Mister Tee wrote:Zero Dark Thirty, though, seems to have hit a wall. Bad publicity? Too late a debut? Prejudice against women directors? (No, I don't believe that -- but someone will argue it) There are so many surprises here that we can have dozens of discussions, unlike past years where we've had to stretch to muster interest or suspense.
Fine, I will. I applauded Bigelow's Oscar win because I thought she was the most deserving nominee for Directing. THE WHITE RIBBON, A SERIOUS MAN, and BRIGHT STAR would have also been worthy winners, but their directors were not nominated. As a bonus, I was happy to see a woman finally win the award. It was not the primary reason for my happiness, and I certainly do not think they should have (or did ) give it to Bigelow simply to make history. The same was true when Ang Lee became the first person of color to win the Oscar for Directing -- I applauded the significance of his win, but I was just happy the most worthy nominee received the award.
I admit I was a bit naive in thinking Bigelow's win would open up the door for more women directors being nominated. However, despite the following year seeing two Best Picture nominees directed by women, the Director category was once again filled with white men. The year after that saw a return to the status quo -- only films directed by white men nominated for Best Picture or Directing. I am certainly happy to see ZERO DARK THIRTY and LIFE OF PI in the Best Picture category and Ang Lee among the nominees for Directing. However, women are still being ignored.
As for what specifically happened with Kathryn Bigelow, I am sure many people will say the torture controversy sunk her, but that only reinforces my feelings that the real culprit was sexism. ZERO DARK THIRTY was nominated for Best Picture so clearly the attacks on the films content was not enough to alienate everyone. Also, the torture aspects of the film come from the screenplay, which
was nominated. Boal has been very clear he is the one who wanted to include the use of torture by the CIA, yet for some reason Bigelow is punished. Italiano calls her a fascist, yet the way the torture scenes were shot was perfect. They were shown in an unflinching but dispassionate manner. Some argue this proves Bigelow approves of torture, but that is complete bullshit. Compare any of the violence in ZERO DARK THIRTY to DJANGO UNCHAINED. Now that film is morally reprehensible. Tarantino wants the audience to literally cheer every time a racist person is killed. He revels in the violence and feels there is nothing wrong with a person brutally and violently murdering anyone even remotely connected to slavery (including other slaves).
I am certainly glad Tarantino was not nominated for Directing, but not because of the violent content of the film and more to do with his directorial choices. However, he was nominated for the cinematic ally superior but equally reprehensible INGLORIOUS BASTERDS. That film absolutely advocated torture, and yet it was nominated for Best Picture, Directing, Writing, and a slew of other Oscars. Why would the torture in INGLORIOUS BASTERDS not disqualify Tarantino from a nomination but the torture in ZERO DARK THIRTY somehow hurt Bigelow?
Anyways, eliminating the torture controversy as a possible reason and considering no other woman have been nominated since her win, I am going to say yes the white male majority in the Academy Directing branch is threatened by Bigelow's talent. She is better at this game than most men, and this pisses them off. Thankfully the DGA includes TV directors which is much more diverse in terms of race and gender than the directors in the Academy.
"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