Blue Steel 1990 is the seed that grew into the reason Avatar didn't win best picture
👁 11
https://blenderdumbass.org/reviews : 👁 1
https://www.google.com/ : 👁 1
![[avatar]](/pictures/favicon.png)
by Blender Dumbass
Aka: J.Y. Amihud. A Jewish by blood, multifaceted artist with experience in film-making, visual effects, programming, game development, music and more. A philosopher at heart. An activist for freedom and privacy. Anti-Paternalist. A user of Libre Software. Speaking at least 3 human languages. The writer and director of the 2023 film "Moria's Race" and the lead developer of it's game sequel "Dani's Race".
So it's 1990 and Kathryn Bigelow writes and directs an action thriller about a police officer. The police officer is female and the movie almost refuses to sexualize her. Bigelow casts a nice half-Jewish girl Jamie Lee Curtis. And pretty much the whole movie, not a single shot of her emphasizes or admires her body ( apart from one sex scene where we see a very erotic closeup of her stomach ). Making that movie technically feminist. Few years later, in 1994, as James Cameron ( who was married to Bigelow between 1989 and 1991 ) is trying to find the actor to play the wife in his film True Lies. He is reminded of Blue Steel by Bigelow. And decides to cast Jamie Lee Curtis in his film. Giving us that very strange, almost pornographic scene where she does a very erotic strip-tease scene with Arnold Schwarzenegger. More than a decade later, in 2009, both Bigelow and Cameron make a movie. And both of those movies are nominated for the best picture. Yet Bigelow takes home the price. Did Cameron lose due to his pussy curse? ↩ Reply
I know I just took this whole thing out of my stupid ass. But that is kind of how I like my reviews. I like to connect things that are un-connect-able to theorize a theory, that might, maybe, give me some interesting thread to pull on, to get to some rather interesting IRL lore. ↩ Reply
So how is the movie in question? Well... It is a Kathryn Bigelow picture. She likes her point of view shots. And the film starts with a rather effecting point of view shot. The tension is well designed and gripping. But there is a thing that I somewhat struggle to understand. ↩ Reply
Comparing Blue Steel to other Bigelow pictures like Point Break or Strange Days it seems like the cinematography in Blue Steel uses way longer lenses, for some reason. A short lens will give you a very visible perspective. Things in the foreground will look larger than the things in the background. For point of view shots you want to have a relatively short lens. Yet Blue Steel is pretty much entirely shot on long lenses. It is when objects in the background and in the foreground look like they have the same size on the screen. Or another way to understand it, would be... imagine you took a shot from very far away, zoomed in a lot. It feels almost like you are observing a footage shot by a spy. c:0 ↩ Reply
Perhaps the Kafkaesque nature of the plot ( the movie is dealing with a rich psychopath, making everything and everyone strangely paranoid ) is prompting Bigelow to use such spy-feeling shots to amplify the paranoia of it all. And I think, in this movie in particular, the technique works. In a way, detaching the camera ( even though counter-intuitive ) is putting the audience more into the head-space of the characters. Kathryn Bigelow is playing a film-director's version of 4-dimentional chess. And she is winning. c:1 ↩ Reply
Strangely enough I think I am discovering a deeper thematic reference when it comes to 2007 Edgar Wright picture Hot Fuzz. In that movie, two films that were prominently mentioned are Bigelow's Point Break and Michael Bay's Bad Boys II. The covers of their films are often shown together in the same shot. And they carry thematic meaning in Hot Fuzz. Now it is very visible that Wright is imitating at least the style of Michael Bay in the film. But it is not all. ↩ Reply
Given that Hot Fuzz shows Bigelow's Point Break as equal ( at least thematically ) to Bay's Bad Boys II means that Wright sees a similarity between the two directors. ↩ Reply
As I stated multiple times on this website I believe the main focus of Michael Bay when he makes his movies, tends to be an attempt at sharing the emotional experience of the characters with the audience. If they are sad, Michael Bay will try to squeeze a tear out of the audience with every trick he could think about. If they are pumped with adrenaline ( because perhaps there is an action scene going on ), Michael Bay will do such an assault on your senses with utter Bayhem! that you will not be able to do nothing else, but to feel the same rush of adrenaline yourself. ↩ Reply
Bigelow does a similar thing. She wants you to feel what the characters are feeling. It is just that the plots in her movies usually contain less action. In Blue Steel the main emotion she is trying you to feel is paranoia. And the film's cinematography choices amplify this feeling. But that is not all... ↩ Reply
In Blue Steel we see an early role of Tom Sizemore which will return to Bigelow's screen in both Point Break and Strange Days. But then would somehow end up also in Bay's Pearl Harbor and would be in Spielberg's Saving Private Ryan ( that almost was directed by Michael Bay ) and would also appear in multiple Tony Scott films, which were significant films to form the style of Michael Bay. ↩ Reply
Then, in the same Blue Steel we see Kevin Dunn who has been with Michael Bay for at least the first 3 Transformers films. And then Strange Days had an early role of William Fichtner who collaborated with Bay on many projects. ↩ Reply
Perhaps Tony Scott was not the only influence on Michael Bay. Perhaps Kathryn Bigelow inspired a lot of that Bayhem! And perhaps Edgar Wright, saw this possibility, and came to this same conclusion, already before making his Hot Fuzz. ↩ Reply
And you just read another long ass theory, freshly backed in my shitty hole. ↩ Reply
Happy Hacking!!! ↩ Reply
Find this post on Mastodon
![[avatar]](/pictures/user_upload/Troler/55NKGQKE7IRKMLHV.png)
Troler
c:0 February 13, 2026 It feels almost like you are observing a footage shot by a spy.
⤴ ViewMaybe it flows well with what's going on the screen?
Troler
c:1 February 13, 2026 detaching the camera ( even though counter-intuitive ) is putting the audience more into the head-space of the characters.
⤴ ViewCounter-intuitive film-making seems to be bread and butter for Spielberg. I saw how many of his films break the conventions of directing and result in a better picture. For instance, not showing sad characters' faces.
![[thumbnail]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/09/Teenage_Mutant_Ninja_Turtles_film_July_2014_poster.jpg/250px-Teenage_Mutant_Ninja_Turtles_film_July_2014_poster.jpg)
![[thumbnail]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/c9/HotFuzzUKposter.jpg/250px-HotFuzzUKposter.jpg)