Just one question begs asking: why has Jim Carrey been snubbed by the Academy yet again for another exemplary outing? The shutout for "The Truman Show" comes immediately and painfully to mind. It is quite in keeping with the snotty tradition for Best Picture that "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind," contemporary love story that it is, fell short, but surely Carrey's Joel deserves a nod, if not the actual statuette (blasphemy itself!). In a year of soaring biopics, the definitive performance comes, ironically, not from heavyweights Leonardo DiCaprio or Johnny Depp, but from the face of "Ace Ventura."
picture
This race will undoubtedly end in a photo-finish between "The Aviator" and "Million Dollar Baby." Nevertheless there is a disappointing quality about this year's contenders. The only genuinely touching of the five-protestations from "Ray" fans notwithstanding-is also the picture least likely to win. "Finding Neverland" has so many exquisite moments that one can easily ignore its screenplay's inaccuracies; Scorsese's grand biopic, on the other hand, is notable more for its protagonists' brilliant acting than its filmmaking and writing. We might, however, see "Million Dollar Baby" crowned for its intimacy and attention to the relationships in the film. "Ray" and "Sideways," regrettably, fall into that large crowd of very decent, but hardly exceptional, pictures.
Should win: "Million Dollar Baby" or "Finding Neverland"
Will win: "The Aviator"
director
In what is nearly a mirror image of the Best Picture category, expect a win for whomever between Martin Scorsese or Clint Eastwood doesn't win Best Picture. Eastwood has the slight edge, considering his double disappointments at the last Awards and an imminent one for this year's Best Actor. Taylor Hackford directed a middling piece only resuscitated by Jamie Foxx's brilliance, while Alexander Payne's surprising art in "Sideways" is destined for neglect. Root silently for Mike Leigh, who has conjured a film of profound significance that ought to find resonance-regardless of whether you are pro-life or pro-choice-with a world forever searching for indisputable truths. We go, however, only from one shattered reality to another, endlessly, painfully.
Should win: Mike Leigh
Will win: Clint Eastwood
actress
Much has been said about Hilary Swank's virtuosity when it comes to gritty, masculine roles, and in a pool of lesser lights, only sympathy for Annette Bening might wrest this away. Rather unfairly, Bening's two previous nominations and subsequent losses will take away from the fact that her pinpoint portrayal of W. Somerset Maugham's Julia Langdon truly merits the Oscar. Imelda Staunton was similarly stirring as Vera Drake in a homely role that still relates to the abortionist debates raging today. Although Kate Winslet finds herself the only serious nod for "Eternal Sunshine," the Academy's concessions to an undeservingly ignored film won't be extended. Finally, debutante Catalina Moreno represents the contender honored for a maturity beyond her years-the last such performance that actually won, interestingly, was Swank's.
Should win: Annette Bening or Imelda Staunton
Will win: Hilary Swank
supporting actress
A lesser actress than Cate Blanchett could hardly have given Katharine Hepburn as fitting and precise a tribute as she managed with "The Aviator." Having been overlooked for her tour de force in "Elizabeth" (1998), Blanchett's impeccable impersonation may elevate her to the cinematic immortality her subject now inhabits. Sophia Okonedo, though, suffers from her film's-and its theme's-remoteness, while Natalie Portman has confounded fans with her inconsistency since she arrived with "The Professional" (1994). "Closer," sad to say, isn't one of her finest. Left then, with Laura Linney, again sterling but largely unseen as sex researcher Alfred Kinsey's wife, and Virginia Madsen, the proverbial token nomination (as "Sideways" clearly is), the Academy will be hard-pressed not to honor the memory of one of their own.
Should win: Cate Blanchett
Will win: Cate Blanchett
actor
In a category stuffed with larger-than-life portrayals, the largest of all was without question the late Ray Charles. Jamie Foxx will never again find a role this rich in expression, blemished in character and moving in its poignancy. Perhaps, just perhaps, Leonardo DiCaprio will fancy an upset with his painstaking depiction of eccentric flyer and tycoon Howard Hughes, but it's hard to picture the rest as anything but also-rans. Don Cheadle had the part of a lifetime, which the Academy will no doubt find sufficiently honored by the nomination. Johnny Depp, one feels, will feature in this category again. For Clint Eastwood, the very reaffirmation of his prowess as both director and actor is probably only the latest in a sparkling career. Nothing short of the destruction of the Kodak Theatre by meteorite will deny Foxx.
Should win: Jamie Foxx
Will win: Jamie Foxx
supporting actor
The puzzle here is less who will kiss the little golden figurine than how Clive Owen came to be nominated for insipidity. Nevertheless, Jamie Foxx will sooner win both supporting and leading-a virtual impossibility within the voting structure-than Owen leave his seat all night. Morgan Freeman is the popular shoo-in for his fourth and possibly last nomination. He fills out the hard-as-nails father figure and predictable soft spot with such effortless depth that it would be positively churlish to deprive him. Equally, had Foxx been half as prolific in 2004, Max from "Collateral" would have assured him this figurine. As it is, though, Alan Alda had far too little screen time and opportunity for expression and Thomas Haden Church is too much of a victim of "Sideways'" unconventionality to seriously challenge Freeman.
Should win: Morgan Freeman or Jamie Foxx
Will win: Morgan Freeman