episode of The Big Bang Theory over Christmas, and I noticed that Johnny Galeki is sporting quite a large beer belly at the moment. Johnny is supposed to be the ‘hot one’ of the guys. I remember thinking that if it was Kaley Couco who had that big gut, she would not be getting a million per episode assuming she still had a job. It’s okay for Johnny, though…

  5. Lila says:

    I remember watching the Oscars many years ago when he and his ex wife,Kathryn Bigelow were up for Best Director and she won for Hurt Locker. The look on his face was priceless, as she sauntered up to the stage to get her Oscar.

    • Meredith says:

      Amy Poehler and Tina Fey had a great joke at the Golden Globes when Kathryn Bigelow was nominated for Zero Dark Thirty. It was like, “When it comes to torture, I’m going to trust the woman who was married to James Cameron.”

  6. Mia4s says:

    Perfect response. Perfect. Hell most of social media could take a lesson from her. Yes sometimes you need to draw attention to something…but sometimes the best strategy is to ignore. Learning when to do which is now a vital survival skill.

  7. Slowsnow says:

    Gal Gadot is riding the wave of a very questionable film that is, on the upside, doing very good things for women – putting them right there on the commercial line of success, disproving all the theories that there is no audience for females leads and female directed films.
    She knows her limits. WW was not a good film and her character was dumb as a rock and I have a suspicion she knows that, or she is not very demanding herself on that level perhaps, IDK, IDK her. She seems very cautious and to be doing the HW game step by step.
    As for finding her lovely, pretty, nice and kind… I know we want to love her but honestly I see a professional who is agreeable and has a very very nice, warm physique. No gushing on my side but then again, it’s very hard to warm my cold heart. You’d have to be my kid or my parent! :-)

    • BaronSamedi says:

      *high fives you*

      Oh thank God! I don’t ever comment on WW or Gal Gadot posts because I feel exactly the same way.

      The fact that the movie exists and sends a somewhat positive message about the potential success of female-led films is great! And Gal seems like a very warm and nice person! All of these things are important and true.

      But I will never forget the fact that above all Wonder Woman had to still look fuckable and non-intimidating to a male audience. Those thighs may have jiggled but they’re still barely as big as Serena Williams’ biceps. On the day Wonder Woman gets to *look* like she could actually kick Superman’s ass and the actress ALSO spends a year in the gym to prepare for the role I will stand up with everyone for the standing ovation.

      I just think it’s time we acknowledge that the fight is far from over.

      • Eveil says:

        Diana was a young woman who’d never experienced the world before as she’d grown up on an isolated island. I think that you’re confusing naivety for stupidity.

      • Slowsnow says:

        Yes, she fits your description completely, non-threatening. Lynda Carter was breathtakingly hot, I still remember my jaw dropping when I was a kid when I watched the series ;-)

        Gadot is very quiet and has an elegant beauty. She is not a strong type, more the model type. But even going beyond the looks, the role was so problematic: the long running, objectifying, gag of her beauty when she arrives in our world (surely they must have seen other nice ladies around), the use of WWI, the most horrible war of all for her to “solve”, the use of the Native American character, the stupid use of sex “men are not good for pleasure” I think she says to the Chris Pine character and then ends ups sleeping with him all the same (I wonder what for, not for pleasure, for sure? because men like sex, to be submissive?), the slow motion on her fighting to highlight her very patriarchally aesthetic beauty instead of her strength or fighting skills (she never ever gets mud on her)…

        The fight is far from over. Going back to the looks, if not only for the fact that male superheroes get to be very good-looking without it being the main focus of their characters (see Thor). In fact, male character’s attractiveness is a complex mix of strength, intelligence, resilience, problem solving skills, human flaws that even make not typically attractive men attractive. This only happened with Linda Hamilton.

      • Anett says:

        If we need WW to give credit to women and female directors, we are doomed. That film sucked. Her character and dialogues too.

      • Slowsnow says:

        @Eveil, there are so many incredibly good characters who are secluded and produce a sort of child-like pertinent commentary on the world/war. IMO it was a missed opportunity to do that.

      • Mia4s says:

        Sigh… I was going to engage @Slowsnow until I realized how you’ve twisted yourself in knots to justify hating this movie. Just hate it, that’s fine.

        the use of WWI, the most horrible war of all for her to “solve”,

        - she solves nothing. She defeats one bad guy’s plot. The Armistice “solves” it.

        the use of the Native American character,

        - the actor’s name is Eugene Brave Rock and he proudly speaks Blackfoot in the film and makes use of aspects of his culture. His presence and character have been praised by numerous Native American writers and publications. But yes let’s dismiss him as stupid. Sure.

        the stupid use of sex “men are not good for pleasure” I think she says to the Chris Pine character and then ends ups sleeping with him all the same (I wonder what for, not for pleasure, for sure? because men like sex, to be submissive?),

        - no she says men are “unnecessary” for pleasure. Big difference. She sleeps with him because she wants to and nothing changes the next day. Your take on this is based on being wrong about what she says.

        the slow motion on her fighting to highlight her very patriarchally aesthetic beauty instead of her strength or fighting skills (she never ever gets mud on her)

        -Hahahahahaha! Have you ever seen a Snyder produced movie? Slow motion is standard.

      • Pumpkin (formely soup, pie) says:

        So what if they cast a lean, tall, feminine, model-looking actress for the WW part? Mind you, I would have watched WW regardless of the body-type of the actress who played the lead. But if they’d cast an extra muscular, bigger sized actress, that would have played into the stereotype of muscle-big = strength. There is nothing wrong with beautiful, slender, non-muscular women. As per the non-intimidation factor, there are plenty of men who ARE intimidated by beautiful, confident women.
        It’s also naive to have high expectations from ONE movie, as if one single movie is going to challenge the overwhelmingly patriarchal societies in which we all live – with very few exceptions.
        Plus, didn’t Alicia Vikander train for a year or so for Lara Croft? She was still attractive and lean. Gal Gadot has also trained quite extensively for WW. Why should actresses have to bulk up just to make some *point*?

      • Slowsnow says:

        @Mia4s, Listen I respect the fact that you liked the movie, but I read your answers and it does not change my opinion at all. The Native American character is not stupid, the whole plot he’s involved in is. He’s a side note and a poor one at that imo. But thanks for telling me his name. I didn’t know him.
        The sex thing is another line that is underdeveloped. What on earth does the dialogue you corrected even mean? If we proudly say that this is a film to make little girls feel empowered then I don’t really understand what she means by that comment. Methinks it’s little lesbian tingle for the patriarchy but that’s me being a bit too cynical maybe.
        Let’s agree to disagree. I was completely bewildered by the film but I hope not to offend anyone with my views of it.

      • BaronSamedi says:

        @pumpkin

        You are exactly making my point. Show me the movies that cast women in action roles that are NOT tall, thin, lean, beautiful etc.

        Just the fact that Alicia Vikander and Gal Gadot had to train a year to still basically look size zero makes my point further.

        Of course lean women can kick ass. Every single Amazon on that cast still had more visible muscle mass than Wonder Woman though. And the reason is simply that she still had to look fuckable and non-intimidating to the male gaze.

        This is an obvious problem that keeps getting buried under all the squee.

      • Grant says:

        I loved Wonder Woman. Just a personal pet peeve, but I hate when people make conclusory statements like, “this movie sucked.” No, YOU thought this movie sucked–but most, including myself, disagreed with you. I’ve watched it three times since seeing it in the theaters and I’ve enjoyed it each and every time.

      • Pumpkin (formely soup, pie) says:

        @BaronSamedi: What I am trying to say is that on screen and beyond the screen lean, tall, thin women should not be considered weak, and that not only big muscular women can project strength. Don’t get me wrong. I **want** to see diverse body types in mainstream entertainment. But it’s not the actors’ fault, it’s the writers, casting directors, producers who decide the cast. So that’s why I feel quite uncomfortable reading comments that bash Gal Gadot – I am not saying you do, but when the announcement came the reactions were unsettling. I am not ok with that. We can “blame” anyone but the actor.

      • Otaku Fairy says:

        Agree with Mia4s. The WW movie managed to allude to her attractiveness while still giving us a story where that wasn’t all she had to offer. Wonder Woman was still a mix of strength, resilience, problem solving skills, and human flaws. Plus, the Chris Pine/Steve Trevor character is the one who ended up naked with the size of his cock and skills in the bedroom hinted at. And in the first Man of Steel movie, Super Man’s attractiveness was alluded to as well. So I don’t mind them alluding to Wonder Woman’s.

    • Bobbymilly says:

      +100000000

    • Bridget says:

      There are some movies that people will watch and wonder what all the fuss was about. This is one for you. I’m not going to rebut, because you’re certainly allowed to have your own opinion, but I will say, I really feel like you totally missed what people liked about the movie.

    • BorderMollie says:

      Yeah, just an ok movie. The acting and script were pretty awful at times. In a lot of ways it was the same as any other superhero movie, just staring a woman instead of a man. I dunno, I think I’m getting burned out of these movies. They seem like the same rehashed, vaguely imperialist fantasy over and over, though the recent Thor movie was a surprising aversion of the usual tropes. Meh. Either way, I think it’s perfectly fine for people to critique this movie, including Cameron.

  8. Snowflake says:

    I like her makeup very natural looking. I get tired of the heavy contouring

    • Slowsnow says:

      I thought the same thing. She is so refreshing in a world of heavy make-up.

    • magnoliarose says:

      I have always preferred a fresh, clean look. Aside from sets and shows the only people I have ever known to contour so heavily were drag queens when they perform. I think it is too artificial and covers up so many women’s lovely faces.
      A little trickery is subtle but that caked on look just seems the opposite of fresh.

  9. Lucy2 says:

    I think she handled that perfectly.

  10. JustJen says:

    I’ve liked her ever since I first saw her in Fast Five. She’s awesome!

  11. dumbledork says:

    So does strong and powerful have to be Gina Carrano and Serena Williams? Or can strong also be Misty Copeland and Gal Gadot? Maybe we should make the point that the WW outfit is a little skimpy, but don’t say that a women isn’t strong because she’s on the skinny side and long limbed. 10 pounds of muscle, let alone 5 pounds, can look completely different on two women.

  12. NotSoSocialButterfly says:

    Sounds like we have a shoe- in for the unironic Man-Splainer of the Year Award of 2017.

  13. Mirja says:

    @ Gadot

    Cameron made some valid points. You failed to defend your movie and I suspect you didn’t defend it because you knew Cameron had made some valid points.
    You failed to enter a public discussion about your movie and about its alleged feminist aspects. I find that you don’t really take a stand for either your movie nor for feminism.

    Nope, Cameron doesn’t need you for publicity. He makes multi-million dollar movies and he rakes in even more than he spends. He has been longer in the business than you and is much more movie-savy than you. He knows more about movies than you. He doesn’t need you.

    • Otaku Fairy says:

      Feminism isn’t about women being forced or coerced to tone it down to earn equality, and it’s not about telling women that beauty or femininity is holding you back from respecting them or taking them seriously. James Cameron’s rant was the usual virgin-whore respectability politics little boys and men are fed. Just another man patting himself on the back for preaching modesty to women. Nothing more.

      • Mirja says:

        Never claimed femisnism was about force or coercion or toneing it down. Nor is it about beauty holding you back. But I guess nowadays you can claim that feminism is pretty much about anything. Like feminism is about a stick-insect playing a super-strong heroine. yeah…

        So feminism is about being a kick-ass action heroine who smashes men to pieses with arm that can’t even lift a water crate quickly enough to knock it over a man’s head with some effect?
        Sorry, but a kick-ass heroine with NO visible muscles…

        Next people tell me that a “nerd” in a movie should look like a teenage heart throb with muscles like Pitt? Or that a lack of muscles doesn’t indicate you can’t be a top athlete and if you don’t win you cry unfair and feminism?

    • Eveil says:

      I wouldn’t exactly hold up Cameron as a standard for feminist films.

    • Erinn says:

      And none of that means he isn’t a tool. He’s rich. He makes over-hyped movies. He made Pocahontas with blue people. He’s benefitted greatly from being another white dude director who was able to make a big hit. Then spend a ridiculous amount of money on effects for a tired rehashed story. Go watch Avatar now that it’s been almost a decade since it came out. I’d be surprised if most people would find it impressive – because it relied so heavily on just being flashy and ahead of the game as far as motion-capture and other technology goes that the story and dialogue are just lackluster. Aliens and T2 are largely considered his best work – and they were written mainly by other people.

      He’s like a magician. He just uses splashy effects to distract you from otherwise average films.

      He has attention. He makes multi-million dollar movies – but he’s also relying heavily on the talent of others. He also claimed that there would have been two more Avatar movies released by 2015ish. But he couldn’t deliver on it. He gets to push deadlines off, gets to essentially do nothing for the last decade. His credits have been basically “based on characters created by” and “collaborating director” and some EP vanity titles.

      Dude needs to actually do something worthy of attention. And until that happens, I guess he’s just going to be a cranky old man complaining about the youth not being as good as he was.

      • Mirja says:

        Yep, Cameron was one of the first and one of the first best to use such tricks … that is why his movies earn so much and why there are awards for his movies …
        You got that right!

        If feminism were about being the first and the first best in something then Cameron would have some feminist creed.

    • Mirja says:

      Addition:

      Cameron’s track record is based on him making great and highly profitable movies. Avatar grossed 2,7 billion (costs 237 mio) and Titanic grossed 2,18 billion (costs 200 mio). Even Terminator grossed 78 mio (costs 6,4 mio). Financially he had 2 failures which are easily covered by his other movies.

      http://www.boxofficemojo.com/people/chart/?view=Director&id=jamescameron.htm

      Lifetime Gross Total (9): $1,976,037,184
      Average: $219,559,687
      Opening Gross Average (7): $26,670,199 (Wide Releases Only)

      Gadot’s track record is artificially inflated because she participates in these superheroes and suspense movies like the marvel comics (Batman, Wonder Woman, Justice League) or successful suspense movies which added Gadot to its cast like Fast and Furious 6 [sic!!!]. Her more independent movies were (near-)flops like Keeping up with the Joneses (worldwide gross: 30 mio, costs: 40mio) or Criminal (worldwide gross: 39 mio, no production budget mentioned which indicates loss) or Triple 9 (worldwide gross: 23 mio, no production budget mentioned aka loss). And in other successful movies she just played minor parts like Date Night (tina fey comedy) or Night & Day (tom cruise, cameron diaz).
      Gadot hasn’t yet proven that is an actress’ actress nor that she her movies are good nor that she can make a movie financially successful. In my opinion these superhero suspense movies simply don’t add merit to an actor’s creed because they don’t require much acting skill. I am waiting to be convinced. And sticking it to Cameron who made some valid points is somewhat premature and immature.

      http://www.boxofficemojo.com/people/chart/?id=galgadot.htm

      Lifetime Gross Total (11): $1,790,924,740
      Average: $162,811,340
      Opening Gross Average (11): $61,846,454 (Wide Releases Only)

      • Cait says:

        Wait, so the credibility of Gadot’s response to Cameron’s comments must be evaluated on her body type, her career longevity, and her box office intake (adjusted for ensemble casting)?

        Damn, those are some mental gymnastics to defend a man to whom she responded so carefully.

      • BorderMollie says:

        This is a bit unfair, most people who star in superhero movies are not successful outside them and disappear from the public radar when their run is over. They are also super restricted in what they can act in and even say in interviews outside their franchises. Gail is pretty mediocre, though she seems nice granted, but so are most of them.

  14. perplexed says:

    She’s very pretty. Have no idea if she can act, but she is very pretty compared to her colleagues (who aren’t ugly).