On Saturday, January 30th, the Directors Guild of America will give out its annual awards, including the most prestigious: Best Directorial Achievement in Feature Film, which generally reveals who will later win the Academy Award for Best Director (since the two awards share a nearly identical voting pool).
The big question this year is: Will an ex-husband prevent a woman from finally winning Best Director?
Since the first Academy Awards were given out in 1929, only three women have even been nominated for the directing Oscar: Lina Wertmuller in 1976 for Seven Beauties, Jane Campion in 1993 for The Piano and Sofia Coppola in 2003 for Lost in Translation. That’s right: It took nearly 50 years for Oscar to even wink in (or at) a woman’s direction. But then, there’s a very small pool of women to draw from for this award. Despite the gains women have made in almost all other careers, female directors are still a rarity, especially when you’re talking about movies that get major award consideration.
Still, if the likes of Kevin Costner and Mel Gibson can win Oscars the very first time they direct a movie, why haven’t experienced and commercially successful directors like Penny Marshall, Amy Heckerling, Nora Ephron and Nancy Meyers even been nominated?
And I’m no fan of Barbra Streisand, but her lack of a directorial nomination in 1991 when Prince of Tides was up for Best Picture was a clear snub. (It’s exceedingly rare for a movie to not have paired nominations for the two awards. After all, who created that Best Picture? A few male directors have also been spurned, but since 77 of them have been nominated, that’s not so shocking. By contrast, Streisand’s omission means 25% of the women who’ve directed Best Picture nominees have been snubbed.)
2010 looked to be the year when things might finally change. Having directed one of the best films of 2009, The Hurt Locker, Kathryn Bigelow was an early favorite to win the Oscar...before Avatar came out and dazzled everyone. After winning the Best Director award at the Golden Globes, James Cameron seems poised to win the DGA and Oscar statuettes as well. And if he does, he will keep the all-male sanctity of the most prestigious movie award intact.
Never one for modesty (his “I’m King of the World” Oscar acceptance speech for Titanic is still legendary even in a town that could be called Egowood), Cameron actually saluted Bigelow in his Golden Globes acceptance speech: “Frankly, I thought Kathryn was going to get this. She richly deserves it.” Being at least a theoretical feminist (given the strong female characters in his films), Cameron must feel a tad sensitive about the situation he’s in. It’s to his credit that he may actually regret taking something away from his ex-wife…a feeling that would make him unique among divorced men.
But the fact remains that a scenario all-too-familiar to the female gender seems about to play out again: A woman poised for a well-deserved triumph gets pre-empted by a man making a flashy move that steals all the attention. Last year, it was called the Democratic nomination. This year, it’s the Oscar race.
Adding to the irony is the fact that Bigelow isn’t a typical female director. She doesn’t make comedies like Penny Marshall or movies about relationships like Nora Ephron or Nancy Meyers – she makes hard-core action movies. There’s scarcely a woman to be seen in The Hurt Locker (far fewer than are actually in Iraq). Instead Bigelow tells a brutal war story of bomb squad members – the most-macho heroes in an ultra-macho setting – acting out classic male patterns of competition and camaraderie.
It’s Cameron who’s made the hearts and flowers film, showing us a beautiful and mystical world of living treehouses, My Little Pony dragons you can tame and ride, and magical hairstyles that are a conduit to all living things (including your lover’s pleasure center). Yes, there’s a typical mindless slam-bang action sequence at the end of Avatar, but it feels utterly de rigueur, as if they couldn’t figure out how else to wrap the whole thing up. (“Well, we can always have the two guys duke it out!” “Cool, let’s do that!”) Up to that point, the movie is a Sierra Club commercial combined with a Saturday morning cartoon for pre-adolescent girls.
Of course, it’s not the content that people are lauding Cameron for – it’s the technology. Avatar is undoubtedly the flashiest film of 2009, one that makes a big impression while you’re watching it with those cool 3-D glasses. But like all movies that rely primarily on technological whiz-bang for their impact, it will date quickly, since technology has a pesky way of moving relentlessly forward.
It’s the movies with compelling stories and characters that we not only remember but love. Star Wars also initially attracted audiences with unprecedented special effects, but what is it that people actually love to recall about it? The idea of the Force, the struggle of good vs. evil, the archetypal characters and the many memorable lines that have become beloved parts of our every day dialogue. The special effects now seem rather quaint, and George Lucas was misguided in adding CGI images in a later special edition – while state-of-the-art at the time, they now look even more dated than the original effects, and stand out as awkwardly as a ship suddenly seen passing behind the Mona Lisa. Although it's been labeled a break-through movie on the level of Star Wars, Avatar offers stunning visuals and imaginative details but no Darth Vader or Han Solo or even R2D2, not one line of memorable dialogue, and only a crude mash-up of enviro-spiritual ideology's greatest hits for its message.
The Hurt Locker, by contrast, has been hailed as the best film so far about the Iraq war – and a great war film, period. Anchored by a stunning performance by Jeremy Renner as Sgt. James, a bomb defuser who is addicted to the thrill of his death-defying job, it illuminates a maddeningly intractable conflict by taking us inside a more manageable one, between the members of a small bomb disposal unit, before going yet one more layer into the Russian doll and exposing the inner conflicts of the lead character.
Bombs explode but people generally implode. Any director can jolt the audience with the former, but only a gifted one can create scenes of realistic psychic destruction. The Hurt Locker is full of edge-of-your-seat scenes in which the characters face death, and unlike most Hollywood films (like Avatar), you never doubt that any of them might die. War is unpredictable, capricious and vicious, and Bigelow makes sure we know that. But she also shows the costs beyond body bags and amputations, and how walking away from a war can be even more difficult than being carried away.
For that, she deserves an award. And I hope that the directors of America are man enough to give her one.
NOTES:
Oscar nominations will be announced February 2nd. The Awards ceremony is on March 7th.
In case you’re wondering: John Singleton is the only African-American who’s ever been nominated for Best Director, for Boyz n the Hood in 1991. (He didn’t win.) Lee Daniels, who directed Precious (and is also nominated for the DGA award this year), is likely to give Singleton some company. Ang Lee is the only Asian-American who’s ever won Best Director -- for Brokeback Mountain in 2005. He was also nominated for Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon in 2000.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
zanelle
Lucy Mercer
Gabby Abby
bluestocking babe
Gwool
Abrawang
Salon.com
Comments
He beat out Wertmuller, Alan Pakula for AtPM, Lumet for Network, and... Bergman for Face to Face.
Just as that doesn't make Avildsen a better director than Bergman or Wertmuller, the Oscar for Avatar won't make Cameron better than Bigelow.
1976 was also the year of Taxi Driver - never my cuppa tea, but Scorsese wasn't even nominated as best director.
I do agree that both the film and its director deserve to take home the golden statue this year. Of course, I gave up on the Oscars after the "Crash beats Brokeback Mountain" debacle from a few years ago.
Hope you'll be covering the Oscars all the way for us.
I was just talking to Paul about the lack of awards for women the other night - only about screenwriting. I think something like 20 women have ever won an Oscar. 20! The statistic is less than 10% of women ever taking one home. Of course, that's if they are even nominated. Across the board, Hollywood needs to wake up to the fact that women are just as talented and deserving of their precious trophies.
Great piece, Silky!
Unfortunately, so many of us men say the right words, but when it comes to taking action, that is another story. I simply believe the world will be a far better place, when women receive the recognition they so richly deserve.
Thanks for pointing a spotlight.
Mary, thanks! I have an ongoing rant about the American movie industry in regards to women. They don't make movies for us (especially those of us over 40) and the lack of women in power is one big reason. There are more of them than there used to be, but it's still pitiful compared to other professions. And as you say, media images are very powerful, so it matters. It's not "just entertainment."
Mary, thanks!
OE, I don't know if that's an original line about running for class president, but it's a great comparison! Per my response to Brian above, I'm well aware of how the game works, but it's still a source of frustration that women are so underused and under-recognized in American movies, except as objects.
Mad, I agree that timing is a big issue. Also Avatar has now been seen by a bazillion people and The Hurt Locker by a few million. And I agree with you on Crash - that was one of the most egregious "steals" in Oscar history. I'll never forget the stunned look on Ang Lee's face when that was announced. He'd just won Best Director and everyone thought that as usual that sealed BB Mountain as Best Picture. It's still a classic, great movie (groundbreaking, even) and has become part of the culture. And where is "Crash"? relegated to being re-run occasionally on cable. No one thinks about it or talks about it.
Nick, yes, there's a real chance that Tarantino will steal it away!
Lea, I hadn't thought about it. Would I have to make comments about all the foofy dresses, too?
Deborah, ha!
Julie, thanks! and yes, screenwriting is another area where women are lagging, although it's much healthier than directing. And women have been recognized in that category. But then there's the idea that no one's lower in Hollywood than the screen writer (old joke: an aspiring actress was so dumb she slept with the screen writer to try to get ahead), so I think they're more comfortable with women in that role. And women have a much longer history in writing for movies - they were involved in that from the earliest days in Hollywood.
Bonnie, ha! And I don't to hear a "I'm the King of the outer worlds" speech.
Plant, thanks.
I'm not sure why some are treating the possibility of a split ticket as some kind of defeat for Avatar. Ego aside, I'm sure Cameron knows that he actually gets more positive PR if Bigelow wins Best Director and his film wins Best Picture than he would if he took both. And, come what may, I have a tough time believing that the Academy will pass up a chance to make history for the sake of giving the Best Director statue to a man who won for his last film and whose current picture will likely win the Best Picture trophy anyway. At this point, I would not be the least shocked if Avatar sweeps the technical awards, wins Best Picture and Kathryn Bigelow wins Best Director, for which Cameron will be the first to rise for a standing ovation. Even if he's not sincere about championing the acclaimed film of his ex-wife (and I believe he is), he's gotta know that the two of them clasping statues together will make a better photo op than Cameron again clutching two statues once again.
One thing about Avatar: I enjoyed it a lot, but just two weeks after seeing it, it's completely faded from my memory. It was like cotton candy--fun in the moment, but utterly insubstantial. There isn't one character who's stayed with me. I happened to see the Seven Samurai the same week as Avatar and in contrast, I've revisited that film in my mind over and over again in the weeks since. I realize it's probably not fair to compare Avatar to one of the greatest films of all time. Still, there's no denying that the characters in Avatar aren't compelling, aren't memorable and won't stand the test of time.
"The principal rules are few to remember. When reviewing,say,two entirely dissimilar books of verse, pit one against the other as though they were originally written in strict competition. 'After Mr. A's subtle, taut and integrated poetical comments, or near epigrams, Mr. B's long sonorous heroic narrative rings curiously hollow' is an example of this most worthwhile and labor-saving device."
It feels as though you've fallen into this trap. One can praise The Hurt Locker as a brilliant piece of action film-making without deriding Avatar in the casual side-swiping way that elides real critical analysis (And we know that you of all people can perform wonders of critical analysis). For instance, though you may find the plot familiar and the characters trite (I don't), the final battle sequence, one of the most elegant and detailed action set-pieces ever put on film, is tough to dismiss as a throw-away. Every plot thread was worked out through that operatic technological Waterloo, and unlike most Hollywood films, you always knew exactly what was happening, who was doing what, and why. Even Kathryn Bigelow agrees with me on this one, and she divorced the guy.
Rated
I actually enjoyed Avatar while I was watching it - -much more than I'd expected (since I'd heard all the criticism about the dialogue, plot etc as well as praise for the technical stuff). But AR who commented right after Scott said it very well: It's a cotton candy type of movie that melts in your mouth almost while you're watching it. To me, it has no resonance. It won't be quoted or remembered in the way that beloved movies are - I think it will become a footnote in movie history. (If you feel otherwise, I'd be curious what you feel is more lasting about this movie, including what's sticking with you since seeing it.)
You can argue that Cameron deserves an Oscar simply for the technical achievement of the film - I can see that (although people who know a lot more than I do have said that it's not that groundbreaking - I truly have no way to judge that). I prefer to see movies rewarded that are about more than technique, that are instead a marriage of film technique to compelling story and characters. That's my bias. And I think Bigelow achieved that - she has technique, storytelling (talk about clarity of action sequences!), compelling characters, and some stunning visuals. So she gets my vote. (And needless to say, Cameron already won an Oscar for a "technique" film, Titanic, so it's not like his contributions have been ignored by the industry!)
Scott, as far as Cameron's feelings -- only he knows. I agree that it would look more generous if the scenario plays out as you describe, and I think Cameron actually is probably genuine about thinking his ex deserves the award. But I would guess that he also thinks he deserves it (as you say, one does not preclude the other!). He spent years of his life on this film and I think he's very proud of it, and he has a very very healthy ego. If anything, he probably wishes they both could win.
AR, I gave you a shout out above but you summarized it perfectly. My ultimate standard for a film is what I feel and think afterward - and for how long afterward. I can't give high marks to something that soon leaves my mind, no matter how much fun it was in the theater for a few hours. It's like the old comparison between junk food that may hit the spot when you eat it and a fine meal that you continue to savor in memory long after it's over.
Steven, I agree that the final battle is well-staged compared to most action movies today. However, I think that's more a commentary on how sloppy those have gotten in recent years, something many critics complain about (go back even a decade or so ago and that kind of clarity was required and taken for granted in action films). Competence isn't enough. That final battle bored the living snot out of me. And other people I know, both men and women, who liked Avatar a lot more than I did, felt the same way -- the movie utterly lost them at the point the battle started even though they were really into the movie until then. But they felt it descended into same old, same old, just dressed up in 3-D animation.
I also think it ran counter to the supposed point of the whole film, which was to champion peace and unity vs. competition and warfare. Hard to look morally superior when you do the same thing your "enemies" do. I thought it was an utterly predictable "cheat" ending to a movie that was supposed to be anti-violence. It would have shown a lot more imagination to come up with a different resolution than an animated version of the classic Hollywood shoot'em up.
I get tired of American movies ending the same way (not just action movies, but romances and other genres, too). After opening up to other possibilities in the 60's and 70's, they've become as predictable as the old studio films of the early decades when the acceptable endings for each genre were set in cement. I think it's one of the great failings of our film industry, and very notable when you compare it to films from other countries.
As to Avatar, let me refer you to a post of my own, where I tried to lay out the good points and explain my delirious enthusiasm ...
http://open.salon.com/blog/steven_axelrod/2010/01/06/avatar_the_best_picture
It's interesting to note that though these two directors have never vied for the same Oscar before, a similar head-to-head movie match up supposedly wrecked their marriage ... or at least amplified the problems. The year was 1991 and the two movies were Point Break and Terminator Two. Both good movies, but Bigelow's entry got swept away by her soon-to-be ex-husband's triumph. I think we're looking at a repeat ...
(Thought I thought Sophia Coppola's nomination was a joke and a clear case of Daddy's Girl Gone Good Enough. That movie may be one of my most loathed movies of all time. God, I hate that movie. But minus my personal opinion, she did not seem like a worthy director at that point of her career, male or female aside.)
No idea who the academy will vote for. While they've loads of dubious picks in their history (to the Outrage of 76 I'd add Dances With Wolves over Goodfellas; Forest Gump over Pulp Fiction and Four Weddings, and Braveheart over Fargo), they've also pleasantly suprised me with choices like Chariots of Fire, Shakespeare in Love and The Queen.
Alas, the movie I most enjoyed last year was In the Loop which was seen by about one thousandth as many folks who saw THL. I'd be astounded if it's nominated for anything, though it should get a script award (dunno if it's adapted or original).
Thanks for yet another insightful post Silkwood.
2 Feb Is the date for nomination,and my mind all set to express my prediction till today,
So friends here he is my first prediction
Best Picture
Avatar
An Education
The Hurt Locker
Inglourious Basterds
Invictus
The Messenger
Precious
A Serious Man
Up
Up in the Air
Best Director
Kathryn Bigelow- The Hurt Locker
James Cameron- Avatar
Clint Eastwood- Invictus
Jason Reitman- Up in the Air
Quentin Tarantino- Inglourious Basterds
Best Actor
Jeff Bridges- Crazy Heart
George Clooney- Up in the Air
Colin Firth- A Single Man
Morgan Freeman- Invictus
Jeremy Renner- The Hurt Locker
Best Actress
Abbie Cornish- Bright Star
Helen Mirren- The Last Station
Carey Mulligan- An Education
Gabourey Sidibe- Precious
Meryl Streep- Julie & Julia
Best Supporting Actor
Matt Damon- Invictus
Woody Harrelson- The Messenger
Christopher Plummer- The Last Station
Stanley Tucci- The Lovely Bones
Christoph Waltz- Inglourious Basterds
Best Supporting Actress
Penelope Cruz- Nine
Vera Farmiga- Up in the Air
Anna Kendrick- Up in the Air
Mo'Nique- Precious
Julianne Moore- A Single Man
Best Original Screenplay
(500) Days of Summer
The Hurt Locker
Inglourious Basterds
A Serious Man
Up
Best Adapted Screenplay
District 9
An Education
Invictus
Precious
Up in the Air
Best Animated Feature
Coraline
Fantastic Mr. Fox
Ponyo
The Princess and the Frog
Up
Best Art Direction
Avatar
Harry Potter & the Half-Blood Prince
Nine
Sherlock Holmes
Where the Wild Things Are
Best Cinematography
Avatar
The Hurt Locker
The Lovely Bones
Public Enemies
A Serious Man
Best Costume Design
Inglourious Basterds
Nine
Public Enemies
A Serious Man
The Young Victoria
Best Film Editing
Avatar
District 9
The Hurt Locker
Star Trek
Up in the Air
Best Makeup
District 9
The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus
Star Trek
Best Original Score
Avatar
The Informant!
The Lovely Bones
Up
Where the Wild Things Are
Best Original Song
Crazy Heart
Everybody's Fine
Nine
Where The Wild Things Are
Up
Best Sound Mixing
2012
Avatar
The Hurt Locker
Public Enemies
Star Trek
Best Sound Editing
Avatar
The Hurt Locker
Star Trek
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen
Up
Best Visual Effects
Avatar
Star Trek
Where the Wild Things Are
Best Foreign Language Film
Letters to Father Jacob
Mother
Police, Adjective
A Prophet
The White Ribbon
Best Documentary Feature
The Cove
Facing Ali
Food, Inc.
Under Our Skin
Valentino: The Last Emperor
Rated.
Thanks for filling in that Cameron-Bigelow history. It rings a bell now that you bring it up but I'd forgotten it. As for the "King of the World" comment - I think everyone knows he was quoting the dialogue from Titanic, since everyone saw that movie!! I used that as the tag to identify the speech but the problem wasn't just that line - if anything, he was more criticized for his "let's have a moment of silence for the Titanic victims...OK, now let's party all night! woo hoo!" end to his acceptance speech. It was jarring, to put it mildly, and was commented on all over the place afterward. (I was trying to allude to his reputation around all that as much as state my own opinion.)
Beth, speaking of movies being personal... I'll have to disagree with you on Lost in Translation as I quite liked it. But did Coppola deserve a nomination vs. many overlooked women directors? Probably not. But as someone else noted here, many underwhelming directing jobs by men have resulted in Oscar noms and even awards, too.
Abra, if I can get anyone to see The Hurt Locker who hasn't yet, that's a good thing! And you name some of the egregious wins in Oscar history. It is very frustrating what wins, as often as not. And just to keep my record of disagreeing with commenters in this thread intact, I really wanted to like "In the Loop"...but I really really didn't.
RJ, you could make a post out of that...just sayin'.
Thanks to Colleen, Steve, N Jordan and KOB!
And they matter also where it counts for people's careers. For directors, winning an Oscar can make a huge difference in what financing and also control they can get for their projects -- or whether they can get their projects done at all. So the inside industry effects of Oscar are as powerful as the sales -- they help determine who will get to make movies and at what budgets. This in turn affects what we get to see as viewers.
Glenn, no question they are 2 very different movies but no reason you can't enjoy both!
Have to say though, in terms of food for thought, Hurt Locker trumps Avatar. I can't remember being so stunned by the ending of a movie - I just sat gaping at the screen all the way through the credits. Where Avatar is about fluffy blue people and horrible eco-nastiness (a co-worker called it "Fern Gully for grown-ups"), Hurt Locker punches you in the gut with the complexity of human nature and leaves you reeling. I couldn't stop talking about it afterwards.
Plus, I've loved Bigelow's work since Near Dark and I think while James Cameron's movies have been growing in scale (and popularity) he's moving farther away from the futuristic grit of Aliens and T2, which, to me, were his finest accomplishments.
JK, you must have some powerful fingers! Bigelow did win the DGA award yesterday! That makes her by far the odds-on favorite to also take the Oscar.
The last Cameron picture I suffered through was Titanic. Artists laughed aloud at the scene where Cameron used his own mediocre B+ art school drawings of whatshername, and had other characters breathlessly describe them as works of a genius master comparable to Leonardo D. Next thing you know, he'll be wanting an exhibit at MoMA, like Tim Burton.
The story was handled well. Given the subject matter, you knew that most scenes would be tense. Bigelow deserves credit for avoiding all manner of cheap tricks. Like the quiet moment followed by a noisy surprise that turns out only to be the cat. Then the next time it's not the cat; it's ALIEN. And none of this nonsense of a quiet scene immediately followed by 150 decibels of someone turning on the faucet. The ending too was great.
On the other hand, you could see several incidents almost from the beginning. You know that some of the characters in the first scene won't see the closing credits. There's bound to be a scene where they don't kill the right guy when they had the chance, and another where they do shoot the wrong guy. As well as a male-bonding interlude. Maybe all this just goes with the territory but the presence of too much of the formula took some off the edge off. Nonetheless, a very good depiction of the formula.
So now I really don't have a horse in the Oscar race.