The Academy Awards are on Sunday and while we’re all wondering if Viola Davis and The Help or George Clooney and The Descendants will take home big prizes, the approach of Oscar night got me to thinking about the need for more leading roles for women in big movies.
And I don’t mean where they just play the wife of the girlfriend or the hooker. I mean where they are the star in a quality movie and where the whole movie lives and dies with them.
So here's my list of five previous Oscar winning movies, and how they might have been even better with female leads:

NEW YORK, Feb. 24, 2012 People look at the Oscar statuettes displayed at an exhibition held at Grand Central Station in New York, the United States, Feb. 23, 2012.
True Grit: Not that Oscar winner Jeff Bridges wasn't great playing Rooster Cogburn. And how wonderful was the adorably steely Hailee Steinfeld as Mattie Ross, the young woman who hired Cogburn to avenge the murder of her father?
But think about this: how about Susan Sarandon as the only woman marshal in the old west? She's hired by a young man to avenge the murder of his father. Why doesn't he hire a man in the male dominated old west? Because none of the male marshalls will take him seriously. Just think about the fabulous dramatic tension as the kid wants to hire a man but Sarandon convinces him to hire her because she's after the bad guy for her own reasons. Her name: Henny Cogburn.
Continue reading "Oscar Movies That Would Have Been Better with Female Leads" »








A Dead Qaddafi and the Media: Some Modest Thoughts
If you've been anywhere near a TV, newspaper or magazine this week, odds are you got a glimpse or more than that of Muammar Qaddafi's dead body, face or bloody wounds up close. Personally, I'm happy for the Libyan people and won't lose any sleep because Qaddafi is dead, but I do question the broad dissemination of the images of Qaddafi's bloody face all over network and local news.
First there was the shaky camera phone footage of Qaddafi when he was captured, alive but bloody. Then there was the footage of his body being dragged through the streets after he was dead. Then finally, the shots of his dead body in a meat locker where some Libyans understandably lined up to get a glimpse to prove that indeed Qaddafi was dead.
I'm surprised there wasn't more debate in American media circles about whether or not so much gruesome footage of Qaddafi should have been used. During the first couple of days of coverage, there were warnings from news anchors before showing the footage, but by the end of the week, the shots just showed up out of nowhere.
Is it okay because he was universally considered a bad guy and deserving of whatever punishment the Libyans decided he should have? Is it because once the footage was out there on the internet the networks and local stations didn't want to feel left behind?
Call me old fashioned and maybe the least bit squeamish, but I wish more restraint had been shown, because the almost casual broadcasting of the images has only added to our already high desensitization to that kind of violence.
Posted at 06:29 PM in Media Commentary, News Of The Day, Television | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Technorati Tags: journalism, media, Muammar Qaddafi, news, television, TV