Topic: Oscar Theories

[hidesert]

Oscar theories from Tom O'Neil, LA Times:


There are so many fascinating Oscar theories — The Babe Factor, Slap the Stud, Long-Suffering Wife and more — that we should take them one by one.


Oscars Theory No. 1: The Long-Suffering Wife


Let's start with Long-Suffering Wife, a role that, curiously, seems like an Oscar magnet. In the lead race, it's reaped victories for Shirley Booth ("Come Back, Little Sheba") and Katharine Hepburn ("The Lion in Winter"), among others. In the supporting category, female marital victims have included Beatrice Straight ("Network"), Marcia Gay Harden ("Pollock") and Jennifer Connelly ("A Beautiful Mind").

Why is the role so popular? Perhaps the reason can be found in the fact that most members of the motion picture academy are older, straight guys.

Hmm. Guilty consciences?

Whatever the reason, the theme is back big time this year: Reese Witherspoon ("Walk the Line"), Charlize Theron ("North Country") and Michelle Williams ("Brokeback Mountain").



Oscars Theory No. 2: The Last Movie Seen


Look over a list of the actors who've pulled off upsets at the Oscars during the past 15 years and a pattern becomes obvious. They tend to be stars of obscure indies like "Iris" (Jim Broadbent) and "Pollock" (Marcia Gay Harden). Exceptions such as "The English Patient" (Juliette Binoche) are rare and can be explained by other theories like The Babe Factor.

Many Oscarologists attribute these surprise wins to a theory called The Last Movie Seen — that is, "Iris" and "Pollock" were probably among the last DVD screeners watched by academy members before they inked their ballots. Therefore, those films were freshest on voters' minds.

It's a fascinating theory. Every now and then there's a last-minute surge for a widely seen film like "Braveheart," but otherwise the homestretch dashes tend to come from movies like "Monster's Ball," "Training Day" and "The Pianist" — three likely examples of The Last Movie Seen.

That sneaky Oscar-grabber Harvey Weinstein knows this theory well — "Iris" was one of his many past wins — and he's employing the tactic shrewdly this year now that he's split from his old studio, Miramax. If he pulls off a best actress victory for Felicity Huffman, it'll be the first Oscar for his own new shingle, the Weinstein Co. If you know Harvey, you know how much he wants this.

Whereas DVD screeners of other small indies like "Junebug" and "Hustle & Flow" were sent early and to all academy members, Harvey sandbagged. He only shipped "Transamerica" screeners to the acting and music branches of the academy early in the first voting phase. He then shipped screeners to the executive and public relations branches two weeks before the nominations were announced. That's all that was really needed. Only peer groups can determine nominees, after all, and the film's two best shots for Oscar bids were acting and music (Dolly Parton's tune "Travelin' Through" made the cut for best song).

Once nominations are out, all academy members cast ballots for winners in nearly all categories, so Harvey decided post-noms was the best time to ship "Transamerica" to the remaining 10 academy branches, thus guaranteeing that those voters will view the movie last.

That's a brilliant ploy. Most Oscarologists believe Reese Witherspoon ("Walk the Line") is ahead in this year's best actress race for many reasons. She's got The Babe Factor going for her: she's young, sexy and pretty, just like most recent winners (Charlize Theron, Hilary Swank, Halle Berry, Nicole Kidman). Her chief rival, Felicity Huffman, is over 40 — rarely do gals of that vintage win. Also, Reese plays a real person and a Long-Suffering Wife at that (see Oscar Theory No. 1).

But Reese is vulnerable. Some people believe she's really only got a supporting role and, let's face it, Huffman's portrayal of a cross-dressing misfit desperate to become surgically transformed into a woman is bigger in every way, towering dramatically over Reese's perky turn as June Carter Cash. If Huffman's powerhouse performance is the last thing academy members see before they decide how to vote, their choice is obvious.

But does it really matter that Harvey shipped out "Transamerica" so late? This Oscar theory isn't The Last Movie Sent, but rather The Last Movie Seen. "Junebug" was the first DVD screener shipped to the full academy but come on, how many of them really watched it? Because it's obscure and doesn't have a lot of nominations, "Junebug" is just the kind of movie that voters would probably put off watching. Ditto, "Hustle & Flow."

Therefore beware: If there's any truth to The Last Movie Seen theory, upsets are possible by "Transamerica," "Junebug," "Hustle & Flow" and perhaps a few others, like "Pride & Prejudice," if academy members missed them at the theater.

Heck, it could even benefit "Brokeback Mountain" if gossipmeisters are correct and many squeamish academy members have resisted viewing it until the last possible minute.



Oscars Theory No. 3: The Babe Factor


Oftentimes, when that randy naked golden boy named Oscar embraces a best actress champ, his taste in gals becomes obvious. He sure loves babes.

Recent winners have all had youthful beauty in common: Charlize Theron, Nicole Kidman, Halle Berry, Julia Roberts, Hilary Swank and Gwyneth Paltrow. The trend is less blatant in the category for supporting actresses, but older gals triumph there only now and then: Judi Dench once, Dianne Wiest twice in recent years, for example.

Sometimes a gal over age 40 like Susan Sarandon prevails, but it's rare compared to all the wrinkles we see on the guy side: Sean Penn, Kevin Spacey and Roberto Benigni, etc. In the past 15 years only one actress over age 50 has won an Oscar in the lead or supporting races: Dench. Meantime, consider all of these chaps north of the half-century mark who've triumphed during the same years: Jim Broadbent, Michael Caine, James Coburn, Morgan Freeman, Gene Hackman, Martin Landau, Jack Nicholson and Jack Palance.

Age bias against women reaches ridiculous heights at times like 1996 when everybody on the planet agreed that Golden Globe and SAG champ Lauren Bacall had the Oscar in the bag, but she got usurped by a babe (Juliette Binoche).

Pace University proved the obvious a few years ago when it conducted an Oscar study spanning the 25 years prior to 2000 and discovered that best actor winners were, on average, five years older than their female equivalents. Seven years separated male and female nominees.

None of this is new, of course. Take the best actress matchup of 1951, for example. To most Oscarwatchers, it looked like a diva smackdown between two big-screen grande dames: Gloria Swanson ("Sunset Boulevard") versus Bette Davis ("All About Eve"). Davis had already won twice, so the graying Swanson, age 53, hoped she could finally nab her overdue Oscar at last, but the gold, alas, was snatched away by ingιnue Judy Holliday, who portrayed a gum-snapping floozy in "Born Yesterday."

It just so happened that Swanson and Holliday were seated side by side at a nightclub in New York when they heard the news over the radio. A newspaper photograph captured the scene: flabbergasted Holliday looked spooked as her eyes bugged out of her pretty little head upon hearing that she'd won. She didn't seem to notice Swanson, who leaned in close whispering, "I'm very happy for you, dearie, but, ahem, couldn't you have waited till next year?"

This year beauty and age may matter again if the lead actress race is truly between Reese Witherspoon — looking all pretty, perky and sexy at age 29 in "Walk the Line" — and Felicity Huffman, 43, who makes herself frumpy and manly in "Transamerica." Or is age not really an issue this time? Perhaps Witherspoon deserves to win fair and square — or might Huffman prevail despite the odds? Or maybe The Babe Factor will pull off one of its notorious shockeroos, resulting in a victory by Keira Knightley?



Oscars Theory No. 4: Best Pic Takes an Acting Award


Cheer up, Heath Ledger, Jake Gyllenhaal and Michelle Williams. Oscar oddsmakers may not rank you as front-runners to win on March 5, but, historically speaking, the odds actually are quite good that at least one of you will strike academy gold if "Brokeback Mountain" is named best picture.

Voting trends reveal that academy members want to give acting awards to the film that claims the top prize, probably because the largest voting bloc within the academy is comprised of actors (1,500 out of 5,800 members). In the past 15 years, 10 best pictures also reaped acting kudos: "Million Dollar Baby" (Hilary Swank, Morgan Freeman), "Chicago" (Catherine Zeta-Jones), "A Beautiful Mind" (Jennifer Connelly), "Gladiator" (Russell Crowe), "American Beauty" (Kevin Spacey), "Shakespeare in Love" (Gwyneth Paltrow, Judi Dench), "The English Patient" (Juliette Binoche), "Forrest Gump" (Tom Hanks), "Unforgiven" (Gene Hackman) and "The Silence of the Lambs" (Anthony Hopkins, Jodie Foster).

Of the remaining five winners, two didn't have acting nominations: "Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King" and "Braveheart." "Schindler's List's" Ralph Fiennes was expected to win, but Tommy Lee Jones ("The Fugitive") walked away with the award. Gloria Stuart might have won for "Titanic" if it hadn't been for The Babe Factor (voters preferred Kim Basinger's role as a prostitute in "L.A. Confidential").

Speaking of The Babe Factor, that might not, come to think of it, have been the reason Juliette Binoche beat Lauren Bacall in 1996, as many Oscarwatchers think. It might have been the Best Pic Takes an Acting Award theory instead — or else a combination of both. The Best Pic Takes an Acting Award theory seems to be a strong factor in Oscar voting. It might have paid off for Russell Crowe when "A Beautiful Mind" claimed the top trophy too, if the hot-headed rascal hadn't gotten all physical with that BAFTA producer.



Oscars Theory No. 5: Slap the Stud


Prior to his recent PR problems, it seemed odd that Tom Cruise had never won an Oscar, especially considering the strong chances he was given by oddsmakers for "Born on the Fourth of July" and "Magnolia." The most cynical Oscarologists chalked his losses up to the Slap the Stud Syndrome. The theory goes that most academy voters are jealous old geezers who prefer young lovelies in the actress categories, but cruelly seem to tell Hollywood heartthrobs, "OK, you guys already have it all, frankly — fortune, fame, dames galore and big homes in Beverly Hills. We've gotta draw the line someplace. Sorry, pal, you just can't have that Oscar — yet."

It's not as though studs are denied the honor forever. Sometimes they can catch up with it later in their careers, like Al Pacino did for "Scent of a Woman," but by the time voters caught up with Paul Newman, he didn't care anymore. Even though he was widely favored to win best actor for the 1986 film, "The Color of Money," he skipped the ceremony. At that point he'd lost seven times. He was tied with Richard Burton and Peter O'Toole as Oscar's biggest loser. Disgusted by the whole game, Newman told the Associated Press that his pursuit of the statuette had been "like chasing a beautiful woman for 80 years. Finally, she relents and you say, 'I am terribly sorry. I'm tired.'"

Maybe the Slap the Stud theory is what's behind the widespread assumption that Heath Ledger, Jake Gyllenhaal and Joaquin Phoenix won't win this year. While many handsome chaps like Denzel Washington, Jamie Foxx and Adrien Brody have claimed Academy Awards for acting, they've tended to be the sort of guys who aren't regarded as pin-up boys like Cruise, Ledger and Newman. Nonetheless, there are exceptions to the rule — like Russell Crowe, Marlon Brando and Clark Gable.

However, lots of studs have been slapped through the years, never winning Oscars for acting: Alec Baldwin, Javier Bardem, Warren Beatty, Charles Boyer, Montgomery Clift, James Dean, Johnny Depp, Leonardo DiCaprio, Kirk Douglas, Clint Eastwood, Ralph Fiennes, Albert Finney, Peter Fonda, Harrison Ford, Cary Grant, Rock Hudson, Jude Law, Marcello Mastroianni, Steve McQueen, Robert Mitchum, Bill Murray, Nick Nolte, Brad Pitt, Robert Redford, Burt Reynolds, Will Smith and John Travolta.

[Rψnnaug]

Silly me...I thought it had to do with who did the best job...silly me

[*Froggy*]

Silly me...I thought it had to do with who did the best job...silly me

Yes silly you indeed! LOL

[ethan]

Thanks for posting this, froggy.

From what I read, I think BBM is looking good.

[*Froggy*]

Thanks for posting this, froggy.

From what I read, I think BBM is looking good.

Wasn't me...was hidesert! hehehe!

[ethan]

Ooops..thanks to hidesert

[hidesert]

Ooops..thanks to hidesert 

That's ok, all of us frog types look alike.    LOL   

[hidesert]

One more piece of interesting news:


New Stats System Predicts the Oscars[/b]

Tom O'Neil, LAT

It had to happen some time: I — and you — would be replaced by a computer.

Scientists at the University of Oregon believe they can apply the model of "discreet choice" to the races for Oscar's best picture, director, actor and actress and predict the winners "with a reasonable degree of success."

Those are the words of Iain Pardoe, a decision scientist who claims that his statistical model has successfully predicted 186 of the past 268 wins in those categories since 1938. That's a success rate of 69%. It climbs to 81% when just studying awards since 1975.

Pardoe's model takes into account such important criteria as the number of nominations a film has (the movie with the most has won best picture 17 times in the past 20 years) and actors' past bids (statistically, it helps if a star's never been nominated). What can't be measured are such intangibles as Elizabeth Taylor's emergency tracheotomy that helped her to win best actress in 1960 for "Butterfield 8."

Pardoe's model gives "Brokeback Mountain" a 90.5% probability of winning best picture on March 5. Other projected champs: director Ang Lee (88.2%) and Philip Seymour Hoffman (94.9%). The closest race is for best actress, although Reese Witherspoon (74.5%) has a hefty lead over Felicity Huffman (15.9%).

[ethan]

One more piece of interesting news:

Interesting how the arts could be intepreted by sciences. I can live with that result.  :D

[hidesert]

Oscar theories from Tom O'Neil, LA Times:


There are so many fascinating Oscar theories — The Babe Factor, Slap the Stud, Long-Suffering Wife and more — that we should take them one by one.


Oscars Theory No. 1: The Long-Suffering Wife


Let's start with Long-Suffering Wife, a role that, curiously, seems like an Oscar magnet. In the lead race, it's reaped victories for Shirley Booth ("Come Back, Little Sheba") and Katharine Hepburn ("The Lion in Winter"), among others. In the supporting category, female marital victims have included Beatrice Straight ("Network"), Marcia Gay Harden ("Pollock") and Jennifer Connelly ("A Beautiful Mind").

Why is the role so popular? Perhaps the reason can be found in the fact that most members of the motion picture academy are older, straight guys.

Hmm. Guilty consciences?

Whatever the reason, the theme is back big time this year: Reese Witherspoon ("Walk the Line"), Charlize Theron ("North Country") and Michelle Williams ("Brokeback Mountain").



Oscars Theory No. 2: The Last Movie Seen


Look over a list of the actors who've pulled off upsets at the Oscars during the past 15 years and a pattern becomes obvious. They tend to be stars of obscure indies like "Iris" (Jim Broadbent) and "Pollock" (Marcia Gay Harden). Exceptions such as "The English Patient" (Juliette Binoche) are rare and can be explained by other theories like The Babe Factor.

Many Oscarologists attribute these surprise wins to a theory called The Last Movie Seen — that is, "Iris" and "Pollock" were probably among the last DVD screeners watched by academy members before they inked their ballots. Therefore, those films were freshest on voters' minds.

It's a fascinating theory. Every now and then there's a last-minute surge for a widely seen film like "Braveheart," but otherwise the homestretch dashes tend to come from movies like "Monster's Ball," "Training Day" and "The Pianist" — three likely examples of The Last Movie Seen.

That sneaky Oscar-grabber Harvey Weinstein knows this theory well — "Iris" was one of his many past wins — and he's employing the tactic shrewdly this year now that he's split from his old studio, Miramax. If he pulls off a best actress victory for Felicity Huffman, it'll be the first Oscar for his own new shingle, the Weinstein Co. If you know Harvey, you know how much he wants this.

Whereas DVD screeners of other small indies like "Junebug" and "Hustle & Flow" were sent early and to all academy members, Harvey sandbagged. He only shipped "Transamerica" screeners to the acting and music branches of the academy early in the first voting phase. He then shipped screeners to the executive and public relations branches two weeks before the nominations were announced. That's all that was really needed. Only peer groups can determine nominees, after all, and the film's two best shots for Oscar bids were acting and music (Dolly Parton's tune "Travelin' Through" made the cut for best song).

Once nominations are out, all academy members cast ballots for winners in nearly all categories, so Harvey decided post-noms was the best time to ship "Transamerica" to the remaining 10 academy branches, thus guaranteeing that those voters will view the movie last.

That's a brilliant ploy. Most Oscarologists believe Reese Witherspoon ("Walk the Line") is ahead in this year's best actress race for many reasons. She's got The Babe Factor going for her: she's young, sexy and pretty, just like most recent winners (Charlize Theron, Hilary Swank, Halle Berry, Nicole Kidman). Her chief rival, Felicity Huffman, is over 40 — rarely do gals of that vintage win. Also, Reese plays a real person and a Long-Suffering Wife at that (see Oscar Theory No. 1).

But Reese is vulnerable. Some people believe she's really only got a supporting role and, let's face it, Huffman's portrayal of a cross-dressing misfit desperate to become surgically transformed into a woman is bigger in every way, towering dramatically over Reese's perky turn as June Carter Cash. If Huffman's powerhouse performance is the last thing academy members see before they decide how to vote, their choice is obvious.

But does it really matter that Harvey shipped out "Transamerica" so late? This Oscar theory isn't The Last Movie Sent, but rather The Last Movie Seen. "Junebug" was the first DVD screener shipped to the full academy but come on, how many of them really watched it? Because it's obscure and doesn't have a lot of nominations, "Junebug" is just the kind of movie that voters would probably put off watching. Ditto, "Hustle & Flow."

Therefore beware: If there's any truth to The Last Movie Seen theory, upsets are possible by "Transamerica," "Junebug," "Hustle & Flow" and perhaps a few others, like "Pride & Prejudice," if academy members missed them at the theater.

Heck, it could even benefit "Brokeback Mountain" if gossipmeisters are correct and many squeamish academy members have resisted viewing it until the last possible minute.



Oscars Theory No. 3: The Babe Factor


Oftentimes, when that randy naked golden boy named Oscar embraces a best actress champ, his taste in gals becomes obvious. He sure loves babes.

Recent winners have all had youthful beauty in common: Charlize Theron, Nicole Kidman, Halle Berry, Julia Roberts, Hilary Swank and Gwyneth Paltrow. The trend is less blatant in the category for supporting actresses, but older gals triumph there only now and then: Judi Dench once, Dianne Wiest twice in recent years, for example.

Sometimes a gal over age 40 like Susan Sarandon prevails, but it's rare compared to all the wrinkles we see on the guy side: Sean Penn, Kevin Spacey and Roberto Benigni, etc. In the past 15 years only one actress over age 50 has won an Oscar in the lead or supporting races: Dench. Meantime, consider all of these chaps north of the half-century mark who've triumphed during the same years: Jim Broadbent, Michael Caine, James Coburn, Morgan Freeman, Gene Hackman, Martin Landau, Jack Nicholson and Jack Palance.

Age bias against women reaches ridiculous heights at times like 1996 when everybody on the planet agreed that Golden Globe and SAG champ Lauren Bacall had the Oscar in the bag, but she got usurped by a babe (Juliette Binoche).

Pace University proved the obvious a few years ago when it conducted an Oscar study spanning the 25 years prior to 2000 and discovered that best actor winners were, on average, five years older than their female equivalents. Seven years separated male and female nominees.

None of this is new, of course. Take the best actress matchup of 1951, for example. To most Oscarwatchers, it looked like a diva smackdown between two big-screen grande dames: Gloria Swanson ("Sunset Boulevard") versus Bette Davis ("All About Eve"). Davis had already won twice, so the graying Swanson, age 53, hoped she could finally nab her overdue Oscar at last, but the gold, alas, was snatched away by ingιnue Judy Holliday, who portrayed a gum-snapping floozy in "Born Yesterday."

It just so happened that Swanson and Holliday were seated side by side at a nightclub in New York when they heard the news over the radio. A newspaper photograph captured the scene: flabbergasted Holliday looked spooked as her eyes bugged out of her pretty little head upon hearing that she'd won. She didn't seem to notice Swanson, who leaned in close whispering, "I'm very happy for you, dearie, but, ahem, couldn't you have waited till next year?"

This year beauty and age may matter again if the lead actress race is truly between Reese Witherspoon — looking all pretty, perky and sexy at age 29 in "Walk the Line" — and Felicity Huffman, 43, who makes herself frumpy and manly in "Transamerica." Or is age not really an issue this time? Perhaps Witherspoon deserves to win fair and square — or might Huffman prevail despite the odds? Or maybe The Babe Factor will pull off one of its notorious shockeroos, resulting in a victory by Keira Knightley?



Oscars Theory No. 4: Best Pic Takes an Acting Award


Cheer up, Heath Ledger, Jake Gyllenhaal and Michelle Williams. Oscar oddsmakers may not rank you as front-runners to win on March 5, but, historically speaking, the odds actually are quite good that at least one of you will strike academy gold if "Brokeback Mountain" is named best picture.

Voting trends reveal that academy members want to give acting awards to the film that claims the top prize, probably because the largest voting bloc within the academy is comprised of actors (1,500 out of 5,800 members). In the past 15 years, 10 best pictures also reaped acting kudos: "Million Dollar Baby" (Hilary Swank, Morgan Freeman), "Chicago" (Catherine Zeta-Jones), "A Beautiful Mind" (Jennifer Connelly), "Gladiator" (Russell Crowe), "American Beauty" (Kevin Spacey), "Shakespeare in Love" (Gwyneth Paltrow, Judi Dench), "The English Patient" (Juliette Binoche), "Forrest Gump" (Tom Hanks), "Unforgiven" (Gene Hackman) and "The Silence of the Lambs" (Anthony Hopkins, Jodie Foster).

Of the remaining five winners, two didn't have acting nominations: "Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King" and "Braveheart." "Schindler's List's" Ralph Fiennes was expected to win, but Tommy Lee Jones ("The Fugitive") walked away with the award. Gloria Stuart might have won for "Titanic" if it hadn't been for The Babe Factor (voters preferred Kim Basinger's role as a prostitute in "L.A. Confidential").

Speaking of The Babe Factor, that might not, come to think of it, have been the reason Juliette Binoche beat Lauren Bacall in 1996, as many Oscarwatchers think. It might have been the Best Pic Takes an Acting Award theory instead — or else a combination of both. The Best Pic Takes an Acting Award theory seems to be a strong factor in Oscar voting. It might have paid off for Russell Crowe when "A Beautiful Mind" claimed the top trophy too, if the hot-headed rascal hadn't gotten all physical with that BAFTA producer.



Oscars Theory No. 5: Slap the Stud


Prior to his recent PR problems, it seemed odd that Tom Cruise had never won an Oscar, especially considering the strong chances he was given by oddsmakers for "Born on the Fourth of July" and "Magnolia." The most cynical Oscarologists chalked his losses up to the Slap the Stud Syndrome. The theory goes that most academy voters are jealous old geezers who prefer young lovelies in the actress categories, but cruelly seem to tell Hollywood heartthrobs, "OK, you guys already have it all, frankly — fortune, fame, dames galore and big homes in Beverly Hills. We've gotta draw the line someplace. Sorry, pal, you just can't have that Oscar — yet."

It's not as though studs are denied the honor forever. Sometimes they can catch up with it later in their careers, like Al Pacino did for "Scent of a Woman," but by the time voters caught up with Paul Newman, he didn't care anymore. Even though he was widely favored to win best actor for the 1986 film, "The Color of Money," he skipped the ceremony. At that point he'd lost seven times. He was tied with Richard Burton and Peter O'Toole as Oscar's biggest loser. Disgusted by the whole game, Newman told the Associated Press that his pursuit of the statuette had been "like chasing a beautiful woman for 80 years. Finally, she relents and you say, 'I am terribly sorry. I'm tired.'"

Maybe the Slap the Stud theory is what's behind the widespread assumption that Heath Ledger, Jake Gyllenhaal and Joaquin Phoenix won't win this year. While many handsome chaps like Denzel Washington, Jamie Foxx and Adrien Brody have claimed Academy Awards for acting, they've tended to be the sort of guys who aren't regarded as pin-up boys like Cruise, Ledger and Newman. Nonetheless, there are exceptions to the rule — like Russell Crowe, Marlon Brando and Clark Gable.

However, lots of studs have been slapped through the years, never winning Oscars for acting: Alec Baldwin, Javier Bardem, Warren Beatty, Charles Boyer, Montgomery Clift, James Dean, Johnny Depp, Leonardo DiCaprio, Kirk Douglas, Clint Eastwood, Ralph Fiennes, Albert Finney, Peter Fonda, Harrison Ford, Cary Grant, Rock Hudson, Jude Law, Marcello Mastroianni, Steve McQueen, Robert Mitchum, Bill Murray, Nick Nolte, Brad Pitt, Robert Redford, Burt Reynolds, Will Smith and John Travolta.

Oscars Theory No. 6: Best Picture = Big Picture[/u]

It's no surprise to learn that in Hollywood, size matters. The motto applies in several curious ways to how winners are often chosen in the Oscar best picture race.

First, running time: the longest movie among the five nominees wins about half of the races. This year "Munich" has the most minutes (164), followed by "Brokeback Mountain" (134), "Crash" (113), "Capote" (98) and "Good Night, and Good Luck" (93).

Second, nominations: the movie with the most usually wins — as it has 17 times in the past 20 years. This year "Brokeback" leads with eight.

Third, epic perspective: voters love grand, sprawling landscapes and vast historic pageants played out on wide screens. Thus it should feel and look big, like "Titanic," "Gladiator," "Lord of the Rings: Return of the King" or "Lawrence of Arabia."

Fourth: box office: winners should be financially successful, having the potential to reap $100 million at U.S. cinemas. Among the five current best picture nominees, "Brokeback" is the only one that has a realistic shot at that target. Currently, it's at $72 million domestically; $111 million globally.

[ethan]

hidesert, thanks for posting this.

If these theories have any merit at all and help predict the outcome of Oscar, BBM does look bright on March 5th.

[hidesert]

If these theories have any merit at all and help predict the outcome of Oscar, BBM does look bright on March 5th. 

Yeah it's won consistently since the Golden Globe awards and now BAFTA.  It appears to be unstopable! 

I like Pardoe's theory (University of Oregon) escept his predictions for Best Actor and Best Actress - he needs to rework those ones.   

Pardoe's model gives "Brokeback Mountain" a 90.5% probability of winning best picture on March 5. Other projected champs: director Ang Lee (88.2%) and Philip Seymour Hoffman (94.9%). The closest race is for best actress, although Reese Witherspoon (74.5%) has a hefty lead over Felicity Huffman (15.9%).

[ethan]

Yeah it's won consistently since the Golden Globe awards and now BAFTA.  It appears to be unstopable! 

I like Pardoe's theory (University of Oregon) escept his predictions for Best Actor and Best Actress - he needs to rework those ones.   

Pardoe's model gives "Brokeback Mountain" a 90.5% probability of winning best picture on March 5. Other projected champs: director Ang Lee (88.2%) and Philip Seymour Hoffman (94.9%). The closest race is for best actress, although Reese Witherspoon (74.5%) has a hefty lead over Felicity Huffman (15.9%).

I know ...hard to believe that Oscar can even be predicted by probability or theories.

[hidesert]

Oscar theories from Tom O'Neil, LA Times:


There are so many fascinating Oscar theories — The Babe Factor, Slap the Stud, Long-Suffering Wife and more — that we should take them one by one.


Oscars Theory No. 1: The Long-Suffering Wife


Let's start with Long-Suffering Wife, a role that, curiously, seems like an Oscar magnet. In the lead race, it's reaped victories for Shirley Booth ("Come Back, Little Sheba") and Katharine Hepburn ("The Lion in Winter"), among others. In the supporting category, female marital victims have included Beatrice Straight ("Network"), Marcia Gay Harden ("Pollock") and Jennifer Connelly ("A Beautiful Mind").

Why is the role so popular? Perhaps the reason can be found in the fact that most members of the motion picture academy are older, straight guys.

Hmm. Guilty consciences?

Whatever the reason, the theme is back big time this year: Reese Witherspoon ("Walk the Line"), Charlize Theron ("North Country") and Michelle Williams ("Brokeback Mountain").



Oscars Theory No. 2: The Last Movie Seen


Look over a list of the actors who've pulled off upsets at the Oscars during the past 15 years and a pattern becomes obvious. They tend to be stars of obscure indies like "Iris" (Jim Broadbent) and "Pollock" (Marcia Gay Harden). Exceptions such as "The English Patient" (Juliette Binoche) are rare and can be explained by other theories like The Babe Factor.

Many Oscarologists attribute these surprise wins to a theory called The Last Movie Seen — that is, "Iris" and "Pollock" were probably among the last DVD screeners watched by academy members before they inked their ballots. Therefore, those films were freshest on voters' minds.

It's a fascinating theory. Every now and then there's a last-minute surge for a widely seen film like "Braveheart," but otherwise the homestretch dashes tend to come from movies like "Monster's Ball," "Training Day" and "The Pianist" — three likely examples of The Last Movie Seen.

That sneaky Oscar-grabber Harvey Weinstein knows this theory well — "Iris" was one of his many past wins — and he's employing the tactic shrewdly this year now that he's split from his old studio, Miramax. If he pulls off a best actress victory for Felicity Huffman, it'll be the first Oscar for his own new shingle, the Weinstein Co. If you know Harvey, you know how much he wants this.

Whereas DVD screeners of other small indies like "Junebug" and "Hustle & Flow" were sent early and to all academy members, Harvey sandbagged. He only shipped "Transamerica" screeners to the acting and music branches of the academy early in the first voting phase. He then shipped screeners to the executive and public relations branches two weeks before the nominations were announced. That's all that was really needed. Only peer groups can determine nominees, after all, and the film's two best shots for Oscar bids were acting and music (Dolly Parton's tune "Travelin' Through" made the cut for best song).

Once nominations are out, all academy members cast ballots for winners in nearly all categories, so Harvey decided post-noms was the best time to ship "Transamerica" to the remaining 10 academy branches, thus guaranteeing that those voters will view the movie last.

That's a brilliant ploy. Most Oscarologists believe Reese Witherspoon ("Walk the Line") is ahead in this year's best actress race for many reasons. She's got The Babe Factor going for her: she's young, sexy and pretty, just like most recent winners (Charlize Theron, Hilary Swank, Halle Berry, Nicole Kidman). Her chief rival, Felicity Huffman, is over 40 — rarely do gals of that vintage win. Also, Reese plays a real person and a Long-Suffering Wife at that (see Oscar Theory No. 1).

But Reese is vulnerable. Some people believe she's really only got a supporting role and, let's face it, Huffman's portrayal of a cross-dressing misfit desperate to become surgically transformed into a woman is bigger in every way, towering dramatically over Reese's perky turn as June Carter Cash. If Huffman's powerhouse performance is the last thing academy members see before they decide how to vote, their choice is obvious.

But does it really matter that Harvey shipped out "Transamerica" so late? This Oscar theory isn't The Last Movie Sent, but rather The Last Movie Seen. "Junebug" was the first DVD screener shipped to the full academy but come on, how many of them really watched it? Because it's obscure and doesn't have a lot of nominations, "Junebug" is just the kind of movie that voters would probably put off watching. Ditto, "Hustle & Flow."

Therefore beware: If there's any truth to The Last Movie Seen theory, upsets are possible by "Transamerica," "Junebug," "Hustle & Flow" and perhaps a few others, like "Pride & Prejudice," if academy members missed them at the theater.

Heck, it could even benefit "Brokeback Mountain" if gossipmeisters are correct and many squeamish academy members have resisted viewing it until the last possible minute.



Oscars Theory No. 3: The Babe Factor


Oftentimes, when that randy naked golden boy named Oscar embraces a best actress champ, his taste in gals becomes obvious. He sure loves babes.

Recent winners have all had youthful beauty in common: Charlize Theron, Nicole Kidman, Halle Berry, Julia Roberts, Hilary Swank and Gwyneth Paltrow. The trend is less blatant in the category for supporting actresses, but older gals triumph there only now and then: Judi Dench once, Dianne Wiest twice in recent years, for example.

Sometimes a gal over age 40 like Susan Sarandon prevails, but it's rare compared to all the wrinkles we see on the guy side: Sean Penn, Kevin Spacey and Roberto Benigni, etc. In the past 15 years only one actress over age 50 has won an Oscar in the lead or supporting races: Dench. Meantime, consider all of these chaps north of the half-century mark who've triumphed during the same years: Jim Broadbent, Michael Caine, James Coburn, Morgan Freeman, Gene Hackman, Martin Landau, Jack Nicholson and Jack Palance.

Age bias against women reaches ridiculous heights at times like 1996 when everybody on the planet agreed that Golden Globe and SAG champ Lauren Bacall had the Oscar in the bag, but she got usurped by a babe (Juliette Binoche).

Pace University proved the obvious a few years ago when it conducted an Oscar study spanning the 25 years prior to 2000 and discovered that best actor winners were, on average, five years older than their female equivalents. Seven years separated male and female nominees.

None of this is new, of course. Take the best actress matchup of 1951, for example. To most Oscarwatchers, it looked like a diva smackdown between two big-screen grande dames: Gloria Swanson ("Sunset Boulevard") versus Bette Davis ("All About Eve"). Davis had already won twice, so the graying Swanson, age 53, hoped she could finally nab her overdue Oscar at last, but the gold, alas, was snatched away by ingιnue Judy Holliday, who portrayed a gum-snapping floozy in "Born Yesterday."

It just so happened that Swanson and Holliday were seated side by side at a nightclub in New York when they heard the news over the radio. A newspaper photograph captured the scene: flabbergasted Holliday looked spooked as her eyes bugged out of her pretty little head upon hearing that she'd won. She didn't seem to notice Swanson, who leaned in close whispering, "I'm very happy for you, dearie, but, ahem, couldn't you have waited till next year?"

This year beauty and age may matter again if the lead actress race is truly between Reese Witherspoon — looking all pretty, perky and sexy at age 29 in "Walk the Line" — and Felicity Huffman, 43, who makes herself frumpy and manly in "Transamerica." Or is age not really an issue this time? Perhaps Witherspoon deserves to win fair and square — or might Huffman prevail despite the odds? Or maybe The Babe Factor will pull off one of its notorious shockeroos, resulting in a victory by Keira Knightley?



Oscars Theory No. 4: Best Pic Takes an Acting Award


Cheer up, Heath Ledger, Jake Gyllenhaal and Michelle Williams. Oscar oddsmakers may not rank you as front-runners to win on March 5, but, historically speaking, the odds actually are quite good that at least one of you will strike academy gold if "Brokeback Mountain" is named best picture.

Voting trends reveal that academy members want to give acting awards to the film that claims the top prize, probably because the largest voting bloc within the academy is comprised of actors (1,500 out of 5,800 members). In the past 15 years, 10 best pictures also reaped acting kudos: "Million Dollar Baby" (Hilary Swank, Morgan Freeman), "Chicago" (Catherine Zeta-Jones), "A Beautiful Mind" (Jennifer Connelly), "Gladiator" (Russell Crowe), "American Beauty" (Kevin Spacey), "Shakespeare in Love" (Gwyneth Paltrow, Judi Dench), "The English Patient" (Juliette Binoche), "Forrest Gump" (Tom Hanks), "Unforgiven" (Gene Hackman) and "The Silence of the Lambs" (Anthony Hopkins, Jodie Foster).

Of the remaining five winners, two didn't have acting nominations: "Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King" and "Braveheart." "Schindler's List's" Ralph Fiennes was expected to win, but Tommy Lee Jones ("The Fugitive") walked away with the award. Gloria Stuart might have won for "Titanic" if it hadn't been for The Babe Factor (voters preferred Kim Basinger's role as a prostitute in "L.A. Confidential").

Speaking of The Babe Factor, that might not, come to think of it, have been the reason Juliette Binoche beat Lauren Bacall in 1996, as many Oscarwatchers think. It might have been the Best Pic Takes an Acting Award theory instead — or else a combination of both. The Best Pic Takes an Acting Award theory seems to be a strong factor in Oscar voting. It might have paid off for Russell Crowe when "A Beautiful Mind" claimed the top trophy too, if the hot-headed rascal hadn't gotten all physical with that BAFTA producer.



Oscars Theory No. 5: Slap the Stud


Prior to his recent PR problems, it seemed odd that Tom Cruise had never won an Oscar, especially considering the strong chances he was given by oddsmakers for "Born on the Fourth of July" and "Magnolia." The most cynical Oscarologists chalked his losses up to the Slap the Stud Syndrome. The theory goes that most academy voters are jealous old geezers who prefer young lovelies in the actress categories, but cruelly seem to tell Hollywood heartthrobs, "OK, you guys already have it all, frankly — fortune, fame, dames galore and big homes in Beverly Hills. We've gotta draw the line someplace. Sorry, pal, you just can't have that Oscar — yet."

It's not as though studs are denied the honor forever. Sometimes they can catch up with it later in their careers, like Al Pacino did for "Scent of a Woman," but by the time voters caught up with Paul Newman, he didn't care anymore. Even though he was widely favored to win best actor for the 1986 film, "The Color of Money," he skipped the ceremony. At that point he'd lost seven times. He was tied with Richard Burton and Peter O'Toole as Oscar's biggest loser. Disgusted by the whole game, Newman told the Associated Press that his pursuit of the statuette had been "like chasing a beautiful woman for 80 years. Finally, she relents and you say, 'I am terribly sorry. I'm tired.'"

Maybe the Slap the Stud theory is what's behind the widespread assumption that Heath Ledger, Jake Gyllenhaal and Joaquin Phoenix won't win this year. While many handsome chaps like Denzel Washington, Jamie Foxx and Adrien Brody have claimed Academy Awards for acting, they've tended to be the sort of guys who aren't regarded as pin-up boys like Cruise, Ledger and Newman. Nonetheless, there are exceptions to the rule — like Russell Crowe, Marlon Brando and Clark Gable.

However, lots of studs have been slapped through the years, never winning Oscars for acting: Alec Baldwin, Javier Bardem, Warren Beatty, Charles Boyer, Montgomery Clift, James Dean, Johnny Depp, Leonardo DiCaprio, Kirk Douglas, Clint Eastwood, Ralph Fiennes, Albert Finney, Peter Fonda, Harrison Ford, Cary Grant, Rock Hudson, Jude Law, Marcello Mastroianni, Steve McQueen, Robert Mitchum, Bill Murray, Nick Nolte, Brad Pitt, Robert Redford, Burt Reynolds, Will Smith and John Travolta.

Oscars Theory No. 6: Best Picture = Big Picture[/u]

It's no surprise to learn that in Hollywood, size matters. The motto applies in several curious ways to how winners are often chosen in the Oscar best picture race.

First, running time: the longest movie among the five nominees wins about half of the races. This year "Munich" has the most minutes (164), followed by "Brokeback Mountain" (134), "Crash" (113), "Capote" (98) and "Good Night, and Good Luck" (93).

Second, nominations: the movie with the most usually wins — as it has 17 times in the past 20 years. This year "Brokeback" leads with eight.

Third, epic perspective: voters love grand, sprawling landscapes and vast historic pageants played out on wide screens. Thus it should feel and look big, like "Titanic," "Gladiator," "Lord of the Rings: Return of the King" or "Lawrence of Arabia."

Fourth: box office: winners should be financially successful, having the potential to reap $100 million at U.S. cinemas. Among the five current best picture nominees, "Brokeback" is the only one that has a realistic shot at that target. Currently, it's at $72 million domestically; $111 million globally. 

Oscars Theory No. 7: Lead Stars Win Supporting Category[/b]

If I'm correct about who'll win best supporting actor and actress — George Clooney ("Syriana") and Rachel Weisz ("The Constant Gardener") — one factor will probably play a starring role: the fact that both artists really portray lead characters.

It's one of the oldest tricks in the Oscar book: if you're a lead actor who wants to win bad enough, just swallow hard, slip down into that supporting category and you'll probably clobber all rivals just based on screen time alone. Consider a few of the many examples of supporting-acting winners who arguably were leads on screen: Jennifer Connelly ("A Beautiful Mind"), Angelina Jolie ("Girl, Interrupted"), Kevin Spacey ("The Usual Suspects") and Tatum O'Neal ("Paper Moon").

Clearly, there was no female star who upstaged Eva Marie Saint in "On the Waterfront" as she battled with Marlon Brando, who famously pleaded with her in their big knockout scene, "You love me! I want you to say it to me!" She won that supporting Oscar for the haunting way she delivered her doomed reply: "I didn't say I didn't love you! I said, 'Stay away from me!'"

What all of those champs had in common was that they were relative unknowns when they won. Many Oscar strategists believe it's wise for rookies to campaign in that second tier, even when they actually have more screen time than celebrity costars who get nominated in a lead category. That strategy paid off for Timothy Hutton (his "Ordinary People" costar Mary Tyler Moore lost best actress), Haing S. Ngor ("The Killing Fields" costar Sam Waterston lost best actor) and Jim Broadbent ("Iris" costar Judi Dench lost best actress).

When celebrities try that same ploy, it sometimes backfires. Poor Ethan Hawke actually had the most dialogue and face time in "Training Day," but agreed to step down to the supporting slot so he wouldn't compete opposite costar Denzel Washington, who'd already won that race ("Glory"). Ethan ended up losing while Denzel nabbed Oscar No. 2. Anthony Hopkins and Nicole Kidman only had minimal screen time in, respectively, "The Silence of the Lambs" and "The Hours," but they refused to lower themselves to supporting status and prevailed in lead anyway.

Technically, it doesn't matter which Oscar race you campaign for — voters decide where to put you and they've been known to disagree with choices made by some contenders. Benicio Del Toro ("Traffic") won lead actor at the SAG Awards, but was placed in the supporting race at the Academy Awards, which he also won. Thirteen-year-old Keisha Castle-Hughes was obviously the lead in "Whale Rider," but she campaigned in supporting because that's where academy voters always put kids — except, egads, then. They shocked Keisha by making her the youngest person ever nominated for best actress.

This year Jake Gyllenhaal had a tough time deciding where to compete. Early in Oscar season he declared himself for supporting for "Brokeback Mountain" because it looked like he could be nominated in the lead category for "Jarhead." When "Jarhead" tanked, the Golden Globes put Jake in lead contention for "Brokeback," but he got snubbed due to the glut of major guy performances this year. Lucky for Jake, Oscar voters pushed him back down to supporting where he nabbed a nom. Considering his recent win at the BAFTA Awards and the fact that his movie is the front-runner to win best picture, Jake has a real shot at winning on March 5.

But he must get around Clooney, who also had trouble deciding which race to run in. At first his Oscar strategists decided the issue for him and put him in supporting. When Clooney got wind of it, he disagreed and publicly declared himself in lead. An outcry followed. The "Syriana" star listened carefully to all of the arguments uttered by experts and wisely switched back to supporting. Even if Jake or Paul Giamatti ("Cinderella Man") beat him, it's unlikely that he could beat Philip Seymour Hoffman ("Capote") for best actor.

[scruffy]

There's another theory that has popped up in my neck of the woods.  Hollywood sees itself shrinking as the centre of the film universe.  Remember the Lord of the Rings year when Billy Crystal said "now everyone in New Zealand has been thanked"?  That light hearted joke drilled in the fact that Hollywood was not the centre of the film universe.  The Academy awards have been honouring more and more people and productions outside Hollywood and there has been a backlash, of sorts, that has materialized within the Hollywood community.

Canada has become a mecca for Hollywood productions -- especially in the 90s when the Canadian dollar dropped to 64 cents against the greenback and filming in the Great White North was one third off.  Considering that films cost millions of dollars to produce it was quite an incentive to film outside the USA.  But since Arnold has become the Governator, there has been a major call to bring back films to Hollywood.  Arnold said he will not shoot films outside California.  Other directors/actors have followed suit.  Some people in Hollywood have gone as far to call their counterparts traitors for filming abroad.

Now having said this not everyone in Hollywood is against filming outside the country.  But there is a polarization there not much unlike the Democratic/Republican thing that is going on right now in the USA.  Academy members like to honour their own and they haven't been doing that for the last couple of years.  This could be another nail in Brokeback's coffin with some of the Academy voters but there have been so many things going against Brokeback it is just great to see it achieving as much as it has.

I don't think the Canadian Factor will influence a vote too much except with the die hard Hollywood extremists.  I like to believe that the best of the best still can win despite all the politics and trivialities that go on.

[hidesert]

Great points scruffy!!!

There's another theory that has popped up in my neck of the woods.  Hollywood sees itself shrinking as the centre of the film universe.  Remember the Lord of the Rings year when Billy Crystal said "now everyone in New Zealand has been thanked"?  That light hearted joke drilled in the fact that Hollywood was not the centre of the film universe.  The Academy awards have been honouring more and more people and productions outside Hollywood and there has been a backlash, of sorts, that has materialized within the Hollywood community. 

I agree, Hollywood is no longer the center of the film world.  Probably because Hollywood no longer controls movie studios, they are owned by big business - General Electric, News Corp., Time Warner etc.  And to big business it's dollars and cents and they want a minimum of risk.  One of the reasons that indie films like BBM have proliferated is so producers and directors can regain creative control.  But Focus Features is not a pure indie company, it's owned by NBC Universal and NBC Universal is owned by GE.

 

Canada has become a mecca for Hollywood productions -- especially in the 90s when the Canadian dollar dropped to 64 cents against the greenback and filming in the Great White North was one third off.  Considering that films cost millions of dollars to produce it was quite an incentive to film outside the USA.  But since Arnold has become the Governator, there has been a major call to bring back films to Hollywood.  Arnold said he will not shoot films outside California.  Other directors/actors have followed suit.  Some people in Hollywood have gone as far to call their counterparts traitors for filming abroad.

You're right and it's not just films made in Canada, there are also many TV shows shot north of the border.  In the case of Canada it appears that the studios are doing an end run around US labor union contracts as Canadian locations (urban and rural) are subbing for US sites. One example was the Showtime series, "Queer as Folk" which was shot in Toronto that substituted for Pittsburgh, PA.  It's not as if a director needed a historical site for a period film and it's too expensive to build a replica, Canada and the US look alike on film.   

Don't think "Ahnolt" will be able to turn it around - too little too late.  Plus he has a tough battle ahead trying to get re-elected.  But with the Canadian dollar rising it will be interesting to see how long it can retain this role.     

 

Now having said this not everyone in Hollywood is against filming outside the country.  But there is a polarization there not much unlike the Democratic/Republican thing that is going on right now in the USA.  Academy members like to honour their own and they haven't been doing that for the last couple of years.  This could be another nail in Brokeback's coffin with some of the Academy voters but there have been so many things going against Brokeback it is just great to see it achieving as much as it has.

I don't think the Canadian Factor will influence a vote too much except with the die hard Hollywood extremists.  I like to believe that the best of the best still can win despite all the politics and trivialities that go on.

Yes, there is probably a feeling of nostalgia among older Academy members that Hollywood doesn't dominate it's own awards ceremony.  It will be very interesting to see the Academy 20 years from now when a higher percentage of it's members are foreign. 

I agree, in the case of BBM I don't think the "Canadian Factor" will be a major influence.  Three of the five nominees were filmed outside the US - "Capote" in Manitoba and "Munich" in Hungary and Malta in addition to BBM.

But there is still a backlash among crew members.  Joe Wright underscored the same problem in the UK at the BAFTAs when he pledged to make his films in Britain.

 

[CherryCake]

Still, the name "Hollywood' is synonymous with films, glitter and celebrity.  That's why I'm going out on a limb to say Jake is going to win Best Supporting Actor.
Fact - Jake is 'family' in the industry and academy likes to reward their own. In a sense, they would be rewarding Jake's father who is a producer, Jake's mother who is in the business, and Jake's sister Maggie who is an actres for all they body of work they haven't been awarded for.
Fact - is a hot young star who is seen by some as daring for taking on BBM.
Fact- Jake did a great understated job in BBM.
Fact- Jake has shown he is leading man material and an Oscar will help groom him and put and keep him on the A-list of actors.
Fact - Jake was humbled and surprised at the BAFTA's to win among st his worthy competition. I think the Academy would like to see him floored when he wins because that would make for great T.V.  (you sometimes never know what is gonna come out of Jake's mouth!)
well, this is all I can think of now. Most of it is simply wishing that he wins, because I would love to see his face and hear his speech. 
I haven't seen the films of the other actors that he is up against.

GOOD LUCK, JAKE!!

[Rψnnaug]

It feels like Capote is the big time favfor lead. But just a thought, If academy members don't want to watch/ honour Heath in BBm cause of the homosexuality of the film, then why give it to capote? I haven't seen the film but it seems to me that capote is much more of a stereotypical gay man than Ennis and Jack....

[chameau]

It feels like Capote is the big time favfor lead. But just a thought, If academy members don't want to watch/ honour Heath in BBm cause of the homosexuality of the film, then why give it to capote? I haven't seen the film but it seems to me that capote is much more of a stereotypical gay man than Ennis and Jack....

This the good news, Heath or "that Guy", it's for sure one of them that will get the Oscar.  Both play gay characters.

[hidesert]

Oscar theories from Tom O'Neil, LA Times:


There are so many fascinating Oscar theories — The Babe Factor, Slap the Stud, Long-Suffering Wife and more — that we should take them one by one.


Oscars Theory No. 1: The Long-Suffering Wife


Let's start with Long-Suffering Wife, a role that, curiously, seems like an Oscar magnet. In the lead race, it's reaped victories for Shirley Booth ("Come Back, Little Sheba") and Katharine Hepburn ("The Lion in Winter"), among others. In the supporting category, female marital victims have included Beatrice Straight ("Network"), Marcia Gay Harden ("Pollock") and Jennifer Connelly ("A Beautiful Mind").

Why is the role so popular? Perhaps the reason can be found in the fact that most members of the motion picture academy are older, straight guys.

Hmm. Guilty consciences?

Whatever the reason, the theme is back big time this year: Reese Witherspoon ("Walk the Line"), Charlize Theron ("North Country") and Michelle Williams ("Brokeback Mountain").



Oscars Theory No. 2: The Last Movie Seen


Look over a list of the actors who've pulled off upsets at the Oscars during the past 15 years and a pattern becomes obvious. They tend to be stars of obscure indies like "Iris" (Jim Broadbent) and "Pollock" (Marcia Gay Harden). Exceptions such as "The English Patient" (Juliette Binoche) are rare and can be explained by other theories like The Babe Factor.

Many Oscarologists attribute these surprise wins to a theory called The Last Movie Seen — that is, "Iris" and "Pollock" were probably among the last DVD screeners watched by academy members before they inked their ballots. Therefore, those films were freshest on voters' minds.

It's a fascinating theory. Every now and then there's a last-minute surge for a widely seen film like "Braveheart," but otherwise the homestretch dashes tend to come from movies like "Monster's Ball," "Training Day" and "The Pianist" — three likely examples of The Last Movie Seen.

That sneaky Oscar-grabber Harvey Weinstein knows this theory well — "Iris" was one of his many past wins — and he's employing the tactic shrewdly this year now that he's split from his old studio, Miramax. If he pulls off a best actress victory for Felicity Huffman, it'll be the first Oscar for his own new shingle, the Weinstein Co. If you know Harvey, you know how much he wants this.

Whereas DVD screeners of other small indies like "Junebug" and "Hustle & Flow" were sent early and to all academy members, Harvey sandbagged. He only shipped "Transamerica" screeners to the acting and music branches of the academy early in the first voting phase. He then shipped screeners to the executive and public relations branches two weeks before the nominations were announced. That's all that was really needed. Only peer groups can determine nominees, after all, and the film's two best shots for Oscar bids were acting and music (Dolly Parton's tune "Travelin' Through" made the cut for best song).

Once nominations are out, all academy members cast ballots for winners in nearly all categories, so Harvey decided post-noms was the best time to ship "Transamerica" to the remaining 10 academy branches, thus guaranteeing that those voters will view the movie last.

That's a brilliant ploy. Most Oscarologists believe Reese Witherspoon ("Walk the Line") is ahead in this year's best actress race for many reasons. She's got The Babe Factor going for her: she's young, sexy and pretty, just like most recent winners (Charlize Theron, Hilary Swank, Halle Berry, Nicole Kidman). Her chief rival, Felicity Huffman, is over 40 — rarely do gals of that vintage win. Also, Reese plays a real person and a Long-Suffering Wife at that (see Oscar Theory No. 1).

But Reese is vulnerable. Some people believe she's really only got a supporting role and, let's face it, Huffman's portrayal of a cross-dressing misfit desperate to become surgically transformed into a woman is bigger in every way, towering dramatically over Reese's perky turn as June Carter Cash. If Huffman's powerhouse performance is the last thing academy members see before they decide how to vote, their choice is obvious.

But does it really matter that Harvey shipped out "Transamerica" so late? This Oscar theory isn't The Last Movie Sent, but rather The Last Movie Seen. "Junebug" was the first DVD screener shipped to the full academy but come on, how many of them really watched it? Because it's obscure and doesn't have a lot of nominations, "Junebug" is just the kind of movie that voters would probably put off watching. Ditto, "Hustle & Flow."

Therefore beware: If there's any truth to The Last Movie Seen theory, upsets are possible by "Transamerica," "Junebug," "Hustle & Flow" and perhaps a few others, like "Pride & Prejudice," if academy members missed them at the theater.

Heck, it could even benefit "Brokeback Mountain" if gossipmeisters are correct and many squeamish academy members have resisted viewing it until the last possible minute.



Oscars Theory No. 3: The Babe Factor


Oftentimes, when that randy naked golden boy named Oscar embraces a best actress champ, his taste in gals becomes obvious. He sure loves babes.

Recent winners have all had youthful beauty in common: Charlize Theron, Nicole Kidman, Halle Berry, Julia Roberts, Hilary Swank and Gwyneth Paltrow. The trend is less blatant in the category for supporting actresses, but older gals triumph there only now and then: Judi Dench once, Dianne Wiest twice in recent years, for example.

Sometimes a gal over age 40 like Susan Sarandon prevails, but it's rare compared to all the wrinkles we see on the guy side: Sean Penn, Kevin Spacey and Roberto Benigni, etc. In the past 15 years only one actress over age 50 has won an Oscar in the lead or supporting races: Dench. Meantime, consider all of these chaps north of the half-century mark who've triumphed during the same years: Jim Broadbent, Michael Caine, James Coburn, Morgan Freeman, Gene Hackman, Martin Landau, Jack Nicholson and Jack Palance.

Age bias against women reaches ridiculous heights at times like 1996 when everybody on the planet agreed that Golden Globe and SAG champ Lauren Bacall had the Oscar in the bag, but she got usurped by a babe (Juliette Binoche).

Pace University proved the obvious a few years ago when it conducted an Oscar study spanning the 25 years prior to 2000 and discovered that best actor winners were, on average, five years older than their female equivalents. Seven years separated male and female nominees.

None of this is new, of course. Take the best actress matchup of 1951, for example. To most Oscarwatchers, it looked like a diva smackdown between two big-screen grande dames: Gloria Swanson ("Sunset Boulevard") versus Bette Davis ("All About Eve"). Davis had already won twice, so the graying Swanson, age 53, hoped she could finally nab her overdue Oscar at last, but the gold, alas, was snatched away by ingιnue Judy Holliday, who portrayed a gum-snapping floozy in "Born Yesterday."

It just so happened that Swanson and Holliday were seated side by side at a nightclub in New York when they heard the news over the radio. A newspaper photograph captured the scene: flabbergasted Holliday looked spooked as her eyes bugged out of her pretty little head upon hearing that she'd won. She didn't seem to notice Swanson, who leaned in close whispering, "I'm very happy for you, dearie, but, ahem, couldn't you have waited till next year?"

This year beauty and age may matter again if the lead actress race is truly between Reese Witherspoon — looking all pretty, perky and sexy at age 29 in "Walk the Line" — and Felicity Huffman, 43, who makes herself frumpy and manly in "Transamerica." Or is age not really an issue this time? Perhaps Witherspoon deserves to win fair and square — or might Huffman prevail despite the odds? Or maybe The Babe Factor will pull off one of its notorious shockeroos, resulting in a victory by Keira Knightley?



Oscars Theory No. 4: Best Pic Takes an Acting Award


Cheer up, Heath Ledger, Jake Gyllenhaal and Michelle Williams. Oscar oddsmakers may not rank you as front-runners to win on March 5, but, historically speaking, the odds actually are quite good that at least one of you will strike academy gold if "Brokeback Mountain" is named best picture.

Voting trends reveal that academy members want to give acting awards to the film that claims the top prize, probably because the largest voting bloc within the academy is comprised of actors (1,500 out of 5,800 members). In the past 15 years, 10 best pictures also reaped acting kudos: "Million Dollar Baby" (Hilary Swank, Morgan Freeman), "Chicago" (Catherine Zeta-Jones), "A Beautiful Mind" (Jennifer Connelly), "Gladiator" (Russell Crowe), "American Beauty" (Kevin Spacey), "Shakespeare in Love" (Gwyneth Paltrow, Judi Dench), "The English Patient" (Juliette Binoche), "Forrest Gump" (Tom Hanks), "Unforgiven" (Gene Hackman) and "The Silence of the Lambs" (Anthony Hopkins, Jodie Foster).

Of the remaining five winners, two didn't have acting nominations: "Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King" and "Braveheart." "Schindler's List's" Ralph Fiennes was expected to win, but Tommy Lee Jones ("The Fugitive") walked away with the award. Gloria Stuart might have won for "Titanic" if it hadn't been for The Babe Factor (voters preferred Kim Basinger's role as a prostitute in "L.A. Confidential").

Speaking of The Babe Factor, that might not, come to think of it, have been the reason Juliette Binoche beat Lauren Bacall in 1996, as many Oscarwatchers think. It might have been the Best Pic Takes an Acting Award theory instead — or else a combination of both. The Best Pic Takes an Acting Award theory seems to be a strong factor in Oscar voting. It might have paid off for Russell Crowe when "A Beautiful Mind" claimed the top trophy too, if the hot-headed rascal hadn't gotten all physical with that BAFTA producer.



Oscars Theory No. 5: Slap the Stud


Prior to his recent PR problems, it seemed odd that Tom Cruise had never won an Oscar, especially considering the strong chances he was given by oddsmakers for "Born on the Fourth of July" and "Magnolia." The most cynical Oscarologists chalked his losses up to the Slap the Stud Syndrome. The theory goes that most academy voters are jealous old geezers who prefer young lovelies in the actress categories, but cruelly seem to tell Hollywood heartthrobs, "OK, you guys already have it all, frankly — fortune, fame, dames galore and big homes in Beverly Hills. We've gotta draw the line someplace. Sorry, pal, you just can't have that Oscar — yet."

It's not as though studs are denied the honor forever. Sometimes they can catch up with it later in their careers, like Al Pacino did for "Scent of a Woman," but by the time voters caught up with Paul Newman, he didn't care anymore. Even though he was widely favored to win best actor for the 1986 film, "The Color of Money," he skipped the ceremony. At that point he'd lost seven times. He was tied with Richard Burton and Peter O'Toole as Oscar's biggest loser. Disgusted by the whole game, Newman told the Associated Press that his pursuit of the statuette had been "like chasing a beautiful woman for 80 years. Finally, she relents and you say, 'I am terribly sorry. I'm tired.'"

Maybe the Slap the Stud theory is what's behind the widespread assumption that Heath Ledger, Jake Gyllenhaal and Joaquin Phoenix won't win this year. While many handsome chaps like Denzel Washington, Jamie Foxx and Adrien Brody have claimed Academy Awards for acting, they've tended to be the sort of guys who aren't regarded as pin-up boys like Cruise, Ledger and Newman. Nonetheless, there are exceptions to the rule — like Russell Crowe, Marlon Brando and Clark Gable.

However, lots of studs have been slapped through the years, never winning Oscars for acting: Alec Baldwin, Javier Bardem, Warren Beatty, Charles Boyer, Montgomery Clift, James Dean, Johnny Depp, Leonardo DiCaprio, Kirk Douglas, Clint Eastwood, Ralph Fiennes, Albert Finney, Peter Fonda, Harrison Ford, Cary Grant, Rock Hudson, Jude Law, Marcello Mastroianni, Steve McQueen, Robert Mitchum, Bill Murray, Nick Nolte, Brad Pitt, Robert Redford, Burt Reynolds, Will Smith and John Travolta.

Oscars Theory No. 6: Best Picture = Big Picture[/u]

It's no surprise to learn that in Hollywood, size matters. The motto applies in several curious ways to how winners are often chosen in the Oscar best picture race.

First, running time: the longest movie among the five nominees wins about half of the races. This year "Munich" has the most minutes (164), followed by "Brokeback Mountain" (134), "Crash" (113), "Capote" (98) and "Good Night, and Good Luck" (93).

Second, nominations: the movie with the most usually wins — as it has 17 times in the past 20 years. This year "Brokeback" leads with eight.

Third, epic perspective: voters love grand, sprawling landscapes and vast historic pageants played out on wide screens. Thus it should feel and look big, like "Titanic," "Gladiator," "Lord of the Rings: Return of the King" or "Lawrence of Arabia."

Fourth: box office: winners should be financially successful, having the potential to reap $100 million at U.S. cinemas. Among the five current best picture nominees, "Brokeback" is the only one that has a realistic shot at that target. Currently, it's at $72 million domestically; $111 million globally. 

Oscars Theory No. 7: Lead Stars Win Supporting Category[/b]

If I'm correct about who'll win best supporting actor and actress — George Clooney ("Syriana") and Rachel Weisz ("The Constant Gardener") — one factor will probably play a starring role: the fact that both artists really portray lead characters.

It's one of the oldest tricks in the Oscar book: if you're a lead actor who wants to win bad enough, just swallow hard, slip down into that supporting category and you'll probably clobber all rivals just based on screen time alone. Consider a few of the many examples of supporting-acting winners who arguably were leads on screen: Jennifer Connelly ("A Beautiful Mind"), Angelina Jolie ("Girl, Interrupted"), Kevin Spacey ("The Usual Suspects") and Tatum O'Neal ("Paper Moon").

Clearly, there was no female star who upstaged Eva Marie Saint in "On the Waterfront" as she battled with Marlon Brando, who famously pleaded with her in their big knockout scene, "You love me! I want you to say it to me!" She won that supporting Oscar for the haunting way she delivered her doomed reply: "I didn't say I didn't love you! I said, 'Stay away from me!'"

What all of those champs had in common was that they were relative unknowns when they won. Many Oscar strategists believe it's wise for rookies to campaign in that second tier, even when they actually have more screen time than celebrity costars who get nominated in a lead category. That strategy paid off for Timothy Hutton (his "Ordinary People" costar Mary Tyler Moore lost best actress), Haing S. Ngor ("The Killing Fields" costar Sam Waterston lost best actor) and Jim Broadbent ("Iris" costar Judi Dench lost best actress).

When celebrities try that same ploy, it sometimes backfires. Poor Ethan Hawke actually had the most dialogue and face time in "Training Day," but agreed to step down to the supporting slot so he wouldn't compete opposite costar Denzel Washington, who'd already won that race ("Glory"). Ethan ended up losing while Denzel nabbed Oscar No. 2. Anthony Hopkins and Nicole Kidman only had minimal screen time in, respectively, "The Silence of the Lambs" and "The Hours," but they refused to lower themselves to supporting status and prevailed in lead anyway.

Technically, it doesn't matter which Oscar race you campaign for — voters decide where to put you and they've been known to disagree with choices made by some contenders. Benicio Del Toro ("Traffic") won lead actor at the SAG Awards, but was placed in the supporting race at the Academy Awards, which he also won. Thirteen-year-old Keisha Castle-Hughes was obviously the lead in "Whale Rider," but she campaigned in supporting because that's where academy voters always put kids — except, egads, then. They shocked Keisha by making her the youngest person ever nominated for best actress.

This year Jake Gyllenhaal had a tough time deciding where to compete. Early in Oscar season he declared himself for supporting for "Brokeback Mountain" because it looked like he could be nominated in the lead category for "Jarhead." When "Jarhead" tanked, the Golden Globes put Jake in lead contention for "Brokeback," but he got snubbed due to the glut of major guy performances this year. Lucky for Jake, Oscar voters pushed him back down to supporting where he nabbed a nom. Considering his recent win at the BAFTA Awards and the fact that his movie is the front-runner to win best picture, Jake has a real shot at winning on March 5.

But he must get around Clooney, who also had trouble deciding which race to run in. At first his Oscar strategists decided the issue for him and put him in supporting. When Clooney got wind of it, he disagreed and publicly declared himself in lead. An outcry followed. The "Syriana" star listened carefully to all of the arguments uttered by experts and wisely switched back to supporting. Even if Jake or Paul Giamatti ("Cinderella Man") beat him, it's unlikely that he could beat Philip Seymour Hoffman ("Capote") for best actor. 

Oscars Theory No. 8: Multiple Nominations = a Win[/b]

Academy Award voters sure are gracious. They hate to see a contender lose, especially more than once in a night, so multiple nominees often win at least one statuette.

Although writers and directors can have more than one nomination per category, actors can't, but many still manage to reap chances in the lead and supporting races in the same year. Not all successfully, alas. Poor Sigourney Weaver lost same-year bids for "Gorillas in the Mist" and "Working Girl" and Julianne Moore went home empty-handed despite dual noms for "Far from Heaven" and "The Hours."

However, all of these stars prevailed in one category despite losing in another (note: the winning film is cited first): Jamie Foxx ("Ray," "Collateral"), Jessica Lange ("Tootsie," "Frances"), Holly Hunter ("The Piano," "The Firm") and Al Pacino ("Scent of a Woman," "Glengarry Glen Ross").

Heck, Barry Fitzgerald was nominated in both the lead and supporting categories for the same role as a crusty geezer priest in "Going My Way." He won in supporting when it was clear that the lead race was going Bing Crosby's way. Nowadays one role can no longer compete in two races.

Emma Thompson, Billy Bob Thornton, and Matt Damon lost acting races the same years they won Oscars for screenplay writing.

Oscar voters' seldom-hailed hospitality is the reason I'm picking George Clooney to win best supporting actor for "Syriana." I figure it'll be his consolation prize for losing the director and screenplay categories (for "Good Night, and Good Luck"). Clooney can't win best director. Nobody's getting around "Brokeback's" Ang Lee and all academy members know that, just as they are keenly aware that the Oscar for original screenplay inevitably will go to "Crash." Not just because academy members love "Crash" and want to reward it someplace, but because they know it's overdue homage to "Million Dollar Baby" scribes Paul Haggis and Robert Moresco. Last year everybody won an Oscar for their "Baby" but them when that screenplay prize went to "Sideways." Now there's no other place to hail Clooney but in the supporting actor's slot.

Most stars who have been nommed for the same triple crown — writing, director and acting — have reaped at least one win. Orson Welles proved victorious for his "Citizen Kane" screenplay. Woody Allen won laurels for writing and directing "Annie Hall." Warren Beatty was honored for directing "Reds."

But, beware: Beatty lost triple bids the year of "Heaven Can Wait." But that had big comic turns and academy members, as we all know, have no sense of humor. That's one of the reasons Charlie Chaplin lost those same triple noms for "The Great Dictator." The other reason was that the academy was fiercely jealous of Chaplin's artistic freedom and popular and critical success, so much so that, back at the very first Oscars race, they threw out his trio of bids for "The Circus." Just out of meanness. Then they relented and tried to pay him off with an honorary award, but the Little Tramp got the last laugh. He refused to show up to accept it.

[tpe]

A very nice thread.

As for Gyllenhaal winning best supporting actor, it is a tough battle if we are to believe the analysis of most commentators (and Las Vegas, for that matter).  The same is even more true for Ledger.

Ledger truly deserves the Best Actor Award, IMO.

As for Gyllenhaal, I admire his abilities so much that I feel that I am not even-handed enough to judge his competitors.  I am not so worried, because, to me, IT IS ONLY A MATTER OF TIME that he will be so honored by the Academy.  You see, the 'Slap the Stud' theory does not apply as Gyllenhaal is more than just a stud: he is a superb young actor and will probably only get better.

[hidesert]

Oscar theories from Tom O'Neil, LA Times:


There are so many fascinating Oscar theories — The Babe Factor, Slap the Stud, Long-Suffering Wife and more — that we should take them one by one.


Oscars Theory No. 1: The Long-Suffering Wife


Let's start with Long-Suffering Wife, a role that, curiously, seems like an Oscar magnet. In the lead race, it's reaped victories for Shirley Booth ("Come Back, Little Sheba") and Katharine Hepburn ("The Lion in Winter"), among others. In the supporting category, female marital victims have included Beatrice Straight ("Network"), Marcia Gay Harden ("Pollock") and Jennifer Connelly ("A Beautiful Mind").

Why is the role so popular? Perhaps the reason can be found in the fact that most members of the motion picture academy are older, straight guys.

Hmm. Guilty consciences?

Whatever the reason, the theme is back big time this year: Reese Witherspoon ("Walk the Line"), Charlize Theron ("North Country") and Michelle Williams ("Brokeback Mountain").



Oscars Theory No. 2: The Last Movie Seen


Look over a list of the actors who've pulled off upsets at the Oscars during the past 15 years and a pattern becomes obvious. They tend to be stars of obscure indies like "Iris" (Jim Broadbent) and "Pollock" (Marcia Gay Harden). Exceptions such as "The English Patient" (Juliette Binoche) are rare and can be explained by other theories like The Babe Factor.

Many Oscarologists attribute these surprise wins to a theory called The Last Movie Seen — that is, "Iris" and "Pollock" were probably among the last DVD screeners watched by academy members before they inked their ballots. Therefore, those films were freshest on voters' minds.

It's a fascinating theory. Every now and then there's a last-minute surge for a widely seen film like "Braveheart," but otherwise the homestretch dashes tend to come from movies like "Monster's Ball," "Training Day" and "The Pianist" — three likely examples of The Last Movie Seen.

That sneaky Oscar-grabber Harvey Weinstein knows this theory well — "Iris" was one of his many past wins — and he's employing the tactic shrewdly this year now that he's split from his old studio, Miramax. If he pulls off a best actress victory for Felicity Huffman, it'll be the first Oscar for his own new shingle, the Weinstein Co. If you know Harvey, you know how much he wants this.

Whereas DVD screeners of other small indies like "Junebug" and "Hustle & Flow" were sent early and to all academy members, Harvey sandbagged. He only shipped "Transamerica" screeners to the acting and music branches of the academy early in the first voting phase. He then shipped screeners to the executive and public relations branches two weeks before the nominations were announced. That's all that was really needed. Only peer groups can determine nominees, after all, and the film's two best shots for Oscar bids were acting and music (Dolly Parton's tune "Travelin' Through" made the cut for best song).

Once nominations are out, all academy members cast ballots for winners in nearly all categories, so Harvey decided post-noms was the best time to ship "Transamerica" to the remaining 10 academy branches, thus guaranteeing that those voters will view the movie last.

That's a brilliant ploy. Most Oscarologists believe Reese Witherspoon ("Walk the Line") is ahead in this year's best actress race for many reasons. She's got The Babe Factor going for her: she's young, sexy and pretty, just like most recent winners (Charlize Theron, Hilary Swank, Halle Berry, Nicole Kidman). Her chief rival, Felicity Huffman, is over 40 — rarely do gals of that vintage win. Also, Reese plays a real person and a Long-Suffering Wife at that (see Oscar Theory No. 1).

But Reese is vulnerable. Some people believe she's really only got a supporting role and, let's face it, Huffman's portrayal of a cross-dressing misfit desperate to become surgically transformed into a woman is bigger in every way, towering dramatically over Reese's perky turn as June Carter Cash. If Huffman's powerhouse performance is the last thing academy members see before they decide how to vote, their choice is obvious.

But does it really matter that Harvey shipped out "Transamerica" so late? This Oscar theory isn't The Last Movie Sent, but rather The Last Movie Seen. "Junebug" was the first DVD screener shipped to the full academy but come on, how many of them really watched it? Because it's obscure and doesn't have a lot of nominations, "Junebug" is just the kind of movie that voters would probably put off watching. Ditto, "Hustle & Flow."

Therefore beware: If there's any truth to The Last Movie Seen theory, upsets are possible by "Transamerica," "Junebug," "Hustle & Flow" and perhaps a few others, like "Pride & Prejudice," if academy members missed them at the theater.

Heck, it could even benefit "Brokeback Mountain" if gossipmeisters are correct and many squeamish academy members have resisted viewing it until the last possible minute.



Oscars Theory No. 3: The Babe Factor


Oftentimes, when that randy naked golden boy named Oscar embraces a best actress champ, his taste in gals becomes obvious. He sure loves babes.

Recent winners have all had youthful beauty in common: Charlize Theron, Nicole Kidman, Halle Berry, Julia Roberts, Hilary Swank and Gwyneth Paltrow. The trend is less blatant in the category for supporting actresses, but older gals triumph there only now and then: Judi Dench once, Dianne Wiest twice in recent years, for example.

Sometimes a gal over age 40 like Susan Sarandon prevails, but it's rare compared to all the wrinkles we see on the guy side: Sean Penn, Kevin Spacey and Roberto Benigni, etc. In the past 15 years only one actress over age 50 has won an Oscar in the lead or supporting races: Dench. Meantime, consider all of these chaps north of the half-century mark who've triumphed during the same years: Jim Broadbent, Michael Caine, James Coburn, Morgan Freeman, Gene Hackman, Martin Landau, Jack Nicholson and Jack Palance.

Age bias against women reaches ridiculous heights at times like 1996 when everybody on the planet agreed that Golden Globe and SAG champ Lauren Bacall had the Oscar in the bag, but she got usurped by a babe (Juliette Binoche).

Pace University proved the obvious a few years ago when it conducted an Oscar study spanning the 25 years prior to 2000 and discovered that best actor winners were, on average, five years older than their female equivalents. Seven years separated male and female nominees.

None of this is new, of course. Take the best actress matchup of 1951, for example. To most Oscarwatchers, it looked like a diva smackdown between two big-screen grande dames: Gloria Swanson ("Sunset Boulevard") versus Bette Davis ("All About Eve"). Davis had already won twice, so the graying Swanson, age 53, hoped she could finally nab her overdue Oscar at last, but the gold, alas, was snatched away by ingιnue Judy Holliday, who portrayed a gum-snapping floozy in "Born Yesterday."

It just so happened that Swanson and Holliday were seated side by side at a nightclub in New York when they heard the news over the radio. A newspaper photograph captured the scene: flabbergasted Holliday looked spooked as her eyes bugged out of her pretty little head upon hearing that she'd won. She didn't seem to notice Swanson, who leaned in close whispering, "I'm very happy for you, dearie, but, ahem, couldn't you have waited till next year?"

This year beauty and age may matter again if the lead actress race is truly between Reese Witherspoon — looking all pretty, perky and sexy at age 29 in "Walk the Line" — and Felicity Huffman, 43, who makes herself frumpy and manly in "Transamerica." Or is age not really an issue this time? Perhaps Witherspoon deserves to win fair and square — or might Huffman prevail despite the odds? Or maybe The Babe Factor will pull off one of its notorious shockeroos, resulting in a victory by Keira Knightley?



Oscars Theory No. 4: Best Pic Takes an Acting Award


Cheer up, Heath Ledger, Jake Gyllenhaal and Michelle Williams. Oscar oddsmakers may not rank you as front-runners to win on March 5, but, historically speaking, the odds actually are quite good that at least one of you will strike academy gold if "Brokeback Mountain" is named best picture.

Voting trends reveal that academy members want to give acting awards to the film that claims the top prize, probably because the largest voting bloc within the academy is comprised of actors (1,500 out of 5,800 members). In the past 15 years, 10 best pictures also reaped acting kudos: "Million Dollar Baby" (Hilary Swank, Morgan Freeman), "Chicago" (Catherine Zeta-Jones), "A Beautiful Mind" (Jennifer Connelly), "Gladiator" (Russell Crowe), "American Beauty" (Kevin Spacey), "Shakespeare in Love" (Gwyneth Paltrow, Judi Dench), "The English Patient" (Juliette Binoche), "Forrest Gump" (Tom Hanks), "Unforgiven" (Gene Hackman) and "The Silence of the Lambs" (Anthony Hopkins, Jodie Foster).

Of the remaining five winners, two didn't have acting nominations: "Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King" and "Braveheart." "Schindler's List's" Ralph Fiennes was expected to win, but Tommy Lee Jones ("The Fugitive") walked away with the award. Gloria Stuart might have won for "Titanic" if it hadn't been for The Babe Factor (voters preferred Kim Basinger's role as a prostitute in "L.A. Confidential").

Speaking of The Babe Factor, that might not, come to think of it, have been the reason Juliette Binoche beat Lauren Bacall in 1996, as many Oscarwatchers think. It might have been the Best Pic Takes an Acting Award theory instead — or else a combination of both. The Best Pic Takes an Acting Award theory seems to be a strong factor in Oscar voting. It might have paid off for Russell Crowe when "A Beautiful Mind" claimed the top trophy too, if the hot-headed rascal hadn't gotten all physical with that BAFTA producer.



Oscars Theory No. 5: Slap the Stud


Prior to his recent PR problems, it seemed odd that Tom Cruise had never won an Oscar, especially considering the strong chances he was given by oddsmakers for "Born on the Fourth of July" and "Magnolia." The most cynical Oscarologists chalked his losses up to the Slap the Stud Syndrome. The theory goes that most academy voters are jealous old geezers who prefer young lovelies in the actress categories, but cruelly seem to tell Hollywood heartthrobs, "OK, you guys already have it all, frankly — fortune, fame, dames galore and big homes in Beverly Hills. We've gotta draw the line someplace. Sorry, pal, you just can't have that Oscar — yet."

It's not as though studs are denied the honor forever. Sometimes they can catch up with it later in their careers, like Al Pacino did for "Scent of a Woman," but by the time voters caught up with Paul Newman, he didn't care anymore. Even though he was widely favored to win best actor for the 1986 film, "The Color of Money," he skipped the ceremony. At that point he'd lost seven times. He was tied with Richard Burton and Peter O'Toole as Oscar's biggest loser. Disgusted by the whole game, Newman told the Associated Press that his pursuit of the statuette had been "like chasing a beautiful woman for 80 years. Finally, she relents and you say, 'I am terribly sorry. I'm tired.'"

Maybe the Slap the Stud theory is what's behind the widespread assumption that Heath Ledger, Jake Gyllenhaal and Joaquin Phoenix won't win this year. While many handsome chaps like Denzel Washington, Jamie Foxx and Adrien Brody have claimed Academy Awards for acting, they've tended to be the sort of guys who aren't regarded as pin-up boys like Cruise, Ledger and Newman. Nonetheless, there are exceptions to the rule — like Russell Crowe, Marlon Brando and Clark Gable.

However, lots of studs have been slapped through the years, never winning Oscars for acting: Alec Baldwin, Javier Bardem, Warren Beatty, Charles Boyer, Montgomery Clift, James Dean, Johnny Depp, Leonardo DiCaprio, Kirk Douglas, Clint Eastwood, Ralph Fiennes, Albert Finney, Peter Fonda, Harrison Ford, Cary Grant, Rock Hudson, Jude Law, Marcello Mastroianni, Steve McQueen, Robert Mitchum, Bill Murray, Nick Nolte, Brad Pitt, Robert Redford, Burt Reynolds, Will Smith and John Travolta.

Oscars Theory No. 6: Best Picture = Big Picture[/u]

It's no surprise to learn that in Hollywood, size matters. The motto applies in several curious ways to how winners are often chosen in the Oscar best picture race.

First, running time: the longest movie among the five nominees wins about half of the races. This year "Munich" has the most minutes (164), followed by "Brokeback Mountain" (134), "Crash" (113), "Capote" (98) and "Good Night, and Good Luck" (93).

Second, nominations: the movie with the most usually wins — as it has 17 times in the past 20 years. This year "Brokeback" leads with eight.

Third, epic perspective: voters love grand, sprawling landscapes and vast historic pageants played out on wide screens. Thus it should feel and look big, like "Titanic," "Gladiator," "Lord of the Rings: Return of the King" or "Lawrence of Arabia."

Fourth: box office: winners should be financially successful, having the potential to reap $100 million at U.S. cinemas. Among the five current best picture nominees, "Brokeback" is the only one that has a realistic shot at that target. Currently, it's at $72 million domestically; $111 million globally. 

Oscars Theory No. 7: Lead Stars Win Supporting Category[/b]

If I'm correct about who'll win best supporting actor and actress — George Clooney ("Syriana") and Rachel Weisz ("The Constant Gardener") — one factor will probably play a starring role: the fact that both artists really portray lead characters.

It's one of the oldest tricks in the Oscar book: if you're a lead actor who wants to win bad enough, just swallow hard, slip down into that supporting category and you'll probably clobber all rivals just based on screen time alone. Consider a few of the many examples of supporting-acting winners who arguably were leads on screen: Jennifer Connelly ("A Beautiful Mind"), Angelina Jolie ("Girl, Interrupted"), Kevin Spacey ("The Usual Suspects") and Tatum O'Neal ("Paper Moon").

Clearly, there was no female star who upstaged Eva Marie Saint in "On the Waterfront" as she battled with Marlon Brando, who famously pleaded with her in their big knockout scene, "You love me! I want you to say it to me!" She won that supporting Oscar for the haunting way she delivered her doomed reply: "I didn't say I didn't love you! I said, 'Stay away from me!'"

What all of those champs had in common was that they were relative unknowns when they won. Many Oscar strategists believe it's wise for rookies to campaign in that second tier, even when they actually have more screen time than celebrity costars who get nominated in a lead category. That strategy paid off for Timothy Hutton (his "Ordinary People" costar Mary Tyler Moore lost best actress), Haing S. Ngor ("The Killing Fields" costar Sam Waterston lost best actor) and Jim Broadbent ("Iris" costar Judi Dench lost best actress).

When celebrities try that same ploy, it sometimes backfires. Poor Ethan Hawke actually had the most dialogue and face time in "Training Day," but agreed to step down to the supporting slot so he wouldn't compete opposite costar Denzel Washington, who'd already won that race ("Glory"). Ethan ended up losing while Denzel nabbed Oscar No. 2. Anthony Hopkins and Nicole Kidman only had minimal screen time in, respectively, "The Silence of the Lambs" and "The Hours," but they refused to lower themselves to supporting status and prevailed in lead anyway.

Technically, it doesn't matter which Oscar race you campaign for — voters decide where to put you and they've been known to disagree with choices made by some contenders. Benicio Del Toro ("Traffic") won lead actor at the SAG Awards, but was placed in the supporting race at the Academy Awards, which he also won. Thirteen-year-old Keisha Castle-Hughes was obviously the lead in "Whale Rider," but she campaigned in supporting because that's where academy voters always put kids — except, egads, then. They shocked Keisha by making her the youngest person ever nominated for best actress.

This year Jake Gyllenhaal had a tough time deciding where to compete. Early in Oscar season he declared himself for supporting for "Brokeback Mountain" because it looked like he could be nominated in the lead category for "Jarhead." When "Jarhead" tanked, the Golden Globes put Jake in lead contention for "Brokeback," but he got snubbed due to the glut of major guy performances this year. Lucky for Jake, Oscar voters pushed him back down to supporting where he nabbed a nom. Considering his recent win at the BAFTA Awards and the fact that his movie is the front-runner to win best picture, Jake has a real shot at winning on March 5.

But he must get around Clooney, who also had trouble deciding which race to run in. At first his Oscar strategists decided the issue for him and put him in supporting. When Clooney got wind of it, he disagreed and publicly declared himself in lead. An outcry followed. The "Syriana" star listened carefully to all of the arguments uttered by experts and wisely switched back to supporting. Even if Jake or Paul Giamatti ("Cinderella Man") beat him, it's unlikely that he could beat Philip Seymour Hoffman ("Capote") for best actor. 

Oscars Theory No. 8: Multiple Nominations = a Win[/b]

Academy Award voters sure are gracious. They hate to see a contender lose, especially more than once in a night, so multiple nominees often win at least one statuette.

Although writers and directors can have more than one nomination per category, actors can't, but many still manage to reap chances in the lead and supporting races in the same year. Not all successfully, alas. Poor Sigourney Weaver lost same-year bids for "Gorillas in the Mist" and "Working Girl" and Julianne Moore went home empty-handed despite dual noms for "Far from Heaven" and "The Hours."

However, all of these stars prevailed in one category despite losing in another (note: the winning film is cited first): Jamie Foxx ("Ray," "Collateral"), Jessica Lange ("Tootsie," "Frances"), Holly Hunter ("The Piano," "The Firm") and Al Pacino ("Scent of a Woman," "Glengarry Glen Ross").

Heck, Barry Fitzgerald was nominated in both the lead and supporting categories for the same role as a crusty geezer priest in "Going My Way." He won in supporting when it was clear that the lead race was going Bing Crosby's way. Nowadays one role can no longer compete in two races.

Emma Thompson, Billy Bob Thornton, and Matt Damon lost acting races the same years they won Oscars for screenplay writing.

Oscar voters' seldom-hailed hospitality is the reason I'm picking George Clooney to win best supporting actor for "Syriana." I figure it'll be his consolation prize for losing the director and screenplay categories (for "Good Night, and Good Luck"). Clooney can't win best director. Nobody's getting around "Brokeback's" Ang Lee and all academy members know that, just as they are keenly aware that the Oscar for original screenplay inevitably will go to "Crash." Not just because academy members love "Crash" and want to reward it someplace, but because they know it's overdue homage to "Million Dollar Baby" scribes Paul Haggis and Robert Moresco. Last year everybody won an Oscar for their "Baby" but them when that screenplay prize went to "Sideways." Now there's no other place to hail Clooney but in the supporting actor's slot.

Most stars who have been nommed for the same triple crown — writing, director and acting — have reaped at least one win. Orson Welles proved victorious for his "Citizen Kane" screenplay. Woody Allen won laurels for writing and directing "Annie Hall." Warren Beatty was honored for directing "Reds."

But, beware: Beatty lost triple bids the year of "Heaven Can Wait." But that had big comic turns and academy members, as we all know, have no sense of humor. That's one of the reasons Charlie Chaplin lost those same triple noms for "The Great Dictator." The other reason was that the academy was fiercely jealous of Chaplin's artistic freedom and popular and critical success, so much so that, back at the very first Oscars race, they threw out his trio of bids for "The Circus." Just out of meanness. Then they relented and tried to pay him off with an honorary award, but the Little Tramp got the last laugh. He refused to show up to accept it. 

Oscars Theory No. 9: Best Pic Wins Director and Screenplay[/b]

It stands to reason that, if academy members believe a film is the best of the year, they think it's the best directed and written too. Most often the picture prize lines up with best director but, strangely, we've witnessed frequent exceptions in recent years when the directors of best pics "Chicago," "Gladiator" and "Shakespeare in Love" failed to win a trophy for themselves. Oddest of all was "Driving Miss Daisy" winning best pic even though its director wasn't even nominated. However, all other 16 best pics of the past 20 years won both categories.

Thirteen of the past 20 best pictures won screenplay kudos, most of them in the category for adapted fare (nine). "Titanic" won best pic without a screenplay bid, but that's a rare oddity.

During the same two decades, 11 films won the triple crown: picture, director and screenplay.

That's why it's wise to limit your guesses in this year's races for director and screenplay to "Brokeback" and "Crash," the two best pic front-runners. Advantage goes to "Brokeback" overall because it's an adapted work. For some crazy reason Oscar voters have historically preferred movies adapted from other fare.

[ethan]

hidesert, thanks for posting them. It all comes down to tomorrow night.