Martha Nochimson: Feminist Defender or Female Persecutor?

Seminar 2 Homework

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

- My Response.

The author intends to “expose” a blindspot with which the wider audience (and the powers that be that award both the Director of Guild of America and Oscars) are deemed to suffer from – the hyping up of masculinity. Her title seems to set the tone of criticism with which the reader may expect as the reading progresses. However, her article actually starts off by launching into a damning tirade against Kathryn Bigelow. At mid point, she anticipates the reader’s probable objections due to the lack of substantiating evidence thus far, and furnishes her criticisms with two paragraphs of why her opinions were valid. She then follows that up with what I feel is a one-sentence reluctant commendation of what was "good" about the movie. At this juncture, it begins to seem apparent that all these criticisms seem to point to the fact that there were other more befitting directors for the awards. In conclusion, she generalizes that the whole phenomenon actually stemmed from a dominant patriarchal culture within Hollywood.

Personally, and I have to tread very carefully here, more reflection would probably be required in the examples the writer has cited to substantiate her argument. For example, the selection of one female war veteran’s critical review, with which she chooses to show the artificiality of the movie’s depiction of war. In what combat role did this veteran play? Was the selection of a female combatant appropriate when the comparison should have been drawn with the main character (male) and not the director? Acclimatisation to civilian life after excessive war violence is known to be a major problem amongst many combatants. Having watched the show myself, this was seemingly the main theme of the show, which the entire article fails to address.

The writer’s subsequent choice of two other female directors for the award seems to indicate that the writer has mistaken the award to be one for “best female director”. Overall, she passes herself off to be over-enthusiastically, and unconvincingly pushing the feminist perspective to an audience, and dragging a supposed expert of war in Quentin Tarantino down with it. All in all, I feel that the writer has contradicted her feminist position by persecuting Kathryn Bigelow based on something she should actually be celebrating – her gender.

The key words I would use to capture the gist of the article would be “testosterone”, “tunnel vision” and  “confused adulation”. Whilst the initial response was one of belief, the article failed to stand up to further reflection. More importantly, it fails to convince the reader that the true winner was patriarchy in Hollywood.

This article is one example of how controversies may arise with awards and prizes. Critics will always abound, and these prizes can always be used to push agendas when deemed appropriate.

P.S I am criticising the writer's article, NOT the female gender.