a thought
A probably-not-very-controversial thought:
Kathryn Bigelow winning Best Director at this year's Oscars is about the smallest triumph for women directors they could possibly ask for, because the only person in all of Hollywood making more macho/masculine films than Bigelow is Michael Bay. Say what you want about quality, Avatar is actually *slightly* more feminine a story than The Hurt Locker. And that's saying something. There's no question which is a better film between the two (although honestly, I could name five films off the top of my head that were better than both, and one of those was also directed by a woman). I'm just saying, there's something ironic in giving the very first Best Director award to a woman with the most aggressively masculine oeuvre.
Had, for example, Sofia Coppola won for Lost in Translation (a film I fear might not age well; I'm afraid I've grown up and it hasn't) -- that might be a triumph for women directors. Or, of course, Campion for The Piano. Or Andrea Arnold, Lynne Ramsay, or any other lady-filmmaker who makes films that feel like unique, maybe even unmasculine viewpoints. I respect Kathryn Bigelow quite a lot -- Hurt Locker is very good, and I love Strange Days -- but it feels like she's telling the exact same stories a man would, gender-typically speaking. So part of me feels like we're rewarding her not for being the best director of the year, but for proving she can hang with the boys.
Giving her an Oscar is great, and deserved, but saying this strikes a blow for ladies everywhere is like saying Quentin Tarantino is a feminist because he writes macho assholes and then casts Uma Thurman. (Strong female lead ≠ Bruce Willis with tits. No offense, Bruce Willis.)
Unrelated gibberish: two new morning songs. The other morning, They Might Be Giants' "Shadow Government" and this morning, Spoon's "Merchant of Soul." Neither of which I hear very often.