Unless you’ve been living under a rock, you know that the
75th Annual Academy Award nominations came out Tuesday. And there
wasn’t much to be surprised about; most of the nods coincided
with this year’s Golden Globes.
But that’s what got me.
Indeed, the one nomination I wasn’t expecting to appear
again was Diane Lane’s, who apparently wowed the universe
with her portrayal of a Grade-A, No. 1 adulteress in 2002’s
“Unfaithful.”
I remember seeing the film and thinking, “Wow, this woman
likes to be naked.” But I’m pretty sure I wasn’t
thinking anything along the lines of, “Wow, let’s give
her an Academy Award.”
Yeah, she was good-looking, but she wasn’t that good. I
think the only nudity Oscar-worthy in and of itself was engineered
by the special effects people behind that chick in 1991’s
“Total Recall.” You know what I’m talking about
“¦”Makes me wish I had three hands.”
Regardless, maybe the Academy is starting to go for a younger
prettier image. A more youthful crowd of women is finally really
getting Oscar’s attention. The other nominees are Renee
Zellweger, Salma Hayek, Nicole Kidman and most definitely, Julianne
Moore. Sadly, this begs the question: Are the only talented women
in Hollywood young and beautiful, or is the Academy full of a bunch
of horny old men?
The problem of finding quality roles for women in film has been
an issue in Hollywood as long as anyone can remember. The theory
goes that past a certain age actresses are generally put out to
pasture and only receive marginal, goofy-old-lady or
mother-of-the-star roles. But in this enlightened day you’d
think ageism and reliance on looks would be on the downturn, not
the other way around.
Just last year, Sissy Spacek and Judi Dench were up for the
award. In 2001, Ellen Burstyn was nominated for her harrowing turn
as a pill-popping mother. But both years, young Hollywood
super-starlets with physical assets to spare took home the best
actress trophies. (Halle Berry and Julia Roberts,
respectively).
So does a superior appearance give the girls a better shot at
the gold? Maybe.
But like all other award shows, the Academy Awards are at least
as political as they are about quality or even popularity. All of
these women fit the bill as stunning, even talented young
actresses, but the odds on favorite right now is Nicole Kidman. She
was nominated last year, has been a workhorse pushing her film, was
the beloved ex-wife of Tom Cruise, and is coming in as the winner
of a multitude of other awards. So look for her to take home the
statue, even though she doesn’t get naked in her film.
One boob I was mad that didn’t even get nominated was
Lane’s “Unfaithful” co-star Richard Gere. His
performance in “Chicago” made me and millions of other
movie buffs realize that when he’s not shooting his mouth off
about pacifism and about how great he thinks Buddhism is,
he’s actually a phenomenal performer.
The real jab isn’t that Gere wasn’t nominated, but
rather each and every one of his co-stars were, leaving the actor
feeling quite similar to his character in “Unfaithful”
““ schtupped.
I’m not too upset for the man, though. As we all saw in
1990’s “Pretty Woman,” Gere has the superhuman
ability to turn common street hookers into perfect ladies, like
Oscar-winner Julia Roberts. She’s been nominated or won an
Oscar three separate times and she gets naked all the time!
Doesn’t she?