Cara Delevingne IS Enchantress

I think the aesthetic most reminds me of a sorceress or witch you'd see in a Conan the Barbarian book.

 

And the movie. The one that ended up in a hearth.

 

There's also this:





Your random Disney witch. A change of costume was definitely necessary.

 

It's weird how few complaints about her costume not being faithful there have been.

I also find it interesting that there have been very few complaints about numerous sigils and symbols, or that she's "trying too hard".

 

If you're referring to Joker, it's nonsensical to compare the two.

She is much, much lesser known character and her comic book costume is downright ridiculous and wouldn't work in live action. So it's not really weird.

Also, sigils are not something that's purely aesthetic, they bind a person or an entity with forces on the other plane and are quite likely drawn by the witch in order to bind herself to the body vessel she possessed.

 

Let me get this straight...a purple and orange clown outfit could work, but a green dress/outfit and a green witch hat would just be TOO ridiculous to ever work visually onscreen?

Interesting. So her "additional designs" may have a purpose or meaning beyond aesthetics?

If only such a thing applied to other characters and their design.

 

Yeah, functional purpose. Joker's tattoos might have narrative purpose or they might not, we'll have to see it in the film. Directly functional though, as sigils do have, no. So, again, this comparison is way off the mark.

By the way, purple tail coat or regular coat is not a clown's outfit. So, again, this comparison, et cetera...

 

I don't think that's a particularly good defense.

That doesn't mean they have to walk around barely clothed.

Batman and Superman are fully clothed.

I don't think a magazine cover provides much context.

I don't think anyone said it was.

And, without context, you could argue that that's exactly what's happening.

Of course, since there is no context, you can't say that there's not a very good reason for her to be dressed the way she is.

That's a logical explanation that I could easily get behind, but I also don't think that she has to be basically naked to visually represent her mindset/state of being.

That's probably because most people didn't know what she looked like before they knew she was going to be in the film.

 

the eyes are painted on her eyelids right?

i'm not crazy am i?

 

She looks like a zombie slave Leia.

And I'm perfectly OK with that...

 

I am thinking, surprisingly, that SS is the film to establish straight up magical forces and powers in the DCEU. We have spiritual possession, a Soul Taker sword... I think Enchantress is being those eye monsters we saw during filming.

 

Ohh, I remember those!! Yes, maybe.

 

David Ayer is proving to be a fan of the deepest lore of the suicide squad
This is the costume succubus(the spirit that possesses June Moon) usually dons.


Its a lot closer to a tribal witch look for the ancient evil magic spirit than the stereotypical witch outfit that you see enchantress usually rock in the comics.

If I had the choice I would have went with the dumb witch costume just because it looks kinda silly and is how most people are familiar with the character but I guess this look fits the grudge/ring scary look they are going for.

 

Wait... She kissed her nephew on the mouth?

 

Dammit, I was reading this just a while ago, tacit-ronin- posted it, and I still failed to make the connection.

 

You mean, like, Martha, Faora, Harley, Katana, Waller....

 

Let's not forget men in sexy catsuits - Superman and Zod. Not to mention, papa El.

Of course, sometimes it reaches absurd level for both genders, see B&R (no, don't see it), and it deserves legitimate criticism, but today certain people attack just any half-naked female. Inquisition.

 

+ Major Carrie Farris, Senator Finch, Mercy Graves

 

The cover on its own might not, but we already do have some context for the character in the general sense. We know who the character is. We have a rough of idea of her "origin", and we now have descriptions of the character from Delevigne herself in the actual magazine article.

It's not as if we're seeing this image of her and are clueless as to who she's supposed to be, what it means, or why she looks as she does.

This seemed to be the chain of discussion I was responding to, but maybe I missed something...

Hence, why my response began with, "Actually, in this context, it actually does work and I really don't think saying that her appearance/design is "offensive" to women or anything like that is justified..."

But, again, there is some context. It'd be hard for someone to argue that there is no reason she looks like she does as Enchantress, because we already know that Enchantress is an evil, ancient, feral spirit that has possessed a seemingly innocent girl.

That would be like someone seeing a few images from The Exorcist and reading a brief description of what happens to Linda Blair's character in the film, and than saying that she looks like a demon for no discernible reason at all, whilst still knowing she's been possessed by the devil.

You probably should get behind it because that seems to be the general explanation of what's going on with the character and her look. And of course she doesn't HAVE to be basically naked, just like The Joker doesn't need to be sporting tattoos, and Affleck's Batman didn't have to look nearly exactly like his comic book counterpart. They're artistic and aesthetic choices made by the creative teams behind these films. Whether you like them or not is obviously up to you, but I doubt that any of these decisions were pointless or hastily made.

I was just arguing that deeming her appearance as being offense on the grounds that she's not fully clothed isn't justified, in my eyes, because there seems to actually be a reason behind it and it isn't completely pointless titillation in this case.



That's probably because most people didn't know what she looked like before they knew she was going to be in the film.[/QUOTE]

 

She says thats wrong...


DonnaTheDeadVerified account
‏@MildlyAmused
Not sure if this dude who’s comment I keep deleting thinks every blonde in a green costume is Enchantress or thinks Beah Eden is Enchantress

DonnaTheDeadVerified account
‏@MildlyAmused
Regardless, calling me out for not knowing my comics while using the WRONG sexualized woman to prove Enchantress isn’t sexist? Nope.

 

Some context doesn't provide a complete picture, and is therefore subject to interpretation. That's not to say that what you've suggested is wrong or unintelligent, but I don't think we've seen or heard enough from official sources to make a truly informed judgment call.

1) So who here actually said that her costume offended them?

2) I didn't make it super clear, and that's my fault, but I was defending the rational portion of the "I don't like this" minority. They are too often confused for social justice warriors or easily offended, chronic complainers.

Sure. You can understand why she looks the way she does, but still wish she had been dressed differently.

I think I can make that decision for myself, thank you.

Never said otherwise.

Yes, I know. If anything, I'm just playing Devil's Advocate. I'm not in love with the way she looks, but I'm not too bothered by it either.

 

Eh, some feminist tried the sexist thing when HQ pics were first released. It didn't work cause that character isn't a saint or role model to begin with. Some just jumped in without knowing the character and only talking smack just cause. They had to delete their bs after being told what the character was all about. Heh.

 

-Cara Delevigne, Hypocrite, 06/2015