Kathryn Bigelow: Feminist pioneer or tough guy in drag? by Martha P. Nochimson

The author’s views are strong, and expressed with language seeped in derision. One is tempted to write her off as narrow-minded or overly cynical, but once you get past that front, it is clear that she does make valid points. It is true that film award judges are partial to certain types of films – evident from the genres of films released in time for Oscar season, as compared to say the Blockbusters which are timed to coincide with the summer holidays. It is also true that the way “The Hurt Locker” is portrayed is such that it may be interpreted by some as a film that glorifies war, contrary to the director’s intention.

I do have issues however with the writer’s half-hearted feminism. On one hand, she lambasts the film industry for being “hobbled by gender-specific tunnel vision”. Yet at the same time, she adopts a highly stereotypical view of women. This can be seen from how she criticises Kathryn Bigelow’s film as being something that could not have been the genuine work of a woman – she claims that Bigelow is “masquerad[ing]”. To ask for recognition of the works of females is progress; to suggest that females are only capable of producing certain types of work is not.

For Putin, a Peace Prize for a Decision to Go to War

From the outset, the article grabs the attention of the viewer through its eyebrow-raising headline. "War" and "Peace" are often held as opposites - the idea of a Peace Prize being awarded for a decision to engage in warfare would hence appear bizarre.

Indeed, the scepticism of the author is blatant. He takes care to distance the committee's views from his own, ensuring that their opinions are given as quotations. He goes a step further in actually contradicting the views in a manner that presents his own opinions as the correct one.

He attempts to discredit the award, for example, by mentioning the fact that it is not well-known, establishing that it does not have support from the government, and selectively bringing up information that paints its judges in a negative light.

The opposing stances of the author and the committee are clear. While the author's points are valid however, the way in which he presents his views makes the article appear to be a biased one.

Some areas that might be worth investigation could be how the ordinary Chinese perceive this event, as well as the rationale behind the government’s lack of support, taking into account the fact that the award was meant as a response to Liu Xiaobo being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.