> This prediction makes sense. But I can also make a case for another one: the nominated song from Chicago. If Chicago pulls in Best Picture, the first for a musical since 1968, wouldn't it just be, well, odd for it to lose Best Song? What, people love the movie and not the music?

That's a good point. But I just saw the movie and I can't remember the song that got nominated. But you're probably right -- a vote for "I Move On" (whatever it is) will be seen as a vote for the "Chicago" soundtrack.

> On the other hand, it is competing against "Adaptation," whose nomination for that category is the first ever shared with a fictional person. On top of that, it's (apparently) a brilliant screenplay, albeit perhaps less accessible to Academy members. My thought here is that "Adaptation" may very well win the award if only for the novelty of seeing what kind of acceptance speech Charles Kaufman is going to make on behalf of his twin brother.

Yeah, I gotta agree. "Adaptation" is just such a strikingly brilliant script. It's high concept while still being wickedly funny and somewhat accessible. And it's *about* Hollywood (and orchids), which is always a plus.

> Best Actor and Best Supporting Actor are two other difficult categories this year. For the former, it's down to Nicholson and Day-Lewis. Nicholson might lose votes just because he's much awarded with Oscars already (if he wins, he'll have exactly one acting Oscar per decade since the 1970s), but the thing is, Day-Lewis has an Oscar already, too. In fact, Adrien Brody is the only one in that category who doesn't, and I just don't see him as a front-runner.

Actor is a wash. Flip a coin.

> In the Supporting Actor category, I don't figure that *any* of them have a chance, except that *somebody* has to win. Maybe Paul Newman. I dunno.

I think it's between Chris Cooper and Ed Harris. I give Harris the edge because his character WAS DYING OF AIDS WHICH IS OSCAR GOLD. Paul Newman's movie was in the summer and nobody remembers it.

Stephen