OSCAR 2005: MY THOUGHTS ON THE BIG RACE

Before making my bold Oscar predictions, I want to remind readers that K. and my adventures in Maryland over Valentine’s Day weekend are available here: CUPID AIMED FOR THE HEART, BUT MUST HAVE TAGGED HE... You can also go to the blog of kari herself, who is currently visiting the Land of the Rising Sun. Now, on with the show!

WHO WILL TAKE HOME OSCAR COME FEBRUARY 27TH?

At the risk of damaging my credibility before I even get started, I admit to not seeing all the Best Picture nominees (I have seen "The Aviator"). I do, however, know quite a bit about the recent history of the Academy Awards, and I’ve been tracking such awarding bodies as the Los Angeles Film Critics Circle, the New York Film Critics Circle, the Directors Guild, the Golden Globes, etc, over the past few months. I feel this accumulated knowledge should be very helpful in making accurate predictions in the really competitive categories.

AS FOR THE NON-COMPETITIVE CATEGORIES: It would shock me if Jamie Foxx didn’t win Best Actor for "Ray," Hilary Swank failed to take home Best Actress for "Million Dollar Baby," and if Morgan Freeman lost the Best Supporting Actor prize for "Million Dollar Baby." Those awards seem to be locks. I agree, let’s move on.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS: The finalists appear to be Cate Blanchett for "The Aviator," and Virginia Madsen for "Sideways." A really prominent critic for the Chicago Sun-Times predicts Madsen to win. Apparently, she has long been beloved in Hollywood, and since the Best Supporting Actress Oscar typically goes to character actresses (Marisa Tomei for "My Cousin Vinny," Judy Dench for "Shakespeare in Love"), why vote against her?

I’ll tell you why. Look at the winners in that category over the past three years: Renee Zellweger for "Cold Mountain," Catherine Zeta-Jones for "Chicago," Jennifer Connelly for "A Beautiful Mind." Sure, Marcia Gay-Harden took home gold for "Pollock" in 2000. But the year before that, Angelina Jolie won for "Girl, Interrupted."

Noticing a trend? Neither Zellweger, Zeta-Jones, Connelly, nor Jolie have ever had a reputation for being a character actress. Typically, they’re movie headliners, leading lady types who opted for smaller roles in the aforementioned flicks and had their sacrifices generously rewarded. I don’t know how many lead roles Virginia Madsen turned down in favor of a few weeks in the wine country. I couldn’t tell you how many Cate Blanchett turned down, either. But something tells me she had more choices.

BEST DIRECTOR: Martin Scorcese for "The Aviator" versus Clint Eastwood for "Million Dollar Baby." A few weeks ago, the Directors Guild prize went to Eastwood, so he’s the winner. Foregone conclusion, right?

Actually, while there has been a high correlation between the Directors Guild and Oscar since the DGA’s inception, the two parties have disagreed twice in the past four years. That only makes it a 50-percent correlation since 2000.

That year, Ang Lee took home the DGA prize (And the Golden Globe for Best Director) for "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon." With Steven Soderbergh nominated twice for "Erin Brockovich" and "Traffic," Lee seemed to have a clear path to victory. But what happened? Soderbergh won the Oscar for "Traffic."

Leap-frog ahead to 2002, where the DGA bestowed its highest honor on Rob Marshall. Even Roger Ebert predicted that the Best Director Oscar would go to either "Chicago" director Marshall, or Martin Scorcese for "Gangs of New York." The eventual winner? Legendary director Roman Polanski for "The Pianist."

So, while Eastwood has collected prizes from both the Directors Guild and the Hollywood Foreign Press (Golden Globe) this year, Oscar voters may still go with Scorcese, who will be the sentimental favorite until he finally wins. Eastwood already has an Oscar for directing "Unforgiven." Maybe voters will decide to share the wealth with the auteur who has six nominations, but never a victory.

BEST PICTURE: Every article covering Oscar 2005 says it’s neck-and-neck between "The Aviator" and "Million Dollar Baby," with "…Baby" opening a narrow lead. Horsesh*t, I say. Of the three most competitive categories this year, Best Picture is the one I’m most confident predicting.

"The Aviator" won the Golden Globe for Best Dramatic Picture about a month ago. "Sideways" won their other Best Picture, for Musical or Comedy. "Million Dollar Baby" only received Best Director and Actress.

In the last decade, where overlap between the DGA, the Producer’s Guild of America, the Golden Globes, and the Oscars has been less than complete, the Best Picture Oscar has almost ALWAYS gone to a Golden Globe Best Picture winner. You’d have to go back to "Braveheart" in 1995 for the lone exception. That year, "Sense and Sensibility" won the Golden Globe for Best Drama, while "Babe" took the other Globe for Best Musical or Comedy.

But even the Oscar for "Braveheart" wasn’t a complete shock. After all, it led the field in nominations; field-leaders are always the heavy favorite to win. Not only does "Million Dollar Baby" lack a Best Picture Globe for its cache, but "The Aviator" leads all contenders in nominations. You’d have to go all the way back to 1991, with "The Silence of the Lambs," to find an eventual Best Picture Oscar Winner that neither led the field, nor won a Best Picture Globe. That’s 1991, folks. Thirteen years ago. To put that in perspective, I’ve aged 100-percent since that year.

So I feel supremely confident predicting that "The Aviator" will win Best Picture next Sunday. I feel very confident that Cate Blanchett will take home the Best Supporting Actress Oscar. Finally, I am mildly confident that Clint Eastwood will prevail in the Best Director race. Now, would I pull a Howard Hughes, and promise that if "The Aviator" doesn’t get the big prize at the end of the night, I will leave America…? Yes, I will promise that. You heard it here first, ladies and gentlemen. The "Hercules" will fly!