I agree, and I'm not talking about how Patty Jenkins views her own movie, I'm talking about the widespread acclaim that the film is getting. You are correct, she just wants to be seen as a director. A "step forward" would mean we are only talking about the greatness of the film. And I kinda wish everyone else just saw this as a "movie" without attaching "female-led" anywhere on it. I liked WW because it was a great film, period.
But that's not really what Cameron means when he says it's a step backwards. He's not really talking about it just being spoken of as a good film rather than a good female film. If it were that, then Patty Jenkins would be in wholehearted agreement with him. What Cameron is mostly saying is that he thinks WW as a heroine has been objectified and that she should be portrayed more as a tough, gritty hero instead of one who is softer and more feminine and also beautiful. That's why he speaks of Sarah Conner, who says that she earned her respect through her actions rather than her looks.
But WW has also earned her respect through her actions. She just doesn't have to be the tough, gritty heroine like Sarah Conner, as that is not the only template. Cameron says WW is the same old male Hollywood schtick, which he thinks is a step backwards, but what he's suggesting is actually the step backwards. And he's certainly objectified his female characters, so it's like the pot calling the kettle black.
WW is a step forwards, because we rarely get the heroine is tough but doesn't need to act tough because she's secure enough in herself and her strength to be feminine and still do feminine things. Cameron equates WW with an earlier time, as if going back to a backwards way of thinking and a return to how female heroes were before. But they were never really like this before. They were much more helpless and like damsels in distress, or they were just plain love interests. Even Lynda Carter's WW was still more helpless, especially before she ever spun round to transform from Diana into WW. She could be subdued easily, even if she was captured before having the chance to change. Gal's WW is not at all like that, and even as Diana she is still super strong. So WW 2017 is not a step backwards at all.
And critics have talked about WW as a good movie, but it would be ignoring the significance of the film if it were to not even mention what it has done for female heroes on the big screen and for women everywhere. It's not like female heroes abounded in movies but were thought of as not being able to carry action films.
It's like someone like Obama. Of course he would want to be thought of as just a good president, but it would be remiss not to also mention that he was the first black president, because of the significance of that and how far blacks had come to be in that sort of position of power and influence.
