This is an interesting article by Stephanie Zacharek at Salon about what counts as a good role for women. She writes:

I'll take a lace-and-leather sexpot over Nicole Kidman's prosthetic-honker performance in 'The Hours' any day of the week.

It hit a spot with me as I wasn't sure what Catherine Zeta-Jones's reference to 'an amazing year for women' meant.

While I'm here, was anyone else irritiated by the way Ms Zeta-Jones lost her surname at the oscars? Sean Connery announced that 'the oscar goes to ... [pause] ... Catherine' (possibly confusing Kathy Bates for a moment) and no-one mentioned her surname again. Was this a coronation ceremony or something?

I liked how Xan Brooks described 'Zeejay''s award:

6.40pm: Heavily pregnant and orange-skinned, Catherine Zeta-Jones steps up to collect the best supporting actress award for her turn in Chicago. Zeejay thanks husband Michael Douglas and confesses that she loves everyone (literally, everyone) in her native Swansea. In the audience, Douglas is most satisified. It looks like the cash he recently spent on that full-page advert in Variety, bigging up his wife's performance, was money well spent.

You'll notice Salon wants you to pay to read their stuff now, btw. You can always pay one day at a time by viewing a 15-second commercial with the option of muting the sound. I found that the sound of 21st-century commercialism blended rather well with Godspeed.

B-)