Recently Annie Proulx (author of Brokeback Mountain) posted her opinion on the upset of Crash winning best picture. I have to disagree with something:

"None of the acting awards came Brokeback's way, you betcha. The prize, as expected, went to Philip Seymour Hoff-man for his brilliant portrayal of Capote, but in the months preceding the awards thing, there has been little discussion of acting styles and various approaches to character development by this year's nominees. Hollywood loves mimicry, the conversion of a film actor into the spittin' image of a once-living celeb. But which takes more skill, acting a person who strolled the boulevard a few decades ago and who left behind tapes, film, photographs, voice recordings and friends with strong memories, or the construction of characters from imagination and a few cold words on the page? I don't know. The subject never comes up. Cheers to David Strathairn, Joaquin Phoenix and Hoffman, but what about actors who start in the dark?"

Full article here.

Her whole article was pretty cynical, and while I see her points, I have to disagree (with this one). The comparison of portraying real people vs. fictional ones is the fact that the real people portrayals, while having a "model" to go off of, have much more to live up to in the eyes of the public. It's much more of a challenge. People wouldn't give a shit if Jack Twist (Jake in Brokeback) had black hair or blonde, but if Philip Seymour Hoffman didn't perfect his verbal stylings or look the perfect part, there is no way he would've won.

So in conclusion, I think it takes more skill to accurately play the role of someone who once lived than to make up your own image of a character - because it's easier for people to criticize.