And the Oscar Goes to...(2008 Edition)

Welcome to the fifth annual "ASF Yanks Some Predictions Out of His A..." er, I mean, of course, the fifth annual "And the Oscar Goes to..." , in which I will try to predict who will win the major statues at this year's Academy Awards (assuming that there will even be a ceremony, given that the strike by the Writers Guild of America is in its third month with no resolution on the immediate horizon). I've done pretty well the past couple of years, nailing five out of the top six awards. How will I do this year? We shall see.

Best Supporting Actress. The Academy loves nominating children in the Supporting categories. Luvsluvsluvs. They don't however, love actually giving the awards to children, with rare exceptions, so Saoirse Ronan doesn't stand much of a chance of winning for Atonement, and that's kinda sad, since she's the only actor from that movie to be nominated (more on that later). The Academy also luvsluvsluvs Cate Blanchett--so much so that she's nominated twice this year (more on that later, too), including here for playing one facet of Bob Dylan in I'm Not There. She has a shot here, as do Amy Ryan for her draining, emotional turn in Gone Baby Gone and Tilda Swinton as a lawyer in Michael Clayton (which the Academy seems to love a lot more than the general moviegoing public). Because the race is so wide-open, something will need to tip it in one nominee's favor--which brings me to veteran character actress Ruby Dee, nominated for the first time at 82 for her role in American Gangster. I think the Academy will break the logjam by honoring Dee for her long, distinguished career by giving her the Oscar this year.

Best Supporting Actor. I wish the logic I just applied to the Best Supporting Actress category could be applied for Best Supporting Actor as well. Really, I do. If I could, Hal Holbrook, nominated for the first time at 81, would be honored as I believe Ruby Dee will be. Unfortunately, that's not gonna happen. This is probably the only major category that's a lock for one\ person--and that person isn't Casey Affleck (for The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford), or Philip Seymour Hoffman (for Charlie Wilson's War), or Tom Wilkinson in Michael Clayton, or Holbrook. That person is Javier Bardem, for his role as a cold-blooded killer in No Country for Old Men, a film I didn't like nearly as much as damn near every other person on the planet (not because of the abrupt ending, which I was just fine with, but because of the offhanded way a couple of key characters get dispatched late in the movie--don't take the time and effort to make me care about these people, then treat their fates with such disregard). Bardem does indeed give a scary performance, but his character is only a slight shift from the typical horror movie psycho--trim back his dialog a bit and slap a white William Shatner mask on him, and you've got Michael Myers. Nonetheless, Bardem will win.

Best Actress. Cate Blanchett's nomination in this category for Elizabeth: The Golden Age is a bit of a head-scratcher--the movie wasn't a hit with critics, and it tanked at the box office. So why the nom? Luvluvluv? Must be. Wouldn't Keira Knightley (for her role in Atonement have been a better choice? Or, if the Academy really wantede to think outside the box, how ' bout Amy Adams for Enchanted? But no. Laura Linney is feeling the love as well for her role in The Savages, but neither she not Blanchett will be feeling the cold, smooth surface of an Oscar this year. Marion Cotillard might get that opportunity, though, for her turn as singer Edith Piaf in La Vie en Rose, but only if the top two nominees split the vote enough to let her sneak up the middle and snatch it. Julie Christie is one of those top two, nominated for her role as an Alzheimer's patient in Away from Her. Christie won an Oscar decades ago (for Darling in 1965) , but her role in Away from Her has been so highly regarded, even though the film came out much earlier in the year than most of the nominated movies, that she was the frontrunner for months--until Juno hit theaters in December and Ellen Page's star began to rise.

Page's role as a pregnant teenager is a demanding one--she's in damn near every scene in the movie--and would be a shoo-in for the Oscar if not for Christie. Page could still win--most online polls show her neck and neck with Christie--but of the four nominations Juno has received, it's much more likely to win for the sharp-enough-to-slice-bread-on script by Diablo Cody in the Best Original Screenplay category than in any of the other three. It may be close, but I think Christie will win. (She already won the Screen Actor's Guild Award for her role, and that's the same group voting for the Oscar.) It would be smokin' if Page won, though.

Best Actor. Speaking of luvluvluv, the Academy luvsluvsluvs George Clooney and Johnny Depp, too. They've given Clooney an Oscar before (for Syriana and nominated him here for Michael Clayton; Depp has been nominated before and gets a nod here for his effective turn as Sweeney Todd, the Demon Barber of Fleet Street (a movie that, as a longtime fan of the musical, I was dreading, but wound up liking very much). Neither one is likely to win, though. Nor will Viggo Mortensen (for Easter Promises) or Tommy Lee Jones (for In the Valley of Elah). Daniel Day-Lewis's intense, scary oil baron in There Will Be Blood should have this one in the proverbial bag.

Best Director. It's always odd someone is nominated in this category even though the movie they directed is not nominated for Best Picture, as is the case with Julian Schnabel and The Diving Bell and the Butterfly (while Joe Wright, whose Atonement got a best Picture nom, got skunked in this category). It also means that director has virtually no chance of winning. Neither does Tony Gilroy for Michael Clayton. Jason Reitman could win for Juno if Cody and Page take their categories and start a wave of momentum for the movie. Reitman's accomplishment here, though, may be too subtle--he trusts his material and his actors so much that there are few "directorly" flourishes here (except for a gorgeous final tracking shot). The Academy likes flash in its best Director winners, and P.T. Anderson and Joel and Ethan Coen bring the flash (in There Will be Blood and No Country for Old Men, respectively). It's a tough call, since both movies will likely take major acting awards, but I think the Coen Brothers have the edge. However, they could split the vote and Reitman could get his name engraved on a statuette. Frankly, that would be refreshing. Too few comedies are taken seriously by the Academy, their directors even less so.

Best Picture. Michael Clayton doesn't have much of a chance. Without a nomination for its director or lead actors, Atonement is fairly well doomed, although it does have that epic feel the Academy so adores. But does every Best Picture have to be an epic? Why not, say, a quirky comedy? I think so, but I doubt the Academy will agree, so Juno has an outside chance at best. Which leaves us with the same two contenders we had in the Best Director category: There Will be Blood and No Country for Old Men. Since I'm picking the Coen Brothers there, I'll pick No Country for Old Men here.

I'd like to be wrong about some of these picks--especially anything that involves No Country for Old Men. Really and truly I would. But I don't think I will be. Tune in the day after the Oscars are presented (or, if the strike continues, merely announced) and find out.