The Big Show

Helicopters are circling constantly, police barriers are up, traffic is snarled, the news media are swarming. A low-speed car-chase? No, it's my neighborhood's annual Super Bowl event, otherwise called the Oscars. Were I a lookie-loo I might stroll down Hollywood Boulevard to see the fixin's at the Kodak Theater or the tourists amassing for their once-in-a-lifetime thrills. But nah, after OD'ing on free movie passes and supplemental screenings and pre-Oscar programs I am pretty blase about what is essentially a high-end vanity enterprise. Nor do I care about the outfits, unless they are amusingly animalistic in the Bjork mode. I am a bit intrigued by what's inside those gift baskets (and a bit envious as well--that's a nice way to get a free lasik procedure and a 60-inch hi-def screen. But come on, can't these nominees afford all that shit with what they make in an hour?)

I've attended Oscar parties (usually fun) and watched by my lonesome. This year I'll be joining a neighbor's extended family, which will cut down on traffic concerns (I am about eight feet from this year's Oscar venue). Last year's event, which actually saw a near-relative win an Academy Award, was besmirched because in my capacity of condo director I had to tend to a dead body in one of our units. So bye-bye to my only shot at a real Oscar Party (Vanity Fair's, shit). No such excitement this year, for me or for those pundits still weighing the comparative chances of the two Oscar favorites, "The Aviator" and "Million Dollar Baby."

Not to crow too loudly, but I must own to a fairly acute sense of Oscar sentiment, and usually can choose winners with high accuracy. I even won a party Oscar pool once, although I was helped by cribbing the L.A. Times' choices in the documentary and animation categories. (Hey, not cheating! Anybody could've read the Times!) Some trends have been obvious for years--films about the Holocaust always win; performances involving handicaps are at a big advantage; repeaters in categories tend to lose their followings (doesn't Meryl Streep give the best performance every year, yawn?) Anyway, for the record, and because I'm here and it's there, my final thoughts regarding this year's event:

Scorsese vs. Eastwood is everywhere. Scorsese has never won with all his nominations and is much better than Susan Lucci in what he does. Eastwood has won as director (for "Unforgiven," hardly a great film), and lost last year for "Mystic River" (a better film than "Million Dollar Baby") though last year the "Lord of the Rings" epic had to get its due. How will Hollywood parcel out its rewards? "The Aviator" will probably slide in, as will Scorsese. A possible split decision if "Million Dollar Baby" has enough momentum and wins for Best Picture.

All three "Million Dollar Baby" actors have legitimate shots for the statue. My money, were I rash enough to place it, would be on Morgan Freeman for best supporting actor. Hillary Swank actually deserves to win, but she already got a nod for another tomboy role in "Boys Don't Cry." She's simply not beloved enough to pull a daily double, so I think the election will fall to Annette Bening for her pull-out-all-the-stops grandstanding in "Being Julia." We hadn't seen Bening do an English accent yet, so that should help. And it was cool seeing her pop into Tony's dream sequence in "The Sopranos".

Eastwood, the stoical veteran who actually emotes in this film, might squeeze in an upset as Best Actor, this performance being his "True Grit." Certainly he is as iconic as John Wayne. The ballots would have to fall just right, though, including a split-black vote between the deserving Don Cheadle and Jamie Foxx, but I don't really think the Academy will be race-conscious. Cheadle was fine but Foxx's impersonation of Ray Charles was amazing. One historical caveat is that recently biopic leads have disappointed in the voting. I thought Denzel Washington was a lock for "Malcolm X", and likewise, Robert Downey for "Chaplin." (Counter-exception is Ben Kingsley's "Gandhi"). And to prove my inconsistency, I'm picking Cate Blanchette to win for her Kate Hepburn is "Aviator," which was the best performance in that somewhat overblown epic. Laura Linney, she of the dimply winsome smile, could sneak in as a sop to the overlooked "Kinsey," as could Virginia Madsen for "Sideways," though since this is her first nomination she hasn't accumulated a lot of Oscar sympathy. And where is Julianne Moore this year? She was next in line after Nicole Kidman, but couldn't get a role in a decent film.

Best screenplays will likely go to the Writer's Guild winners, "Sideways" (shoo-in) and "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind"-- and how about an honorary Oscar to Charlie Kauffman just for being so fucking creative?

When all is said and done (a bare cliche, but not inapt applied to the endless Oscarfest), we will realize, as we do every year, that it's not much more than a Chinese dinner of congratulatory nods, that will fade from memory quickly with no nourishment value. Who can name more than one or two winners from last year? And in a week, the only ones who will care about the winners will be their agents.