Written by DAVID KEYES

February 22, 2005

The relationship between the Academy Awards and yours truly has strained in the recent years. The dedicated practice of thorough annual coverage of Hollywood's biggest award night was something both I and the readers could depend on at the same time every year - three or four full-fledged commentaries routinely written to cover most possible angles of potential nominees and wins in Oscar categories - but eventually the entire notion lost its point. I grew out of the obsession of wanting to analyze and assess the award scenarios, partly because it just wasn't fun anymore, and partly because the Academy, after a certain amount of time, lost its spontaneous edge. Winners and nominees were no longer pleasant surprises; they were like formulaic plot twists that you could see coming from a mile away.

It has nearly been two full years since I completely abandoned coverage of the Academy Awards and all its shenanigans. Do I miss it? Not really. In fact, the task of movie analysis and discussion seems so much more liberating (and fair) when it is no longer one's personal prerogative to always drag that heavy gold trophy into the argument. We hear all the time from actors, actresses, screenwriters and directors that awards mean nothing to them, after all - why should we feel any different? The entire concept is an overlong popularity pageant, in which celebrities are pitted against each other by ruthless studio promotional teams, and Hollywood power figures shell out excessive amounts of cash to help ensure victory for one nominee or another in any given category. It is like a slot machine that keeps landing on the same three objects - you can only pull the lever so many times before your excitement battery runs out of juice.

Having said that, why in the world am I bothering with the 2005 awards ceremony? An intriguing scenario has been brewing behind the Academy curtain that forces some of us cynics to set aside the pessimism: in a race anchored by several front-runners and popular underdogs, most clear victors in major categories have major vulnerability. Such is a prospect that, after the monotonous trend of category favorites walking away with 95 percent of the awards in the past few years, seems rather refreshing. Could it be Hollywood finally wants to inject some chaos into this ever-so-straightforward award show? The answer will not be clear until the weekend, but the ever-changing balance of contenders up to this point makes the competition worth, perhaps, more than just a casual acknowledgement.

Best Picture
Though not nearly as open as other top races, the big prize of the night nonetheless comes down to two strong and heavily-promoted front-runners this year - Clint Eastwood's "Million Dollar Baby" and Martin Scorsese's "The Aviator." Both films weigh heavily on issues that the Academy loves to honor (one is a bio-pic from Hollywood's golden age, and the other is a heartfelt human drama). It doesn't hurt, furthermore, that both films are good enough to deserve their nominations, unlike frequent winners over the past years.

The prediction comes down to which film has the most points in favor of it, though. "Million Dollar Baby" represents that tear-jerker-type subject matter that few can forget, but that has not always been enough. "The Pianist" was in a similar situation two years ago and "Traffic" two years before that; both lost in the end because the Academy went with safer material. That is not to say "The Aviator" is a safe film, per se, but its positives are much greater: it is the most nominated film of the night, has won the Producer's Guild and the British Academy award already, and is generally the type of sweeping period epic that appeals to a large segment of the voting body. Does that mean the win is guaranteed? Hardly. But if my bet had to be placed at this exact moment, my money would be on the Howard Hughes biography just for those reasons.

Prediction: "The Aviator"

Best Director
Clint Eastwood won the Director's Guild Award, which is generally a very accurate indicator of an Oscar winner. So why am I not that sure about an Eastwood victory this time around? Two reasons: 1) he is nominated against sentimental favorite Martin Scorsese; and 2) only three of the past five Oscar winners in this category have actually matched the DGA, which suggests that the accuracy of the predictor is no longer legitimate.

If we were to also consider that the last two category upsets have happened every other year since 2001, furthermore, then the new trend seems destined for another disturbance this year. Points in favor of a Scorsese victory: he is one of Hollywood's favorite directors, has never won the Oscar, and is not getting any younger. Points against Eastwood: he won this same award in the early 90s, has been more consistently acknowledged than most directors, and is nominated also for acting. Once again, the outcome can go either way, but it's hard to ignore the fact that Scorsese has directed a film here that puts him in an ideal position for a win. It is his most award-friendly achievement to date.

Prediction: Martin Scorsese, "The Aviator"

Best Actor
The safe choice, of course, is Jaime Foxx for his portrayal of Ray Charles in "Ray." But not so fast - who in the world could have guessed that Clint Eastwood would be nominated in such a category when he was seen as such a sure bet for directing instead? No one. But the fact that he was included here creates a certain level of uncertainty, and in ways undermines the probability of a Foxx win.

The Academy clearly wants Eastwood to get an Oscar this year, as "Million Dollar Baby" is his best feature film in years. But they also want Scorsese to get his much-deserved honors this time around, too. So how do you have it both ways? Assuming the scenario holds up, you give Eastwood the other award he is nominated for instead, that way everyone (with the possible exception of Jaime Foxx) is happy.

Besides, it might prove to be an interesting jolt, both for the audience and for Eastwood himself, if he were honored as an actor instead of as a director this time around. He has worked on-screen in movies far longer than he has been directing them, after all, but has never been awarded in that capacity. Having an acting trophy sitting on the shelf next to all sorts of other honors for directing would no doubt be a big thrill for the multi-talented filmmaker.

Best Actor: Clint Eastwood, "Million Dollar Baby"

Best Actress
Not so hard to predict is the leading female actress category, which began, continued and has seemingly ended with only Hilary Swank as the favorite amongst voters. She has won an Oscar before (for 1999's "Boys Don't Cry"), but her career between then and now has not exactly been as productive as some would have hoped. Her tour-de-force performance in "Million Dollar Baby" is the kind of comeback that the Academy adores, and a win would more than cement her stance as one of the great living actresses of our time.

Possible upsets (although not as likely): Annette Bening ("Being Julia") and Imelda Staunton ("Vera Drake"), both of whom have received immense praise and have also won a lot of industry awards. Still, the category has been geared more towards younger blood than older favorites in recent years, and that will no doubt be another factor that should benefit Swank.

Prediction: Hilary Swank, "Million Dollar Baby"

Best Supporting Actor
This contest essentially comes down to who the voters would most like to see at the podium this year: older favorites or newer faces? If the latter, the category has strong competition via Thomas Hayden Church and Clive Owen, both of whom have been showered in accolades for playing the kind of shrewd and sneaky characters that tend to leave a lasting impression on voters.

On the other hand, the older guys generally have better success as supporting players, and when you consider the fact that you have two greats like Alan Alda and Morgan Freeman in this year's line-up, you can't imagine the result swinging the other way. A victory for either man would no doubt be the goal of a majority of the voting body, although something tells me that Freeman has earned more points with voters over the years than Alda has (who is seen as more of a television actor than a movie one anyway).

Prediction: Morgan Freeman, "Million Dollar Baby"

Best Supporting Actress
Easily the fiercest contest of the year belongs in this category - here we have a full-fledged crop of contenders that each come equipped with their own supply of virtues.

The lesser of the five are Laura Linney and Sophie Okonedo, who play characters here who are more or less props for the main stars of their respective films. On the other hand, though, this scenario is exactly what benefited Marcia Gay Harden in 2001 when she pulled off the win in this category for her role in "Pollack." Could that argument work in either of their favors? Possibly. Furthermore, Okonedo can also count the fact that she is the lone African American female nominee of the year in acting, a prospect which the Academy is likely to remember well (and certainly spelled success for Whoopi Goldberg years before when she won for "Ghost").

Natalie Portman is, obviously, the youngest of the contenders, and that can't be a bad thing for her - generally, voters like to reserve this specific award for those who are young and developing talents, and Portman's role in "Closer" is so drastic a departure from her standard performances that it has made quite a lasting impression.

Having said that, though, the biggest bets are on either Cate Blanchett or Virginia Madsen, both of whom have played tug-of-war with the industry award wins ever since last December. Madsen spent years as a B-movie actress and is seen as a breakthrough in "Sideways," but it is Blanchett who has had the most difficult job this year: playing well-known Hollywood royalty in a manner that was persuasive without necessarily being too overzealous for its own good. Other factors that work in her favor: 1) people still haven't forgotten her unfair loss for "Elizabeth" years before; 2) she has made significant ground by winning both the Screen Actor's Guild award and the British Academy award; 3) audiences generally regard her as a strength in "The Aviator"; and 4) Katharine Hepburn is the most treasured Hollywood actress of all time. A win for Blanchett would essentially be like the voters giving their first Kate one more shot at victory, and I suspect it is not an opportunity they want to slip by.

Prediction: Cate Blanchett, "The Aviator"

Best Original Screenplay
The screenplay awards are generally where the Academy has a shot of honoring the stuff that has a small chance of victory elsewhere. In Original Screenplay, they will honor Charlie Kaufman's "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind," which was so brilliant in all its weirdness that few voting circles have been able to overlook it thus far (even the Writer's Guild of America award went to Kaufman). The only possible upset: "The Incredibles," the Pixar animated feature that was, too, showered in praise for its smart writing (and some would even say it was the closest an animated film has come to being nominated for the top prize since "Beauty and the Beast").

Prediction: "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind"

Best Adapted Screenplay
The best screenplay in this crop of five belongs to "Million Dollar Baby," of course, but since "Sideways" will likely lose all of the major awards to either "The Aviator" or Eastwood's vehicle, chances are the Academy will want to honor it here, in what most would consider the most convenient category. If "Baby" doesn't prove to be the upset, then the other possibility is "The Motorcycle Diaries," which has some solid support in several writers' circles and may have built up enough momentum to be a viable challenger.

Prediction: "Sideways"

Other Predictions:
Best Foreign Language Film: "The Sea Inside"
Best Animated Film: "The Incredibles"
Art Direction: "The Aviator"
Cinematography: "A Very Long Engagement"
Film Editing: "Million Dollar Baby"
Original Score: "Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events"