NYTimes film critic Manohla Dargis enters the no-fly zone

Viragos unite!

New York Times co-chief film critic Manohla Dargis recently wrote a piece qualifying Kathryn Bigelow’s much-deserved Oscar win for best director of a motion picture, the first won by a woman in the 82 years of the Academy Awards. Dargis went full-throttle on her subject matter (much the way Bigelow did).

“It was a long time coming,” she says.

As Ms. Bigelow suggested when she appeared on 60 Minutes on Feb. 28. Her appearance, for which she was interviewed by Lesley Stahl (Steve Kroft must have been busy), was a classic of its type. During the interview Ms. Bigelow explained to the apparently baffled Ms. Stahl the meaning of scopophilia, a significant word in feminist film theory, though Ms. Bigelow kept gender out of her definition (‘the desire to watch and identify with what you’re watching’). She insisted that there was no difference between what she and a male director might do, even as she also conceded that ‘the journey for women, no matter what venue it is — politics, business, film — it’s, it’s a long journey.’

Right. But why make the dig about Steve Kroft’s absence? Had he been the interviewer, might the argument have been, “Lesley Stahl must have been busy…getting a mani/pedi”? That would have dovetailed pretty nicely with the feminist theory mentioned moments later.

Dargis also cites an article in Salon titled “Kathryn Bigelow: Feminist Pioneer or Tough Guy in Drag?” and written by Martha P. Nochimson. Says Dargis:

The heart of Ms. Nochimson’s critique is the charge that Ms. Bigelow and her ‘masterly’ [terror quotes Dargis's] technique have been lauded while Nancy Meyers and Nora Ephron have endured ’summary dismissal.’ The differences between how they have been received, Ms. Nochimson wrote, ‘reveal an untenable assumption that the muscular filmmaking appropriate for the fragmented, death-saturated situations of war films is innately superior to the technique appropriate to the organic, life-affirming situations of romantic comedy.’

That is, I think, bullshit. Movies made by women are under no more obligation to reflect romantic strife and the spillover of emotions than movies made by men are to put audiences through an evening of gangsterdom and science fiction. There is no reason under this or any other sun why a paying movie crowd delineated by gender should force the industry to pander to itself.

Dargis has gone on record as believing that the “chick flick” (by which she means a movie helmed by a woman) is in trouble because it does not have the full support of its industry. Rather it is in danger of getting compartmentalized or shuttled off to the medium’s no-man’s land: the romantic comedy. Movies about women tend to fall into this trap, but movies by women are definitely a rarer breed. Dargis and Nochimson almost have a dialogue going, even if both happen to be talking within a room of one’s own (with audiences of many).

In the Times piece, Dargis asserts that Bigelow’s success was “primarily achieved outside of the reach of the studios. She had help along the way, including from male mentors like James Cameron, her former husband, who helped produce Strange Days. But that movie did poorly at the box office, as did her next two features, The Weight of Water and K-19: The Widowmaker. It wasn’t until she went off to the desert to shoot The Hurt Locker…that she found a movie that hit on every level.”

By the night of the Academy Awards, The Hurt Locker had grossed less than $13 million domestically, the lowest ever for a best picture Oscar winner. Box office success is a fairly significant level that Bigelow’s film has yet to reach, in spite of its hitting whatever other levels there may be when one conceives of a successful motion picture.

It is impossible to tell what Bigelow’s Oscar win will mean for her as a woman, if for no other reason than it’s a piece of metal foisted on her for crafting a product that earned the respect and accolades of those who watch movies as a profession and those who participate in film as members of a league. Her womanness does not make The Hurt Locker better any more than The Hurt Locker makes her a better woman. Does her landmark award win help pave the way for female filmmakers? Not at all. It opens a door. But whether or not a director (regardless of gender) wants to walk through that door and make a film of quality (regardless of its genre) is entirely up to him or her.

Rob Reiner directed When Harry Met Sally… and A Few Good Men, which are a dandy little rom-com and military courtroom drama, respectively; he also directed Rumor Has It…, which is a bad film on every level. Maybe movie studios should have their stable of directors play spin the bottle for all future projects. Talk about leveling the playing field.