BEST PICTURE
CTB: The Best Picture noms this year are mostly representative of a divided country where we've taken to talking about ourselves in terms of "red states" and "blue states," with a diverse array of characters grappling with the American dream. In The Aviator, we have a Texas multi-millionaire eccentric who wants to be Icarus. Ray is about an underprivileged genius who overcame heroin and racism to become an American icon. Million Dollar Baby takes a darker look at the same aspirations in the guise of a boxing movie. Sideways investigates the neuroses of the Californian middle class. And Finding Neverland? Well, let's say it's about an Englishman with a thing for young boys. Peter Pan aside, the films combine a blind faith in American virtues with doubt about living up to them.

My initial pick was Ray, which secured six nominations to The Aviator's 11 and Million Dollar Baby and Finding Neverland's seven. Barring Finding Neverland's wooly celebration of creativity, Ray is the only one of these films that would cop to being "feel-good," and that would continue the trend of past Oscar winners. The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King exulted in Orc gore, but it was as rosy an invocation of a lost paradise as you could ask for. Ray doesn't shirk from issues like civil rights and drug use, and even dares to portray Ray Charles as a crabby so-and-so whose success wasn't as singular as we'd like to believe. But in the end it's both toe-tapping musical and triumph of the human spirit. Consider the competition: Howard Hughes, we know, is going to end up wearing Kleenex boxes on his feet.

Martin Scorsese has both past achievements and Miramax's marketing department behind him, but I think he's still too much of an outsider to get the Academy's acclaim (remember Spielberg's Color Purple shut-out, or how the Academy turned its nose up at Scorsese's The Gangs of New York) -- although 11 noms and the Golden Globe wins are encouraging. Million Dollar Baby is a definite favorite, and might be the best movie in competition, but it asks too many tough questions -- many of them of a religious nature, and that hasn't gone down well with the Academy since the days of Cecil B. DeMille.

Which leaves the possibility that Sideways could sneak in and take it all. I hated this movie, mostly because it wasn't About Schmidt (Payne's previous film) and because of the way it tried to reward its audience for daring to warm up to its prickly characters. Sideways was always tugging at our sleeves begging us to love it. It's got some good performances (could anyone watching Candyman ever think Virginia Madsen would get a Supporting Actress nod?), but its characters are too desperate to please us. Should it win, Sideways might turn out to be most radical film of all -- the final testament that the pungent independent cinema of Cassavetes and Scorsese (‘70s edition) has been watered down to the extent that it's indistinguishable from the mainstream.

Amanda: I'm not seeing red or blue so much as déjà vu. The Academy seems to be dancing to a familiar tune with the Best Picture nods: the epic (The Aviator), the costume pic (Finding Neverland), inspirational biopic (Ray), the familial drama (Million Dollar Baby) and the token indie (Sideways).

You might also call this the year that a good performance made up for a multitude of sins.

Jamie Foxx's turn elevated Ray above its TV movie tendencies, and the emotional heft of the scenes between Hilary Swank and Clint Eastwood helped everyone overlook a plot that wouldn't be out of place in a 1940s melodrama (think Barbara Stanwyck in the Swank role), complete with trumped-up villains who do everything but snarl while tying our heroine to the railroad tracks.

Is Scorsese really an outsider? He strikes me as about as "out there" these days as Robert De Niro -- you know, that guy in the American Express commercials. Gangs of New York was a long shot because it was a wreck of a movie, but The Aviator is big and glossy and, best of all, it's about Hollywood, which is always worth a few extra points with voters who might be described as mildly narcissistic. This is not Bringing Out the Dead we're talking about. With double-digit nominations, this has to be the favorite, weird toenails notwithstanding.

The biggest Best Picture bummer is the absence of Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. In spite of making so many critics' best-of lists, this mind-bender probably fell prey to either the Academy voter's legendarily short attention span or the fact that it takes some stylistic chances. So instead of competing for the big prize, this stunner -- a movie that matters -- gets relegated to the screenplay category, that designer ghetto for interesting but not obvious movies. Yes, Kate Winslet got nominated, but that's just a knee-jerk, Judi Dench kind of thing, not a sign of actual enlightenment.

Kerry: Having experienced a wine tasting for the first time this past fall, I'm pleased Sideways was nominated -- and not just because I was smitten by Paul Giamatti's curmudgeonly charm -- or that I nervously poured myself a glass while waiting for the nominations to come out. But unlike fine wine, I don't think the Academy's judgment gets better with age. I fear that Clint Eastwood might walk away with his umpteenth tiny golden man and rob us all of our chance to watch the underdog claim a well-deserved victory.

While Million Dollar Baby pulled on my heartstrings, it did so while feeling a bit formulaic. Who, however, can fault anything Hilary Swank is part of? This is one actress who would probably leap fearlessly into a swamp full of alligators to make a character resound more (she earns a nod in my book for simply building up those boxing ring back muscles!). I'd like to see the Academy give the top prize to the awkward, nerdy kid in school. And you can't go wrong with Alexander Payne. He's got a knack for nailing the core of human design by showing people at their worst.

Seeing The Aviator place in the top ranks doesn't surprise me, although I'm sure everyone working within ten feet of Martin Scorsese will watch their step until mid-February, lest Marty lose out to Dirty Harry (wouldn't you like to see that slugfest on the big screen?). Leonardo DiCaprio earned my respect by pulling off Hughes' madness with grace and candor.

I was surprised by the Finding Neverland nod, simply because of its "I'm visiting Disneyland on LSD and Johnny Depp is my tour director!" vibe.

As feel-good movies go, though, it's as inspirational as they come.

Which brings me to the burning question: Why was Motorcycle Diaries left out in the cold? It gave me the same kind of soul-searching experience as Neverland, and it even threw in the eye-candy of Gael Garcia Bernal's face and the gorgeous South American landscape.

Still, I'd love to see Ray win. Not just because it's a guarantee K.O. film with all the guts and glory of a timeless biopic, but simply because after Booty Call, I was half-expecting Foxx, like Eddie Murphy before him, to fall off the map and wind up in the dark world of movies starring know-it-all animals.

CTB: Kerry identifies the Best Picture run as a showdown between Eastwood and Scorsese's visions of the world. I'm not so sure they're that different. Eastwood operates his own production company independently. Million Dollar Baby was a hard sell to studios even after he had made the award-winning Mystic River. His casts are usually filled with unfamiliar but dependable faces -- not big stars (seriously, who would dare cast Hilary Swank as a boxer after she played a man in Boys Don't Cry?) There's more common ground between Scorsese and Eastwood. The Aviator could have been made at MGM -- with its "More Stars Than There Are in the Heavens" cast - during the 1940s. Million Dollar Baby might have come from the more socially conscious Warner Bros. during the same period. Both the directors and their films have a respect for the sort of historic sense of craft that could produce a Meet Me in St. Louis or The Ox-Bow Incident.

What's most interesting is that despite Scorsese's edgier track record, The Aviator is his most conventional movie. Indeed, the only truly outré thing about it is that it spends about an hour trying to make airline routes over the Atlantic into a major plot point. Compare that to Million Dollar Baby, whose final 45 minutes is as close to the emotional bone as the mainstream has gotten all year.

Considering the praise that's been heaped on both Sideways and Finding Neverland, I'm glad Amanda noted that Eternal Sunshine is the ghost at the banquet. The Academy's neglect of Eternal Sunshine -- which once you took away its clever premise was more emotionally raw than Sideways could ever hope for - points up the safe nature of most of the Best Pics noms … and makes me appreciate Million Dollar Baby, with its inky descent into the abyss, all the more for it. Just don't expect it to take the prize -- it's too much of a downer.

Kerry: Yes, I do see Marty and Clint's battle as the final duel between a modern and glitzy representation of America in all its vigor and the classic, romanticized "let's settle this outside" Eastwood style. Both films, though, might depend on a different kind of struggle -- that between Leonardo DiCaprio as Howard Hughes and Hilary Swank's Maggie Fitzgerald. Hilary has proven that she has the gusto to put up a good fight for her characters despite their doomed fates, but Leo, if not simply for his whole-hearted trip down the rabbit hole of Hughes' madness, will make The Aviator the last man standing. In the end, I think we'll see The Aviator walk away with the blue ribbon for Leo's gutsy battle with his role and Hughes' fight against "the machine."

In my eyes, the Best Picture finalists all seem to share one common thread -- they deal with the struggle against self-doubt that threatens to ruin the lead characters. 2004 may mark the year when whiny wine connoisseurs, petite female boxers, mentally unstable millionaires, blind geniuses -- and yes, a dreamer with a penchant for young boys -- assumed epic status. Looking back, the Academy has a history of congratulating larger-than-life epics (though historically, who could fault them? You'd be downright crazy to dis Lord of the Rings). I echo Amanda's sentiment about the absence of Michel Gondry's visually and mentally stunning masterpiece, but I doubt that Hollywood is ready to canonize such an experimental, reality-questioning film. Instead, I'm stuck in the eternal Oscar dilemma - "What will win versus what should win?" and trying not to cry over the spilled wine of the results.

BEST ACTOR

Amanda: I would love to see Don Cheadle take home the Oscar, not only for his brilliant performance, but also for the delicious irony of having this country finally take notice of the genocide in Rwanda.

Of the alternatives, I have to say that I've never understood the whole "Leo" thing, with the possible exception of some of his work as a child. Grown-up Leo strikes me as a flat and squinty screen presence, with an unpleasant, weak voice.

As for Johnny Depp, since I wasn't among those who mourned his loss for Pirates of the Caribbean, I'd have to say I wasn't particularly impressed this time around either. And though Clint has some great scenes toward the end of Million Dollar Baby, the overall performance is too familiar. He makes a great old tough with a heart of gold, but we've seen every grimace and growl before. Besides, he'll probably win for best director.

This leaves us with Jamie Foxx, an actor who demonstrates a quicksilver ability to disappear into very different roles, and not in a notice-me, Daniel Day-Lewis kind of way. He can have huge commercial success and still do interesting work. So if it can't be Cheadle, I say give it to Foxx, who might actually use the Oscar to bolster an important career.

CTB: If the moon turns blood-red, lions begin to speak with the voice of Harvey Weinstein, and Lindsay Lohan rides down Sunset Boulevard naked on a white horse, then I will believe that Jamie Foxx will lose the Oscar. Until then, it's a lock.

That's not to say he deserves it. Foxx gave a breakout performance this year, all right, but in an entirely different movie -- Collateral. That his role as a taxi driver whose horizon extends no further than his windshield should be confined to the Supporting Actor category is one of Oscar's little peculiarities. But he was so compelling, it makes me wonder if the whole movie didn't take place in his cabbie's head.

In Ray, Foxx is saddled with the problem of playing a real historical figure, and one that deprives him of an actor's major assets -- his eyes. There's no doubt Foxx gives great imitation -- the way he plays with Charles' reedy but musical voice is a joy, and his command of the piano is absolute. The real Charles is too close for us to accept his doppelganger, and the film knows it and the cameo of him at the end just reiterates it. But then again, Oscar's penchant toward rewarding actors who play handicapped roles hardly goes unnoticed.

I never thought I'd say it, but my pick is Leo. Squinty? Yep. Flat? Well, I enjoyed the way his eyes would light up with Texas mischief as Howard Hughes. Being squinty and unpleasant sounding strikes me as getting damn close to the real Hughes in all of his privileged obnoxiousness. DiCaprio powers that movie like a huge throbbing engine, with Cate Blanchett pouring on the extra gas -- the opening scenes are utterly exhilarating because of his mad daring.

Kerry: I have to agree with Amanda on the whole "Leo" factor thing, which usually leaves me feeling cold. I'm baffled as to why Martin Scorsese keeps casting him; it's as if he believes Leo is a young Clint Eastwood incarnate. (I swear, that was my last Martin/Clint statement).

I too am stumped about who'll win. Although I'd like to see Jamie Foxx nab the top prize for his touching portrayal, I think he is more likely to win for Best Supporting Actor - if only for stopping Tom Cruise from stealing the show (like he usually does). Then again, it's possible Foxx could lose out on both fronts due to the stiff competition. To my memory, the last person who was nominated for both acting categories was Julianne Moore (in 2003 for Far From Heaven and The Hours) and she didn't win in either category. This year, nothing's a sure bet.

So I am putting my money on DiCaprio (maybe the Academy will want to make good on his blatant snub for Titanic), although my other favorite in this category is Don Cheadle. I walked out of Hotel Rwanda with a sense of awakening. I have to applaud Cheadle's courageousness to take on and pull off such a complex role.

CTB: You can't really argue against any of the nominees in the Best Actor category, but the surfeit of worthy performances that weren't included only shows what a banner year it was for acting. Liam Neeson, who in the past I've considered no better than a redwood forest, was a knockout in Kinsey. He did so much: convincingly wooed Laura Linney, convincingly wooed Peter Sarsgaard, and never once stinted on Kinsey's thornier side. I would have liked to have seen him in the car along with Giamatti and Haden Church in Sideways. No one liked it, but Kevin Spacey's turn in Beyond the Sea as Bobby Darin playing Kevin Spacey playing Bobby Darin was a complex role that threw in great singing and dancing for good measure. Ethan Hawk did much the same thing in Before Sunrise - without the dancing. The men in House of Flying Daggers and We Don't Live Here Anymore all deserve awards, too -- in the first case for being more heroic than any Western movie star, and in the second for convincingly catching the subtleties of ordinary existence.

And once again, Hollywood has proven itself incapable of honoring the best actors of all -- the comedians. Dustin Hoffman in Meet the Fockers/I Heart Huckabees, Bill Murray in A Life Aquatic, Bernie Mac in Mr. 3000, Jon Heder in Napoleon Dynamite, David Carradine in Kill Bill, Vol. 2 and the existential clowns in Metallica: Some Kind of Monster all deserve a category of their own.

Kerry: And just to reitierate, the oversight of Eternal Sunshine of The Spotless Mind was surprising. Jim Carrey's quirkiness and energy were a perfect fit for his neurotic character. But then again, if they ever devise a category for Best Superfluous Physical Comedy Scene That You Don't Understand But Can't Seem to Stop Watching, he would be a dead ringer.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR/ACTRESS

Kerry: This time, it will boil down to a catfight between the two tough-as-steel ladies, Natalie Portman and Cate Blanchett, who remained the sole standing trees after storms nearly took out their co-stars' characters.

Not only did Cate hold her own opposite Leo in the The Aviator, she breathed her own style into the role. The result was a Molotov cocktail of panache, inner strength and the kind of class possessed only by lionesses. But I've been rooting for Portman ever since her role in The Professional. Yes, the majority of her lines in Star Wars seem to be phoned in from a galaxy far, far away, but her appearances in Garden State and Closer suggest her lesser performances might have been cases of bad casting - or worse, director/actor neglect. George Lucas does have millions of robots and droids from a dozen planets to worry about.

With Closer, Portman's role stung because she delivered the right combination of naiveté and cunning. But she needs a few more years of training before she's ready for the title fight. Blanchett deserves to win if only so she can finally take the reins of a movie, like we all know she can, instead of having to repeat over and over, "I'm ready for my close up, Mr. Oscar."

CTB: The best supporting actor and actresses nominations are usually my favorites, if only because the award itself is so unpredictable. It's the place where oddballs are applauded (Benicio del Toro), vets get their day in the sun (Jack Palance, Gene Hackman), fresh faces are welcomed to the club (Marisa Tomei, Mira Sorvino), and where even kids (Anna Paquin) can win.

But this year's picks are a little tepid. In the supporting actor category, two TV actors -- Alan Alda, Thomas Haden Church - muscled their way into the running. In the best supporting actress category, everyone is subordinate to the men. Cate Blanchett is Kate Hepburn, Howard Hughes' actress girlfriend in The Aviator. Laura Linney joins her husband's sexcapades in Kinsey. Blond Virginia Madsen validates the main shlub in Sideways, and Sophie Okonedo augments husband Don Cheadle's nobility in Hotel Rwanda. Of them all, only Kate Hepburn is a character who seems worthy of holding a movie on her own.

That leaves Natalie Portman. In Closer, with her bobbed hair, she's a stripping sphinx who ends up wrapping the other frustrated professionals around her lap-dancing finger. She's also the one who we're encouraged to follow to the end, and we're left wondering where she'll go next when the credits roll. Giving her the Oscar lets the voters think they're saluting the next Kate Hudson - and she was wonderful in Garden State as well. So what if it's really a leading role, not a supporting one?

Jamie Foxx also leaps out of the best supporting actor category because he was the real star of Collateral. As Kerry has said elsewhere, he kept Tom Cruise under control and actually made the killer seem the more interesting because of it. But Foxx is disqualified because he's such a strong contender for the Best Actor category. There are plenty of interesting possibilities here. Alda's work as director and occasional Woody Allen foil, has shown how versatile he can be, but he could get the award simply because he was in the long-running TV classic M*A*S*H. Morgan Freeman has been nominated three times, and might finally get his lap of honor, even though he's played the same crusty voice of conscience now since 1986's career-making Street Smart. The fact that Clint Eastwood called him "the world's greatest actor," and Hilary Swank said he was "the definition of grace" at this year's Golden Globe Awards might tips the scales in his favor. Clive Owen was a cold fish in a colder movie … and lacks Portman's freshness.

So I'm giving it to Haden Church. Even he would admit it's the role of a lifetime: a washed-up TV actor playing a washed-up TV actor. He tapped into the strange affection between his character and Giamatti, where one tolerated the other because he made him look good. Giamatt wanted us to like him too much, but Church was an unapologetic bastard. If only the movie had followed him home.

Kerry: I actually think that Morgan Freeman may lose a few votes by agreeing to narrate Million Dollar Baby. With that, he canceled out his chances of winning by rehashing the voiceover job he did for Shawshank Redemption, except this time, the prison was fear and the fights were bloodier.

Clive Owen and Alan Alda deserve credit for staying above water in films flooded with A-list actors with bigger resumes (and paychecks). Still, though they attributed to the overall punch of the two films, I cannot help but agree with CTB. This category belongs to Thomas Haden Church, because, frankly, without him, there would have been no movie. You won't find better male-to-male chemistry than Giamatti and Church (even on Queer Eye!); Church's loveable dimwit being the oak barrel that brings out the richness of Giamatti's character. Since Giamatti was robbed of the Best Actor nomination, Church's victory would be an ok consolation prize in my book.

Amanda: I'll root for Cate Blanchett any time she's nominated for anything. It's not just that she can act, because that's a given in her case. There's something more there. I can't think of another actress who can match her for glamour, mystery and intelligence; she has the same kind of larger-than-life aura that Hepburn did, which is why she is so much better in that part than some of The Aviator's other stunt casting.

My second choice is Laura Linney, who pretty much always gives an award-winning performance. I especially like her in some of her smaller, less heralded roles - The Truman Show or House of Mirth. Natalie Portman may be coming around, but I can't shake the feeling that she's good in a movie when she more or less plays herself (Beautiful Girls, Garden State) but doesn't have great range. I see the same performance when she guests on Letterman.

And speaking of Closer, how about Clive Owen? Before King Arthur -- and after Gosford Park -- he might have gotten my vote. Now I think it's going to take a while to shake the image of him with a perm and eyeliner. No Oscar for you!

Ditto for Morgan Freeman. He's wonderfully soothing and likeable, but he always plays Morgan Freeman. It would be more exciting to see Thomas Haden Church pull out a win, because he has such a wonderfully mediocre pedigree. Next thing you know, it'll be Jim Belushi up there thanking his lawyers. My second favorite outcome would be to see Jamie Foxx nab both acting statuettes. What an upset! And what an opportunity for him to say something spontaneous on-stage, once he gets the boring formalities out of the way with the first win. Well, I can dream, can't I?