It’s going down to the wire. This year’s Oscar races are more wide-open than they’ve been in recent years, with some big questions affecting the outcomes:
Why did The New York Times decide to attempt to influence Oscar voting by printing an anti-“Sideways,” pro-“Million Dollar Baby” screed, and how effective will it be?
Will it bother Oscar voters that a Controversial Issue in “Baby” has drawn some criticism?
On its way to becoming the highest-grossing best picture contender this year, “The Aviator” – directed by the Susan Lucci of the Oscars, Martin Scorsese – has begun to pick away at the assumption that “Million Dollar Baby” will win. Can it go the distance?
Picture
It’s a two-movie race between “The Aviator” and “Million Dollar Baby,” both of which have points in their favor. “Aviator” is a long, expensive, well-crafted epic, exactly the kind of movie that usually wins best picture (it’s the anti-“Sideways,” which is why that low-key comedy won’t fly). But does anyone in Hollywood love it?
I’m thinking not, and I know there’s not much love for “Finding Neverland” or for “Ray,” which is all about Jamie Foxx. “Million Dollar Baby” on the other hand? People love it, and they love Clint Eastwood, and they feel like they owe him after bypassing “Mystic River” last year, when they had a bad case of troll fever.
WILL WIN: “Million Dollar Baby”
SHOULD WIN: “Sideways”
Director
If voters want to give Alexander Payne an award, it’ll be for writing “Sideways,” not directing it. Same goes for Mike Leigh’s “Vera Drake.”
The talk is that Taylor Hackford is not well liked in Hollywood, and, whether or not that’s true, his “Ray” has lots of flaws, most of them attributable to him. So, no. Either Martin Scorsese (“The Aviator”) or Clint Eastwood (“Million Dollar Baby”) could win, and it would be great if it were Scorsese because then we wouldn’t have to listen to any more of the how-could-Scorsese-have-lost-to- Robert-Redford/Kevin-Costner/Fill-in-the-Blank whining that dogs Scorsese. Plus, “The Aviator” is a director’s movie, a triumph of flash and craft over a dodgy screenplay. But look at it this way: Scorsese’s best movies were 20 years ago. Eastwood is doing his best work right now. How can you not give it to Eastwood?
WILL WIN: Clint Eastwood
SHOULD WIN: Martin Scorsese
Actor
No one else needs to get sweaty-palmed while waiting for Charlize Theron to read the name on the “Best Actor” envelope. Not Don Cheadle (“Hotel Rwanda”), whose nomination is a “Welcome to the club. We plan to nominate you again in the future, when we’re more likely to get serious about letting you win” nomination.
Not Leonardo DiCaprio (“The Aviator”), who will be harmed by whispering that he’s pretty good in the movie but miscast. And especially not Johnny Depp, who must be incredibly popular with the Academy membership to snag a nomination for his lightweight performance in “Finding Neverland.”
Timing is everything in the Oscars, and first-time contender Jamie Foxx (“Ray”) has it. If he had been nominated in a year when his competition included a deserving, several times- nominated veteran who is due an award (like Sean Penn last year), this category would be tough to win.
The only veteran among the nominees is Clint Eastwood, who’s a virgin in this category and has a better shot at best picture and best director. So feel free to bet the kids’ college fund on Foxx.
WILL WIN: Jamie Foxx
SHOULD WIN: Jamie Foxx
Actress
You can eliminate two of the not-really-contenders right off the bat. Kate Winslet’s grace and subtlety is beloved by Oscar voters, but the paucity of nominations for her film, “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind” (which earned only two), suggests that it isn’t. Winslet is only 29, and if she either gains or drops 30 pounds for her next role – whatever it is – she’s a lock.
Catalina Sandino Moreno (“Maria Full of Grace”) is in a movie nobody saw that would gross out the academy’s many older members if they did see it. (Just try to picture Mickey Rooney voting for a pregnant drug-smuggler who swallows heroin and sneaks it into the United States.) The same voters probably also won’t dig this year’s most dazzling contender, Imelda Staunton in “Vera Drake,” because of the film’s touchy subject of abortion.
Now to the best bets: Older voters are probably gaga over Annette Bening’s big, old-fashioned star performance as an actress in “Being Julia.”
But movies as slight as “Being Julia” do not usually win Oscars. That should give the edge to Hilary Swank’s attention-getting work in “Million Dollar Baby.” Swank will win, unless voters decide it’s unseemly to give a second Oscar to a woman who’s only 30 and who has made only two decent movies. That’s where Bening could come in.
WILL WIN: Hilary Swank
SHOULD WIN: Kate Winslet
Supporting actor
The category that’s usually the strongest is surprisingly weak this year. Maybe that’s an indication of changes within the academy membership, which has gone out of its way to include more younger actors among its ranks in recent years.
This is usually a place to honor a grizzled veteran, but this year’s grizzliest, James Garner in “The Notebook,” didn’t get nominated, and Alan Alda, is so forgettable in “The Aviator” that I keep forgetting he’s nominated. So, let’s look at the youngsters.
Clive Owen, whose potty-mouthed lothario character probably had conservative Oscar voters burning their complimentary DVD copies of “Closer,” is a long shot. And Jamie Foxx, while terrific in “Collateral,” would have to make history to take two acting awards in one year – a “Ray” statuette is much more likely for him.
At one point, Thomas Haden Church was the front-runner for “Sideways,” but that movie has lost steam while “Million Dollar Baby” has started cooking with gas. Unfortunately, it’s the least interesting performance the great Morgan Freeman has given, but he’ll probably win for “Baby,” anyway.
WILL WIN: Morgan Freeman
SHOULD WIN: Clive Owen
Supporting actress
This is the category that could cost you your office pool. It’s the toughest one to call this year, with not a loser in the bunch. Well, actually, there will be four losers, at least one of whom will be Laura Linney in “Kinsey.” Oscar voters would love to give her one of the gold guys, but it won’t be for a movie that has huge close-ups of private parts in it. Although she won the Screen Actors Guild award for “The Aviator,” Cate Blanchett needn’t feel bad if she doesn’t win an Oscar; it’ll be just her second loss while Katharine Hepburn, whom she plays, lost eight.
Sophie Okonedo, from “Hotel Rwanda,” is not considered a front-runner, but I like her chances to sneak up on the leaders.
And Natalie Portman (“Closer”) fits the profile that frequently wins this category – like Juliette Binoche and Marisa Tomei, she’s an ingénue with a solid resume – but her movie has no support outside the acting branch of the Academy.
That leaves Virginia Madsen, who would have been a shoo-in if voting had occurred two months ago before the “Sideways” backlash hit.
I’m still inclined to think it’ll be 41-year-old Madsen, whose peers will like the chance to reward her for sticking it out in a business that considers women of her age elderly.
WILL WIN: Virgina Madsen
SHOULD WIN: Virginia Madsen
Comments are no longer available on this story