03/09/2010 12:22:31 PM EST

Did Kathryn Bigelow Win Best Director Because She's a Woman?

posted by Cenk

I really liked Hurt Locker. It not only had action, drama and suspense, it had a very interesting underlying theme. While we make our own choices (as in the men who volunteered to be in the military), we can still be clogs in the machine with seemingly little control over the larger events of our lives (like the Iraq War).

That being said, I thought it was crazy that it won Best Picture. It was a very good movie that was not nearly as historic as Avatar or anywhere as ingenious as Inglourious Basterds. Now, that's my opinion. I loved Basterds. I think it got robbed. But these are arguable points.

I don't think Kathryn Bigelow winning Best Director is arguable, or defensible.

Email Print
Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit Facebook
James Cameron redefined directing with Avatar (I know, a little over the top). He spent over ten years putting this movie together, introduced revolutionary new technology and implemented it in a way that won over audiences throughout the world. It is a movie that will be remembered for as long as we talk about movies. Hurt Locker? Are you kidding me? It's mainly going to be remembered as the movie that inexplicably beat Avatar for the Oscar.

In case you think I'm biased, I personally liked Hurt Locker more than Avatar. It's my kind of movie and I don't care much for the latest innovations in movie technology. But it's mental not to acknowledge it. It's one thing to argue that Hurt Locker should have won Best Picture; it's another to argue that Bigelow was a better director than Cameron. That's crazy talk.

The real contest should have been between Tarantino and Cameron. How the hell did Basterds get shut out? I've seen a lot of movies in my time and now reviewed many of them, and I didn't see Basterds coming. It took turns that were completely unconventional and delivered on them. Great writing, great action, truly novel film-making. The Hurt Locker was a very good movie, but I fail to see how it redefined a genre the way Basterds and Avatar did. As much as I liked Hurt Locker, it was normal. Just a good movie. Directorially speaking, not in the same league as Avatar and Basterds.

So, why did it win? One theory is that everyone in Hollywood hates James Cameron. Could this be relevant? Of course. The voters are human and they take human considerations into account. That's perfectly normal. Do they really hate Cameron and was this really a factor? I have no idea. I'm not inside the voters' heads.

A second theory is that the older Academy voters aren't into CGI. They look at Avatar and see giant smurfs frolicking in a cartoon movie. This is also possible but doesn't explain why Hurt Locker beat Basterds.

Another theory is that they wanted to give it to Bigelow because she would be the first woman to win the award. Again, there's no way of knowing. But I believe this is the most likely reason. If Hurt Locker was directed by a man, I find it inconceivable that it would have won Best Director. Based on what?

I hear from the conservative detractors that I am a well-known liberal. So, it should come as no surprise that I think that holding the fact that someone is a woman against them is insanely irrational. So, the old school way of thinking that women can't be good directors is so stupid that I can't really quite fathom it. Sure, and blacks can't be good quarterbacks. It makes no sense whatsoever. But equally ridiculous is the idea that we should reward a woman above her male peers because women have not been rewarded before. Isn't that horribly patronizing?

I'm not saying the fact that Bigelow is a woman is the only reason she won. She did a very good job in a very good movie. She wouldn't be where she is now without that significant accomplishment. I'm saying the politics of being a woman in this category at this time is what put her over the top.

It's like giving Yao Ming the MVP award in the NBA. He's a great player, but he's obviously not Kobe or LeBron. It would be weird and patronizing to give it to Yao. That doesn't take away from his accomplishments or his skills. It's just wrong. Kobe and LeBron are clearly better.

The very legitimate challenge to this article will be that this is all my opinion and assumptions. I'm sure a lot of people thought that Bigelow legitimately did a better job of directing than Cameron and Tarantino. And there are many other plausible theories as to why she won even if you don't think she was the better director. So, let me be clear, I am not stating this as fact, but as my opinion (though forcefully stated, as usual).

I've been wrong before and I can be wrong about this. So, explain to me how Hurt Locker was better directed or why Bigelow won otherwise, because right now I can't see it.

< Passing Health Care Bill will save Rahm Emanuel | What the MSM "News" is really like >
 Display:
Did Kathryn Bigelow Win Best Director Because She's a Woman? | 34 comments (34 topical, 0 hidden)
It depends on definition of "Best" (none / 0)

First of all, I've not seen Avatar nor the Hurt Locker. But that's not important for illustrating my point.. Critically speaking, 'best' often relates not to the impact a film has on society, but on how well the movie succeeds in advancing the technical possibilities of film making-- technical in this case referring to matters related to the craft of filmmaking. This is one of the major factors going into the selecting of movies for the Criterion Collection, which are not known to be 'enjoyable' so much as they are technically interesting.

Given this definition of 'best', I think the Academy is always pulled in that direction or in the direction of the mega-blockbusters. If they choose the latter every year, they risk being sell-outs. If they prefer the former, they'll lose interest in the mainstream.

 There really wasn't a good option in the middle. Basterds was not mainstream due to the excessive violence and IMO, frustratingly rife with technical problems. I can't think of another one that might contend.

by jkauzlar on 03/09/2010 01:50:27 PM EST

What a Sham!!!!!!! (none / 1)
Thank you for posting this Cenk because it is a grave injustice that Bigelow and The Hurt Locker won.  There is no reason in hell that Bigelow/Hurt Locker deserved Best Director/Picture for a number of reasons - come on, the Hurt Locker is no Deer Hunter, Full Metal Jacket, or Apocalypse Now.  When we look back ten years from now and see that The Hurt Locker (the story of Iraq) won over Avatar, the joke will be on us.  Don't get me wrong, I found the Hurt Locker to be a decent small budget film, but like you said not Oscar worthy when up against Avatar or other better made/directed films like Inglourious Basterds, Precious, Sin Nombre, etc.  

I think there's some truth behind what you said about Bigelow winning possibly because she's a woman and the insanity of this concept in this day and age.  Sure, it will be great when a woman wins, but the win should be deserved and not given (kind of reminds me if Clinton won over Obama even if it may have been the better choice in the end).  What I find more troublesome is some other possible reasons why The Hurt Locker/Bigelow won that goes beyond The Academy members and/or new voting system and taps into America's guilty feelings as it relates to Iraq.  It is my opinion that people in the film industry should feel guilty of the lack of truthful movies coming out of Iraq and Afghanistan.  Sure we have people like Robert Greenwald making quality, revealing documentaries, but the opportunity has been lost to bring awareness and feelings through the amazing power of film.  There has been some decent movies about Iraq, however, they have not received the attention that they deserve because America did  not want to see the dirty, brutal side of war waged in supposedly in our behalf.

Then comes The Hurt Locker and everyone and their grandma rallies behind it.  We get to empathize with the soldiers as we sit at the edges of our seats waiting for the IEDs to blow.  There is the sense of hopelessness, and we feel that the soldiers are just doing the best they can in Iraq.  There is no blame and there is even a sense of patriotism, especially at the end which some say was influenced by the military along with Bigelow jerking off the soldiers during her acceptance speech rather than shedding some light on the situation.  If it comes out to be true that there was military influence, Bigelow should be barred for life from the Academy.  Her producer was already barred for from the ceremony for his shameless email campaign trying to get people to vote for the Hurt Locker. Veterans are pissed saying this movie is completely unbelievable, as well as a soldier suing because he believes the story was ripped off and he wasn't given the due credit.  Don't get me wrong, I love controversial movies, but don't get mislead - this is the WRONG kind of controversial!  In essence this movie is propaganda on a number of fronts and the Academy should be ashamed of themselves for being played like a fool.  

by rev24 on 03/09/2010 02:10:02 PM EST

Gotta point out... (none / 1)
"Veterans are pissed saying this movie is completely unbelievable, as well as a soldier suing because he believes the story was ripped off and he wasn't given the due credit."

Well, which is it? You've got a soldier saying it was his story, right? Then how can it be so unbelievable?

Don't know if you;re old enough to remember, but Vietnam didn't get it's due in the movies until a decade after it was over. Deer Hunter and Coming Home were themed around the war, but they weren't war movies. What did we get DURING the war? The Green Berets with John Wayne.

It wasn't until Platoon and the overlooked (but superior in some ways - Courtney B. Vance is freakin' FANTASTIC as Doc") Hamburger Hill. Then we got all the crap Missing In Action movies and Rambo (First Blood was excellent until his weepy breakdown in the sheriff's office - read the book). You can expect the same from Iraq & Afghanistan. Two or three really good movies and a whole lot of crap.

Hurt Locker was one of the good ones.

by MedfordTim on 03/09/2010 03:07:17 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Hurt Locker = Decent filmmaking at best (none / 0)
I'm not a soldier and I'm not in a position to say how things actually go/went down in Iraq.  I will say it is possible to draw on real life soldiers/war experiences and embellish them for dramatic effect.  This movie doesn't claim to be a documentary, however, is it coincidence that the Hurt Locker uses the same call signal/nickname, Blaster One, which happens to be the same name for Sergent Jeffrey Sarver, the one suing the Hurt Locker?  

I hear you about the time lag for war movies being released, however, my main point was that there have been some great war movies made and Hurt Locker is not one of them.  Although I'm not a fan of big-budget, special-effects ridden movies, there is no doubt Avatar and James Cameron should of won.

by rev24 on 03/09/2010 03:38:19 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Not arguing that (none / 0)
If the soldier has a case, more power to him, but I'm betting that ALL the bomb squad leaders are called "blaster one" - kinda goes with the job description...just sayin'...

I still disagree that it wasn't a great war movie, but that's a matter of taste. I understand your results may vary.

Stephen Lang should have won a Best Supporting for Avatar, but he ALWAYS gets overlooked despite being one of the best damn character actors out there. As I said elsewhere, I would have gone with Precious, but Hurt Locker would definitely have gotten my nod over Avatar. Hell, I still like The Abyss (Director's Cut) better than Avatar...

by MedfordTim on 03/09/2010 04:18:45 PM EST

[ Parent ]
acting (none / 1)
Ah man I thought you were talking about JP from Grandma's Boy, otherwise known as Joel David Moore.  How can you not love JP - "adios turd nuggets!"

Though on a serious note, I think Christoph Waltz definitely deserved the Oscar.  The only acting Oscar that I had issue with was the whole Sandra Bullocks debacle.  Gabby Sidibe should of won, but if that was too much black for the Oscars, they could of at least gone with the Streepster.  F' that white woman saves hopeless black kid bollocks.  

by rev24 on 03/09/2010 08:38:09 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Christoph Waltz (none / 1)
Can somebody explain, why he got the supporting Oscar?
He had the most screentime, he portrayed the most important character in the film and he acted brilliantly in three languages.
Was he a supporting actor, just because he was German?

"The first thing Fascists usually try to do is silencing the opposition."

by opposition on 03/11/2010 02:53:06 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Who is supporting (none / 0)
The supporting classification is sometimes tough to nail down, but it largely a matter of screen time, not the importance of the character.

Waltz disappeared from large stretches of the story, including the entire second and fourth chapters. Leads are commonly considered characters who dominate the story - think Mickey Rourke in The Wrestler. I think Basterds would be correctly classified as an ensemble without a lead performance like Gosford Park or Magnolia.

You could make the case that the Oscars fudge the boundaries on this all the time and you'd be right. This often has more to do with star power and maneuvering than accurately reflecting the films. Tom Cruise was placed in lead over Jamie Foxx for Collateral even though Foxx was in every seen of the movie. Likewise Brad Pitt was pushed as lead for Basterds despite having no more screen time than Waltz. This is because in both cases it makes sense to push the bigger star because he stands a better chance in lead and because it increases both of their chances if they're not in competition with each other.

Sometimes it really is impossible to say. I think you could make a case either way for Heath Ledger in the Dark Knight, for example.

by govan1980 on 03/11/2010 11:17:10 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Bull Pucky (none / 1)

The only award The Hurt Locker should have gotten was best director.

IMO Avatar didn't get all the technical awards because Hollywood hates Cameron.

 

by HoneyBearKelly on 03/09/2010 02:12:19 PM EST

You're Killing Me With This Cenk (none / 2)
As a devoted film buff and Young Turk fan I have to tell you - You're killing me with this.

First off, this idea that Bigelow won because she was a woman is beneath you. It is as indefensable as saying Obama won because he was black. Bigelow won because she directed the living hell out of The Hurt Locker. Period. 

You're argument that Cameron lost  votes for being disliked personally is, I'm afraid to say, completely unsupportable. Hell, they gave it to Polanski a few years back. Do they love him? Hollywood loves success. Avatar should have been a shoe-in, but the truth is that it didn't win because it simply was not that good.

Your comparison of Cameron to Kobe is equally weak sauce. Cameron has never been the Oscar's favorite director. He made one, count em one, movie that was any kind of hit at the Oscars. He has always been a director of fun but shallow action films and that is exactly what Avatar is. The reason Titanic won while Avatar didn't is that for all its clunkiness audiences cared about Jack and Rose and cried buckets. Nobody gave a rat's ass about Jake Whats-his-face and his alien girlfriend. Nobody cares = no Oscar.

But the biggest flaw in your argument is that Cameron somehow deserved points for "redefining movies" or something. Let's be clear: Cameron didn't redefine anything. What your talking about is money. Cameron took a lot of stuff that already existed and a made a very popular movie with it. The acting capture technology was already used to better effect in Lord of the Rings, and although he did a great job with 3D the idea that movies will never be the same again is laughable. You've bought into the marketing campaign. Movies are still good or bad whether they're in 3D or not.

So what you're talking about is money. Cameron got a lot of people to go see his movie. If Avatar had flopped at the box office nobody would be talking about how it was snubbed at the Oscars. They would be talking about how the expensive movie tanked because of its lousy script. Best picture is for the film with the best filmmaking, and that means story, character, and depth not just craftsmanship. Areas where you admit Avatar is totally lacking.They already have a prize for good box office. It's called getting good box office. 

And I should add that it is somewhat obtuse of you to suggest that spending a lot of money and time on his movie somehow means he had more "vision" than anybody else. Come on, Cenk. Bigelow took a small fraction of Cameron's budget, went to Jordan, and with little time and limited resources made a war movie for the ages. That's what you call vision. You know who could not have done that with anything approaching Bigelow's subtlety and depth? James frickin' Cameron, that's who.

And, hey, if we're going to honor films for reaching a big audience do you know what film finished behind Avatar at the box office for 2009? Transformers 2. Where's there Oscar, Cenk?

As for your contention that Hurt Locker is going to be remembered as the film that beat Avatar - I love you, Cenk, I do, but damned if that's not the dumbest thing I've ever heard you say. You know what stands the test of time? Characters we care about and stories that move us. In fifty years when people ask, "What was the Iraq war like for the soldiers?" it's going to be Hurt Locker they turn to. You know what doesn't stand the test of time? Cutting edge special effects. Today's hot new thing is tomorrow's Captain Eo. Avatar is already becoming a joke for it's totally derivative storyline. That's only going to increase as time goes on. After the dazzle of the effects have worn off people are going to check out Avatar in fifty years, with its forgettable characters and clunky dialogue, and say, "THIS was nominated for Best Picture?"

I've been studying movies seriously for over a decade now. Young Turks even inspired me to start my own blog, Serious Film a film commentary site where I've posted a review of Avatar and my take on the politics of Hurt Locker, as well as posting blogs here on the subject. So Cenk, while I often defer to your expertise in matters of politics, you're going to have to trust me on this one: You're dead wrong.

(You'll notice I didn't mention Basterds. I loved it too, but thought Locker the better film. An honest disagreement, but please lets stop this "Bigelow won for being a woman" talk)

by govan1980 on 03/09/2010 02:49:10 PM EST

Well put! (none / 0)
If all previous Oscars for best director would have gone the way Cenk thought this year's Oscars should have obviously gone, this would be the history of the Oscars:

Kubrik would have won best Director for 2001: A Space Odyssey instead of Carol Reed for Oliver!

Either The Director of Star Wars or the director of Close Encounters of the Third Kind would have totally beaten Woody Allen for Annie Hall in 1977.  

The Director of Star Trek; The Motion Picture would have beaten Benton for Kramer VS Kramer in 1979

The Director of Flash Gordon would have beaten Redford for Ordinary People in 1980

Speilberg would have won for E.T. in 1982 instead of Attenborough for Gandhi.  

Luca would have won again in 1983 for the Return of the Jedi instead of Brooks for Terms of Endearment.

The Director of the Matrix would have beaten Sam Mendez for American Beauty in 1999.

Seriously, one could argue that all the Sci-Fi movies above were huge hits, had state of the art special effects, were total game changers and were wildly popular.  Yet, if this had been the history of the Oscars, look at the directors who wouldn't have been recognized. You have to admit that even though it didn't have any "special effects", Ghandi was a pretty important film.  Even though Star Wars spawned millions of Happy Meal Toys, Annie Hall was considered to one of the best films of all time.  And even though those Ewoks were really special, Terms of Endearment was undeniably one of those unforgettable films...

I mean, come on Cenk.. have a little vision.... It's not a foregone conclusion that a movie about big blue smurfs riding dragons culminating in a magical tree bringing dead people back to life is a better film than the Hurt Locker.  Is it?

The Oscars clearly does not have a history of awarding "Best Director" to the directors of fairy tales, sci-fi hits or cartoons.  

by ilovecenk99 on 03/09/2010 11:55:36 PM EST

[ Parent ]
The original thrilogy (none / 0)
No set of movies had more impact than the original Star Wars thrilogy.

"The first thing Fascists usually try to do is silencing the opposition."

by opposition on 03/11/2010 02:59:10 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Cenk, you're great... (none / 2)
...but don't quit your day job.

When it comes to movies or music, just let someone else talk. You don't understand them.

True, I was leaning more toward Precious, but Hurt Locker was worthy.

As far as directing, Bigelow got wonderful performances out of her actors, didn't "overexplain" anything, and excells in getting the right POV for a shot - no wasted frames, no wasted action.

Much as I like Cameron, anyone can get an animated figure to act the way it wants.

Inglourious Basterds lost because it didn't deserve to win. Tarantino needs to cut back on the flowery expositions his characters emote at every turn. HE SHOULD have won for Jackie Brown, but no - not I.B. It was a fun romp, enjoyed the hell out of it, but Hurt Locker was definitely the more memorable of the two.

Bit if she DID win "because she was a woman," SO WHAT? The Academy is a closed group of people and occasionally they vote for odd reasons. Robert Begnini? Really?

Hey, It's show BUSINESS and finally recognizing a woman as Best Director is good business. At least it wasn't for some Sense & Sensibility piece of fluff...

by MedfordTim on 03/09/2010 02:50:27 PM EST

One More Point (none / 1)
Cenk, if Bigelow's gender is the reason she eked out a victory in Best Director, how then did Hurt Locker beat Basterds for best screenplay? It was written by a dude.

Could it be that the Academy simply found The Hurt Locker to be the best film of 2009 and the opportunity to award a woman was just icing on the cake? Think about it.

by govan1980 on 03/09/2010 03:34:39 PM EST

Its about the money Lebowski! (none / 1)
http://www.thewrap.com/ind- column/hurt-locker-producer -apologizes-campaign-violat ion-14603

There is big money in winning the Oscars for best picture in DVD sales, so there is a huge incentive to "grow the vote". I think based on what little has come out with the producer soliciting votes from the judges, there is a hell of alot more shady deals in the background going on for those same votes. I believe it was a lobbying effort that got Hurt Locker the prize, not some underlying desire to see a woman win the award by the voters.

Isnt it patronizing to a woman to assume that undeserved awards and advancements are related to being a woman? If a male CEO got a huge bonus for tanking the economy, we don't say "he got it because he is a man and he didnt deserve it", but what would happen if a woman ceo got that kind of a bonus, would we say "she got it because she is a woman"?

by Smokin on 03/09/2010 03:39:38 PM EST

broken link (none / 0)
http://www.truthdig.com/art s_culture/item/hurt_locker_ producers_e-mail_campaign_r uffles_feathers_20100225/

by Smokin on 03/09/2010 03:47:01 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Did Kathryn Bigelow Win Best Director Because She' (none / 0)
No...

by vimmryan on 03/09/2010 04:24:04 PM EST

Did James Cameron get robbed? (none / 0)
Yes... but this time by one woman and not two men!

by rev24 on 03/09/2010 06:00:06 PM EST

[ Parent ]
ITT: People who still think (none / 1)
that the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts & Sciences and the awards they give are anything more than a publicity stunt.  They have a long history of fuckupery.

Seriously, get over the Oscars.  It is nothing more than some self-congratulating Hollywood masturbation.  I'd be willing to bet if you asked Dave the bitter movie critic he'd say something similar.  If you enjoy a movie, fine!  If you disagree with Hurt Locker winning over Avatar, just let that reinforce your sneaking suspicion that the Oscars are irrelevent.  Don't worry, you'll have forgotten about it by the next time they're on in a year, and watch them again.  At least that's what the Academy is banking on.

We are a way for the cosmos to know itself.

by aidbo on 03/09/2010 05:50:48 PM EST

Hurt Locker was by far the best. (none / 0)
First of all, it is common that the Best Picture also wins Best Director.  I've seen Hurt Locker, Avatar and Inglorious Bastards and Hurt Locker was the best of them.  This movie is extraordinary and you can't really call yourself a film buff if you can't see the layers in Hurt Locker in its writing, acting, editing a nd directing.  I just saw Inglorious Bastards and was disappointed with it.  It's not one of his best; I'll stick to Kill Bill as my favorite of Tarentino's.  What this all sums up to is that the best director won Best Director and she just happens to be a woman. Shame on you Cenk!  It's obvoius that you view movies as just a form of entertainment for you and that's how you rate them.  Leave the movie reviewing to Ben!

by johnscar on 03/09/2010 05:51:41 PM EST

Something strikes me in your post. (none / 0)
It's obvoius that you view movies as just a form of entertainment for you and that's how you rate them. 

Pray tell, what the hell is wrong with that?  To somehow choose a movie or director as the "best" and yet at the same time call them an art (inherently subjective) seems pretty arbitrary to me.

Oh, and it's spelled Basterds.  And Tarantino.  And Tarantino's best picture was obviously Reservoir Dogs (see I can be arbitrary too), or True Romance if you count his screenplays too.

We are a way for the cosmos to know itself.

by aidbo on 03/09/2010 06:37:49 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Nothing wrong with that,.......BUT (none / 1)
"Pray tell, what the hell is wrong with that?"

Nothing wrong with enjoying a movie and rating it by how much you enjoyed it, but its not the best way to judge the work done.

Its like watching figure skating, you could like and enjoy the character with the strangest costume or with the coolest music to skate to the most, but that does not say anything about their skill level to perform their tricks or proficiency. It takes an educated eye in figure skating to appreciate more than just the costume and music selected, if that wasnt the case then Snoppy is hands down the best figure skater ever!

This is true of almost every creative and professional endeavor. There is just more to look at and judge than just what an uneducated observer can notice.

by Smokin on 03/09/2010 07:50:28 PM EST

[ Parent ]
That's my point. (none / 0)
One doesn't have to let the Academy decide for them which picture is the best.  The Academy can give all the awards they want for technical prowess etc.  That shouldn't influence your decisions on which movies you think are best, unless you want it to.  Add to that the money angle you point out in a post above, and it just makes me wonder why normal (non movie industry) people get worked up about the Oscars.  Check that, I know exactly why people get worked up by the Oscars, it's because the very same movie/entertainment industry tells them they should care.  Besides, there are more important things to worry about, like who's going to win American Idol this year. (jk)

We are a way for the cosmos to know itself.

by aidbo on 03/09/2010 08:45:11 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Well, IMHO its just fun getting worked up (none / 0)
Its like watching commercials durring the superbowl and arguing about which was best. Or a slam dunk contest where people argue who they thought should have won and why (like pretending that putting a sticker on the backboard was impressive, lmao). Or its even like the beauty pageant where trump decides who is Mrs America, does anyone really thing Mrs America is actually an official representative of USoA? People don't watch or participate because big business tells them to, they do it cause its a fun way to waste pointless time which is something everyone does for 99% of their life in one shape or form.

Yeah, its funny watching people get worked up and emotional over it, but the majority of those same people can take a step back and acknowledge that it does not mean a damn thing and smile.  

by Smokin on 03/09/2010 11:19:03 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I think QT's best movie (none / 0)
was Pulp Fiction...

by ilovecenk99 on 03/09/2010 11:23:56 PM EST

[ Parent ]
You're being a bit sexist on this one.... (none / 0)
and I could feel that Ana has been biting her tongue on the show with you.

I hate it when the only explanation that someone can give when someone wins something or someone gets a promotion is "oh, it's because they're ___".  Usually you hear white people say it when a black person or a woman gets a job... and you always hear it when a black woman gets promoted.  It's extremely annoying.

Let me put it to you this way... If Precious would have won, would you have written a blog post about how the only reason Precious won is because it was a Black Director? I don't think so, Cenk. I really don't think you would have been that stupid to write a blog about that... However, because it's a white woman, maybe you think it's OK.  But I think it's a bit sexist.

Here's the deal. None of the movies were that good this year.  Even Basterds had a crazy ending that on your show, half the guys said they hated.

Avatar was definitely a game-changer, but come on, did Star Wars win an Oscar for Best Picture? If it did, I will eat my words, but I don't think these fantasy films are every really Oscar material.

My honest opinion... Precious should have won best picture. I personally liked it the best. Plus, if your theory was true and it was all about "giving it to the minority" then Precious would have won because the director was Black. So that kind of blows your theory.

Finally, the Hurt Locker.... what do you say... I didn't even want to watch it. But my husband rented it and you know what, when the movie was over we both said simultaneously "Damn, that was a good movie".   Plus, apparently a lot of people really liked it.  A lot.  It seems like more people liked the Hurt Locker than Avatar, so why can't that be the same for the Academy?

Anyway, I know you loved Basterds, but it's still not Tarantino's best.  Basically, this was a crap year for movies... it really was.... so there you have it. It was the best of the crap.

by ilovecenk99 on 03/09/2010 08:02:11 PM EST

Bigelow's win wasn't due to gender (none / 1)
Kathryn Bigelow's 2009 Oscar for best director — for best picture The Hurt Locker — isn't attributed to her gender.

Cenk — I distinctly recall you predicting Inglourious Basterds on your nominations show with Ben Mankiewicz (Oscar-winning Joseph's grandnephew). But what you may not know, or consider, is the powerful [long-established] trend in influence by the Directors Guild of America (which prized Bigelow on Jan. 31, two days before the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences announced its nominations). 

This organization (hereafter referred to as DGA) has been doling out directorial prizes for film since 1949, beginning with honors for the year 1948. In 62 individual years — including 2009 honoree Bigelow — the DGA winners have gone on to win the Oscar in all but six. Of those six who did not win the Academy Award, two of them who nabbed the DGA award were stunningly left off the Oscar nominations' list: 1985 (Steven Spielberg, The Color Purple; Sydney Pollack won the Oscar for Out of Africa) and 1995 (Ron Howard, Apollo 13; Mel Gibson took home the gold for Braveheart). As for the other four: 1968 (Anthony Harvey won the DGA award for The Lion in Winter; Carol Reed was Oscared for Oliver!); 1972 (Francis Ford Coppola won the DGA prize for The Godfather; Bob Fosse — in the year he also won a directing Emmy for NBC's Liza with a "Z" and a likewise Tony for Pippin — won the Academy Award for Cabaret); 2000 (Ang Lee won DGA's prize for Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon; Oscar went to Steven Soderbergh for Traffic); and 2002 (Rob Marshall, the DGA winner for Chicago, lost at the Oscars to Roman Polanski for The Pianist).

The DGA and Oscar for film direction is like the states Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, and Ohio in presidential elections — an all-important bellwether that foretells who'll [likely] end up on top.

The Hurt Locker won the best-film and -directing prizes from Los Angeles Film Critics Association, New York Film Critics Circle, and National Society of Film Critics. (The three frequently disagree.) This doesn't guarantee winning the Academy Award — in 1997 Curtis Hanson's L.A. Confidential won those prizes (and from the non-critics group National Board of Review) while losing the Oscar to James Cameron's Titanic. But then Bigelow and The Hurt Locker also scored the same prizes from Boston and Chicago. As well as the Broadcast Film Critics. Just a whole bunch of pre-Oscar awards — you can get the list from Wikipedia — came the film's way that created, in effect, a bandwagon.

When you also consider that The Hurt Locker nabbed the Oscar for film editing  — which in the past five years [2005-2009] has gone to the winner of best picture four times (exception is with 2007) — the impact of winning there (plus in sound editing and sound mixing) gave further rise to The Hurt Locker topping the likes of Avatar, Inglourious Basterds, Precious: Based on Novel 'Push' by Sapphire, and Up in the Air for 2009's top honor (and a total of six statuettes — two-thirds its 9 nominations).

This year's Oscars were a juggernaut —  where supporting prizes  ;for Christoph Waltz (Inglourious Basterds) and Mo'Nique (Precious: Based on the Novel 'Push' by Sapphire) also followed suit — leading up to a fairly anti-climactic "B ig Night."

I don't argue over opinions, here. And I do apologize for being long. In fact, I didn't see any of these films. But when I listened to a post-Academy Awards The Young Turks and Cenk … it dawned on me that they were struggling to understand why The Hurt Locker won best picture, why Kathryn Bigelow won best director, and why [journalist and co-producer] Mark Boal won best original screenplay (weeks after his same prize from the Writers Guild of America).

So let's review: The Hurt Locker won from the Producers Guild of America, the Directors Guild of America, and the Writers Guild of America. The only motion picture to recently nab those key three and not win the best-picture Academy Award: Brokeback Mountain.

With the seemingl y easy best-actor and -actress wins for Jeff Bridges (Crazy Heart) and Sandra Bullock (The Blind Side), little of this is some sort of surprise!

by DS0816 on 03/09/2010 09:10:35 PM EST

Okay, now I'm getting pissed... (none / 0)
Seriously, the more I think about this.... as a woman...

There have been 82 best director awards in the Oscars.  Only one has been given to a female (less than 1%) of all winners.

Yet, somehow, the fact that less than 1% of all Best Director Oscars being given to a woman is TOO MUCH for Cenk. In his opinion it should still be zero % women and 100% white men winners. He somehow thinks that it's so impossible and unlikely that a woman should actually deserve this award that he feel compelled to write an entire blog about it.

Look, we get that Inglorious Basterds was his favorite movie this year. Got it.

But he doesn't have question whether the winner actually deserves the award because she doesn't have a penis.  I guess I'm going to have say that the previous 81 winners of best director ONLY got their awards because they had penises and they were white.  Obviously, the Academy believes that only white men actually have enough talent to direct a movie well enough to win an Oscar and that's why for the past 81 years there has never been anything other than a white man win this award. Talent has nothing to do with it. Good directing has nothing to do with it. For 81 years it has only been about gender and color. Shame on the Academy!

by ilovecenk99 on 03/09/2010 10:36:33 PM EST

Women and maths (none / 0)
1 is more than 1% of 82.
;-)
Thanks for reinstating stereotypes!

"The first thing Fascists usually try to do is silencing the opposition."

by opposition on 03/11/2010 03:08:09 AM EST

[ Parent ]
sucky movies (none / 0)
Inglourious Basterds was a pile of bunk. Most overrated movie in a while, having said that I haven't seen Avatar, or the Hurt Locker for that matter. Maybe they're both as bad as QTs indulgent trash.

by Adronias on 03/09/2010 10:59:18 PM EST

Inglorious Basterds SHOULD have won! (none / 0)

I totally agree with Cenk that this round of Academy Awards was a serious let down.

The Hurt Locker winning as much as it did is baffling since there were so many war movies in the past far more ground breaking. Granted, Hurt Locker is the first exceptional movie about the recent Iraq war but it doesn't stand out as something truly unique compared to Apocalypse Now or Saving Private Ryan.

I have to stand up for Q. Tarantino in that he is such a fantastic director and has never been recognized with an award. Sure, some people loath Tarantino because he'll take risks with styles that are foreign to American audiences such as Kill Bill. But, that just shows the refreshing diversity that Tarantino brings to the screen. Inglorious Basterds was as aggressive as ever and more than willing to put a kind of raw tension on the screen that any other director would shrink away from.

I suspect that Hurt Locker won as much as it did for several political reasons that put a good movie "over the top": it was a war movie about the most recent and arguably unpopular war and was directed by a woman that has been passed up in the past for awards (for potentially better work). The comment by Streisand (?) about there having never been a woman to win immediately foreshadowed the politics of the victory.

Cenk is touching on a reality of overcompensating for the perceived notion that there was a movement AGAINST Bigelow winning the award because of gender. Denying that such an effect exists is naive. We see the same application of politics in so many other facets of society (i.e. excessive quota filling in affirmative action schools to blatantly ludicrous levels). What discourages me, a person who yearns greatly for gender/race/religion to have no influence on merit, is that this behavior (or the perception of it) is quite possibly as bad as discrimination against a person on the same grounds. Will Bigelow set the Oscars that she won on her mantle thinking, "did I win these because I was a woman or because I was the best damn director?" Unfortunately, in my opinion, I think that Inglorious Basterds DID have better directing and so I am inclined to believe there was foul play. But, like Cenk said, it is just an opinion. Perhaps, Bigelow really was the best directory - I just didn't see it.

by ulis11 on 03/10/2010 02:33:49 AM EST

I think Cenk meant "cogs in the machine" (none / 1)
wooden clogs

by NikoliV on 03/10/2010 12:51:56 PM EST

Hollywood and politics (none / 0)
Kate Winslet mentioned in the brilliant "Extras" that she is doing a Nazi-Movie, so she finally gets an Oscar (her whole speach about who gets Oscars was great and so was her speech about polishing her husbands Oscar). Talking about life imitating art.;-)
Also Mickey Rourke was way better than Sean Penn, last year. The pro-gay bias of Hollywood was responsible for this award. Same goes for Brokeback mountain.
Now PC demanded that it was time for a woman.
I'm not saying that in any of these cases politics were the only reason for the awards, but I'm sure they tipped the scale.
They were all pretty good efforts but politics played a role in who got the award.

"The first thing Fascists usually try to do is silencing the opposition."

by opposition on 03/11/2010 03:15:40 AM EST

Locker was better directed, Avatar won on effects (none / 0)

The Hurt Locker was a gripping, suspenseful, and sometimes horrifying trip into a very difficult subject. Avatar was a lavish, guessable, easily-accessible flagship for a new technology.

Cameron pretty much Had to keep the plot quite simple to boost ticket sales, as Avatar was the flagship for the new 3D, big sales mean it will be much easier for future 3D movies to get made. Cameron's reward is that he will now have (even greater?) free reign to do just about whatever he wants, huge budgets, amazing technology, etc.

 Bigelow's film allowed us to see many things, how soldiers can sometimes struggle to work with new team-members while dealing with the loss of former team-members,  very different leadership/combat style, very complicated relationships between US troops and Iraqi civilians (I Loved the educated man who wanted to talk with the soldier, but his wife comes in and kicks the soldier out because she is angry about the US' treatment of her husband and country).

 It also gave us some idea of the Wrenching change between the combat zone and The World, suddenly you're back home and expected to do normal things, but there are still many remnants of the warzone still in your head and body, and sometimes the sheer intensity of being at war is the only drive you have left, as we are challengingly faced with at the end of Hurt Locker.

 There was no such revelation in Avatar. It was a very good movie, I enjoyed the hell out of it, but the plot got quite predictable, whereas in Hurt Locker you had no idea what was going to happen. That made Locker a better movie for me, among other things. 

by Ocker3 on 03/24/2010 11:25:24 PM EST

Did Kathryn Bigelow Win Best Director Because She's a Woman? | 34 comments (34 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: