You're gonna be bothered by how cool I am.

I don't know anything about the real reason behind there being separate categories for Actor and Actress, but I don't really buy the "leading man/leading lady" idea. Two out of the three nominees, including the winner, for Best Actress at the first Oscars won for movies in which their character was the main character, and for which they received top billing and primary placement on advertisement posters, above the men in the film. Add to that the fact that so many of the first big film stars were women - Mary Pickford was even a producer and one of the founding members of the Academy - and there just wouldn't have been a need for that kind of ... protection, I guess is what I mean. I think they just wanted to reward more actors, and by extension more films. Hollywood really likes to pat itself on the back. :P You make an interesting point, though, about what if there were two female performances that were better than any of the male performances. Because I think at the time, there was a distinction between actors and actresses. Not a qualitative one, but a separateness all the same. And there still is, to some extent, I guess.

If Clarice Starling had been Clarence and the Dark Knight had been about Batgirl? ... I think we'd be talking about a very different couple of movies, first and foremost. I mean, Lecter's character and Hopkins' performance would have been very different - and was different in Red Dragon - if he'd been playing off of a man rather than a woman. Part of the brilliance of his SOTL performance was that little layer of vulnerability and being drawn to Clarice, which wouldn't have been there with a man. I mean, the whole point of her character being sent to question him was that Crawford probably thought that Lecter would be a little off his guard or more forthcoming (or at least un-forthcoming in an interesting way) with a pretty young woman. And that aspect wouldn't have been there - and therefore a little of what made his character so interesting would have been missing - if the FBI trainee had been a male.

Likewise, a gender change for the hero would definitely have changed the dynamic in The Dark Knight, and for more characters than just The Joker. If a female hero was pitted against The Joker, I don't think there's any amount of storycrafting that could erase the sexual undertones inherent in a male and a female being on screen together and squaring off against one another. And it would have added yet another layer to The Joker's character - even if it made no difference in how he treated the hero, the fact that there's no difference would be a noteworthy layer in and of itself. Would he have been pushed as a lead in that case? There's no way of knowing for sure, but I still don't think so, for the same reasons I think the studio is courting a supporting nod now. He's young. He's playing a "comic book" character. There's a sense that his untimely death colors some people's view of this performance - either with too much praise or overcompensation in the other direction.

And he'd still be less likely to win against Penn and Rourke. A lot of times - and I think certainly this time, it's less about screen time and importance to the story than about what's going to get the actor - and by extension, the studio - an actual award. And I think the fact that the movie is about Batman and the title refers to Batman was a perfect excuse for them to say "well, I guess The Joker is more of a supporting character than a lead."

And that's all for today's edition of More Than You Ever Wanted to Know, LOL.