Kathryn Bigelow won the Director’s Guild award and will probably win the Oscar. My concern about that is not that she isn’t a good filmmaker, because she is IMO, but because she’s not advancing the feminist cause with her film. It’s easy to dismiss The Hurt Locker as a guy’s movie…and oh look, it’s made by a woman. Wow! But a win for someone like Jane Campion, who makes films about women, could not be dismissed as conformity to the Hollywood agenda. I caution against championing that first for women directors at the Oscars without evaluating what the win will mean. In Bigelow’s case, it might mean that more female directors will be asked or expected to produce works about men and for men. It is possible that her win will be more of a setback than an advancement for women in this industry. “Make movies with teeth,” was Bigelow’s advice to aspiring director Sarah Polley.

And Bigelow isn’t the only female director working out of the RomCom genre: I mentioned Campion, but also consider the work of Antonia Bird (Priest, Ravenous), Kimberly Peirce (Boys Don’t Cry, Stop-Loss) and Karen Moncrieff (Blue Car, The Dead Girl), to name a few. Julie & Julia by Nora Ephron is an example of feminism working in a traditional women’s genre. Any of these directors winning would advance our right to make important movies for and about men AND women.

“Avatar has to be a dumb movie. Because, if it were smarter, fewer people would see it, and some of them might not get it.”

Don’t agree with that logic. Just because a lot of people were about to “get it” does not make it a dumb movie. Some people view intellect as being able to express deep/complex ideas in a way that everybody can understand. A lot of people understood Hurt Locker’s wires and bombs just like how they understood cool looking dinosaurs.

“Here’s the thing, though: Kathryn Bigelow got me to feel a much greater amount of tension and involvement with scenes of a guy moving some wires around in a box. And I saw it in two dimensions.”

Just because Hurt Locker was more intense to you, does not make it a better movie. That movie whole movie was based on intense emotion while Avatar was based on fantasy, action, and great visuals. Some people appreciate one more than the other.

I enjoyed Avatar, but I do agree it was overrated due to the hype, press coverage, and big name director. But I also felt Hurt Locker, though a good flim, was also overhyped being that it was about men in war…with just about to no social commentary on the war itself. This film took a neutral position on the issue so more people could enjoy/relate to the film…sounds kind of “dumb” to me.

This is not something I should have to do.

And now Avatar is here, and I was reluctant to watch it because of the racial/colonization issues, and all the guy friends are like, “So, the story is kinda meh, but you should watch it, because it’s a great technical achievement. ”

You can read that little anecdote at least two ways. One is that technical achievement may not be a reason to see a movie. (Unless you are an artist in an art-driven industry like film or games, which I am. But that shouldn’t over-ride other concerns perhaps.) The other is that the stench of girl cooties over-rides everything. Because I might give Avatar a chance, but I still can’t convince many of the guys to give Titanic the same chance. Because all they can see is sappy love story, and that’s not a guy thing, doncha know.

(S’one of the reasons I lurve my boy so much. He’s not afraid of girl cooties. He let me read L. M. Montgomery’s Blue Castle aloud to him. Granted, it was while he was painting Warhammer figurines, but he engaged with the story.)