MovieChat Forums > Kathryn Bigelow Discussion > 10 Years After Kathryn Bigelow’s Win, Ha...

10 Years After Kathryn Bigelow’s Win, Have The Oscars Really Evolved?


https://uproxx.com/movies/oscars-2020-directors/

On February 9th, the 92nd Academy Awards will recognize the best in a year full of interesting, boundary-pushing films that molded the zeitgeist in 2019. Sadly, few of those heralded movies are actually reflective of the audiences that flocked to theaters this year, and none are helmed by women.

In fact, just four women over the course of 92 years have been recognized for outstanding achievement in directing. The temptation is to meet these dismal statistics with indifference, or worse, to downplay just how terrible the Academy’s track-record is when it comes to diversity and inclusion. For every scathing dress-down of the Oscar’s most recent gaffe, there are tweets and essays about the value of awards shows, the sanctity of merit-based nominating systems, and, at the lowest rung of social significance, the suggestion that perhaps few women or minorities were recognized because their contributions just didn’t measure up.

Maybe that argument carries weight one year, two, but the 92nd Academy Awards marks ten years since a woman produced a piece of art deemed worthy of winning an Oscar for directing. It’s been ten years since Kathryn Bigelow gave an acceptance speech for helming the tense, frenetic war drama that was The Hurt Locker. Ten years since Barbra Streisand presented that award, opening the envelope and uttering a relieved “the time has come” before greeting the first Oscar-winning female director on stage.

It’s a strange thing to look back on the past decade in film, to consider movies like Ava DuVernay’s Selma, Karyn Kusama’s Destroyer, Andrea Arnold’s American Honey, or Lynne Ramsay’s You Were Never Really Here — a Joaquin Phoenix performance that deserves more attention than any clown dance he does in The Joker — and think none of these stories were compelling enough to warrant love from the Academy. It’s an even worse thing to look back on the Oscar’s depressing track record and think none of these films were nominated, not because they weren’t good enough, but because they didn’t fit the age-old formula of an Oscar-worthy film, because they didn’t resonate with a narrow voting body dominated by older white men who couldn’t see themselves in those stories and so, believed them irrelevant.

We can speculate and theorize about why female-fronted films tend to do so poorly during awards season, but to do that we need to establish just how poorly they do perform.

When Bigelow took home the Oscar 10 years ago, it was hailed as a revolutionary moment for women in Hollywood. The New York Times said it felt “damn good.” The Guardian suggested it meant voters would be “unself-conscious about picking a woman next year, or the year after that.” Hell, the orchestra played Bigelow off to a rendition of Helen Reddy’s “I Am Woman.” Even though the lead-up to the awards was overly-concerned with the director’s supposed rivalry with ex-husband James Cameron (also nominated that year), filled with thinkpieces like this one from the Daily Beast wondering if she’d win simply because she was a woman who made “a man’s movie,” and obsessed with arguing over Bigelow’s “hotness,” an advantage in the race according to Los Angeles Times blogger Tim O’Neil who explained that fascination by claiming “Oscar voters are old guys who tend to vote for women they want to sleep with.”

Bigelow endured the eye-rolling racket with grace, took home her trophies, and got back to the business of making movies. And Hollywood got back to the business of nominating male directors helming male-centric stories. Though, to be fair, one of those men was Asian, four were Black, and five were Latin American. Diversity! Huzzah!

In the decade since Bigelow assumedly paved the way for her fellow women, only one has been nominated in the directing category: Greta Gerwig. Gerwig was recognized for her 2017 coming-of-age film, Lady Bird, before being honored again for her modern adaptation of Little Women this year. One woman, a white woman, in a sea of diverse, talented directors who happen to have ovaries is not progress, it’s not inclusive, and it certainly isn’t some token archaic Hollywood gatekeepers can point to when defending their sexism.


Sure, there’s more at play than simply undervaluing women’s stories. TV producer and writer Glen Mazzara took to Twitter recently to outline everything wrong with how the Academy’s voting body fields prospective nominees. Mazzara called out the confidential ballot system, the perceived lack of jobs for white men in the industry, and the imagined attacks on white male culture as reasons for the lack of diverse nominees this year.

There’s also the fact that a film’s chances of getting noticed often hinges on the money a studio puts towards backing it.

reply

Since this post two more women have won best director.

Chloé Zhao in 2021 and Jane Campion in 2022.

reply

Indeed. A stupid virtue-signalling article that was debunked almost immediately. Morons.

Also, the idea that a film like You Were Never Really Here speaks particularly to women, rather than the type of white man it focuses on, is laughable.

reply

"narrow voting body dominated by older white men who couldn’t see themselves in those stories and so, believed them irrelevant."
“Oscar voters are old guys who tend to vote for women they want to sleep with.”

has no one explained to these guys they are supposed to be voting on the merits of the work , and should make siome passing attempt to be unbiased in that?


they should get some oscar voters with a mental age over 10 who dont think with their dicks , if thats not too much too ask.

reply

Surely if they think with their dicks,women would win all the time? What is the point youre trying to make?

reply

I think the writer was implying that they only vote for women in the Best Actress and Supporting Actress categories that they want to fuck, and that they ignore women who work behind-the-scenes on films and thus are less likely to be valued for their physical appearance.

FWIW, I think the article's contention is stupid and unproveable.

reply

Oh i see. Thanks for clearing that up. I agree with your last statement.

reply

"has no one explained to these guys they are supposed to be voting on the merits of the work , and should make siome passing attempt to be unbiased in that?"

You're assuming that because the author of this frankly dated article (almost as soon as it was published, Chloe Zhao won the Best Director Oscar, followed the next year by Jane Campion, both of whom are, to my knowledge, women 🤷‍♂️) is speaking sense, rather than just idly speculating like so many moronic columnists and hack writers do. How do they know upon what basis the AMPAS members vote? Did they poll them and all get the same answer "I vote for the woman I want to fuck"?

reply