Of course, if you can't get a hold of one of those highly coveted and elusive "retard roles," you could always: A) gain/lose a lot of weight for a role (DeNiro in Raging Bull, et al) OR B) make your pretty self really ugly (Charlize Theron in Monster, et al).There now seems to be an even newer path to Oscarville: C) playing real -- someone who actually lived and breathed and walked this earth. Of course biopics and films based on true stories are nothing new. And, full disclosure, I very often enjoy true stories.
However, I fear that with Hollywood taking fewer risks, "real stories" are becoming a crutch. And maybe it doesn't hurt that actors almost always get nominated for their portrayal of a real person.
Just this year, there are two "real nominations": Morgan Freeman as Nelson Mandela (Invictus), Meryl Streep as Julia Child (Julie and Julia). While it is a "tragedy" that Meryl Streep has fewer best actress awards (1) than Hilary Swank, ... really? Julie and Julia? Really?
Has the Academy completely abandoned awarding individual performances in favor of lifetime achievement recognition? C'mon, guys. At least pretend like you're trying.
Over the past four years, there have been four Best Actor/Actress awards doled out to people playing real people [winners in caps] and even more nominations.
2005 -- PHILIP SEYMOUR HOFFMON (Capote), Joaquin Phoenix (Walk the Line), David Strathairn (Good Night and Good Luck), REESE WITHERSPOON (Walk the Line)
