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.
I like the way you recognize that Nochimson reinforces stereotyping in her article. She does not really take the discussion to a different level. She remains as stuck in a world view that emphasizes the male-female binary. Very nice!
ReplyDelete