My Analysis of Oscar chances 2005:



BEST PICTURE:


The Aviator - Frankly we all know it's a frontrunner at the moment. It raraly happens that a movie with most nominations misses out the Best Picture award. I know, it has happened before, for instance to Lod of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, but in most cases it doesn't happen. Moreover, let's face it, Scorcse is overdue and so are his movies. Four of his movies have already been nominated for Best Picture at the Oscars: Raging Bull, Taxi Driver, Goodfellas and Gangs of New York. All of them lost. Most people thought Gangs of New York would bring him the Oscar, but the troubled production already indicated that it wouldn't be the case. Gangs of New York turned out as a good, but not an amazing and overall-beloved movie. Much unlike The Aviator which has been mentioned in more TOP 10 lists of critics this year than any other films with the exception of Eternal Sunshine of the spotless Mind and Sideways, both small quirky films that usually appeal to film reviewers. It is an amazing achievement for a "big film" like The Aviator. Many people wouldn't consider The Aviator a masterpiece or the best film of the year, but pretty much everyone likes the movie and wouldn't be too upset over its win. This is already a much better situation than Gangs of New York was in. Moreover, The Aviator also has a better score than Gangs of New York at RT which indicates general appreciation from the reviewers. If you combine these facts with the "overdue" factor, it's easy to see why The Aviator is this year's frontrunner and will most likely win the Oscar race. On top of that, unlike Sideways and Million Dollar Baby, its main competitors, The Aviator also has the awards in the technical categories going for it like Cinematography and Art Direction. If you add up all this, it's hard to find a reason why The Aviator could not win this year.


Million Dollar Baby - Without a shadow of doubt, this movie is the biggest competitor to The Aviator for the Best Picture award, especially after Sideways failed to garner a nomination for Paul Giamatti, while Million Dollar Baby got a nomination for Clint Eastwood as Best Actor, even though, he hasn't get any recognition in this category before the Oscars whatsoever. Also, Sideways received the least nominations out of all Best Picture contenders this year. Million Dollar Baby is obviously a beloved film and a probably better movie than The Aviator actually. This is suggested by a higher RT score as well as by the much higher IMDB rating than The Aviator. You should also not forget what kind of achievement it is to release out two beloved movies in a row within a year. That is exactly what Eastwood managed. Last year it was Mystic River earning him praise and being called his best film to date. But the impossible happened and he brought us a movie this year, just as praised if not even more than Mystic River. Mystic River won two acting awards last year, but nothing else, due to the dominance of Lord of the Rings: The Retrung of the King at last year's Academy Awards. If it wasn't for the "overdue" factor of The Aviator and the fact that The Aviator is not really much worse than Million Dollar Baby, Eastwood's flick, would be a shoe-in for Best Picture this year, considering the film's pedigree, the three acting noms and the universal love from the critics. However, The Aviator is, without a doubt, a bigger film which has won more thus far, received more Oscar nominations and got just slightly worse reviews. All in all, Million Dollar Baby is a strong contender, but just not strong enough to beat out The Aviator, especially considering that Eastwood's Unforgiven has already scored at the Academy Awards.


Ray - I don't think there has ever been a chance for this film to win Best Picture in first place. While Foxx performance is terrific, I think that the movie pretty much just relies on him and his performance. That is explained by the lack of Ray's nomination in the Best Screenplay category. Jamie Foxx carries thismovie which is, apart from his performance, rather average. I didn't even expect it to get nominated for Best Picture to begin with. One of the reasons it made it, was probably the fact that it is still the highest-grossing film out of all nominees. Furthermore, I also think that a movie like this one might be just too "black" for the Academy to award. But even that aside, it still has got no chance.


Finding Neverland - It started off well for this film and then went rather downhill. It was named the Best Movie of the Year by the National Board of Review. Its RT rating is worse than Million Dollar Baby's, Sideways' and The Aviator's and the critics seem to enjoy it, but not to love it. The film is somewhat comparable to last year's Big Fish, only that Big Fish failed to receive any major noms. The general response from the audiences seems to be that the movie is good, but by far not oscar-worthy. Most consider it to be too light, too mellow. But in the end, it was the omission of its director Marc Forster from the Best Director nominees list that killed off all its chances to win the Oscar. It also looks to end up as the least successful of all Best Picture nominees at the box-office. Out of all nominees in this category, I'd say, Finding Neverland has the smallest chance which pretty much equals zero.


Sideways - I think the fact that this movie managed to get a Best Picture and a Best Director is already a great achievement in itself. How often do we see quirky low-budget comedies starring actors rather unknown to general audiences being nominated? Even the highly-praised Eternal Sunshine of the spotless Mind didn't make it, probably due to the early release date. Movies like Ghost World and American Splendor have been receiving tons of praise and brilliant reviews, yet failed to garner recognition from the Academy. Sideways has been winning awards left and right, especially from the critics groups and is universally loved by reviewers as well as by normal moviegoers. Its reviews are better than all other films nominated in this category have received, but let's face it: Sideways got only five nominations which is less than all other nominees have received. For one, it still remains a quirky comedy which might be considered as too "unimportant" and "forgettable" for a Best Picture award. For another, Paul Giamatti failed to receive a Brst Actor nomination while Clint Eastwood got one without having any pre-cursor awards or nominations. That weakens Sideways' chances even further. The Aviator is the frontrunner, but if there is one film to challange it, it'll be Million Dollar Baby and not Sideways which absence in the technical categories hurt it even more.


My prediction: The Aviator



BEST DIRECTOR:


Mile Leigh (Vera Drake) - He should just be happy that he actually got a nom. His nomination for Vera Drake must have been one of the biggest surprises at this year's Oscars. Vera Drake is a really small film, so all nomination it got, it should be thankful for. It's Mike Leigh's second nomination (the first was for Secrets and Lies) and most likely not the last one. I can't tell you if it has ever happened, but in all recent years, no director has won the Oscar if his movie wasn't nominated as well.


Taylor Hackford (Ray) - Ray has always seemed a rather weak candidate for a Best Director nom, so Hackford's nomination combined with Marc Foster's snub (Foster was nominated for DGA in contrast to Hackford) was a big surprise which Hackford should be happy about. With Ray being a very weak Best Picture candidate and Eastwood & Scorcese in the race, Hackford has virtually no chance.


Martin Scorcese (The Aviator) - Scorcese is the definition of "overdue" in this category. There were few people who didn't expect him to win for Gangs of New York back in 2003. Everyone expected a Best Picture/Best Director split. This split happened, only that the Oscar went to Roman Polanski instead of Scorcese. The Aviator garnered Scorcese his fifth nomination and he is certainly the frontrunner in the category at the moment. He has also scored many awards for his directing in The Aviator so far and seemed unbeatable until Eastwood got the Golden Globe for Million Dollar Baby. Of course, you can explain it by saying that Scorcese has already won the Golden Globe for Gangs of New York two years ago while Eastwood lost to Return of the King last year. Nonetheless, this win has shown that Scorcese is not absolutely unbeatable. Chances are very high that we'll see Scorcese on the stage at this year's Oscars, but he is not a lock yet. I am certain that The Aviator is a lock for at least Best Director or Best Picture, but it is not a lock for both and something tells me that The Aviator will win Best Picture due to the many things. It is a movie about the 30s in Hollywood, the golden era, it portrays many of Hollywood legends. Considering that Hollywood people are the ones voting, it's hard to imagine them not voting The Aviator as Best Picture. Therefore, I see its Best Picture status as a more certain thing than its Best Director chances. I won't deny it, Scorcese has the most going for it, but I sense an upset here.


Clint Eastwood (Million Dollar Baby) - This is Scorcese's only serious competitor. He has disadvantages, certainly. He has won the Best Director Oscar for Unforgiven and that flick has also won Best Picture. Both of which didn't happen to Scorcese yet. However, I also think that Eastwood won't go home empty-handed on February 27th. Last year he has lost Best Picture and Best Director to Return of the King. While you may argue if Return of the King was a deserving winner or not, you have to admit that Mystic River was a really good movie with great shots at winning in many other years. Eastwood has made the unthinkable, though and managed to get another great film done within just 12 months. Mystic River and Million Dollar Baby both together garnered 13 Oscar nominations with 6 of them being acting noms. Both got nominations for Best Screenplay, Best Director and Best Picture as well. It is an incredible achievement by any director to get two movies that well-liked within such a short period of time. Eastwood himself is up for three awards this time around: Best Picture, Best Director and Best Actor. While I have explained above that The Aviator is close to a lock for Best Picture, I also think that Eastwood is very unlikely to win Best Actor. I don't think he won't win anything, though, therefore, I tend to say that a Best Director win is the most likely at this point out of the three nominations. This could be the Oscar night's big upset.


Alexander Payne (Sideways) - One of his biggest disadvantages is that he is rather young and definitely not overdue. My analysis of Eastwood's and Scorcese's chances have shown why both of them have a good shot at winning. Payne has proven that he is a very good director. He delivered it three times in a row with Election, About Schmidt and Sideways and this is his first, but definitely not last Oscar nomination. Considering that Sideways has gotten the least nominations, though and considering the building up support for Million Dollar Baby, I think we can pretty much rule out Payne.



My prediction: Clint Eastwood



BEST ACTOR:


Johnny Depp (Finding Neverland) - Depp is on a streak lately. He was long overdue for a nomination and he finally got one for his role in Pirates of the Caribbean. Unfortunately he was against a far more overdue Sean Penn who in the end won the award. He'd probably get the award this year, but his role in Finding Neverland is apparently not nearly as good as in Pirates of the Caribbean and he certainly is not getting as many accolades as he got last year. The competition this year is also very tight and out of all nominees he is probably the least likely one to win which says a lot about how great the performances by actors have been last year. However, I promise you one thing and that is that if Depp gets nominated again anytime soon, he'll win.


Don Cheadle (Hotel Rwanda) - Hotel Rwanda failed to garner a Best Picture nomination and that pretty much killed off the already small chances of Cheadle to win the award. He is a good actor and he has been overdue for a nomination for quite a while, but I don't see why he should win the Best Actor this year. His role is based on a heroic, but not famous and still living person while his biggest competitor, Jamie Foxx, plays a person very famous in the showbiz who has died not too long ago. Don Cheadle will have a good career ahead of him, but it's not his year to win the Oscar.


Jamie Foxx (Ray) - Out of all major nominees this year, Jamie Foxx is probably the biggest lock to win. He has unbelievably much going for him. If I said 3 years ago that Jamie Foxx would get two Oscar nominations in one year and win one of them, everyone would probably laugh at me. Well, that's what is happening right now. Foxx' nomination for Collateral was undeserved, not because he was not good enough in the film, but because it was not a supporting role by any stretch of imagination. He probably won't win Best Supporting Actor, but I can't imagine him losing both, Actor AND Supporting Actor. This is only one of the many things going for him. His speech at the Golden Globes is another one. Everyone who heard it, will agree that his already good chances were raised even more by it. The amount of accolades Foxx has been getting for his role so far is tremendous. It's his performance that lifts Ray above average and will probably be the only category in which Ray will be rewarded. Not to forget is the fact that Foxx is actually that good in this role. When you see the movie, you don't see Foxx, you actualy see Ray Charles on the screen. Furthermore, there is no denying the fact that Ray Charles was a very well-liked entertainer and was very popular in Hollywood too. The fact that he died just some months ago adds the "sentimental" value to the role. At this point, there is no one who comes close to Foxx in this category and unless there is a big split of votes because of some people voting him for Collateral and others for Ray (which is unlikely), he will win.


Leonardo DiCaprio (The Aviator) - He stars in the most nominated film of the year and just like Depp, Foxx and Cheadle he plays a real-life person. Most say that this role puts DiCaprio at his career-high. This is probably true and overall, DiCaprio is not a bad actor. However, he is also not close to overdue and there is nothing about his role that would make it outstanding enough for the Academy to award. He was certainly good, but I think that Academy memebers will think that DiCaprio has a long career ahead of him with many other chances to win. It'd be hard to justify him winning against Foxx.


Clint Eastwood (Million Dollar Baby) - His win came as a huge surprise and has proven once again that Oscars are not as predictable as one would think at times. If he has been getting praise for his role and at least some nominations along the way before the Oscar nomination, I'd say that he is a big competitor to Foxx. However, his Oscar nomination for this role is the first real recognition he has gotten so far and that hurts his chances a lot. Certainly, he can be considered overdue as he has never won an acting Oscar in his long career (despite winning Best Director). On the other hand, though, Morgan Freeman starring in the same film is overdue as well and since I see him being awarded, I doubt the Academy will award two "overdue" actors from the same movie this year. Freeman looks like a far more likely candidate. I think there is a slim chance that Eastwood might pull an upset. I'd actually put him ahead of Depp and Cheadle and maybe, maybe even DiCaprio, but Foxx is still leading by far and away.


My prediction: Jamie Foxx



BEST ACTRESS:


Catalina Sandino Moreno (Maria Full of Grace) - Her nomination is very comparable to Keisha Castle-Hughes' nomination for Whale Rider last year. She has no chance whatsoever at winning it and her nomination is already a big honor.


Imelda Staunton (Vera Drake) - Vera Drake has actually scored much better at this year's Oscars than initially expected. At times, people even doubted Staunton's nomination, but after Vera Drake has snatched up Best Screenplay, Best Director and Best Actress noms, her chances at a win have been raised dramatically. One thing that is definitely going for her is that she is really that good in her role. The competiton is strong, but not strong enough to rule out her win. Actually, I'd say that Best Actress is the most competitive category at this point with four possible winners. I can see Staunton winning, even though I don't believe it'll happen because of the higher pedigree of other nominees and let's not forget, she is a really unknown actress starring in a really small movie.


Kate Winslet (Eternal Sunshine of the spotless Mind) - This is Kate Winslet's fourth Oscar nomination after Sense and Sensibility, Titanic and Iris. Considering that the actress has not even hit 30 years yet, it is an incredible track record. If she was somewhat older and if Eternal Sunshine was up for more awards, I'd call her the definite frontrunner as of now. However, considering the absence of these factors, I think it's unlikely that she'll win. She's undoubtedly a good actress and will eventually win an Oscar, but not this year. I don't think the Academy considers her overdue (like Benning) or incredibly amazing in her role (like last year's Charlize Theron). She lost the Golden Globe to Annette Benning despite starring in a more popular film which was nominated for four Golden Globes. That proves that it isn't her year. However, I think that her win is still possible. As I said, this category is more up in the air than others.


Annette Benning (Being Julia) - Despite it being her third nomination, she is considered more overdue than Winslet. This might be because she is older than Winslet on the one hand or because no one wants to see her losing in the year in which she is nominated against Hilary Swank again. In Being Julia she is playing an actress and roles like this one usually go over well with the Academy. She has been getting lots of acclaim for her performance too, unlike the film itself which got rather average reviews, most blessing Benning's performance, and a small box-office gross. Benning won the National Board of Review award for Best Actress as well as the Golden Globe. At this moment it looks like a race between Staunton, Benning and Swank and the winner is really har to foretell. For the reasons, I'll state after the analysis of Benning, I don't see Hilary Swank winning once again, so it'll come down to Staunton vs. Benning. While Benning certainly has a higher profile, Staunton stars in a better movie with two other major Oscar noms. It is impossible to call either of them close to a lock at this point.


Hilary Swank (Million Dollar Baby) - Her performance in Million Dollar Baby is probably the best performance by an actress nominated for an Oscar this year. That, however, doesn't mean that she'll win. The history of the Academy awards has shown that it's not always the best who wins. In the whole history of Academy awards there are only 10 actresses who won more than one Oscar in the Best Actress category with the most recent one being Jodie Foster. Certainly, Foster won both of them at a young age as well. She won her second Oscar when she was younger than Swank is now. However, I doubt that the Academy will consider her a "new" Jodie Foster and let her join the circle of Best Actresses ever. Moreover, I don't see her winning again in a year in which Benning is nominated against her. Swank will probably lose, if only for Academy's policy alone.


My prediction: Imelda Staunton



BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR:


Alan Alda (The Aviator) - I believe that his nomination was part of The Aviator's nominations sweep. It was just as unexpected as Clint Eastwood's acting nomination for Million Dollar Baby. Alan Alda didn't have any pre-cursor awards or nominations for his role and considering his competition, I don't see any chance for him to win it.


Clive Owen (Closer) - Most people say that he is the best thing about closer and that his raw and powerful performance is a revelation. His win at the Golden Globes came just as surprising as his snub at the SAG nominations. He is a good actor and it was his performance that turned King Arthur into a tolerable movie, but his competition is too heavy and there is not much love to be seen for Closer considering its snub in all categories, but Best Supporting Actor and Actress, as well as the snubs at SAG and many other awards. His shot is almost non-existent at this point.


Morgan Freeman (Million Dollar Baby) - He is another definition of "overdue". Morgan Freeman is not only one of the best Africa-American actors in business, he is actually one of the best actors ever and it's a shame that he didn't get much recognition for his work yet. Considering that his main competitor in this category is the relatively unknown Thomas Haden Churh from a lower-profile film, I can't see Freeman losing against him. Out of the whole nominated cast of Million Dollar Baby, Morgan Freeman is the surest bet at this point. The Academy will realize that there won't be many chances to award him in the future again and will use the opportunity this time.


Thomas Haden Church (Sideways) - Considering the amount of praise he has gotten for his role in Sideways so far, he is probably Freeman's biggest competitor. I am inclined to think, thouggh, that Sideways will walk away with nothing, but a Best Adapted Screenplay win in its pocket. Films like Sideways are usually loved by reviewers, but not rewarded by the Academy. The same goes for actors that star in them. I mean, Paul Giamatti even failed to garner a Best Actor nomination, why should Thomas Haden Church win then?


Jamie Foxx (Collateral) - Last year was Jamie Foxx' year as he delivered two great performances out of nowhere and received Oscar nominations for both of them. As stated above, I consider his nomination in Collateral wrong, though because it was not a supporting role by any means. Anyway, his chances to win here are pretty non-existant, mainly because he is already a frontrunner in the Best Actor category and I just don't see him winning two Oscars. That'd probably be the biggest upset in the whole Oscar history and that is not going to happen. The Academy members who want to vote for him, wil vote for his performance in Ray, while giving the Supporting Actor vote much raher to Freeman, Owen or Church.


My prediction: Morgan Freeman



BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS:


Laura Linney (Kinsey) - This is Kinsey's only nomination after it has been snubbed in the Best Actor/Supporting Actor/Screenplay categories. The film has started out well, with great reviews, but its buzz died down faster than Gigli left the theatres. It is Laura Linney's second nomination and considering her overall body of work, probably not the last one. She is guaranteed not to win, though.


Sophie Okonedo (Hotel Rwanda) - She won't win as well and should feel lucky that she actually got a nomination for her role. She just made it into the infamous "fifth spot" and this is where she'll stay. With Hotel Rwanda having failed to receive a Best Picture nomination, I don't see any of its actors winning.


Natalie Portman (Closer) - True, she has won the Golden Globe for her role and has delivered another good performance last year in Garden State. Does it make her a frontrunner? No, but she might become one of the this show's big surprises winning the Oscar, especially if there will be a split of votes between Virgina Madsen and Cate Blanchett. Otherwise, she'll walk away empty-handed. However, expect her to win her first Oscar by the age of 30 at latest.


Virgina Madsen (Sideways) - In the 80s she was one of Hollywood's big upcoming stars, but then faded away into the ocean of B-movies. With Sideways she has made an impressive comeback. Next to Thomas Haden Chrcuh she is one of the most praised members of Sideways' cast. However, as I said, I don't expect the Academy to award Sidewys with any big awards and this shouldn't be an exception. Nonetheless, if there is a competitor to Cate Blanchett in the Best Supporting Actress category, the it is Virginia Madsen. It's the type of Blanchett's role as well as her snub for Elizabeth that makes her a frontrunner ahead of Madsen at this point.


Cate Blanchett (The Aviator) - How often do we see an Oscar nominated actres playing an actress that has won four oscars, more than any other thespian in the history of Hollywood? This year, we can witness that. I have already mentioned that the Academy members appreciate actors playing actors, but in this case the effetc is even bigger. Cate Blanchett plays a Hollywood legend that died not too long ago. Not only does she take upon such a risky undertaking, but she also succeeds. Her performance in The Aviator is one of the most-praised performances of 2004 and she has been winning quite a couple of awards for it so far. I don't see the Best Picture winner this year walk away with no acting wins and considering that The Aviator will probably win, but Alan Alda as well as DiCaprio most likely lose, it is a logical consequence that Cate Blanchett will win the Best Supporting Actress award. Her performance is apparently even better than in Elizabeth, a movie she has been shamefully snubbed for. While it's only her second nomination, I sense that there is a certain feeling about her being "overdue" for an award, probably because of her snub back in 1999.While she is not a lock there is too much going for her at the moment to deny the fact that she is the frontrunner in this category.


My prediction: Cate Blanchett


__________________________________________________________________________________________


This analysis has been pretty time-consuming, so I'l stop for now. I might do some other importnant categories like Best Foreign Picture as well as the Screenplay categories later, but as for now, I hope that anyone who'll read it, enjoy it.

Excellent write ups! You take in consideration how the Academy generally acts, historic trends, and the usual who is quite simply just "overdue". Good stuff. All of your predictions are certainly backed up by some good arguments.

PEACE, Mike

Great analysis, Lecter.

Finally, I have seen all five BP nominees.

Only Ray is weaker than The Aviator in cinematic value. The one thing I loved about these two movies are the absolutely fantastic performances by Jamie Foxx and Leo. IMHO neither should have received a BP nod. I would be horrified if Scorcese won for this movie after being overlooked for some really great movies.

Sideways is very good but falls short compared to FN & M$B.

Finding Neverland is a fantastic movie with a very good performance by Depp.

M$B is the best of the five and heads and shoulders above the rest.

Well he had to do that because he is writing about lots of movies that he has never seen.

I think he should have mentioned that in the article.

Goldie, comeon with that crap already. Look, I'll stick up for you if Lecter makes any unneccesary comments toward you, but don't make a fool out of me, or I'll just side with him without any questions asked. :???:

I don't think I should because seeing the movies makes you just biased in your predictions. Look at who has scored in the Oscar game the best. Some of them haven't seem most movies nominated.

Mike and Mav, I'm glad you liked it.

I agree, in the case of predicting the Oscars, you don't have to have watched one of the movies, because it's been proven so many times that trends and politics play a much bigger part than the quality of the movie.

I still say Eastwood, who wasn't on the radar as an actor at all (even though he's excellent), was nominated by the academy for a very specific reason, and that reason wasn't because they wanted to make him lose in another category. I think his acting nom guaranteed that he will be winning something. (Picture, Director, Actor) After being responsible for two of the most powerful films in recent memory, and doing them within a year of eachother, garnering 6 acting noms, two best picture noms, and two best director noms, the academy, who love that Clint, isn't going to punish him by making him go home empty handed two years in a row.

I disagree, I don't believe you can do a detailed analysis without seeing the movies.

Without seeing the movies, how are you weighing things, how are you deciding who are the best sources. ( You can see what I mean with his talk about Jamie Foxx, a movie that he saw)

And I believe that is needed information to disclose in this type of argument.

It was a straight-forward comment that wasn't biased or just for crap.

Also, as a written piece - what is wrong with including whether the movie was seen or unseen.

But you are wrong and I won't be the only one saying that. Oscars awarding what is good and what is not is history. Oscars nowadays is much more about Hollywood internal politics therefore predictable without having seen anything. If it wasn't so, why did everyone predict The Aviator to be nominated for Best Picture a year ago already? And furthermore, no apart from you one cares and I certainly didn't write this piece to please you. As you have apparently seen all the movies, why don't you write an analysis yourself on it?

Very good analysis

He just did a detailed analysis, so how can't you believe it can be done? I could do one too, without ever having seen any of those movies.

He was doing an OSCAR analysis, which shouldn't ever be confused with an analysis of the movies. There are some things that I disagree with, but his analysis is a good grasp of how the Oscars work, and that's exactly the point of why he did it.

On question off the top of my head for now -

On best supporting actress - isn't this the one category where the academy has given it to the pretty girl. One example of Marisa T in Vinnie and I think there have been others.

Isn't there a chance that Natalie has a better chance than you indicated with her looks plus the couple of movies she was in - and the other noms chances of cancelling each other out.

Plus this is another example of a performance that should be seen because you can't have graded it based on her past. It had the extra ingredients of sexuality.

Without having ever seen a future Jonny Depp movie that hasn't been filmed yet, it's pretty clear to see that the academy is priming him for a win somewhere down the road, as "his turn" will be coming up, with plenty of noms with no wins on his resume. See, I don't need to see this non existant movie to know this. Unless you do some remarkable first time performance like Jamie Foxx did, you're more likely to rack up the noms without the victory, ala Sean Penn, until you can't be denied any longer. Johnny Depp, and Leo too, are paying their dues for a future win.

In Ray's case, it's a bio pic (big where the academy is concerned) about a disabled person (big where the academy is concerned), so Jamie Foxx's role covered the two biggest types of roles that the academy loves with one movie.

Maybe. The academy has awarded provocative roles that pretty girls have shown nudity in before. Halle Berry comes to mind.

They are very political. Will they award two black actors, or will Foxx or Freeman get snubbed because of some bullshit like that? Who knows.

Hollywood is a dirty business, and the academy isn't really any different.

I have one question, I wanted to ask you (and all others whot think Eastwood won't go empty-handed) before: You say, Eastwood isn't likely to win Best Actor, so - to give him something - they award him Best Director. That would be a logical saying if the voters were the same. The acting award is voted on by completely different members of AMPAS than the director award. So they won't say I give Clint this since he is not getting that, because they have only to choose one category...
I admit Clint's chances have risen A LOT by winning the DGA, but the empty-handed argument just isn't one.

In don't see the supporting actress category as he pretty-girl-category. The supporting, like the writing categories are often used as the pity category, awarding movies that have been under-nominated...

In reading the following, it seems you are really swinging this award very close. Look at what I bolded - he has the most going for him, chances are we will see him on the platform but I sense an upset. Yes you are really spliting this.

Before tonight, I pointed out in the DGA thread that Scorcese is 0 for about 12 on the Oscar and DGA. I never saw him over Eastwood.

And now with CLINT getting the DGA award and now Scorcese is 0 for 13, do you still agree with all of the bold esp chances are ............


Martin Scorcese (The Aviator) - Scorcese is the definition of "overdue" in this category. There were few people who didn't expect him to win for Gangs of New York back in 2003. Everyone expected a Best Picture/Best Director split. This split happened, only that the Oscar went to Roman Polanski instead of Scorcese. The Aviator garnered Scorcese his fifth nomination and he is certainly the frontrunner in the category at the moment. He has also scored many awards for his directing in The Aviator so far and seemed unbeatable until Eastwood got the Golden Globe for Million Dollar Baby. Of course, you can explain it by saying thet Scorcese has already won the Golden Globe for Gangs of New York two years ago while Eastwood lost to Return of the King last year. Nonetheless, this win has shown that Scorcese is not absolutely unbeatable. Chances are very high that we'll see Scorcese on the stage at this year's Oscars, but he is not a lock yet. I am certain that The Aviator is a lock for at least Best Director or Best Picture, but it is not a lock for both and something tells me that The Aviator will win Best Picture due to the many things. It is a movie about the 30s in Hollywood, the golden era, it portrays many of Hollywood legends. Considering that Hollywood people are the ones voting, it's hard to imagine them not voting The Aviator as Best Picture. Therefore, I see its Best Picture status as a more certain thing than its Best Director chances. I won't deny it, Scorcese has the most going for it, but I sense an upset here.

If supporting was the "pretty-girl category", the Oscar would have gone to Kate Hudson for Almost Famous and not to Marcia Gay Harden.

What is there to disagree with? I am sure most will still say that Scorcese has more going for him? So what? I still predict Eastwood to take it home, now even moreso, after the DGA win.

But the "Director" voters will most likely know that Eastwood won't get Best Actor (considering how much of a frontrunner Foxx is) and therefore vote for Eastwood as Best Director. Furthermore, they might vote for Eastwood simply because he is more deserving this year...

You forget another thing. The real-life person who the movie was based on just died some months ago which adds even more sentimental value to the role.

Good work Lec.

I agree with your picks. I do see the Pic/Director split as being likely, but I can't rule out The Aviator taking home both either.

I think the overdue factor for Marty outweights the empty handed factor for Clint.

As I pointed out several times Eastwood is not more deserving as a director this year, his project was far easier to shoulder. If there is gonna be a split it should be M$B for Best Picture and Aviator for director