>> Sunday, March 07, 2010
A good question: should the acting categories at the Oscars be gender-neutral? Certainly, in the abstract I think Elsesser is correct that the gender segregation is indefensible: acting is acting. I take the point in response that in our actual unjust world gender-neutral awards would lead to the underrepresentation of women. My guess, though, is that acting is the one category in which women least need further recognition -- and award for women who direct would have much greater egalitarian effects, I think, particularly in terms of encouraging studios to find talent. (It's hard to imagine that a Lynne Ramsay or Tamara Jenkins would find it so hard to get capital if they had a chance at a directing Oscar.)
Tonight's will win/should win:
Best Picture: Dances With Expensive Smurfs/No strong preference, in that I liked all the ones I saw very much and all were flawed. Basterds, I guess, although without second viewings that's pretty tentative.
Director: Bigelow/Fine with me, although Tarantino's work was also exceptional.
Actor: Bridges/Can't say, haven't seen Crazy Heart. I'd certainly be happy to see Bridges win.
Actress: Bullock/Haven't seen The Blind Side, although I doubt that matters. I'd vote for Mulligan, although Streep was certainly terrific.
Supporting Actor: Waltz/Well, it's the only one I've seen, but...Waltz.
Supporting Actress: Mo'Nique/Can't say, haven't seen Precious. I will say that I thought Farmiga was terrific.