Who should win and who will win

The 85th annual Academy Awards:

We take a look at the great performances and weigh in on who will take home the Oscar By Glenn Kenny Special to MSN Movies It's that time of year again: what more than one serious actor has describ… [ more ] We take a look at the great performances and weigh in on who will take home the Oscar By Glenn Kenny Special to MSN Movies It's that time of year again: what more than one serious actor has described in private as "the silly season." The Academy Awards are nearly upon us, and experts, who base their judgments on gut feelings and buzz rather than raw data, are busy making their predictions, and making said predictions look statistically valid. We offer what might not turn out to be the most accurate Oscar predictions for Best Supporting Actor and Actress, Best Actor and Actress, Best Director and Best Picture awards, but they will be the most honest, as our predictor, MSN movie critic Glenn Kenny, is a great proponent of the William Goldman-coined Hollywood mantra "Nobody knows anything," to which he has appended the phrase "Least of all me." Best Supporting Actress Should win: This is a pretty odd Oscar year, but it's also in some important respects a pretty solid one. This is evident just from looking at this category, in which minor or lighter (or both) films can often get a shot. Say what you will about "The Sessions," "Silver Linings Playbook," "Les Miserables," "Lincoln" and "The Master"; there's not a lot of frivolity going on there. Even "Silver Linings Playbook," the ostensible comedy of the bunch, has a lot of serious moments and a theme of coping with mental illness. The movie's nominee, Jackie Weaver, is the weakest of the lot, performance-wise. She's good as a harried Philadelphia wife and mom but doesn't have much to do. Helen Hunt is excellent in "The Sessions," but it's not much of what we haven't seen from her. Anne Hathaway's performance in "Les Mis" is trouper-like but seemingly VERY prone to backlash. For my money, Amy Adams' portrayal of the sunny-on-the-surface, steely-underneath cult founder's wife in "The Master" is the most galvanic and surprising turn, and my favorite. Will win: My gut tells me that the award will go to Sally Field for her portrayal of the first lady in "Lincoln." Yes, Field is a multiple Oscar winner, but this would be her first nod in this category. And she has a compelling backstory here: She had to battle director Steven Spielberg for the role, which he initially believed her to be too old for. And she is very wonderful in the role. Best Supporting Actor Should win: This is another category filled with formidable, if not always serious, competition. Cristoph Waltz's "Django Unchained" performance is one of the more pleasurable things about that picture, but it's largely a morally inverted take on what he did in "Inglourious Basterds." Tommy Lee Jones is his reliable superb self in "Lincoln." Robert De Niro's vulnerable take on a the father of a mentally unstable adult son, who happens to have problems of his own, in "Silver Linings Playbook" has some observers invoking De Niro's '70s and '80s heyday. Alan Arkin was Alan Arkin-esque in "Argo." As an unabashed booster of "The Master," I'd say that Philip Seymour Hoffman, as charismatic, making-it-up-as-he-goes-along founder of a new religion Lancaster Dodd, gives the most inventive, concentrated and startling performance, especially the frankly amazing moment when he breaks into song. So, yeah, I'll say Hoffman. Will win: I think this is one category where both "Argo" and the actor himself have the popular momentum going for them. Also, Alan Arkin's movie producer character "coined" an irreproducible catchphrase ("Argo, do something to yourself" is as close as we can get) that movie people have grown pretty fond of (it's getting kind of tired, frankly). Best Actress Should win: Jessica Chastain gave an astonishingly composed and physically rigorous performance as the CIA operative who finds Osama bin Laden in "Zero Dark Thirty." Any other year, and a less controversial movie, and she would be a lock. But the 85-year-old French actress Emmanuelle Riva went even further, in terms of rigor, composure and exposure, in Michael Haneke's "Amour," playing one half of an elderly couple. Her character's stroke and subsequent physical and mental degeneration had to be incredibly difficult to play, not just in terms of performance demands but real-life self-consciousness with respect to the conditions she was required to portray. Will win: People are still talking about 22-year-old Jennifer Lawrence's snappy portrayal of a young widow in "Silver Linings Playbook." Even younger Quvenzhané Wallis, who was barely out of diapers when "Beasts of the Southern Wild" was shot, has also been the recipient of much good will. As of this writing, certain loud voices are placing Lawrence as the favorite. (Naomi Watts had a demanding role in "The Impossible," but that film is generating little positive buzz in this race.) You read it here first: I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that Riva takes the prize. Not just because she's a senior citizen and the Academy has a lot of senior citizens, but because what she did in "Amour" and what some believe it stands for deserve to be honored. Best Actor Should win: For now, let's ignore the seemingly obvious question, which is, "Why is this even a question?" and just go down the line. Bradley Cooper in "Silver Linings Playbook"? Too new, too pretty, and worst of all, it's pretty clear he wants it too much. Oh, sure, he made you forget he was Bradley Cooper for maybe a minute in that movie, so credit where it's due. Hugh Jackman in "Les Miserables"? Great integrity, great chops, movie didn't really take off in the public imagination as it should have. Denzel Washington in "Flight"? OK, now the question's interesting. I thought he did a fantastic job of conveying the ruthlessness and obsession of the active alcoholic. Others thought he was just doing standard Denzel, and objected to his single-tear crying sequences. Joaquin Phoenix in "The Master"? Oh, wait. My favorite film of last year, and an amazing performance, a weird melding of Montgomery Clift and giant insect. But I am a realist, people. The movie for whatever reason has proved alienating to many. In my wildest dreams I would suggest a tie between Phoenix and Daniel Day-Lewis, whose work in "Lincoln" is both inspired and inspiring. But bowing to realism I'd say Day-Lewis deserves it. Will win: Again, and even more seriously, why is this even a question? If anyone besides Day-Lewis takes this, a federal investigation should be called. Best Director Should win: Among certain Oscar prognosticators, the "Affleck snub" has acquired mythical proportions and thrown the Best Director race into chaos. The theory was that popular momentum among Hollywood insiders ("Argo" is, after all, a movie about how the movie industry helped out in the Iran hostage crisis!) would lead to a sweep for Ben Affleck's movie, but how can Affleck's movie sweep if Affleck isn't even nominated for Best Director? You following me? No? Forget it; it's Oscar blogging. Anyway. Benh Zeitlin conjured a lot out of very little with his "Beasts of the Southern Wild," but to my eye he's still outflanked by Michael Haneke and Steven Spielberg, two incredibly accomplished directors who this year offer up two of their most outstanding movies. Here's another category where I wouldn't mind a tie, but in the clutch I'm going to have to go with Spielberg and "Lincoln." Will win: I've got a weird feeling about this. I don't think "Silver Linings Playbook" director David O. Russell has a chance, but I also don't know what his Oscar patron Harvey Weinstein has up his sleeve. What I do believe is that directorial fellow-feeling, alongside admiration for what is truly a remarkable technical achievement, is going to lead to a win for Ang Lee, director of CGI-tiger-in-a-lifeboat epic "Life of Pi." Best Picture Should win: Well, my favorite, "The Master," wasn't even nominated, and I guess it can be taken as a snub since there are 10 nominees for Best Picture permitted, but only nine actual nominees. Ouch. From my point of view, "Django Unchained" shouldn't have even been nominated, because it's a sloppy, borderline-bad picture. While I like "Argo" and, to a lesser extent, "Silver Linings Playbook," I don't think they're best-anything material. "Les Miserables" is exactly the kind of film that got regularly nominated, and won, back before the Hollywood revolution of the '70s that didn't really change the overall picture THAT much. So, sure. My admiration for "Beasts of the Southern Wild" has waned a bit since I first saw it, but I still find it noteworthy. "Life of Pi" less so, but it really is an awards kind of movie. So my pantheon with respect to nominees is "Amour," "Lincoln" and "Zero Dark Thirty," and I would be pleased if any of those won. By a margin, my favorite is "Zero Dark Thirty" ... Will win: ... and a "Zero Dark Thirty" win is never gonna happen. So right now the so-called "smart money" is on "Argo," but I still think it's gonna be "Lincoln." My logic is that whatever momentum "Argo" has is only going to be enough to take away from other one-time strong, or strongly pushed, contenders. That is, I think it will take votes away from "Life of Pi" and "Silver Linings Playbook" and pave the way for a more surefire "Lincoln" win. That's my story, and I'm sticking to it. Let's compare results after Oscar night. http://movies.msn.com/academy-awards/