Coming soon to a television near you? Good Christian Belles, which was originally titled Good Christian Bitches. Although not guaranteed a slot on the ABC lineup, the original title caused an uproar, which may account for the title change. Regardless, the content of the pilot script (which I have read) should be enough to make those of us who are tired of liberal Hollywood using Christianity as a punching bag to stay away from a show that reminds one of Desperate Housewives with a religious, er, twist.

The plot revolves around the recently widowed (and beautiful) Amanda Vaughn, whose husband Bill died in a car crash. Just about everything the couple owns has been seized by federal marshals because the recently deceased Bill was indicted in a Ponzi scheme, leaving his wife and teenaged children (Will and Sara) with little choice but to pack up what’s left and leave California for Amanda’s native Texas – Dallas, to be precise – and move in with Amanda’s mother Gigi until Amanda can find a job and support herself and the kids.

Amanda not only has to cope with the shame surrounding Bill’s death and helping her children transition, but moving back to her hometown. As daughter Sara discovers one of Amanda’s old high school yearbooks at Gigi’s (who does not want her grandchildren to call her Grandma), it prompts a discussion of Amanda’s past as a popular cheerleader who wasn’t above being a manipulative bitch to get what she wanted. Not proud of her past, Amanda is determined to make a fresh start. Too bad some of the girls she grew up with aren’t willing to let bygones be bygones.

(more…)

Editor’s note: Script reviews of upcoming projects have been around for as long as there’s been an Internet. Therefore it’s no secret that a film can evolve into something quite different from its screenplay. Please keep in mind that this article represents a look at a particular script and not the final product.

When BH editor John Nolte asked me if I wanted to take a peek at the pilot script for Aaron Sorkin’s upcoming HBO series about the drama behind the scenes on a cable news network, I said “Yes!” without hesitation. Word on the street was that the main character was based on MSNBC’s recently dethroned Keith Olbermann, and I was curious: Would “Olbermann” be raked over the coals or treated as a media icon?

I’ll get to the answer in a few.

The show, which is as yet unnamed, takes place behind the scenes of News Night with Will McCallister, a show broadcast by the fictitious United Broadcasting Systems. Will McCallister is the pseudo-Olbermann clone who knows a lot about sports, can’t be bothered to remember the names of his staffers, and can’t seem to hold on to an executive producer (E.P.) for longer than 14 weeks. In fact, in the show’s opener, Will is given the unhappy news that his current E.P. Don has elected to join Will’s protégé, who has just been given his own show, and Don is taking most of the production staff with him.

Amongst the few junior staffers who are still on Will’s team are Maggie, Steve and Neal. Maggie and Steve are involved romantically, even though such fraternization amongst co-workers is discouraged, and the relationship is not going well.

Even worse is the news that Will’s boss Charlie Skinner, who is the president of the cable news division, has gone behind Will’s back and replaced Don with Mackenzie MacHale, a top-notch producer whose own chance at on-air stardom at a rival network fizzled and who is now in need of a job.

(more…)

Editor’s note: Script reviews of upcoming projects have been around for as long as there’s been an Internet. Therefore it’s no secret that a television show can evolve into something quite different from its original script. Please keep in mind that this article represents a look at a particular script and not the final product. 

Author’s note: There are a couple of spoilers in this review. If you are dying to watch this show when it eventually premieres, don’t read any further. 

BH editor John Nolte has already told you about HBO’s greenlighting of a comedy called Veep. It’s set in Washington and follows the life of Selina Meyer, a former senator who campaigned for the presidency, lost out to a competitor, and is now his vice president.

I’ve read the pilot script. In a word, blech. VP Selina Meyer is portrayed as somewhat of a dimwit whose biggest project is getting as many government buildings as possible to use biodegradable cornstarch cutlery in place of plastic, which gets the plastics industry in an uproar. No one in Washington really gives two hoots about her, as is evidenced when she is pointedly ignored during her pathetic speech at a fundraising event – where she makes a further gaffe in saying she and her staff were “hoist[ed] by our own retard,” which then forces her to make a preemptive apology to someone from a mental health charity. (more…)

Editor’s note: Script reviews of upcoming projects have been around for as long as there’s been an Internet. Therefore it’s no secret that a film can evolve into something quite different from its screenplay. Please keep in mind that this article represents a look at a particular script and not the final product. 

Author’s note: There are a couple of spoilers in this review. If you are dying to watch this movie when it is released in 2011 don’t read any further. 

When BH editor extraordinaire John Nolte asked me if I wanted to do a Sucker Punch review of the script for The Iron Lady, the upcoming film featuring Meryl Streep as Margaret Thatcher, my response was (and I quote), “Yes!!!” After reading the script, however, I almost wish I had declined the offer.

Why? Well, when I think of Margaret Thatcher, I think of an extraordinary woman who defied the odds to become the UK’s first woman prime minister and who did her best to bring her nation, kicking and screaming, into a period of prosperity - a nation that was on the brink of financial collapse when she first came to office in 1979. Being human like the rest of us, she had triumphs, and also some failures. For a comprehensive look at both her successes and what she might have done differently, see this article at The Heritage Foundation.

Unfortunately, Thatcher (formally known as Baroness Thatcher, having had the lifetime peerage bestowed upon her by Queen Elizabeth II in 1992), after a lifetime of strength, courage and fortitude, is now known to be suffering from dementia, a terrible disease in which one begins to forget little things and slowly forgets more and more. I cannot imagine how frightening it must be to begin to forget one’s loved ones and, perhaps, oneself.

But it’s great fodder for a movie, especially if the subject is a strong conservative woman whose policies have always been loathed by the left. Who cares if she’s still alive but unable to defend herself against the film’s implications? (more…)

According to Nikki Finke, Universal sent a trailer of the upcoming film The Dilemma, directed by Ron Howard and starring Vince Vaughn, to the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) in order to get their blessing. Universal claims that GLAAD had no problem with the trailer, but a press release issued by GLAAD says they did:

After reviewing, GLAAD called on Universal to remove the scene where the word ‘gay’ was used as a pejorative from the trailer. Today, after Anderson Cooper also spoke out against the scene, Universal confirmed to GLAAD that the offensive joke will be removed from promotional campaigns from this point forward, including in the trailer currently playing in movie theatres.

Kind of hilarious, isn’t it, that Anderson Cooper, who made plenty of jokes on television about “teabagging” at the expense of Tea Partiers, would complain about the word “gay” being used as a pejorative? But that’s neither here nor there. And the point of this post is not to debate whether saying “that’s so gay” or whatever is offensive enough to be scrubbed from the American lexicon, and whether one group should have the power to make that decision.

No, the point of this post is to ask some very serious questions: Why did Universal feel the need to send its trailer to GLAAD for their PC benediction in the first place? Does Universal send their trailers to other special interest groups for vetting too? What about other studios? Do they make it a regular practice to send trailers to GLAAD, the NAACP, PETA, NOW, CAIR, and others? And does it stop at trailers? What about scripts? Previews? Merchandising ideas? (more…)

For an industry peopled by so-called progressive types who love to bash their ideological opposites as racist bigots who want to oppress anyone who doesn’t check the “Caucasian” box on those obnoxious affirmative action questionnaires on employment applications, it sure seems funny that …

…there’s a real possibility that for the first time since the 73rd Oscars 10 years ago, there will be no black nominees in any of the acting categories at the February ceremony. In fact, there are virtually no minorities in any of the major categories among the early lists of awards hopefuls.

What the liberal media might call a “predominantly white” crowd…

I mean, we have the likes of Cher wondering why anyone who isn’t white, rich and Christian would want to be a Republican. Brilliant political mind John Cusack supports the idea of a “Satanic death cult center” outside of Fox News headquarters. Actor John Hamm agreed the Tea Party is a racist institution – on the show hosted by a guy who is upset that President Obama doesn’t act like a “real black president” with a “gun in his pants.” And white comedienne (?) Joy Behar says that only the majority (read: white people) can be racist. Well, I guess as a white chick, she should know. Plus, she studied sociology in college and everything!

Yes, these are the people who believe they set the social narrative in America. And yet…and yet…they don’t seem to live up to their own hype! I mean, here we have what might be the first Oscar night in 10 years with no ethnic minority actors/actresses nominated for an acting award. My goodness, what will George “Smug” Clooney have to say about it?

Actually, considering the high amount of tripe coming out of Hollywood lately, I should think that those excluded from the nominee list would be thrilled by their narrow escape. (more…)

By now, you’ve probably heard about what Politico is billing as a potential “October surprise” – a “Rally to Restore Sanity,” planned for October 30th on the Mall in Washington and hosted by the brilliant comedians Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert.

The day before Halloween? I’m sure it’ll be a solemn occasion, where people intend to reflect upon the real problems that face our nation, dressed up in costumes mocking conservative movers and shakers like Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck. In fact, I can just imagine the oh-so-clever people who will be dressed up like Christine O’Donnell as a witch. (Funny, isn’t it, how when a conservative admits to “dabbling” in something like witchcraft as a teenager it’s a big scandal, but progressive, leftist PC dictates that we should be sensitive to the beliefs of those who declare themselves pagans and Wiccans.)

Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert – your hosts

Oh, but I’m being cynical. The Comedy Central guys don’t really “mean” anything by the whole thing. It’s just a big joke, doncha know:

“We’re not provocateurs, we’re not activists; we are reacting for our own catharsis,” Stewart tells [New York magazine's Chris] Smith. “There is a line into demagoguery, and we try very hard to express ourselves but not move into, ‘So follow me! And I will lead you to the land of answers, my people!’ You can fall in love with your own idea of common sense. Maybe the nice thing about being a comedian is never having a full belief in yourself to know the answer. So you can say all this stuff, but underneath, you’re going, ‘But of course, I’m f*cking idiotic.’ It’s why we don’t lead a lot of marches.” (emphasis mine)

Perhaps that’s why the Comedy Central overlords have asked Craig Minassian, former Clinton administration press aide who is now a consultant to Comedy Central, and Chris Wayne, a former Clinton White House event organizer who works on large-scale media events and promotions, to help them file their permit for the October 30th event. But I’m sure they won’t be helping them actually run the event… (more…)

“Feminism is a Crock – and Other True Stories.” That’s the title for a book I’d like to write someday. The reason I say feminism is a crock is because it has morphed from “equal rights for all” to “women are better than men, and if you disagree you’re a sexist pig who should be castrated.” It’s also morphed into a sexual free-for-all: what used to be sauce for the gander (and those ganders were usually considered cads) is now sauce for the goose. This image is being perpetuated by pop culture and entertainment, and women are more and more frequently being portrayed as strong through their sexuality, not through their actual accomplishments. Is this the standard to which we want our daughters to aspire?

Early feminists fought against the centuries-old image of a “woman on a pedestal.” Gloria Steinem (she of the “a woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle” who in later years ended up getting married anyway) once said, “A pedestal is as much a prison as any small, confined space.” I suppose a bra is also a small, confined space, which might explain the bra burnings of the 1960s. But the early feminists had a point – to a point. If a woman wants to be put on a pedestal and admired and adored, fine. But if she doesn’t, she should have the right to do with her life as she chooses. She should be free to pursue any vocation for which she is qualified, either as a single or married woman, children or no children.

But one of the problems with the new feminism was the annoying little fact that children could get in the way of this brave new world. Having to either stay at home with the little tykes or find daycare for them – not to mention all of the discomfort and disfiguration that comes with pregnancy itself – sure put a damper on Gloria Steinem’s idea of a “liberated woman” being “one who has sex before marriage and a job after.” Unbridled sex does, after all, have consequences. And so, according to historian Elaine Tyler May, birth control was “an important tool to gain control over their lives.” (more…)

In the kick-off to BH’s “Death of the Movie Star” series, Steven Crowder posited that new media has rendered the Hollywood machine irrelevant. If you have the talent and the drive, you don’t need them. And writing for the UK Telegraph earlier this year, David Gritten has a similar theory in that Hollywood can no longer afford A-list stars (who are also aging and may not appeal to younger audiences) and is relying more heavily on lesser-known names and reality-based entertainment. They both make valid points. However, I think there’s something more to this rapidly spreading phenomenon.

Ginger Rogers and Fred Astaire – class and glamour during Hollywood’s heyday

The term “movie star” used to mean a lot to the American public – glitz, glamour, excitement. It embodied an “other worldliness,” if you will, that took hard-working people away from the daily grind and gave them something thrilling and new to take their minds off of their troubles. An afternoon or evening at the movies really meant something then, and the stars who populated the silver screen lived up to the hype – publicly, anyway. This was due to the studio system. During the 1930s and ‘40s:

…the major studios groomed their stable for stardom by picking suitable vehicles that developed their personae—sophisticated comedy for Grant, intense melodrama for Davis, and so on. They also controlled the stars’ publicity, doling out digestible, often-erroneous tidbits on their personal lives for the fan magazines and gossip columns.

Once the studio system was broken, however, we began to see Tinseltown’s residents through a very different lens. Stars began to develop their own careers, making their own decisions and living with the consequences, both good and bad. And the press, which was once held at bay by the studio bigs, had much more access to celebrities. Television talk shows like The Tonight Show and Merv Griffin brought us even closer to our idols. They became…well, more like us, except with oodles more money, fancy cars, designer duds and entrée into exclusive clubs and resorts. (more…)

Levi Johnston cozies up to Kathy Griffin – like she really cares…

So: Levi Johnston has come out and apologized publicly for slandering Sarah Palin and her family. He told People magazine:

“Last year, after Bristol and I broke up, I was unhappy and a little angry. Unfortunately, against my better judgment, I publicly said things about the Palins that were not completely true. I have already privately apologized to Todd and Sarah. Since my statements were public, I owe it to the Palins to publicly apologize.”

Johnston wasn’t specific about what it was that he said that was “not completely true,” but he asked Sarah and the rest of her family to accept his “regrets and youthful indiscretion.” However, we can speculate that he may have been referring to a comment made in an interview with Barbara Walters that “she knows what I got on her.” Or perhaps it was his claim that Sarah referred to her youngest son Trig “the retarded baby” and that her marriage was falling apart. Then again, it could be his accusation that she left her post as Alaska’s governor in order to cash in on her fame. “She had talked about how nice it would be to take some of this money people had been offering us and you know just run with it, say ‘forget everything else.’” (more…)

So what gives? Are these areas just not glamorous enough? Do celebs not want to further highlight The One’s pathetic response?

Celebrities love causes. They love them for a couple of reasons: one, it makes them seem like “serious” people despite making a non-serious living as entertainers – or, as in the case of “professional reality show stars,” making a living by leeching off the system. Two, it’s free publicity. After all, you aren’t a celebrity if you aren’t being “celebrated” by an adoring public.

As such, celebrities often embrace “feel good causes” that enhance their PR value and their egos. Take “green living,” for instance. Why all the Hollywood hooh hah about carbon footprints and other such nonsense? Christopher Grey of WND has a theory:

Celebrities want attention, but they also want credibility because they typically don’t have any. Environmentalism is an easy cause for them to promote to get attention and at the same time appear somehow thoughtful and even educated because it is allegedly based on science. Of course none of this has anything do with reality, but this is the entertainment business. Reality is not important at all. Image is everything. Talking about recycling, stopping offshore drilling, solar power, and electric cars is a lot easier than really trying to do something for people in the world like feeding the hungry, helping abused children, or building houses for the homeless.

It also deflects attention from the obvious fact that celebrities are often some of the most wasteful, energy inefficient, materialistic, shallow, and superficial people in our society. A classic recent example was James Cameron, who talked about how his film, Avatar, was a shining example of environmentalism. Obama echoed this praise. This was the most expensive movie ever made about a war on an alien planet. What exactly about this movie helped to conserve resources or save our planet? The answer is absolutely nothing.

(more…)

The Brits, as we all know, have a thing about “class.” For example, your accent not only denotes what part of the country from which you hail, but whether you are “working class,” “middle class,” or “nobility” and all things in between. And if you have the “wrong” accent, good luck getting accepted into certain circles.

For someone who comes from a nation that’s still so hung up on class, Paul McCartney recently demonstrated that he has none.

—–

McCartney – excuse me, Sir Paul McCartney, obviously a classy guy – was in the East Room at the White House, receiving the Library of Congress Gershwin Prize for Popular Song. Despite the non-political nature of the event, which featured McCartney himself and other musicians performing his songs in front of a select audience (including the President and First Lady), somehow Paul couldn’t hold back a snarky remark about Obama’s predecessor:

“After the last eight years, it’s great to have a president who knows what a library is.”

Nice. (more…)

Summer hasn’t even begun and yet we here at Big Hollywood are already looking toward the fall for the big screen debut of Fair Game. Notice I say “looking toward,” not “looking forward to.” Believe me, there’s a big difference.

Marriage Encounter? Or propaganda?

Anyhoo, Sean Penn dusts off his acting chops — more like jowls these days — to play Joe Wilson, wannabe high rolling diplomat and husband of Valerie Plame (played by Naomi Watts), who claims her CIA cover was blown by the Bush White House in an attempt to make Joe Wilson look like a fool for his op-ed in the New York Times that claimed the Bush administration misled Congress and the public on the need for war with Iraq.

But you all know the story. Suffice it to say, there was no conspiracy to “out” her, and it was Richard Armitage, a State Department staffer and noted Bush critic – not Bush chief of staff Karl Rove, Scooter Libby, or Darth Cheney – who casually mentioned her name to the late Robert Novak. The whole incident, which should have been a big fat nothing, turned into a huge political bombshell that dominated the headlines for weeks and months, and Lewis “Scooter” Libby, VP Dick Cheney’s assistant of national security, ended up being convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice. (more…)

Former Police frontman Gordon “Sting” Sumner has once again made news – this time with his insistence that “the people” are clamoring for big government (read: a socialist nanny state):

“Well, you can see the enthusiasm out there. And people are here to really tell big government that we want big government to make big decisions about the most important problems we face. And also to pressure our corporations to behave properly, as consumers, but we’re here to — we’re asking for big government, basically.”

First of all, who is this “we?” Don’t include me in that statement, bucko - or the readers of Big Hollywood, for that matter. And don’t include the millions of Tea Party attendees all across this still great nation of ours. Obviously someone’s too busy polishing the Grammys on his mantel to pay much attention to the news – except to watch videos of his own CNN appearances, natch.

And I have to ask the obvious question – is Mr. Sumner even an American citizen, or is he just here because the US (for now) taxes him at a lower rate than the UK? Either way, he’s a blowhard who doesn’t speak for me. (more…)

The more I read scripts that come out of Hollywood, the more I wonder how Tinseltown manages to make money. Oh wait, I remember – the Palace Guards hype the tripe so that the peasants don’t realize what’s about to hit them until it’s too late to demand a refund.

That’s not to say there are no good movies made anymore  (The Blind Side is a recent example). Even when movies are bad, we expect them to be bad because of a poor script, poor directing or poor acting – or a combination of all three. What we are sick and tired of are movies with a “message” that Hollywoodists deem acceptable, wrapped up in the guise of innocent entertainment. And we are even more sick and tired of those movies being aimed at our children.

Take Furry Vengeance. Please. Ba dum bum. Coming out on April 30, this “family film” follows the adventures of Dan Sanders (Brendan Fraser), along with his wife Terry (Brooke Shields) and son Tyler (Matt Prokop), whom Dan has temporarily moved from Chicago to Oregon to oversee the building of a housing development in Rocky Springs. (more…)

Slated for release on August 6, 2010, “The Other Guys,” written by Adam McKay and Chris Henchy and starring Will Ferrell and Mark Wahlberg (whose “funky” credentials expired a long time ago), offer viewers a film that is:

“Set in New York City, … [and] follows Detective Allen Gamble (Will Ferrell), a forensic accountant who’s more interested in paperwork than hitting the streets, and Detective Terry Hoitz (Mark Wahlberg), who has been stuck with Allen as his partner ever since an embarrassing public incident with his quick trigger finger. Allen and Terry idolize the city’s top cops, Danson and Manzetti (Dwayne Johnson and Samuel L. Jackson), but when an opportunity arises for the Other Guys to step up, things don’t quite go as planned.”

No big deal. We see these sorts of cop comedies all the time: Opposite personalities are forced to work together. They constantly clash. They bungle assignments. Then they come to an understanding and manage to save the day.

A sneak peek at the script tells us that there are a few moments that will irk conservatives, including a “hilarious” reminder that we have a “black president” and that it’s time to stop stereotyping, even though there’s no stereotyping involved in the scene. Get it? Ha ha. But that’s all typical for this kind of in-your-face, over-the-top comedy film. (more…)

Hotshot singer-songwriter, actor, activist and philanthropist Sting (known to his mum and dad as Gordon Sumner) can add “money grubbing hypocrite” to his impressive resume.

Hypocrisy in the entertainment industry? Say it ain’t so!

Sting has come under fire by human rights groups for performing a private gig back in November of 2009 for the daughter of the president of Uzbekistan. (Doncha love how dictators and dictators-in-waiting use the title “president?” Oh, I’m sorry Mr. Penn; I didn’t mean to upset you. Please don’t call for my imprisonment; I have two kids and a cat to worry about.)

Rocker STING has been urged to donate concert cash he received after performing for the daughter of Uzbek dictator President Islam Karimov to charity by critics opposed to the private show.

The former The Police star, an avid human rights campaigner and environmental activist, has come under fire for playing the secret gig in Tashkent in November (09). Protesters claim Sting should have rejected the offer to sing for Gulnara Karimova, whose father rules a country with one of the world’s worst records for human rights abuses.

Karimov has been criticised repeatedly by the international community and non-governmental organisations like the United Nations and the European Commission of running a brutal dictatorship, violently suppressing political activism, free speech and religious worship with torture.

Karimov’s administration has also been embroiled in allegations of financial corruption.

According to the above report, his management team ignored pleas to cancel the performance even after being informed of Karimov’s abysmal track record. (more…)

Earlier in March, Tom was on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” discussing his project on HBO, “The Pacific,” which he said depicts a war of “racism and terror.” Despite what you may think, the fact that the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor without warning on a Sunday morning in December had nothing to do with it.

He further clarified his remarks on CNSNews.com, standing by his statement, but generously allowed that we’ve made some progress:

“I’d like to think that as our time has gone by and as Americans have found themselves in 2010, ignorance is being replaced by a certain amount of enlightenment and racism is going to be replaced eventually by an acceptance. It’s just taking an awfully long time.”

Very big of Mr. Hanks, wouldn’t you say? You’re making progress…it’s slow, but it’s happening. Pat yourself on the back, since Tom’s too busy to do it himself.

We here at Big Hollywood like to give credit where it’s due, and so we decided to see how progressive Hanks is when it comes to racial equality in his own industry. We decided to take a look at his major works after Forrest Gump, which garnered him his second Oscar win and made him a true power player in Hollywood, with plenty of pull. He’s certainly come a long way from playing a cross-dressing advertising agency employee in the 1980 sitcom “Bosom Buddies!” (more…)

What is it with Sean Penn? When he’s not busy wishing rectal cancer on his critics (and looking constipated while doing it), he’s slamming Americans who dare to say mean and nasty things about his pal Hugo Chavez. I kid you not!

In a recent appearance on Bill Maher’s HBO show, Penn showered praise on Venezuela for assisting him in assisting the quake victims in Haiti. He also claimed to have a little sympathy for those who hold America-as-an-evil-empire-looking-to-conquer-the-world views. Then he turns around and says journalists here who call Chavez a dictator (shudder) should do a stint in the hoosegow:

The collaborative opportunity in Haiti, when you talk about Hugo Chavez, and some of the other people who are demonized [think Castro], and you know, when some of these countries accuse us of an occupation – where I believe this was strictly a humanitarian action by the United States military, and an incredible one – I’m a little sympathetic. Because every day, this elected leader is called a dictator here, and we just accept it! And accept it. And this is mainstream media, who should – truly, there should be a bar by which one goes to prison for these kinds of lies.

Okay, so he’s not officially a dictator. Neither was Saddam Hussein, you may recall – he won 100 percent of the vote back in the day. How about we call Hugo “dictator in waiting” instead? Would that make Sean feel better?

Let’s take a look at some of the things Venezuela’s  duly elected leader has done lately: (more…)

Last time I ragged on our pal James was to take the Malibu mansion-dwelling millionaire to task for his ridiculous “I believe in eco-terrorism” comment.

Today, I’m here to talk about the latest idiocy to come out of his mouth. As our very own John Nolte pointed out, Cameron explained in an interview why he just might lose out on Best Director to Katherine Bigelow, director of The Hurt Locker, in the upcoming 2010 Ego Fest 2010 Academy Awards:

“I would say that it’s an irresistible opportunity for the Academy to anoint a female director for the first time. I would say that that’s, you know, a very strong probability and I will be cheering when that happens.”

Oy vey. Where to start?

A caveat: I didn’t see either Avatar or Hurt Locker. So, I can’t debate either of these movies on their merits. But the very idea that Cameron is already cushioning the blow if he doesn’t win with the “irresistible opportunity for the Academy to anoint a female director for the first time” argument is nearly enough for me to blow chunks.

First of all, Bigelow is not the first woman ever to have been nominated for Best Director. Lina Wertmüller (1975), Jane Campion (1993) and Sofia Coppola (2003) all received nominations for their work. So if the Academy was itching to “anoint” someone as its first female Best Director, they’ve blown three chances already. Besides, aren’t we always being told that the nominees are judged on their merits, not insider politics? (more…)