Kathryn Bigelow, winner of the Academy Award for Best Director of 2009, has made history and could well inspire a new generation of women to dream big.
Much will be written tonight and this week and in the future about the Academy Award win by Kathryn Bigelow for Best Director, and that is no surprise. It is a historic night, and a historic win.
Normally, I sit the Oscars out altogether. I don't spend energy thinking about them ahead of time, I don't liveblog them, I don't spend time and energy prognosticating what will happen, and I don't pour over the results with a fine-tooth comb. That's just me. I tuned out of the Oscars when I was very young, pretty much as soon as I realized that the films I love and cherish are rarely the films that are honored. As I've gotten older, it's less about that than it is about the idea that art is not a horse race. I don't believe in the competition, and so rather than hammer that all year every year, I just let those who want to enjoy all the pomp and circumstance do so, and keep my own Grinchy comments to myself.
This year, though, I've chosen to write about one of the wins in particular because I think there is a real significance, one that is not just symbolic, and one I hope resonates through our entire industry in a permanent way. If I have ever been proud of the Academy, I am proud of them tonight. I look at Kathryn Bigelow up there on that stage, winning that award, and I can't help but think that our industry just got a little bigger, and that moves me in a way that has nothing to do with a simple award.
I hate the way women are put in a box, both as audiences and filmmakers. There are few terms that set me on edge as much as "chick flick." What you're really saying when you say that is "stupid piece of garbage that men are too smart for," and that's just not true. Good movies are good movies, and bad movies are bad movies, and the notion of assigning a gender to a film and assuming that any member of the audience doesn't get it because of a configuration of chromosomes just makes me mental. There is a strange phenomenon for girls as they grow up in our pop culture, where time after time they are asked to identify with a male lead in a film, and the assumption is made that they will just roll with it, while anytime a film has a female lead, the assumption is that little boys can't possibly identify with that. This attitude is institutionalized, and it just gets worse as we get older.
Kathryn Bigelow's win tonight underlines that idea in a big way. Her movie may not have made anywhere near the box-office that "It's Complicated" made for director Nancy Meyers, but Bigelow was recognized this year because of the film. Not because of her gender. "The Hurt Locker' happened to be directed by a woman, and that's the way it should be. She's a storyteller. You look back at her career, and it's not the career that female filmmakers are supposed to pursue. She has always been attracted to stories about characters who live on the edge, people who push themselves to extremes. She's made movies that interest her, movies that stand defiantly outside any easy box, and as a result, this win tonight feels like it is more than a win for her, and more than a win for women in general. It is a win for the demolition of assumptions based on gender or race or background. It is an message that storytelling is about being true to yourself and the story you want to tell, and I sincerely hope that all over the world, every young person who wants to grow up and direct is looking at the awards tonight and thinking, "That could be me." Male, female, white, black, of any race or religion or background... you can tell your story. And you do not have to be in a box.
There's a young woman in Austin, TX, named Emily Hagins who first started attending Ain't It Cool events when she was legitimately a kid. And she fell in love with film right in front of the AICN crew over the years, leading to her making her first film, "Pathogen," at the age of 12. That amazing process was captured in a documentary called "Zombie Girl," and while "Pathogen" is pretty much what you'd expect from a zombie film directed by a 12-year-old, the thing that amazes me about Emily is that she did it. She made a feature-length movie at that age. She wrote it. She planned it. She managed to mobilize her collaborators, many of them in the same age range as her, and get the thing done. And what I love most about her film, and about her in general, is that she made a movie that absolutely reflects her own love of genre, the things that interest her most. She never once considered that she should make a "girl's" film. She just made a film. Period.
I hope that because of this win, another Emily Hagins decides tomorrow to make a film that has nothing to do with being a "girl's" film. And then another. And another. I hope there are hundreds of them. Thousands of them. I hope there comes a point where we look back at this moment and marvel that it took 82 ceremonies before a woman made a film that won Best Director, and I hope there comes a point where it seems like no big deal.
But it is a big deal. And I salute Kathryn Bigelow tonight for doing it on her terms, in her way. I wish more storytellers were as true to their own voice as she is, and I hope this sends the right message, loud and clear, to everyone who loves the art of film. Everyone's voice matters. Be true to your own voice. And just as people celebrated a political milestone in our last Presidential election, another milestone falls tonight. Game's on, boys, and the rules have changed. And thank God for that.
Can't get enough of Motion/Captured? Don't miss a post with daily HitFix Blog Alerts. Sign up now.
Don't miss out. Add Motion/Captured to your iGoogle, My Yahoo or My MSN experience by clicking here.
Not part of the HitFix Nation yet? Take 90 seconds and sign up today.
You can e-mail me at drew@hitfix.com or follow me on Twitter, where I'm DrewAtHitFix.
Comments
Option 1
Comment instantly as a guest GuestOption 2
Option 3
Login or create a HitFix account Login SignupErin D. Well put, Drew.
March 8, 2010 at 2:12AM EST Reply to Comment
March 8, 2010 at 2:26AM EST Reply to Commentlazygarfield Cool article, and she certainly does deserve it. What with the struggle she went through to make that film and moreover, how much of the film was HER movie, a DIRECTOR'S movie. Still, sad that it won Best Picture.
March 8, 2010 at 2:31AM EST Reply to CommentTrekscribbler Agreed.
March 8, 2010 at 10:47AM ESTJames Hartley Hold on a second Drew. You write, correctly, that "Bigelow was recognized this year because of the film. Not because of her gender." But if this was so, how can the award possibly be a "win for women in general"? If gender had nothing to do with her being awarded, how can the award represent a victory for women? It's like saying that it was also a win for her politics, when they were completely absent from the film and the basis of the award.
March 8, 2010 at 4:13AM EST Reply to CommentJohn-Locke It's a win for women in general precisely because her gender wasn't an issue, how does that not make sense? If she got it just because she was female it wouldn't have been such an important win, it knocks down the gender boundaries.
March 8, 2010 at 10:25AM ESTTrekscribbler ??? POlitics were hardly absent from THE HURT LOCKER, and you make as much sense as Drew in that regard. Otherwise, I agree with you. How is it a win for women UNLESS you point out a woman won? It's classic flawed thinking. It's a win for art, not gender, and that's that. Celebrate art, regardless of gender, and it's a win-win, which it is.
March 8, 2010 at 10:45AM ESTSC First, your article has some contradictions. I agree with what James Hartley said. Also your definition of the term "chick flick" as a "stupid piece of garbage that men are too smart for," is absolutely absurd. Like it or not men and women are different. That doesn't mean men can't like romantic comedies or women can't like gritty war movies. When I hear or even use the term "chick flick" it is nothing more than a nickname, if you will, for a certain genre that typically appeals to women. If anything, I would say that those types of movies are just the opposite of your opinion: movies that may be too emotionally complex for men. ;)
March 8, 2010 at 6:53AM EST Reply to CommentFastbak It's funny reading your article because I remember this quote about her movie POINT BREAK:
March 8, 2010 at 11:45AM EST Reply to Comment"I don’t know what Kathryn Bigelow’s beef is, but she’s got this giant chip on her shoulder as a filmmaker, like she’s got to prove that she’s got more testosterone than any male action filmmaker alive, so she’s going to make her films twice as loud, twice as ugly, and twice as stupid, just to prove she can. This is the hands-down funniest performance Keanu Reeves has ever given in the history of bad Keanu Reeves performances. “You’re going down, Bodhi!” Hysterical. Swayze is his typically stiff self, Lori Petty is from Mars (as always), and one of the major action set pieces is ripped off almost shot for shot from RAISING ARIZONA. Absolutely numbing."
You know who wrote that? YOU did, under your old "Moriarty" handle a few years ago in AICN when you did your retrospective articles on the "Best and Worst of the Nineties"(which you never finished BTW. You only made it to '96. It's kind of messed up that the only female director who got any real respect from the establishment when she was making films was working in Nazi Germany!
Kate "I hate the way women are put in a box, both as audiences and filmmakers. There are few terms that set me on edge as much as "chick flick." What you're really saying when you say that is "stupid piece of garbage that men are too smart for," and that's just not true. Good movies are good movies, and bad movies are bad movies, and the notion of assigning a gender to a film and assuming that any member of the audience doesn't get it because of a configuration of chromosomes just makes me mental. There is a strange phenomenon for girls as they grow up in our pop culture, where time after time they are asked to identify with a male lead in a film, and the assumption is made that they will just roll with it, while anytime a film has a female lead, the assumption is that little boys can't possibly identify with that. This attitude is institutionalized, and it just gets worse as we get older."
March 8, 2010 at 11:51AM EST Reply to CommentThat paragraph should be framed in every movie and TV exec's office.
March 8, 2010 at 12:06PM EST Reply to Comment1. "There are few terms that set me on edge as much as "chick flick." What you're really saying when you say that is "stupid piece of garbage that men are too smart for," and that's just not true."
Disagree here, though people use that term differently. I use the term 'chick flick' to describe a very specific sub-genre of romantic comedy - the contemporary young female professional overcomes challenges and finds love with some mild laughs thrown in.
The derogatory insinuation that many men have towards it is usually because they see it as a type of film directly pandering predominantly to women and extremely formulaic, not many realising that other sub-genres from slasher films to superhero movies do the exact same thing, albeit pandering predominantly to men.
My own prejudice against the genre is the same I have against the 'horror' and 'family' genres - many studios and filmmakers see it as an easy mark that's cheap and can be done quickly. Like any genre, it's the ones that show effort, creativity and care that deserve to be rewarded - works that defy convention or even stick to formula but work it with great skill.
The other point...
2. "There is a strange phenomenon for girls as they grow up in our pop culture, where time after time they are asked to identify with a male lead in a film, and the assumption is made that they will just roll with it, while anytime a film has a female lead, the assumption is that little boys can't possibly identify with that. This attitude is institutionalized, and it just gets worse as we get older."
Similar attitude with the gay/straight divide. Gay people are expected to just roll with almost every film, series, bit of advertising showing men and women being intimate, in relationships, etc. Show a film where a gay couple is warm, affectionate, etc. and aren't either comic relief or involved in the drug scene/drag scene stereotype, and studios or networks balk because they think the majority heterosexual audience can't identify or will be offended by that.
Nate Well, Garth, what the writer of this article said about females in relation to males and what you said about homosexuals in relation to heterosexuals, can also be said about blacks or any other minorities in relation to white people. So there are a LOT of people in that frustrating boat. And it simply proves that straight white male characters are clearly the dominant figures in Hollywood films. But I guess we already knew that.
March 8, 2010 at 1:15PM ESTKoutchboom Whatever Betty Thomas is the most important female director of the year. Highest grossing female directed movie of all time (America only, see Mama Mia for the world). And it shows that females can make studio junk just as badly as men can and still be financially successful. If you think about it, this really is more important, because studios are going to see this and realize that female directors probably don't get paid as much. SOOO more money for them on the back end.
March 8, 2010 at 12:16PM EST Reply to CommentJoeK I see your point on the one hand about how the industry is growing in admirable ways but my short term memory says that the last two Best Picture winners barely eked out getting distributed at all.
March 8, 2010 at 12:36PM EST Reply to CommentSomething is still fundamentally wrong.
Cohen Yes, this. Absolutely. Thank you for putting this into words.
March 8, 2010 at 12:46PM EST Reply to CommentChance Minter I'm glad to read this. I always ignore the Oscars but I truly couldn't help but cheer on Bigelow and The Hurt Locker. Not because its a chick winning, but because she truly had the best film of the year. I'm glad they finally acknowledged a great film rather then give the award away in a popularity contest as per usual.
March 8, 2010 at 2:44PM EST Reply to CommentLogo Lou Bigelow is a DILF!
March 8, 2010 at 9:58PM EST Reply to CommentLucasisstilltheman I don't know if you really need to be so dramatic about your hatred of the term "chickflick". I think the term can justifiably be used to describe a general truth.
March 9, 2010 at 2:59PM EST Reply to CommentFor instance, movies such as "Dear John" or "Twilight" seem to appeal almost exclusively to a certain large crowd of females. These films I would title "chickflicks". My wife is in that batch of people that get excited about, and enjoy, these cliche' "chickflicks" even though she knows that these are not quality pieces of art. She still has good taste and gets goosebumps when Daniel Plainview carries his son away from the exploding oil well to the tune of Johnny Greenwood. She knows what the art is, but still for whatever reason, enjoys those crappy chickflicks- as many, many, women do. Not saying that all "chicks" like Dear John or Twilight, or Valentines Day, or 13 Going On Thirty, but for some reason, many of them do, while at the same time, most guys do not. What's so friggin bad about acknowledging this as a fact and even giving it a title. Haven't you ever heard of or seen "Spike TV" do its "Movies for Dudes" or whatever they call it. Many of those films for dudes are equally stupid and beyond, such as XXX.
I think the way these titles are used is just to acknowledge that certain things appeal to one gender more than another. It should, be this way. For, we don't have to deny equality of rights just because we acknowledge the fact that physiologically and biochemically, distinctions do exist. These distinctions ought to be embraced.
kissmymango For the people who are so butthurt over the author's entirely correct definition of "chick flick", cry me a river. Save us the inane, vapid, worthless "men and women are different" crap. Irrelevant.
March 10, 2010 at 4:37PM EST Reply to CommentThe term was invented by men to denigrate the few movies made that don't completely and entirely cater to them. Period.
Luasisstilltheman Nobody is butthurt. I was just pointing out that Drew seemed to be a little too concerned about a trivial thing misinterpreted.
March 10, 2010 at 6:37PM ESTAnd by the way, what is irrelevent? It is the fact that you addressed my points by stating them as irrelevent without substantiating your claim.
What is relevent though is the fact that you fail to realize that what's important is the way people generally use and percieve the words they speak, not what some fool may have intended them to mean.
I have no intent on denegrating women, and was rooting for Bigelow 110%...because she was in fact the one that made the best film last year. Finally, the only one crying a river was you...when you used like 6 adjectives to sum my comments up as bigotted and archaic, when you missed the entirety of the point I was making.