82nd Oscars - Best Director

Okri
Professor
Posts: 2474
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:28 pm
Location: Edmonton, AB

Postby Okri » Mon Mar 08, 2010 12:32 pm

The problem, Oscarguy, is that you're still viewing the film through the context of her vagina, and that's exactly what you're complaining others doing.



Edited By Okri on 1268069693

User avatar
rolotomasi99
Associate
Posts: 1913
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 4:13 pm
Location: n/a
Contact:

Postby rolotomasi99 » Mon Mar 08, 2010 12:29 pm

OscarGuy wrote:I'm saying that she didn't bring ANYTHING new or interesting to the table. As a Best Director winner, she should have.

What the hell did the other four bring to the table that was new or interesting? You do know her win simply meant she did the best job of the five nominees, not that she is the best director ever, right?

OscarGuy wrote:That's my problem with her winning. The people who clamored for her to be the first "female Best Director winner" are far more concerned with her gender than I am. I'm sorry if I expect more originality and heart in a film directed by a woman. I'm sorry if you think that makes me a misogynist.

What? Do you even read your posts? You say some of Bigelow’s supporters are more concerned with her gender than you are, but then go on and on about how you hold her to a different standard than male directors. You do know this is the very definition of discrimination, right? I am not saying you are a bad woman-hater or anything, but every time you write about Bigelow you always talk about how you hold her to a different standard because she is a woman. Her not meeting your expectations as a female director is what I object to. If you do not think she deserved it because her style is bland is something we will just have to disagree with, but anger at her because she failed a being your idea of a woman director is just completely unfair.




Edited By rolotomasi99 on 1268069785
"When it comes to the subject of torture, I trust a woman who was married to James Cameron for three years."
-- Amy Poehler in praise of Zero Dark Thirty director Kathryn Bigelow

User avatar
rolotomasi99
Associate
Posts: 1913
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 4:13 pm
Location: n/a
Contact:

Postby rolotomasi99 » Mon Mar 08, 2010 12:26 pm

Damien wrote:Did You actually see Hurt Locker?? Her damn camera never stopped moving for a second. Talk about cliched filmmaking.


The two most memorable shots from the entire movie for me are the completely static above shot of Renner pulling out the wires for the cluster of bombs and then the great shot of him looking at the cereal. Simple, beautiful, compeletly unmoving camera.




Edited By rolotomasi99 on 1268069294
"When it comes to the subject of torture, I trust a woman who was married to James Cameron for three years."
-- Amy Poehler in praise of Zero Dark Thirty director Kathryn Bigelow

User avatar
Damien
Laureate
Posts: 6331
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:43 pm
Location: New York, New York
Contact:

Postby Damien » Mon Mar 08, 2010 12:13 pm

rolotomasi99 wrote:
OscarGuy wrote:Tip to female directors: Don't bring any of you silly feminism or womanly instincts to your film. Make it emotionless and vicious, direct it like a man, and you'll get your Oscar...take that Lina Wertmuller, Jane Campion and Sofia Coppola.

Never would have expected this misogynistic bullshit from you OscarGuy. She directed a great movie. I am not exactly sure how a "woman" is supposed to direct a war film, but I am just glad she did not do the hyper-action style of other recent "war" films like BLACK HAWK DOWN, THE KINGDOM, BODY OF LIES, or the upcoming GREEN ZONE.

Did You actually see Hurt Locker?? Her damn camera never stopped moving for a second. Talk about cliched filmmaking.
"Y'know, that's one of the things I like about Mitt Romney. He's been consistent since he changed his mind." -- Christine O'Donnell

ITALIANO
Emeritus
Posts: 3798
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: MILAN
Contact:

Postby ITALIANO » Mon Mar 08, 2010 11:41 am

It's true that the movie is a well made, well shot but not especially original war movie, and that from a woman one could have expected a different, newer approach - especially on such a subject. On this I think Oscar Guy is quite right.

User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 12252
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Postby OscarGuy » Mon Mar 08, 2010 11:17 am

I'm saying that she didn't bring ANYTHING new or interesting to the table. As a Best Director winner, she should have. I don't care if she was a man or a woman. It was nothing new or original. But, she seemed so intent on fitting in with the very narrow perception of how war films should be that she didn't try to expand anything. Working in a male-driven field should have encouraged her to break out of the box and do something to set herself apart. But instead, she blended in with the background and performed a perfunctory job for a passable film.

That's my problem with her winning. The people who clamored for her to be the first "female Best Director winner" are far more concerned with her gender than I am.

I'm sorry if I expect more originality and heart in a film directed by a woman. I'm sorry if you think that makes me a misogynist. You would be entirely wrong in that assumption, but because I have not celebrated the victory in a way in which you think appropriate, it must be misogyny. I have nothing but respect for women and want to see them succeed as much as the next person, but I don't want to see them give up their identity for the sake of a naked golden man with a sword...or even to blend themselves in with the world around them. Her fear of being different and distinct and thus not "respected" by her male counterparts is far more offensive to me than my calling her out for doing so and for chastising the Academy for enabling it.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin

Okri
Professor
Posts: 2474
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:28 pm
Location: Edmonton, AB

Postby Okri » Mon Mar 08, 2010 10:37 am

dws1982 wrote:So in other words, she's not a very good director because she doesn't fit into your (narrow) definition of what a female director should be.

Yeah, seriously. You can point out that the fact she worked in as typically masculine genre and that helped her, and I'll agree. But seriously, Oscarguy, you're defining her as a female director, and then saying she isn't the ideal female director and therefore shouldn't win, and that's just wrong. I wasn't clamoring for her to win because she's a woman, I was rooting for her because in this line-up (having not seen Precious), she was by far the best in the field.

If the line-up was Rian Johnson, Jacques Audiard, John Hillcoat, Kathryn Bigelow and Oliver Assayas, I wouldn't be rooting as hard.

dws1982
Tenured
Posts: 2780
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 9:28 pm
Location: AL
Contact:

Postby dws1982 » Mon Mar 08, 2010 10:31 am

So in other words, she's not a very good director because she doesn't fit into your (narrow) definition of what a female director should be.

User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 12252
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Postby OscarGuy » Mon Mar 08, 2010 10:26 am

I'm sorry if you don't understand my rationale, but it's not even remotely misogynistic. I thought she did an ok job with the film, but did nothing new or inventive with the film that her male counterparts couldn't have done. What has always struck me about female directors is how they bring a different viewpoint to filmmaking. There films aren't carbon-copies of their male counterparts. They have a certain emotional connection with their subjects that I have seldom found from male directors.

That The Hurt Locker is utterly bereft of these flares suggests A) she doesn't have the capability of relating to the more humanistic elements her contemporary directors do, B) she worked extra hard to leave those thoughts and emotions behind, or C) a combination of both.

Even Penny Marshall whose films aren't exactly Best Picture quality is a better director than Bigelow simply because she can bring a new perspective to her film. Coppola and Campion were the same way. Their style was influenced by the male-dominated world around them. They made wonderful films that didn't feel like everything else out there.

So, you can call it misogynistic all you want, but to me it's more of an aesthetic choice and the people who clamored for her win and celebrated it have all been celebrating the honoring of a woman, not because she was the best director of the year, but because she's a woman. So, I may admonish the Academy for letting an indistinct voice win this award, but you can't admonish me for something you and others are equally as guilty of. Had this film been directed by a man (and stylistically, it could have easily), that man would not only not be standing on the Oscar stage, he probably wouldn't even have been nominated.
Wesley Lovell

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin

dws1982
Tenured
Posts: 2780
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 9:28 pm
Location: AL
Contact:

Postby dws1982 » Mon Mar 08, 2010 10:16 am

anonymous wrote:
FilmFan720 wrote:Anyone else feel like Streisand was a little upset to be presenting the first woman a Best Director Oscar instead of being the first woman to win a Best Director Oscar?

Why would she? She accepted the invitation to present and Kathryn was CLEARLY the front-runner.

I'm sure she thought that if she wasn't going to be the first woman to win Best Director,then she had to be the one to present to the first female winner.

ITALIANO
Emeritus
Posts: 3798
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: MILAN
Contact:

Postby ITALIANO » Mon Mar 08, 2010 10:13 am

Yet for once I must admit that I perfectly understand Oscar Guy's feelings.

User avatar
rolotomasi99
Associate
Posts: 1913
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 4:13 pm
Location: n/a
Contact:

Postby rolotomasi99 » Mon Mar 08, 2010 10:05 am

OscarGuy wrote:Tip to female directors: Don't bring any of you silly feminism or womanly instincts to your film. Make it emotionless and vicious, direct it like a man, and you'll get your Oscar...take that Lina Wertmuller, Jane Campion and Sofia Coppola.

Never would have expected this misogynistic bullshit from you OscarGuy. She directed a great movie. I am not exactly sure how a "woman" is supposed to direct a war film, but I am just glad she did not do the hyper-action style of other recent "war" films like BLACK HAWK DOWN, THE KINGDOM, BODY OF LIES, or the upcoming GREEN ZONE.

What does a war film directed by a woman look like? Seriously, does including the loving and protective relationship between Renner's character and the young boy not count as emotional enough for you? Does Mackie's breaking down toward the end, talking about wanting to be a father not count? Renner's inability to relate to his wife and child mean nothing?

I am still trying to wrap my head around what constitutes "feminism" or "womanly instincts" in filmmaking. Wertmuller directed a movie which focused on a man and had not a single strong female character in it (unless you count the female Nazi guard who rapes the Giannini character). Coppola directed another movie about an older, unattractive man somehow fooling a young, beautiful woman into fall in love with him (though thankfully they never sleep together). Now, Campion's film was truly feminist, and certainly felt like it was stronger because of its female perspective.

I think all four female director nominees brought their own talent to the job. Their films would have been different with another director, but only THE PIANO seemed to have a "woman's touch" (though what made it incredible was Campion's skills as a director).

Very disappointed in you OscarGuy. We can disagree on whether Bigelow deserved it, but this line of attack seems beneath you. I honestly do not understand where it is coming from.




Edited By rolotomasi99 on 1268060923
"When it comes to the subject of torture, I trust a woman who was married to James Cameron for three years."
-- Amy Poehler in praise of Zero Dark Thirty director Kathryn Bigelow

Franz Ferdinand
Adjunct
Posts: 1259
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2004 3:22 pm
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Contact:

Postby Franz Ferdinand » Mon Mar 08, 2010 3:46 am

She spoke about her co-nominees, some of whom she's "admired for decades" - that could only be Cameron or Tarantino.

Loved the whole "woman v. black v. everyone else" angle Babs threw out - and she did look rather serious when they showed Bigelow's speech from a stage right camera.

anonymous1980
Emeritus
Posts: 4927
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 10:03 pm
Location: Manila
Contact:

Postby anonymous1980 » Mon Mar 08, 2010 3:27 am

FilmFan720 wrote:Anyone else feel like Streisand was a little upset to be presenting the first woman a Best Director Oscar instead of being the first woman to win a Best Director Oscar?

Why would she? She accepted the invitation to present and Kathryn was CLEARLY the front-runner.

I find it very refreshing that Kathryn never brought up the woman-angle so much. Which is how things are supposed to be anyway. She's a filmmaker first and foremost who just HAPPENS to be a woman.

Reza
Laureate
Posts: 7119
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 11:14 am
Location: Islamabad, Pakistan

Postby Reza » Mon Mar 08, 2010 3:11 am

mashari wrote:and did Kathryn thank James? I missed it if she did.

No she did not thank Cameron. Why would she?


Return to “82nd Nominations and Winners”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest