News Flash 2: The Controversy of Kathryn Bigelow

On Sunday, March 7, 2010, Hurt Locker director Kathryn Bigelow made cinematographic history when she became the first female in the Oscar’s eighty-two years to win the title of Best Director. As one might expect, Bigelow’s monumental win and its implications for women in American culture and cinema have fostered significant discussion and debate amongst a variety of feminists and their respective (and often conflicting) ideologies. Manohla Dargis’ New York Times article, “How Oscar Found Ms. Right,” presents these varying perspectives, as well as her own opinion, concerning the feminist accomplishments (or lack thereof) represented by Bigelow’s newly minted title (Dargis, 2010, p. AR1). http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/14/movies/14dargis.html Through a discussion of the varying responses to Bigelow’s victory, Dargis reveals that both Bigelow’s feminist critics and supporters are largely concerned with American cultural norms and fixed systems and whether or not Ms. Bigelow’s success represents a step for women that functions “outside of the system.” Where they differ, however, is in the particular American “system” that they choose to discuss. Whereas Ms. Bigelow’s critics emphasize the issue of American cinema’s patriarchal norms and the female director’s inability to defy them, her supporters reveal her ability to transgress the American standard of the male/female binary. In this sense, we may consider her opposition to reflect the ideology of the radical feminist camp, whereas her praise is more in tune with “postmodern feminists”

With regard to the criticisms that emerged following Bigelow’s victory, Dargis cites a recent article in Salon written by Martha P. Nochomisom, titled “Kathryn Bigelow: Feminist Pioneer or Tough Guy in drag?” http://www.salon.com/entertainment/movies/film_salon/2010/02/24/bigelow. Dargis succinctly observes, “the heart of Ms. Nochimson’s critique is the charge that Ms. Bigelow and her ‘masterly’ technique have been lauded while Nancy Meyers and Nora Ephron have endured ‘summary dismissal.’ In other words, American Hollywood cinema, much like American culture as whole, tends to valorize films that are patriarchal in both content and composition, thereby devaluing films that predominantly feature women, films which are “routinely dismissed because they’re about women, as the patronizing term ‘chick flick’ affirms every time it’s reflexively deployed” (Dargis). Thus, in directing a film with the “male” theme of war and a cast of predominantly male characters, Bigelow’s acquisition of the title of Best Director is not so much monumental, as it is merely perpetuating and “working within” the patriarchal “system” that is American cinema.

Nochism’s argument is in line with several feminist ideologies that are member to the “radical feminist” movement. For example, just as Ariel Levy takes issue with the “female chauvinist pigs” who attempt liberation by participating in the male-oriented raunch culture and by assuming the mantra of “why try to beat them when you can join them?” (Levy, 93), Nochism and similar Bigelow critics discredit the female director’s victory for having occurred within a patriarchal framework. This critique might view Bigelow much like Levy views HBO president/television mogul Sheila Nevins (Levy, 89)—an incredibly successful woman who is limited by her adherence to the male “status quo” (Levy, 93). Ms. Bigelow’s success, in this view, is depreciated by radical feminists who consider it a slave to the “status quo” of what is considered “masterly” (Dargis) American cinema, or “kinetic and thrilling movies about men and codes of masculinity set in worlds of violence” (Dargis).

Conversely, Dargis’ own opinion represents that feminist camp that applauds Bigelow for her ability to excel beyond the confinements of a different but similarly problematic American “system” or “norm”—America’s deeply embedded cultural and societal organization around a male/female binary. Dargis reveals that when Ms. Bigelow appeared on “60 Minutes” on February 28, she “insisted that there was no difference between what she and a male director might do” (Dargis). Moreover, Bigelow’s approach to her own publicity in general is strictly intellectual and work-oriented. Dargis argues that Bigelow avoids sexual and personal self-promotions in the news and popular culture, and her limited publicity is subsequently gender-neutral and solely concerned with her work. Indeed, “her insistence on keeping the focus on her movies is a quiet yet profound form of rebellion. She might be a female director, but by refusing to accept that gendered designation — or even engage with it — she is asserting her right to be simply a director” (Dargis). Dargis’ claim, therefore, is that Bigelow is a novel and groundbreaking figure for the feminist movement (in particular, for women in cinema), due to her ability to narrow her focus to her work, rather than her work as a female director. Ms. Bigelow does not value her success in the context of her womanhood, and thus does not subscribe to the standard binary male/female trap of American society.

Dargis’ pro-Bigelow argument is reflective of the postmodern feminist camp—an ideology that aims to overhaul the fixed gender dualities in American culture. These feminists do not seek equality between men and women, but rather, strive to wholly abolish the American insistence that there is a biological distinction between the two. Postmodern feminist thinkers such as Anne Fausto-Sterling, who argue against the notion of “essentialism,” or the idea that men and women have inherently different capabilities and skills, might similarly praise Bigelow for aiming to be perceived as a skilled director, rather than a skilled female director. Fausto-Sterling argues that the “Euro-American ways of understanding how the world works depend heavily on the use of dualisms,” which is problematic in that “we usually employ dualisms in some form of hierarchal argument” (Fausto-Sterling, 21). Thus, to assert that men and woman are inherently different and generally points to one being superior to the other, and in the American patriarchal system, the higher sex is men. Fausto-Sterling and other postmodern feminists/ “social constructivists”, thus, might praise Bigelow in that she does not acknowledge that she might be any less talented or likely to create a “masterly” film because of her gender (because gender is socially constructed and not inherent).

Dargis’ discussion of Ms. Bigelow’s critique and praise highlights the dominant feminist ideologies that seek to advance women by working outside the American systems that tend to oppress them. However, both opinions are highly theoretical and raise an underlying question of feminist ideologies: “what is practical?” In other words, perhaps it is enough to praise Bigelow’s win for the other female directors of the world (or any female who might identity with Bigelow, for that matter). The deconstruction of the patriarchal and gendered “systems” in American culture is a large and daunting task than—a task for which Ms. Bigelow is not/should not be held responsible. As the Oscar winner stated herself, ““the journey for women, no matter what venue it is — politics, business, film — it’s, it’s a long journey”(Dargis)—is it not enough to appreciate this first step?

Works Cited

Dargis, Manohla (2010, March 14). How Oscar Found Ms. Right. New York Times, p. AR1.

Fausto-Sterling, Anne. Sexing the Body. New York: Basic Books, 2000.

Levy, Ariel. Female Chauvinist Pigs. New York: Free Press, 2005.

Nochimson, Martha (2010, February 24). Kathryn Bigelow: Feminist Pioneer or Tough Guy in Drag? Filmsalon.com. http://www.salon.com/entertainment/movies/film_salon/2010/02/24/bigelow