Big(elow) News

5 02 2010

Okay, so I was all ready to go forth with a light-hearted post about men and their relationship with facial hair, but the news over the past week made this seem extra ridiculous and irrelevant (rest assured, it will make it into a future post). Of course I’m talking about the DGA win last Sunday by Hurt Locker director Kathryn Bigelow, making her the first female director to win the Best Director DGA award and putting her now in top contention for the Best Director Oscar.

Now there’s a lot of commentary going on about this, and my guess is that if she wins there will be a lot of broo ha ha about how she positions herself. According to some sources, she has never seen herself as a “woman” director, i.e. she eschews the limitation of positioning herself in a way that is associated rightly or wrong with “female films” (melodramas, films focusing on “female” subjects, etc.) or “female” direction. So before the Oscars even air, can’t we just all let’s all agree on a few things ? If she wins:

  1. Bigelow has the right to define her own role vis-a-vis  gender identity politics. I.e. if she wants to make an acceptance speech which acknowledges the historic signifance of her win and the symbolism of that win (essentially breaking a glass ceiling in a male dominated field), great. If not, that’s fine too. It is up to her to articulate her own relationship to a greater community that she is a part of.
  2. Even if she doesn’t make mention of the historical significance, that doesn’t mean the win is not significant for our culture as a whole – it is . It’s all well and good to think that the gender of award winners doesn’t or shouldn’t matter (and I personally believe that the mainstreaming of diverse groups so that we don’t give them special props when they win is an admirable cultural goal), but it is significant now.  A win communicates that gender is not per se a barrier to the upper echelons of critical success. It also potentially ignites a paradigm shift towards such mainstreaming, so that women directors are just thought of as directors –it’s hard to shed a marginal label without mainstream critical success and professional accomplishment.

I’m trying to anticipate the folks who will be annoyed by any media frenzy over the win of a female director. If you’re one of them, let me ask, where were you on the night of November 4, 2008? Were you saying “first Black president, big f*cking deal”? Before you get all riled up, let me say that I’m not suggesting with that comparison that the cultural significance of those two events is comparable: I’m saying that identity politics, at this time and this cultural moment, do matter. AND I’m saying that they matter precisely because the more we see members of marginal “other” groups achieve whatever benchmarks of success, the more we move to eventually not making a big deal of it.

Ultimately, I think most of us have the same goal here: that gender, like race or ethnicity or sexuality, shouldn’t matter. But right now, it does. When the “first” (president, film director, senate majority leader, etc) is achieved by a member of a marginal group, it IS a big deal (have I sad that enough yet?). It’s a big deal because that achievement does not come without that person having overcoming a lot of overt and covert assumptions and generalizations about what s/he is or is not capable of. It comes because that person has likely had to consistently assert his/her right to be in that field, to be taken seriously, to assume a position of authority. And really it’s a big deal because “the first”  is the first step to the second, the third, the fourth, and so on.

So indulge us if we want to talk about it. Maybe we won’t – we won’t have to – in twenty, thirty, fifty years.





Dear Ambitious Men: You Can’t Have It All

2 02 2010

Edwards, Woods, SpitzerIf there’s one message I’ve had drummed into my head over the years, be it from interviews with accomplished women or self help articles in women’s magazines or Gelnn Close’s character in Damages, at it’s that women can’t have it all – the career and the happy well nurtured family that is. I get it. If I want those things, I need a wife, or at least some sort of domestic help (with a legal green card and to whom I pay a living wage of course). But if the last ten years have taught me anything, it’s that this women are not alone in having a personal/professional conundrum. Ambitious, powerful men have a dilemma themselves.  So please – Eliot Spitzer, John Edwards, Mark Sanford, Tiger Woods – a word to you, my friends:

You can’t have it all either. You can have the women or you can have the family, but you have to choose one.

Now, I’ve heard a lot of pundits expound vociferously on this topic over the last several weeks, but no one’s broken it down quite like I’m about to here, so listen up. As a culture, we pressure men to be successful, to make it to the top. The rewards of this success are power, money, and let’s face it, sex.  At the end of all this is uncomparable ego affirmation. As a man you become a political leader, a world-class athlete, you make it to the top of your profession – what’s driving you there?  These rewards.

However, we’ve set up this sort unfortunate dichotomy, which is that we expect these great leaders to follow cultural norms, namely monogamous marriage and family life.  But those norms and the values that we project onto marriage We like to see our leaders in a conventional marriage, because it confers these qualities onto them. A married man – someone who’s taken on emotional and economic responsibility for the family unit, etc. – is mature, loyal, and responsible.  Without marriage, we’re suspicious. As American’s we’ve had only a single bachelor president, no. 15 James Buchanan, and that was not for lack of trying (his fiancée allegedly committed suicide). I’d venture to say that conventional marriage is a pretty much a prerequisite of success.

Okay, still with me? The problem comes when we require traits in our leaders that put them into conflict with one of these rewards that lure men into these positions. Unsurprisingly, these great men in the moment succumb to sexual temptation. This of course compromised the implied moral firmament that was (at least in part) the foundation of their success. Not coincidentally, I think this is why you don’t hear about nearly as many scandals involving married women in high positions – because a woman’s sexual appeal is not enabled by her proximity to power.

So, ambitious men, you’ve got to make a choice – follow the family track and stick to it, or have the cajones to make it a go alone. But please, don’t get married if you don’t think you can handle it. Seriously, no judgment.

I think we as a culture need to embrace the unconventional whether that’s unmarried men, men with open marriages, non-traditional partnerships, whatever –we need to let men be self aware, and be okay with men whose personal relationships are outside social norms coming to power.  I’m okay with a sports star or even an elected official who’s middle aged and good looking and single sleeping around – as long as that doesn’t interfere with what he does for his profession. Frankly, I’d rather have an open and honest bachelor in office than some sorry married schmo who gives in to temptation weeping at a press conference and mea culpa-ing all the way to divorce court.  We as a society have to be more accepting, because we’ve put men into this impossible position.

So men, take heed. As fraught as women are (and heaven know we have our lights, quandaries and issues), we know you have yours too. More to come on this topic in future pots, I’m sure.

-TVB





A New Year, A New Schedule

2 02 2010

Okay, so it’s been a while. But we’re back, and onto a new publishing schedule: Tuesdays and Fridays.

I know, hard to believe, but we’re making a good faith effort to keep at it. There was soooo much to talk about in 2009, so much we’ve missed. And already this year we’ve seen the DGA award the first Woman Director, and watched Nikke Finke’s commententator fume at each other over the number of pilots picked up that are authored by women – so much juicy stuff! We can’t wait!

So we hope you enjoy these posts, and keep coming back for more.

-TVB





The Sanctimony of Diablo

27 03 2009

Coming back off hiatus (well, not really hiatus, but rather out-of-country film shoot) and  Codyreturned to our fine land to hear much ado about the Fempire piece in the New York Times. Ryan Tate’s rxn on Defamer pretty much sums up my thoughts on this:

Lady screenwriters? Just a thought: If you don’t want people to fixate on your sexuality maybe don’t blurt out to a Times writer, “We’ve all seen each other naked…”Or call your drunken limousine rides “super porno… But having talked about your work on a would-be series called Sluts, and having dubbed yourselves “The Fempire,” it sounded a bit disingenuous when you all complained about “pressure to look photogenic in a way that is not demanded of male screenwriters.”

Could not have said it better myself.





Suit for a Cause Weekend

21 02 2009

Normally I’m a one-post-a-day kind of woman, but thought I’d share that this weekend is Send One Suit weekend, encouraging women to donate one suit to the nonprofit Dress for Success an organization that “gives disadvantaged women entering the workforce a leg up by outfitting them in professional business attire, providing career counseling and setting them up with professional women’s networking groups.”

Downturned economy leave you with suits to spare? Donate one this weekend! Drop off your suit at a local Dress Barn store (find one here) and help a good cause.





Hard News for Hardwicke, Disappointment for Women Directors Generally

21 02 2009

Have a little backlog of posts due to the starting of a new job. Will post a couple of recent insights to sate the palate, and be back on a regular schedule next week.

So the jury’s still out as to whether it was Summit’s decision to kick Catharine Hardwicke out of the director’s chair, or Hardwicke’s decision to turn down directing the next installment in the Twilight series (based on what’s she’s described as a too-limiting budget). Either way it’s a disappointment, especially since since the budget for the first movie was 37M and grossed 70M on opening day weekend (setting a new record for highest opening weekend gross for a film directed by a woman), and it’s rumored that the modest budget planned for New Moon was increased upon hiring of America Pie helmer Chris Weitz to direct.

But now Nikke Finke reports that Summit is closing a deal for a third movie, director tbd, making it a little more bitter that Hardwicke’s no longer in the director’s chair.

And speaking of women directors, Defamer today railed against EW for its top 25 directors list, citing among other problems the lack of femmes at the top. They go on to post 26-50, and Sophia Coppola tops out at  no. 26, ahead of Mira Nair (46) and Mary Harron (49).

Sophia Coppola at 26? Mary Harron at 49? Where’s Karen Kusama (director of Girl Fight, Aeon Flux, and the forthcoming Jennifer’s Body)? Jane Campion? Jodie Foster? Sally Potter? Mimi Leder? Kathryn Bigelow? Kasi Lemmon? Patty Jenkins? There’s a serioiusly flawed rubric behind the present list, one that I don’t understand and that celebrates celebrity  in foregrounding Coppola at the expense of some more seriously acomplished directors, both critically and commercially.  Ugh.

But





Film Review Round Up – Badass Lead Chicks

13 02 2009

I’ve been watching the reviews over the past couple of days and I must say, even if these movies are well executed, the fact that they got green-lightsays something. Here is some cinema featuring bad-ass ladies that you may not want to miss:

- Hong Kong thriller Chocolate features a martial artist savant, part autistic teen, part Muay Thai prodigy. 100% bad ass. I have to say I cannot wait to see this.

-The Countess – The summary reads “A 16th-century noblewoman turns to an unusual moisturizer for comfort after she’s been abandoned by her much younger lover” – the moisturizer? Virgin blood!! Talk about a woman scorned. Julia Delpy stars in a movie only the Germans could make.

-Cheri is about a love affair between an older courtesan (Lea) and a spoiled youth (Cheri). Okay, not as firce as the above two but still, nice to see Michelle Pfieffer in a substantial lead role.





An Up and Down Week…for Children

11 02 2009

Let me skip right past any homage to parenthood, my own parents, past my own desire to have kids and fears of a life without, and go right back over into the my-God-I-am-sacred-out-of-my-gourd phase. A few things floating around popular culture this week have scared the bejesus out of me.

The Times Op-Ed ‘Till Children do Us Part” and the  now vintage-3-year-old Salon.com article by Mary Elizabeth Williams are fiercesome reminders of the economic and physical toils of childrearing. Add to that the economy woes, and it looks like I’m not alone, as Lisa Belkin writes in “Postponing a Baby in this Recession.”

A couple other interersting issues are up in the air now too. The Balance between women and men workinging and the economic turmoil perhaps ushering a new age ofstay-at-home dads may be ne suprising outcome of this historic economic downturn, as Belkin points out in “Unemployed Dads at Home” and NPR’s “Talk of the Nation” turned into a discussion about multitasking moms as host Neil Conan explored the culture of Blackberrying and the breakdowns between work at home with guest Dalton Conley, author of the book Elsewhere, USA. The current moment then raises all new kinds of questions about parenthood in the milenium. We’ll wait and see I guess.





A Barbie World

10 02 2009

On a lighter note, while there’s been much talk about Barbie recently – from the giant store planned in Shanghai to Allure’s article how she’s changed over the years to the forthcoming book on how she was conceived – here’s yet another fabulous piece of Barbie news: the Guardian reported on Friday that Mattel is announcing an Andrea Merkel Barbie.

10cfeb

Too bad she’s one of a kind (like the real Merkel!)





Academy Awards Watch: Honoring Geek Chic

9 02 2009

The Academy’s recognition ceremony for accomplishments in the area of scientific and technical contribution to film was held in Beverly Hills last night. As part of the commitment of this blog to comment on the role of women and men in popular culture including tech, I’m obliged to report that the winners were all white dudes. This is not so surprising, as the educational and cultural institutions which promote success in science and technology have historically given been populated by given preference to white men. But I have few doubts  Bielthat as these industries become less exclusive and girl gamers and programmers are on the rise, the demo of these awards will change a lot over the next twenty years. That will not however stop me from commenting that the choice of a gorgeous woman to host (Jessica Biel this year, succeeding prior hosting hotties Jessica Alba, Scarlett Johansson, and Charlize Theron) does not = gender balance:  it’s more like throwing chum to an audience of hungry sharks, hungry nerdy sharks.

A brief list of the winners is below, with details on the Academy’s webpage.

Gordon E. Sawyer Award – Ed Catmull, a computer scientist, co-founder of Pixar Animation Studios, and president of Walt Disney and Pixar Animation Studios. 

John A. Bonner Medal – Mark Kimball, a computer scientist and motion picture technologist with more than 28 years experience in the movie industry

Technical Achievement Award – Steve Hylen, inventor of the Hylen Lens System

Scientific and Engineering Award – Erwin Melzer, Volker Schumacher, & Timo Muller for the Arrimax 18/12 lighting fixture .

Scientific and Engineering Award  – Jacques Delacoux and Alexandre Leuchter for the Transvideo-video assist monitors

Scientific and Engineering Award  – Bruno Coumert, Jacques Debize, Dominique Chervin and Christophe Reboulet for the Angenieux 15-40 and 28-76 zoom lenses

A sincere congratulations to all.