"dour, bleak, and anti-capitalist"
I wasnt aware that had anything to do with feminism.

even if the best actor award or best picture award isnt biased, catagories like best director really havent caught up with the times. two nominations, no awards given to women.

and as far as african american representation goes-- its gotten better, but still doesnt have a good track record.

which, as you pointed out, probably has little to do with (m)any percieved patriacial leanings of the academy: alot of the problems with best actor etc. stem from the writing. There just arent as many strong female roles written.

The shortcomings in catagories like Best Director seem a little more problematic, and I'm not well versed enough in film history to understand the likelyhood that female directors were overlooked, but in addition to the short supply of female directors, it seems like female directors arent credited with as much percieved control over their films as many of their male counterparts.

I thought Juno had a chance only if No County and Blood split the dramatic vote and enabled it to sneak in (sort of how Nader pulled enough votes from Gore to get Bush elected). But, I found Juno and Atonement to be lesser movies than those two leaders.

Oscar typically goes more for an epic feel than feel-good. Atonement had a chance at epic, but I just think its structure plays better as a novel than a film. Sort of three different movies that just ties together at the end, albeit in a powerful way. (I also think it violates Ebert's rule that for a romantic movie, your couple can't be split apart for more than half of the movie). Although if Keira Knightley's role wasn't big enough for you, then prepare for a life of patriarchal disappointment at the cinema.

I can't say whether it's an anomaly or not that all the top directors were men. My guess would be it's pretty indicative of film school graduates, but I don't know the data (or care enough about this issue, heh). I often don't know the gender of the person that directs a film.

No Country is a blur for me, since I read the novel and immediately saw the movie the next day, but I know that in the novel, both the guy who finds the money's wife and the sheriff's wife are both supporting level, not sure if they got severely trimmed for the movie (since I began reading and finished the novel and saw the film in less than 72 hours).

I don't really pay attention to male/female ratio when I see a movie. That said, I'm just as likely to go to a heterosexual romantic comedy, which also has little personal interest to me. For me, it all comes down to story, and if it is well told, I'm happy. And I always prefer seeing artists strive and fail than hacks aim low and deliver, since I want to encourage Hollywood to take risks (so I vote with my dollars). Often, I will buy repeat tickets to smaller arty films and then go in the theater showing the blockbuster.

My uberpoint is that being an armchair feminist is both boring and useless. If there is ever a situation where you see the world and think it would be better a different way, then you're in for a life of misery, whether it is patriarchy, homophobia, or anything. Because that is where most people stop: things should be different. Yawn. Great, thanks for that.

The world won't change for you, so don't waste your life with observations that will barely move, if at all, before you die. Instead, empower yourself to be a small part of the change you want to see. Make the art you think is missing. That is something everyone can enjoy, and will inspire younger girls to find their voice through your art and on and on.

I think it was Gandhi (and I'm too lazy to Google) who said: "Be the change you want to see in the world."

To me that is the only option. I also would hate for you to become a successful female director. I would love for you to be a successful director, though. But I always hate labels.

---

"Be like a postage stamp. Stick to one thing until you get there." -- Josh Billings.

Add me on MySpace!