Reflections on Kathryn Bigelow

The intention of the author, who is a female herself, is to show Hollywood is biased towards productions by males. However, she does this in a unique and contradicting manner, where she starts off the article criticizing the prize owner, who is a female, but ends off with her disapproval of Hollywood that 'preserves the hierarchy of men above women'. One would have expected her to support the prize being awarded to a woman, as she would have liked to see, but later on, we realise she disapproves because she feels the award recipient, Kathryn Bigelow, is not feminine enough. The author even says that Bigelow was 'masquerading', and should be dubbed a 'transvestite', showing the author's impression of Bigelow possibly having stronger masculine characteristics, underneath a female exterior. Hence the author does not consider that Bigelow is being wholly appreciated for her status as a successful female in the male-dominated industry, rather, she is awarded for the capabilities ascribed to men that she possesses. Nevertheless, I feel that for an audience that focuses on the gender and not degree of masculinity of the recipient, this could be a start for the introduction of more females as awardees in future. Just as how people are becoming more familiar with females in various male-dominated industry, this could also happen in Hollywood's war movies.

To add on, another aspect worthy of further reflection is the author's views that American war films have played down and 'falsified the Iraq experience'. An additional reason why she is unhappy with Bigelow winning the award is because she won with a film that aggravated undesirable consequences. The author feels that the Americans 'field of vision is so completely limited' as a result of these films that portray a unrealistic image of American presence in Iraq, and they are unable to see the true negative and lasting impacts of war.

This article hence deepens my understanding towards the motivating forces behind prizes- that is, it is driven by preferences, needs and wants that consumers have. What they hope to see, will be what producers, of films in this case, seek to provide them with. Prizes are bonuses, awarded to people that have aligned their products with what consumers want. Regardless of the degree of their masculinity or feminineness, or where the producer's strengths lies, as long as it meets consumers' demands- as it is with preference of militaristic films, they will be rewarded with a prestigious prize. This then brings up another question- how then, did consumers end up having such preferences?

Reflection on “For Putin, a Peace Prize for a Decision to Go to War”

I found it disheartening that human rights abuses occured as a result of the Chechnya war, and even more so that Putin, the deciding factor that led to the war, earned a peace prize for a decision that brought about harm to the innocent. However, what is more perturbing is the calibre of the Confucius Peace Prize committee members. Since their votes and opinions would directly affect the eventual prize winner, it seems to be the case that the quality of these members are to be doubted. Given that the President, Qiao Damo was self-described as the co-founder, and with another committee member, Mr. Kong Qing Dong, who is also famously known for cursing in public, and not to be left out- Liu Haofeng, who has split off from the Chinese group to work with the Americans instead. It could also be possible that the Confucius Peace Prize could just be a form of retaliation of the authorities towards Liu Xiao Bo's Nobel peace prize, which had met with strong opposition from the Chinese government when he was awarded. With the credibility of the Committee members diminished, this leaves much to be debated as to whether the prize still carries along the prestige and 'celebration of righteousness' it initially intended.

First post for IEM1201J

Excited to start blogging away!(: