Sweepstakes

I know I’m currently predicting a clean sweep in the acting categories for Closer. According to Oscar Trivia, this has happened 13 times in Academy Awards history. The last time was in 1981. So, it’s not a very common occurrence – at least not anymore (though it’s been 22 years since the last instance, the first seven all appeared within a 17-year span, while the other six happened in a 15-year period).

What changed? Having not seen all 13 films in question, I have two theories that require a lot more research to substantiate. One concerns the evolution of the Academy while the other concerns the evolution of filmmaking itself.

First, the Academy’s definition and criteria for a “supporting” role seem to have changed in the last twenty years. With Judi Dench’s nomination and subsequent win for Shakespeare in Love being an anomaly, I think most recent Supporting Actor and Supporting Actress nominees have had more screen time and more significant presences in their films than did their counterparts between 1936 and 1981.

Renee Zellweger, Benicio Del Toro (21 Grams and Traffic), Tim Robbins, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Julianne Moore (The Hours), Jim Broadbent, Ethan Hawke, Ben Kingsley, Jennifer Connelly, Marcia Gay Harden (Pollock), Angelina Jolie, Minnie Driver, Juliette Binoche, William H. Macy, Cuba Gooding Jr. and Uma Thurman might all have been considered Leads in another era (and at some awards – like the Golden Globes and SAG – in this one, too). Many of them, in fact, had screen time rivaling the so-called Lead co-stars they were supporting. Look at 1996, when [though I can’t find confirmation of this, so I’m not 100% certain] the two Supporting winners may have had more screen time than the two Lead winners.

The point is, that a lot of the Supporting Actor and Supporting Actress nominations that enabled those 13 sweepers to sweep probably wouldn’t pass muster these days. Even without having seen these films in a while, I’ll cursorily mention a few nominated actors that don’t stand out: Nancy Olson, Erich Von Stroheim, Estelle Parsons, Ned Beatty and Beatrice Straight. Which isn’t to denigrate any of their performances (except for maybe Parsons’), it’s just that I can’t imagine them being serious contenders now.

Another change that may be at the root of this drought is the shift from the Studio System to the star-empowered free agent system in place today. Back when the studios could dictate who appeared in what without concern for cost, they could easily pack four top-level stars into a prestige picture. Now money is an issue, so it’s rare to fill out every role with an Oscar-friendly face, especially in an intimate character-driven film. While newcomers do slip in from time to time, and celebrity is no guarantee for an award, there’s no denying that it helps.

There’s also the matter of the scripts themselves, which so rarely offer four substantial roles (though I have no real explanation for why this might have changed). All you have to do is look at the 13 films in the last 14 years that have been represented in three acting categories: Mystic River, Adaptation, Chicago, The Hours, Iris, In the Bedroom, Shakespeare in Love, As Good as It Gets, Good Will Hunting, The English Patient, Pulp Fiction, In the Name of the Father, Dances With Wolves.

Of these, Mystic River, Adaptation, Good Will Hunting, Pulp Fiction, In the Name of the Father and Dances With Wolves all had their most prominent females nominated in the Supporting Actress category, leaving nobody to fill the Best Actress slot (indicative of the general dearth of strong female roles in many movies?). Likewise, The Hours had its most prominent male nominated for Best Supporting Actor. And As Good as It Gets didn't have any notable Supporting Actress contenders. So none of these movies had any hope of securing a nod in their elusive fourth category.

In the Bedroom and Iris both had very low star wattage in their Supporting Actor contenders, and neither Nick Stahl nor Hugh Bonneville (in America, anyway) really generated any sort of buzz for their performances, so sweeps never seemed likely for those two films either.

The English Patient had an Oscar-friendly star up for Supporting Actor, but the role wasn’t particularly showy, and amidst all the buzz for that film, none ever stuck to Willem Dafoe.

That leaves just Chicago and Shakespeare in Love as the two with legitimate shots at sweeps. Both Richard Gere and Joseph Fiennes had some buzz surrounding their lead performances and a few preliminary awards and nominations. However, neither was considered much of a sure thing.

Now, back to this year. Closer appears to have the best shot at a sweep of any film in recent memory. It’s got four well-respected actors (presumably) competing in each of the four categories, and each one has a strong role to play. In addition, Mike Nichols has guided a cast to this achievement once before with Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? It’s still very much a long shot that all four will actually receive nominations, but for now I’m tentatively predicting it. But I’m also predicting that Closer won’t get nominated for Best Picture, which might be an even bigger long shot.

Because of those 13 films that have achieved this milestone, only the first one did this without getting a Best Picture nomination (interesting to note that 1936 was also the first year that any movie could pull off this feat, seeing as how it was the first year to include the Supporting categories). Strangely enough though, only two of the lucky 13 (Mrs. Minniver and From Here to Eternity) have gone on to actually win the Best Picture award. Again, I’ll stand by my prediction, but history is not on my side.

Wondering...

Is Gwyneth Paltrow blowing her promotional load too early and for the wrong movie?

Or is she just getting all the baby talk out of the way now so she can focus on her craft in December?

Ridiculously Early Best Supporting Actress Predictions

1. Natalie Portman, Closer

For Her: Her most adult role yet will be an eye-opener; residual goodwill towards Garden State - as well as appreciation for the range exhibited in the two distinct performances - should give her a boost; even people who didn’t like Cold Mountain were impressed with her too-small-to-nominate turn; there are worse ways to get a nomination than acting in a Mike Nichols film (he’s directed seven women to Best Supporting Actress nominations); more than holds her own with some pretty hefty “elder statesmen and stateswoman”; the Academy (and this category in particular) likes them young… and pretty – in Portman they get a 23-year-old starlet who also has ten years of critically-acclaimed performances on stage and screen under her belt [a combination that helped another brainy-and-talented-beyond-her-years actress with an ethnically-cleansed surname pick up her first nomination in this category about a decade ago for her all-grown-up-now performance in a renowned director’s film]

Against Her: Possible media focus on the more salacious aspects of her performance may overshadow the performance itself; if Garden State is popular enough, could split some votes; residual antipathy towards the Star Wars prequels could give some voters pause

2. Laura Linney, Kinsey

For Her: I get the sense that the Academy has wanted to nominate her again since You Can Count on Me… she just hasn’t the right role; early word coming out of Toronto is very positive; she gets uglied up, which worked well for Charlize Theron, Nicole Kidman and Halle Berry; showed range with Emmy-winning comedic role on Frasier

Against Her: If P.S. catches on, it could split votes; Kinsey role may be considered a lead

3. Cloris Leachman, Spanglish

For Her: Hollywood can’t stop rewarding her; with an Emmy nomination in each of the last four years (including one win); there are worse ways to get a nomination than acting in a James L. Brooks film (ten nominations from just three movies), and she’s Spanglish’s most pedigreed performer; when this category isn’t honoring pretty young things, it likes to throw a token bone to a veteran having fun (Helen Mirren (Gosford Park and The Madness of King George), Maggie Smith, Judi Dench (Shakespeare in Love and Chocolat), Julie Walters, Lynn Redgrave, Gloria Stuart, Lauren Bacall, Dianne Wiest, Rosemary Harris, Vanessa Redgrave and Joan Plowwright – obviously it helps to be British, but it’s not a prerequisite)

Against Her: Nobody’s ever been nominated for an Oscar playing opposite Adam Sandler

4. Hope Davis, Proof

For Her: Has been building awards buzz the last two years with About Schmidt, The Secret Lives of Dentists and American Splendor – picking up several honors for the latter two roles; this role earned Johanna Day a Tony nomination in 2001

Against Her: As with Paltrow and Hopkins, Davis’ chances could suffer if the film and her performance are deemed too stagey; apparently, she played the French Ticket Agent in Home Alone (on second thought, put that in the For Her column)

5. Jodie Foster, A Very Long Engagement

For Her: The Academy loves her, but she hasn’t been nominated since Nell in 1994; manages to generate Oscar talk even for her work in genre movies like Contact and Panic Room, so imagine what she can do in a bona fide art film; American actors don’t often do foreign language performances, but when they do, they’re handsomely rewarded (Robert De Niro, Benicio Del Toro); when the winners of Lead Actress Oscars “slum” in Supporting roles, they get noticed (Holly Hunter, Meryl Streep, Kathy Bates, Frances McDormand, Emma Thompson, Jessica Tandy)

Against Her: I can’t think of any precedent for an American actor tackling a significant role in a foreign film, so I have nothing to measure her odds against – though this sheer uniqueness may work in her favor; when I first heard about Foster signing for this film, it sounded like it would be a glorified cameo – not sure if it’s a meaty enough part

As you can tell by the sheer number of runners-up I have listed below, this is the category I’m currently least sure about. There could be some big surprises emerging here. Notice, I tied the two actresses from Ray and the two actresses from Alexander because it’s not clear yet which one in either pair has the showier part.

6. Lauren Bacall, Birth
7. Cate Blanchett, The Aviator
8. Julie Christie, Finding Neverland
9. Scarlett Johansson, Synergy
10. Regina King, Ray
10. Kerry Washington, Ray
12. Meryl Streep, The Manchurian Candidate
12. Gena Rowlands, The Notebook
13. Laura Dern, We Don’t Live Here Anymore
14. Virginia Madsen, Sideways
15. Aileen Atkins, Vanity Fair
16. Angelina Jolie, Alexander
16. Rosario Dawson, Alexander
17. Irma P. Hall, The Ladykillers
18. Lynn Redgrave, Kinsey
19. Marcia Gay Harden, P.S.
20. Lily Tomlin, I [Heart] Huckabee's

Lies, Damned Lies and Festival Statistics

What do the multiple wins in Venice for Vera Drake and The Sea Within mean for their Oscar chances? Historically speaking, not much.

In the last ten years, the Venice Film Festival hasn’t overlapped much with the Academy. Only one Best Picture nominee (The Cider House Rules) has even been in the running for the top prize – The Golden Lion (which Vera Drake just won). The only other Best Picture nominee to receive any recognition there was Lost in Translation, which wasn’t nominated for the Golden Lion, but did pick up the Lina Mangiacapre Award last year.

There have been a few future Academy nominees in other categories that have earned preliminary recognition in Venice. Spike Jonze picked up a couple of awards for Being John Malkovich. Y tu mama tambien won Best Screenplay. Julianne Moore got her first recognition for her work in Far From Heaven there with a pair of Best Actress awards, and Edward Lachman received a special award for his cinematography in that same film [side note – what is an Academy Award nominated cinematographer doing shooting Carmen Electra’s Aerobic Striptease?]. And Naomi Watts and Benicio Del Toro were both honored for their Oscar-nominated turns in 21 Grams. Finally, this year’s Best Actor, Javier Bardem previously won his first award for his performance in Before Night Falls in Venice.

All in all, though, Venice’s value as an Oscar prognosticator is severely limited by the small number of high profile English language films that show in competition there. So while their wins may help Imelda Staunton and Bardem start to build some much-needed buzz going into awards season, they hardly guarantee nominations (however, if Bardem also scores in Toronto, he may cement his position as a lock). The films themselves still seem to be a long way from entering the Best Picture race.

The Toronto International Film Festival, on the other hand, has a pretty good track record with generating buzz (or at least noticing it first). Between 1996 and 2000, the festival tapped five future Best Picture nominees for top awards (Shine, L.A. Confidential, Life is Beautiful, American Beauty and Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon). In addition, films nominated for Best Directing Oscars received high honors in Toronto (The Sweet Hereafter, Billy Elliot and City of God), as did some other top-category Oscar contenders (Amelie, Bowling for Columbine, Whale Rider, The Barbarian Invasions).

With a number of high-profile prestige films in competition up North this year, the winners (both in terms of awards and critical reception) from Toronto will probably be bigger Academy players than their Venice counterparts.

As long as I’m examining superficial trends in festival outcomes as they relate to the Oscar race, let’s take a look at how Cannes Palme d’Or winners have fared at the Academy Awards.

Since 1949, 27 English-language films have won the top prize at the festival. Among those, nearly half (13) have gone on to be nominated for Best Picture (actually only 11 have gone on to be nominated, since Friendly Persuasion and All That Jazz were nominated for Oscars before their wins at Cannes). Half of the remaining 14 winners were nominated for Academy Awards other than Best Picture (six of them in the “major categories”), while the last seven received no Oscar love.

If there’s any science to this sort of thing, that’s good news for Fahrenheit 9/11.

Ridiculously Early Best Supporting Actor Predictions

1. Clive Owen, Closer

For Him: It’s a great, charismatic role with some powerful scenes, both comedic and dramatic; could be an opportunity for long overdue payback for his ineligible, but critically adored performance in Croupier four years ago; has a lot of screen time for a supporting role; there are worse ways to get a nomination than acting in a Mike Nichols film; being British – always a vote-getter

Against Him: Has been considered the “Next Big Thing” for a long time, and yet up until this movie, those BMW ads were the most impressive thing he’d done since Croupier – his moment may have passed before it ever really arrived (the Gretchen Mol effect); Nichols hasn’t gotten anyone nominated in this category since George Segal in Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf; could suffer backlash from the abysmally-received King Arthur

2. Anthony Hopkins, Proof

For Him: He’s Sir Anthony Hopkins; an Academy favorite who hasn’t been nominated since Amistad in 1997; this role earned Larry Brygmann a Tony nomination in 2001; seems like he’s abandoned the sell-out phase of his career; could get a boost from his turn in Alexander; mental illness – always a vote-getter; dying on-screen – always a vote-getter; being British – always a vote-getter

Against Him: May be campaigned as a lead; performance in Alexander could split votes; co-star Jake Gyllenhaal (who’s also inherited a Tony-nominated role) may siphon off some votes

3. Peter Sarsgaard, Kinsey

For Him: Consolation prize for not being nominated last year for Shattered Glass; early reviews are strong for his Kinsey performance; residual goodwill felt towards Garden State could give him a boost

Against Him: If Kinsey follows the Gods and Monsters pattern too closely, he could get stuck with the Brendan Fraser booby prize; is it just me, or was his solid performance in Shattered Glass highly overrated?

4. Willem Dafoe, The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou

For Him: Looks to be the scene-stealer and emotional heart of this impressive cast; performances in The Clearing and The Aviator could give him a boost; in the wake of The Passion, a lot of people were talking about his turn at playing Christ in a favorable light; accents – always a vote-getter

Against Him: Despite some pre-Oscar recognition for Bill Murray and Gene Hackman, Wes Anderson has yet to get an actor nominated for an Academy Award; in the wake of Spider-Man 2, a lot of people may have been talking about his turn at playing the Green Goblin in a less-than-favorable light

5. Dustin Hoffman, I [Heart] Huckabee’s

For Him: He’s Dustin Hoffman; an Academy favorite who hasn’t been nominated since Wag the Dog in 1997; could get a boost from his turn in Finding Neverland

Against Him: Movie (and his performance) may wind up being too zany to be taken seriously; if role in Finding Neverland is bigger than initially reported, it could either split votes or replace this performance as the one most likely to be nominated

In what’s usually a very competitive category, this year’s crop of potentials looks to be fairly weak. Expect some surprises to sift to the top by December.

6. Kevin Costner, The Upside of Anger
7. Rodrigo de la Serna, The Motorcycle Diaries
8. David Carradine, Kill Bill, Vol. 2
9. Topher Grace, Synergy
10. Morgan Freeman, An Unfinished Life
11. Jake Gyllenhaal, Proof
12. Jamie Foxx, Collateral
13. Jeremy Irons, Being Julia
14. Chris Cooper, Silver City

The Shot Heard 'Round the World

Warner Independent has unleashed the first For Your Consideration ad of the season, more than two months before A Very Long Engagement is even released in American theaters.

The text of the ad is unusually blunt and transparent, essentially declaring that they too will be aggressively pursuing what David Poland deems the "City of God Effect" (though it could just as easily be called the Talk to Her effect, or Il Postino Effect, or the Red Effect). However, the ad copy is deceptive in its statement that "This picture is not eligible for Best Foreign Film." What it should say is: "This picture is not eligible for Best Foreign Film... this year," because, as I understand the convoluted rules, it will be eligible in that category next year (though I haven't been able to find a single instance of this in Academy history, so maybe I'm wrong), should France decide to submit it.

With both Michael Moore and Warner Independent officially staking their claims, and so many high profile contenders premiering in Venice and Toronto, it seems like the shortened Oscar season is no longer so short - it's merely arriving earlier to compensate for ending earlier.

Ridiculously Early Best Actress Predictions

1. Gwyneth Paltrow, Proof

For Her: Had to act out losing her father so soon after doing it in real life – that’s gotta be good for a few tears (and votes); last time she worked with John Madden, she won an Oscar; this role won Mary Louise-Parker a Tony in 2001; there are worse ways to get a nomination than acting with Anthony Hopkins (who has helped co-stars to seven nominations plus three wins – all for leading actresses); if Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow is a hit, it could help; she looks pretty in a dress – always a vote-getter

Against Her: Some felt that her Shakespeare in Love role was too fluffy to warrant her winning an Oscar and may hold that against her now (though that didn’t stop Marisa Tomei from getting a nom in 2001); had a depressing awards season last year with Sylvia; might be hurt if movie (and her performance) are too stagey; refuses to walk red carpet with her hubby; named her daughter Apple

2. Kate Winslet, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind

For Her: The Academy loves her, yet they’ve never given her any gold so now’s another chance; accents – always a vote-getter (though the generic American accent may not qualify as such, flawless though it may be); could get a boost if performance in Finding Neverland is warmly regarded; critics adore this performance and a Comedy/Musical Golden Globe nomination is in the bag; the most likely chance to recognize this well-liked film (outside of Best Original Screenplay)

Against Her: Finding Neverland performance may split votes (especially if it’s campaigned as a lead and not supporting); Eternal Sunshine may have dimmed in voters’ memories since March – Focus will need to aggressively campaign and use the DVD release to reverse the memory erasure

3. Annette Bening, Being Julia

For Her: Buzz is good and a lot of Oscar predictors have her as a lock; many felt she deserved the award for American Beauty (she even won the SAG) – this could be payback; can count on husband to campaign for her and be arm candy

Against Her: The movie doesn’t sound like it’s going to be the blockbuster awards juggernaut that American Beauty was- she’ll have to depend on buzz (and critics’ awards) for her performance to get people to even put the screeners in their DVD players

4. Julia Roberts, Closer

For Her: Being Julia; there are worse ways to get a nomination than acting in a Mike Nichols movie (who’s directed his actresses to 12 total nominations over the years, including five in the lead category); may be rewarded for making a risky departure with this role that could potentially turn off some of her core fans (like Tom Cruise in Magnolia); for the first time in a long time, actually got a part after somebody else passed - which shows surprising humility; could get a boost if she gets to flash her smile in Ocean’s Twelve; chance of her going into labor at the ceremony could be too much to resist (see Catherine Zeta-Jones in 2002 and Annette Bening in 1999)

Against Her: She’s already got so much – does she really need twin Oscars, too?; may not have as much screen time as some of her competitors; as with Jude Law, her role isn’t as showy as her co-stars; her diva-esque acceptance speech for Erin Brockovich may have left a bad taste in voters’ mouths; if she gives birth before ballots are due, media hype could cause Julia-fatigue

5. Catalina Sandino Mareno, Maria Full of Grace

For Her: Universal critical acclaim for a harrowing performance; could be this year’s Keisha Castle-Hughes shocker; has already started gathering festival awards; Oscar likes them young… and pretty

Against Her: There’s that pesky non-English thing; with a mid-summer release date and a mere $4 million in box-office, it’ll be an uphill battle to make sure she’s seen and remembered, and New Line may be too focused on The Sea Within to do the heavy-lifting necessary – she’ll have to get some year-end critics’ awards and make the rounds in Hollywood to be this year’s Keisha

The barbarians at the gate:

6. Joan Allen, The Upside of Anger
7. Imelda Staunton, Vera Drake
8. Nicole Kidman, Birth
9. Audrey Tautou, A Very Long Engagement
10. Rachel McAdams, The Notebook
11. Uma Thurman, Kill Bill, Vol. 2
12. Julie Delpy, Before Sunset
13. Tea Leoni, Spanglish
14. Halle Berry, Catwoman

Raising the Bar

[LATE UPDATE: I should've done a little more browsing before writing this post. Reading Michael Moore's own explanation on his website (thanks to the link on Oscar Watch) invalidates a lot (though not all) of my premature analysis. What is interesting is that the AP feature clearly makes it sound as though the main reason for not submitting is to focus on the Best Picture race, followed by opening up the category to other documentarians and lastly about the potential television broadcast. Michael Moore's letter (which features plenty of his trademark mingling of veiled self-aggrandizement and pronounced selflessness) however emphasizes the TV airing as the number one rationale, followed by his generousity to his fellow filmmakers and finally mentions, as an afterthought, that it might make a Best Picture run possible. So where are your priorities, Mike?]

Once again, Michael Moore is making it all about himself, even as he says its about others, making him the worst sort of narcissist. Just as at the 2002 Oscars, when he rallied/bullied all the other documentary nominees to come up with him no matter who won, making an even bigger spectacle of himself, he now says he’s taking Fahrenheit 9/11 out of the running for Best Documentary, in part, because he wants to give everyone else a fair chance. Well, isn’t that nice? Of course, by saying so, he smugly assumes his doc was going to be considered one of the five (or even the) best by the Academy. It also puts an unfair asterisk next to whoever actually wins (like Olympians in boycotted Olympics), since there will always be speculation that Moore would’ve won if he hadn’t so “selflessly” removed himself from competition. When someone self-imposes term limits at The Emmys – like Candice Bergen did in 1996 – it’s more a commentary on the tedious repetition of The Emmys.

It is of some note to Oscar-watchers that he and Harvey will be actively seeking the Best Picture award. This was assumed from the get-go, but now it’s confirmed. Not submitting in the Documentary category is an interesting tactic. It could produce similar results as when Foreign Language films haven’t been eligible for that category (the Best Picture nod for Il Postino, as well as the high-profile nominations for Talk to Her, Y tu Mama Tambien and City of God). If this strategy works and Fahrenheit 9/11 becomes the first documentary nominated for Best Picture (or even gets nominations in other categories like Directing, Original Screenplay or Editing – which, if I’m not mistaken, only Hoop Dreams has accomplished with its Editing nom), I wonder if we’ll see this gamble employed by animated films, documentaries or foreign films (of their own volition) in the future. I believe that Finding Nemo could have been a serious contender (though not without a fight) for Best Picture if there were no Animated Feature category.

This could all be misdirection if it turns out that Fahrenheit 9/11 airs on television before the election, as the AP article suggests. Since this would disqualify the film from Documentary contention anyway, Moore wouldn’t likely miss an opportunity to put his own, self-serving spin on the ineligibility– and effectively quit before he can be fired [sort of like Brian on Mr. Personality]. I’m not sure what odds I’d put on a television broadcast between the October 5 home video release date and the November 2 election. First of all, I’m not sure what Moore cares most about – Money, awards, record DVD sales or the potential to impact the election even more by getting his movie seen by as many people as possible and gain a few more seconds of media attention while he’s at it – because airing it on TV in October would directly impede the first three goals on my list. However, based on his urging people to illegally download his movie, I suppose the latter might very well be the most appealing to him. But this raises another question:

Where would it air?

Showtime is handling the pay-TV rights, so most likely it will be shown on Showtime before it can be shown on any broadcast network – and Showtime proved they aren’t squeamish when it comes to politically charged material by airing last year’s controversial The Reagans mini-series. But if Moore’s mission is to have his film seen by as wide an audience as possible, how many viewers can he get on Showtime? The Reagans was only seen by a little over a million in its highly publicized initial airing.

It would seem to make more sense to put it on PBS [and now that I look at the Rolling Stone interview, it looks like Moore has the same thing in mind – though his notion of it airing on a broadcast network is preposterous], which shows many recent documentaries and is capable of reaching millions more viewers (Ken Burns’ The Civil War was seen by a whopping 40 million viewers in 1990). But unlike Moore, Showtime’s only motivation is making money, and allowing it to air on free TV before its Showtime premiere doesn’t do much for their bottom line. So if Showtime has any say in the matter (which I assume they do), I can’t see it airing anywhere else. We’ll know for sure within two months.

One thing's for sure: This certainly breaks the Best Documentary competition wide open in a year already full of promising contenders.

Ridiculously Early Best Actor Predictions

1. Jamie Foxx, Ray

For him: Already the front-runner; positive reaction to his performance in Collateral may carry over; a nomination for him could be seen as honoring Ray Charles posthumously; if the movie’s a serious Best Picture contender, it’ll bring him along; physical handicaps - always a vote-getter

Against him: Already the front-runner (as with the potential Best Pictures, this can be a blessing and a curse); his performance in Collateral might (not likely, but might) split votes, especially if voters consider it a lead; comics don’t always have an easy time getting respect for dramatic roles (just ask In Living Color castmate Jim Carrey); I still think his performance in the trailer looks a little caricature-y, but I seem to be the only one who thinks so

2. Javier Bardem, The Sea Within

For him: Mostly basing this on David Poland’s assertion that his nomination is virtually guaranteed; I think he deserved to win in 2000 for Before Night Falls, and I can’t be alone; his brief but memorable turn in Collateral can only help; physical handicaps – always a vote-getter

Against him: There’s that pesky non-English thing; the movie he’s in will have to get some traction amidst a competitive batch of foreign-language films; I wrote a few days ago that in August of 2000, nobody knew who Javier Bardem was – but how much has changed in four years?

3. Johnny Depp, Finding Neverland

For him: Everybody loves him; there are worse ways to get a nomination than acting with Kate Winslet (five co-stars nominated in nine years); there are worse ways to get a nomination than acting in a Miramax movie; accents – always a vote getter; after getting nominated for playing a fey pirate in a Jerry Bruckheimer/Disney movie about a theme park ride, what can’t he get nominated for?; was a gracious loser last year, unlike some people…

Against him: Buzz on the film has grown a little tepid – we’ll have to wait until after Venice to see how it (and he) is received

4. Leonardo DiCaprio, The Aviator

For him: If The Aviator is the awards-behemoth it’s supposed to be, it’ll take him with it; there are worse ways to get a nomination than acting in a Martin Scorsese movie (4 wins plus 12 nominations); there are worse ways to get a nomination than acting in a Miramax movie; there are worse ways to get a nomination than playing Howard Hughes; could be rewarded for consistently foregoing the easy heartthrob route

Against him: The Titanic and Gangs of New York juggernauts didn’t bring him along for the ride, and his Oscar-baiting role in Catch Me if You Can failed to get any bites (to be fair, Gangs and Catch going head to head may have hurt his chances); suffers from Tom Cruise dilemma where people think of him more as a pretty-boy movie star than an actor (forgetting his Oscar-nominated turn in What’s Eating Gilbert Grape), and like Cruise, he tends to get co-stars nominated instead of himself (co-stars like Diane Keaton, Kate Winslet, Gloria Stuart, Daniel Day-Lewis and Christopher Walken)

5. Jude Law, Closer

For him: Is in so many movies this year, the law of averages alone secures him a slot; he’s been on a role, getting two nominations in five years (as well as getting serious attention for A.I. and The Road to Perdition); there are worse ways to get a nomination than acting in a Mike Nichols movie (2 wins plus 13 nominations); being British – always a vote-getter

Against him: Jude Law fatigue may set it, from his ubiquitous presence in both cinemas this fall and the Oscar races of the last five years; potential vote-splitting if he doesn’t clearly campaign for one film; his role in Closer isn’t nearly as showy as some of his co-stars; Nichols hasn't gotten a male nominated for an Academy Award since The Graduate

[Side note – It wasn’t intentional, but by arranging these actors in this order, I created a sort of Six Degrees of Separation – Jamie Foxx was in Collateral with Javier Bardem who was in Before Night Falls with Johnny Depp who was in What’s Eating Gilbert Grape with Leonardo DiCaprio who is in The Aviator with… Jude Law!]

The rest of these actors all have some modicum of buzz around them, though for various reasons, I can’t see putting them in the top five right now:

6. Colin Farrell, Alexander
7. Liam Neeson, Kinsey
8. Bill Murray, The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou
9. Gael Garcia Bernal, The Motorcycle Diaries
10. Tom Cruise, Collateral
11. Jim Caviezel, The Passion of The Christ
12. Paul Giamatti, Sideways
13. Jeff Bridges, The Door in the Floor
14. Jim Carrey, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
15. Christopher Walken, Around the Bend
16. Kevin Bacon, The Woodsman

Ridiculously Early Best Directing Predictions

Only three times have all the Best Picture nominees been nominated for Best Directing. On the other hand, since the Academy limited the Best Picture category to five nominees in 1944, there have been only five instances when three Best Picture nominees failed to receive nominations for Best Directing – and all occurred between 1954 and 1966 (is it coincidence that the two categories became more tightly intertwined around the time that Andrew Sarris’ “manifesto of the auteur theory” was published?).

So the five nominees for Best Directing this year will most assuredly come from the candidates for Best Picture nominees, and most likely, there will be one or two nominees that don’t match up between the two categories. Rather than re-list all the potential nominees I’m predicting, I’ll assume that my top five in the Best Picture race are going to be the nominees and just predict who will be the odd men out (since Vanity Fair’s hopes have tanked, the directing nominees will all be men, for the 74th time).

Here’s where I think Proof and Closer will swap out, as Mike Nichols is going to get a nomination no matter what. Martin Scorsese and Oliver Stone seem pretty untouchable, unless either of their movies is completely trashed. If there’s enough passion for The Passion to get it into the top five, then it’s hard to imagine Mel Gibson will be ignored, unless his brash persona (and the accusations of anti-Semitism) turned people off too much last February.

If Ray is truly beloved, Taylor Hackford could get his first nomination in this category, however he looks to be the next weakest of the bunch and might very well be pushed out by a director with more style (whose Picture might not be seen as having enough substance).

My first bet would be Walter Salles for The Motorcycle Diaries (as foreign film directors have frequently been nominated when their Pictures were not [directors of foreign language films have been nominated an astounding 26 times by my rough count - including six in five consecutive years in the early 70s - compared to the seven times foreign language films have been nominated for Best Picture], most recently in the last two years with Pedro Almodovar and Fernando Meirelles).

Salles is followed closely by Wes Anderson (who might benefit from the branch that has in the past nominated “quirkier” directors like Stanley Kubrick, David Lynch and Spike Jonze while their Pictures have been ignored). I think that Michael Moore is less likely to get a nomination for Directing than Fahrenheit 9/11 is for Best Picture, as I think that many of its supporters probably like the film more than they like the man (though after rewarding a pedophile-rapist, who knows?).

Ridiculously Early Best Picture Predictions

With a little over 20 weeks until the Academy Award nominations are announced, here are my ridiculously early attempts at predicting the Best Picture nominees, in order of likelihood.

The Odds-On Heavyweight Favorites
The 800-pound gorillas everyone is betting on.

1. The Aviator

There’s always a lot of pressure on the perceived favorite going into Oscar Season. Sometimes they stay the course (A Beautiful Mind) and sometimes they fizzle out (Cold Mountain). Although last year, Harvey Weinstein blamed the abbreviated Oscar schedule and the late December opening date for Mountain’s chilly reception, I don’t expect the December 17th berth of The Aviator to cause it to get the same Cold shoulder from the Academy (it was a ludicrous excuse – all that debacle proved was that poor Harvey needs more than a month to turn his shit into Shinola).

I see four potential roadblocks for The Aviator. The first is bio-pic overload fatigue, which I touched on in my last column. The second is if there’s some controversial debate over the film’s historical accuracy, such as the one that (may have) sidelined The Hurricane as a contender, and threatened A Beautiful Mind. The third is if voters resent the way Martin Scorsese was shoved down their throats in 2002, and how Harvey and others tried to guilt trip them into giving the filmmaker everybody loves a de facto “lifetime achievement” award for directing a movie nobody loved. And finally, the fourth potential roadblock for The Aviator is if the movie sucks – however, this one is the most easily overcome (see Gangs of New York).

2. Alexander

As the only large-scale epic in contention this year (weighing in with a measly $30 million budget hardly qualifies The Passion of The Christ as large-scale), Alexander would seem to be a shoo-in since the Best Picture race tends to favor historical epics. Still, I’ve got this nagging feeling that it might not make the cut – I’m not sure if it’s Oliver Stone’s 12-year absence from this category after a remarkable 3-for-6 run between 1986 and 1991 or if it’s Colin Farrell as a blonde, but for now I’ll keep it in the top five.

Small, but Scrappy
Not quite the behemoths of the top two, but that may prove to be a blessing.

3. Ray

Advance buzz was hot before the body was even cold, and now that it’s not just a tribute but a eulogy, it’s even hotter. Whether it makes it or not rests largely on how well Jamie Foxx can make us both forget and remember the legend – a paradoxically challenging task, indeed.

4. Proof

Why this intimate stage-adaptation and not (the more widely predicted) Closer? Well, since they (pretty much) match up in pedigree in front of and behind the camera, it comes down to Proof dealing with weightier issues (and though I’m not positive, being less shocking and offensive to older voters). The biggest hesitation I have about putting it in the top five is that I don’t know if a) Harvey will be pushing this one as hard since he’s adopted a sure thing in The Aviator (and might want to focus all his efforts on getting at least that one in after getting none last year), b) Harvey’s attention will be further divided by a push for Fahrenheit 9/11, and c) Harvey will even be synonymous with Miramax by the time this movie rolls out in December. So Closer might get its shot after all.

5. The Passion of The Christ

I originally had this at #6, but while writing my last post, I convinced myself that I needed to put one pre-September release in here, and I’m starting to realize that The Passion seems like a pretty classic Academy-friendly movie (to those who suggest that they’re squeamish when it comes to violence, I point out that Pulp Fiction, Braveheart and Saving Private Ryan all pushed the bloodletting envelope). Surely there are enough devout Christians in Hollywood to carry it to the promised land… Surely?

The On-Deck Circle
Any of these could be called up to the Big Five should one of the above falter.

6. The Motorcycle Diaries

When The Passion was at #6, this was at #5, and it could easily move back into the top five if it’s as good as early festival buzz suggests. It’ll have to catch on, and stay caught on between September and January. Even then, it faces a couple of uphill battles. First, this looks to be a competitive year for foreign language films in the Best Picture race, and there have never been two foreign language films nominated in the category in any year, and only seven total in 76 years. Second, is this really the year Hollywood wants to be seen as embracing a communist icon? That doesn’t sound like the “heart and soul” of America.

7. Closer

Mike Nichols is hot. So are Julia Roberts, Natalie Portman and Jude Law. Clive Owen is supposed to be hot. And that’s all well and hot, but I think Closer is too insubstantial, too sexually frank and maybe too stagey to become the monolithic awards-darling that Angels in America has become through the lowered expectations of the much smaller proscenium arch of television.

8. Fahrenheit 9/11

A documentary has never been nominated for Best Picture. A documentary had also never been number one at the box-office or broken the $100 million barrier. Will the people who loved it in June still love it in January? More than any other movie this year, this one’s awards hopes hinge on world events. My inclination is that its odds are greatly enhanced if its star wins in November, but I could have that backwards.

The Funny Four
Like I said, I don’t really see any of these happening, but if the Academy’s desperate for a laugh, it’ll probably come from one of these.

9. The Life Aquatic With Steve Zissou
10. Synergy
11. Spanglish
12. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind

The Runners-up
Small dramas (with the exception of The Phantom of the Opera) that might get their hopes up with some Oscar Season traction, but seem too small from this vantage point to make the final cut.

13. Finding Neverland
14. Kinsey
15. The Sea Within
16. A Very Long Engagement
17. The Phantom of the Opera

The Runners-up to the Runners-up
These seem to have even less of a chance.

18. Sideways
19. Bad Education

Uh… No
Not gonna happen.

20. An Unfinished Life

Predictions in other categories, coming soon...