Who's going to win what on Oscar night? No one knows. But I do know that there's never one reason for any award. After Joe Shlabotnik wins as Best Supporting Actor, pundits say things like, "They gave it to him because they felt he got robbed two years ago when he was beaten by a guy in a pigeon costume." Or "they gave it to him to show their support for the fine charity work he's doing, trying to equip the world's kangaroos with pocket protectors."
But "they" are a disparate bunch of strangers about whose past motives, nothing is really known. There's no exit polling, there are no "why did you vote that way?" questionnaires…there is no meaningful data for analysis. After a political election, we can say with some level of certainty that Candidate X captured 71.3% of the vote from Caucasians under the age of 65 who rank Social Security as their most important concern. But about any given vote at the Oscars, we know zip. We don't even know if someone won unanimously or it was close to a five-way tie. You could say, "They all voted for Clint Eastwood because they loved the appearance he once made on Mr. Ed," and nothing could ever prove you wrong.
So my point is that there isn't one reason…and even if there were, we'd have no way of knowing it.
That said, I'm going to go against my own, absolutely valid point and suggest a couple of simple reasons, not because I think they're right but because no one can prove me wrong. If you insist on viewing the voting mass as a homogenous body acting of one mind, here's what may be on that mind…
One thing is that sometimes, it seems like some voters want to reward someone for a little career gamble, taking on a project that looked like anything but a guaranteed money maker…something that might actually damage a career if it didn't turn out well. If you made a zany sex comedy or a big, special effects action thriller, you might entertain the masses but you wouldn't have really risked a whole lot. A small, sensitive film that tackles a controversial subject and/or pays scale is deemed more deserving of an award. When it works, at least.
And in some categories, I think people vote a certain way because they think it will result in a great acceptance speech. This brings us to the question of who'll win on Sunday night. I didn't see the film Peter O'Toole is up for and I have no idea if his performance deserves the Oscar or not. But I think I'd like to hear that speech. Of the five nominees, I think he'd give us the most interesting turn at the podium. He'd act a little drunk, whether he was or not. He'd be overcome with emotion because he's made so many movies without this kind of recognition and this could be his last shot at one of these. He'd say something wickedly charming and the audience would just love him. And I'll bet the broadcast's director would let him ramble on for some extra time before cuing the orchestra to begin playing the "hurry up and get off" music.
So I'll say a lot of people voted for him because they want to hear that speech.
Of those up for Best Supporting Actor, I think Eddie Murphy would give us the most captivating Oscar moment…and also, some people might think he took a bit of a career gamble to do a supporting role like that. You and I know it wasn't risking anything but I suspect some voters will think it was. I'll also predict that if he loses, pundits will say he soured Academy members on him with that Norbit movie he has out now. That's a good, succinct reason that no one can disprove.
I don't know about Best Actress. Everyone seems to think Helen Mirren so I'll guess Helen Mirren. I don't see any clear winner in that category if one applies the "who'll give the most interesting speech?" standard. They might just have to give it to whoever gave the best performance and people are saying it's her.
Best Supporting Actress might be Jennifer Hudson for Dreamgirls or Abigail Breslin for Little Miss Sunshine. Either one is the kind of Cinderella story that makes for a great acceptance speech moment.
And of course, it's about time — it's long past time — for Martin Scorcese to win for Best Director. Some years, that would work against him. Some years, it feels like the voters are saying, "Everyone thinks we have to give it to Scorcese. Well, we'll show them! We'll give it to Kevin Costner or Clint Eastwood instead!" This time, I think they'll decide they've proven their independence on Scorcese and he'd give the most interesting speech — kind of a Susan Lucci experience — so there's no reason not to give it to him.
Best Picture, I have no idea about. I don't think the "most interesting acceptance speech" rule applies to this one, at least not this year. Which of the five made the most money?
And Best Documentary? For reasons I should explain here some day, I don't think Hollywood is as overwhelmingly Liberal as many people think. I think there are a lot more local denizens in the Bruce Willis/Charlton Heston/James Woods political wing than it seems. Still, I don't think politics is what will cause the Academy to give the award to An Inconvenient Truth. I think there will be three dynamics in play. One is that everyone who cares what wins for Best Documentary likes the idea of one of those films making some actual money. That's a dream that every documentary filmmaker, regardless of his or her politics, has so they'll reward a film that accomplishes that. A documentary that makes serious cash empowers everyone out there who has a non-fiction film in need of financing.
Secondly, everyone who cares about documentaries likes the idea that a movie can have some impact and actually change the world. That's another dream they all have. We don't know what members of the Academy think about a whole raft of issues (including Global Warming) but I think it's safe to say that they believe in The Power of Film. In fact, five bucks says that phrase is used by either a presenter or winner in this category Sunday night. An Inconvenient Truth is making a difference, reinforcing the notion that the world's problems can be changed by someone making a movie. Even some people who would argue the message of Al Gore's film like that idea.
And lastly, we return to our thesis: They want to hear the acceptance speech. They want to hear Gore get up there and make a quick self-deprecating remark about how great it was that this vote wasn't counted in Florida or however he'll put it, then segue into a fast pitch to save the planet. I haven't seen any of the other nominees — I haven't even seen Gore's film — but I don't think anyone expects an important, headline-making event at the podium if one of the others wins. Just thinking like the producer of the Oscar telecast, it'll make for a better show if An Inconvenient Truth wins. Which is why it probably will.
If the voters apply my "who'll give the best speech?" theory, we could be in for quite a show. On the other hand, rumor has it that Ellen DeGeneres will kick things off by dancing with a line of CGI animated penguins and that there are other "musical surprises" planned. Better pad that TiVo recording by another hour. It could be an interesting evening but it could also be a very long night.
