one more academy award rant

Have you ever noticed how, in the last few years or so, a woman has to either kill someone, kill herself, get killed, wear prosthetics, look like a man, or just in general look a mess (or better yet, some winning combination of the above) to win an academy award for best actress? The men who win get to be gladiators, heroes, famous people or at most, look like themselves. Wait, no I'm wrong. Chris Cooper and Jamie Foxx both wore prosthetics for their roles in Adaptation and Ray respectively. And Chris did get a hillbilly makeover. I guess it takes more, nowadays, to win an award than just playing a retard. But it does seem like women especially have to not look like their movie star selves, to be taken seriously enough to win this award.

But here is my question: Why must she be beautiful in the first place in order to play a "monster" ? Is is because we secretly enjoy seeing these cheerleader types degrade themselves by dressing up as ugly? Or is it because we need to be reassured that under all that grotesqueness is a drop-dead gorgeous woman? That the grossness is just fake? If a script calls for someone as craggy as Sean Penn to play that role, why not hire someone as craggy as Sean Penn instead of making them over to look craggy?

2001 Halle Berry for Monster's Ball
2002 Nicole Kidman for The Hours
2003 Charlize Theron for Monster
2004 Hillary Swank for Million Dollar Baby