Oscar-worthy transformations

During my post-Oscar browse this year, I noticed a small but interesting trend that has been brewing in the category of Best Actress. Over the past five years, this award has generally been presented to women who underwent dramatic physical transformations for the roles in question. Also, four years out of five, the winning roles portrayed characters based on real people. \nWhen looking at these roles, it seems that in order to be considered a top-notch actress in Hollywood today, a woman often must deliberately sacrifice her vanity at the altar of credibility. She has to become ugly, poor, miserable, sluttish, pathetic, mentally unstable, a raving lunatic or all of the above. They're not just "normal people" -- on some level, these characters have to be wretched.\nConsider the winners: this year, Charlize Theron's amazing performance as serial killer Aileen Wuornos in "Monster" got the attention, Nicole Kidman won in 2002 for her portrayal of Virginia Woolf in "The Hours" and in 2001, Halle Berry took it home for playing an impoverished single mother in "Monster's Ball." Other recent winners include Julia Roberts for "Erin Brokovich" and Hilary Swank for "Boys Don't Cry."\nI am not minimizing the talent, dedication or amount of energy it took to develop these characters into such fascinating on-screen personalities. The acting for all of these roles was noteworthy. As Theron's co-star Christina Ricci stated recently in the Pasadena Star News, "You could put all the fat and prosthetics in the world on somebody, but if they can't pull off the performance, that's all you've got -- fat and prosthetics." \nHowever, one must wonder what it is we find so intoxicating about seeing these famous, beautiful women in these earthy roles? Is it a reflection of collective misogyny or sadism or jealousy? I would argue (with a hopeful attitude) that although viewers love to fantasize about the star lifestyle, they recognize that glamour is an insubstantial illusion. Celebrity eye candy is amusing, but on a deeper level, we relate more to these living embodiments of feminine perfection if they look like the people we see every day. \nI just hope none of the second-rate actresses in Hollywood take notice of this because, boy, one truly hellacious trend could erupt. Imagine all of the gorgeous young starlets suddenly deciding they want to be taken seriously and immediately dashing to their agents, begging for one of these transformative roles that test an actress's true mettle.\nCameron Diaz calls up Justin Timberlake (or whoever she's dating now) and exclaims, "Oh, sweetie, I can't wait! Tomorrow, I'm auditioning for the lead role in 'Margaret Thatcher: The Life, The Legend.'" Rachel Leigh Cook and Jaime Pressly vie for the role of the aged Mother Teresa, but the word on the street is that it will ultimately go to Heather Graham … heavens, this can only end in tears. \nThankfully, I don't think that will happen. Certain roles require true artists -- otherwise, they flop both with mainstream audiences and the art-film scene. These are not the films that rack up the big box office bucks and have you quoting the one-liners, singing the songs or dressing like the main characters for Halloween. These are the films that put the awed hush in your voice when you say, "God, that was a good movie," but have trouble finding the words to explain why.\nWe get jazzed about the award ceremonies themselves when the actresses appear in their full movie star regalia with designer gowns, up-dos and glitzy jewelry. However, the film characters are the ones getting the real attention, and often, they exist far from the world of Gucci and the red carpet. Glamour is fun, but misery, indecision and omens of impending doom are usually more interesting to watch.