Golden Globe Nominees

I know there can be a tendency to drop posthumous awards on those who pass away too early, but Boseman really is a force of nature in Ma Rainey's. Big loss for film that he didn't get more roles like that.

Delighted for Zhao's recent success (haven't seen Nomadland yet but loved The Rider), but by god it's shameful that she's only the second woman to pick up the best director award. One doesn't need to be 'woke' to see that's wayyyy askew.

I really hope Wolfwalkers picks up the Oscar - not necessarily for putting any major importance in the award itself, but I'd just love Cartoon Saloon to be properly recognised on an international stage like that. It's ten times the film Soul is as far as I'm concerned.

pixelburp wrote: »

I guess a black or female lead is enough to classify them as thus these days?

Seems to be the way for many commentators online - no matter how deserving the winner, it's all some sort of 'woke' agenda. Must be such a tiring and joyless way to consume film & TV, TBH.

El Rifle wrote: »

The other things about women winning best director, is it takes strong dominant personalities to direct major films. I had this conversation with a female director recently. She said it didnt come naturally to her to push people around verbally which she felt she had to do, and that this was more suited to males who had more forceful personalities.

I've seen more than enough masterpieces by female directors to suggest a straw poll of one unnamed woman director is perhaps insufficient to capture the entire complexity of this issue

As much as society tries to tell us were are all homogenous milk cartons, men and women are different and are drawn to different roles and professions in life. Of course there are many exceptions. And of course like the guy in google who got thrown out for suggesting this in the world of computer programming its not acceptable talk. But in my opinion its a big part of the reason there has not been more female winners.

More than enough 'exceptions' to render the entire premise moot, frankly. I don't need any pseudo-scientific theorising about how women don't have dominant enough personalities to be great directors when I've seen dozens of great Agnes Varda, Celine Sciamma, Kelly Reichardt, Claire Denis, Chantal Akerman, Elaine May, Greta Gerwig, Lucrecia Martel, Ida Lupino, Sarah Polley, Lynne Ramsey, Maren Ade, Mati Diop, Kathryn Bigelow, Jane Campion etc etc... films. Hell, most of my absolute favourite films last year alone - Never Rarely Sometimes Always, First Cow, Time, Dick Johnson is Dead, House of Hummingbird, Saint Maud, Babyteeth etc... - were directed by women, and if anything I think the pool of films that awards are pulling from so far is rather narrow given the remarkable quality on display. To be honest, even within the pool of prominent male directors I'd say the types of personality and directorial approaches varies massively enough to make any attempt to psychologically lump them together an utterly futile exercise. Far from homogeneity, I think the sheer variety of types of directors out there is what makes cinema so wonderful and vast.

But not to lay all the blame at the feet of the Hollywood Foreign Press Association or anything like that. I think the industry, critics and audiences have often been slow off the mark to give great women directors the respect, accolades and indeed gigs regularly afforded to other, far lesser filmmakers. Agnes Varda - one of the most significant voices in all of cinema history - only seemed to get full recognition in the last years of her life, when her male contemporaries were widely celebrated far, far earlier. And then there's the fact that Hollywood itself often hasn't afforded women directors the same opportunities on a systemic basis for a long time. But thankfully it's an imbalance we're gradually seeing course-corrected.