One of the shrewdest Oscarologists on the planet is Tariq Khan of Fox News, who often generously shares his views of current and past derbies with Gold Derby readers. Here he takes a nostalgic look  at the past two decades, offering his take on the most competitive derbies. Words below are Tariq's. Thanks, m'friend!

We’ve often discussed those Oscar races that seem just too close to call . . . where it’s clear (or at least seems clear) that the eventual winner will nab the Oscar with only a few more votes than his or her nearest competitor.

While we can never really know for sure (unless we get one of those top jobs at the accounting firm of PricewaterhouseCoopers,) we do have some idea of what may have been the closest races in Oscar history. Allow me to present what I believe were the 10 closest acting races over the course of the past 20 years.

1) Jim Broadbent in “Iris” over Ian McKellen in “The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring” for best supporting actor of 2001: It seemed like McKellen had it in the bag. He was the only acting nominee of the 13 nods for “Rings,” he had payback votes from those academy members who felt that he should have won best actor of 1998 for “Gods and Monsters,” and he had claimed the SAG Award just a few weeks before the Oscar ceremony. Yet somehow he was edged out by Broadbent in the indie film “Iris.” There’s no doubt that Broadbent’s showy turn in “Moulin Rouge!” and sympathetic role in “Bridget Jones’s Diary” – both released in 2001 – helped to secure his upset victory. McKellen is probably still smarting from the loss, though he should take comfort knowing that the race was a squeaker.

2) Juliette Binoche in “The English Patient” over Lauren Bacall in “The Mirror Has Two Faces” for best supporting actress of 1996: I knew that Golden Globe and SAG winner (not to mention sentimental favorite) Bacall was vulnerable. She had a small part in a comedy that  was overlooked by the academy in every other major category. Plus she didn’t have a reputation for being the nicest person in show business. I nonetheless predicted her to win, believing that the opposition votes would go into too many directions (namely Barbara Hershey in “The Portrait of a Lady” and Marianne Jean-Baptiste in “Secrets and Lies”) for an upset to occur. Silly me. The academy love for “Patient” spilled over into the supporting actress race, carrying Binoche to a shocking victory. I still that think that Bacall registered lots of votes, and that Binoche just barely sneaked past her.

3) Russell Crowe in “Gladiator” over Ed Harris in “Pollock” for best actor of 2000: After buzz for Tom Hanks in “Cast Away” died down, the contest quickly turned toward Crowe and Harris. Crowe had just lost for “The Insider” and had the advantage of being in a best picture nominee (and eventual winner) – while Harris was a beloved veteran playing a real-life person who suffered endlessly on screen. I eventually settled on Harris, thinking that Hollywood would prefer to see him win – and thought I had nailed it when his co-star Marcia Gay Harden took the supporting actress prize. Sure, I was left eating crow on Oscar night – but I’m certain that Harris lost only by a hair.

4) Marisa Tomei in “My Cousin Vinny” over Judy Davis in “Husbands and Wives” for best supporting actress of 1992: The only question bigger than “how many votes did Tomei win by?” may actually be “who came in second?” – my guess being the sensational Davis as a neurotic New Yorker in Woody Allen’s fascinating comedy-drama. Davis had a strong performance in a semi-leading role, the Los Angeles Film Critics Award, and credentials that included a best actress nomination for the prestigious “A Passage to India” eight years earlier. Critics Roger Ebert and the late Gene Siskel both named Davis as their choice for the award, pointing to the rare and refreshing intelligence of her character in the film. With the British vote being split amongst fellow nominees Joan Plowright in “Enchanted April,” Vanessa Redgrave in “Howard’s End” and Miranda Richardson in “Damage,” it seemed that the Australian Davis would surely prevail. In the end, the whole Woody Allen-Mia Farrow-Soon-Yi Previn scandal probably tainted the film – and Davis’ Oscar chances. But Tomei couldn’t have won by too much.

5) Nicole Kidman in “The Hours” over Renee Zellweger in “Chicago” for best actress of 2002: While everyone seemed to think that Kidman was ahead in the derby because she was physically unrecognizable and had just come off a stinging loss for “Moulin Rouge,” I sensed that there were real drawbacks to her candidacy for best actress. She had minimal screen time for a lead Oscar (less than co-stars Meryl Streep and Julianne Moore). She had only one strong dramatic scene (and a relatively short one at that). And she had Zellweger and the “Chicago” steamroller heading straight toward her. Zellweger even edged out Kidman at the SAG Awards, suggesting a similar fate at the Oscars. When Denzel Washington finally opened the envelope he pronounced Kidman the winner “by a nose” – and he couldn’t have been more correct. 

6) Kim Basinger in “L.A. Confidential” over Gloria Stuart in “Titanic” for best supporting actress of 1997: Most Oscar pundits projected a win for Stuart for her spellbinding performance in “Titanic,” even though the film wasn’t really about acting. The chance to see the charming octogenarian take to the stage was seemingly irresistible. Here’s where the “Titanic” juggernaut actually worked AGAINST the film. Since academy members seemed to be voting for it almost everywhere on the ballot, the supporting actress race was one of the few places where they could throw a bone to the highly touted “Confidential.” Basinger and Stuart actually tied at the SAG Awards – I dare say that the same thing almost happened at the Oscars. (How nice that would have been.) 

7) Kevin Spacey in “American Beauty” over Denzel Washington in “The Hurricane” for best actor of 1999: Washington was the early favorite for his meaty role in “Hurricane,” and the previous supporting actor winner for “Glory” seemed due for a lead statuette. Then controversy hurt his film, leaving him with its sole nomination. As momentum for “Beauty” continued to grow, so did support for Spacey – who emerged victorious on SAG night. The two thesps appeared to be deadlocked, with pundits equally divided over the race’s outcome. The controversial Wall Street Journal poll – which correctly forecast every other race – showed Washington ahead with just the slightest lead. While the Journal was ultimately wrong on the outcome here, it was surely right on just how tight this race was. 

8) Kathy Bates in “Misery” over Anjelica Huston in “The Grifters” for best actress of 1990: In an exciting four-way race that included Joanne Woodward in “Mr. and Mrs. Bridge” and breakout star of the year Julia Roberts in “Pretty Woman,” it was surely misery for voters to select one name. While no one seemed certain, Huston was considered the safest bet. She was Hollywood royalty playing a tough-as-nails con woman, and “The Grifters” was nominated in other key categoriesto like director and screenplay. On Oscar night Bates was the unexpected winner, probably because of a split vote between Huston and Woodward. Forget about Jimmy Caan’s ankles. The scariest part of “Misery” is how close Bates came to not winning the Oscar. 

Among the list of 28 celebrities announced today as presenters at the June 7 Tony Awards are the usual assortment of talented thespians, including six Oscar winners. However, the names that stand out are a pair of Emmy champs — Edie Falco and James Gandolfini. Each won three of TV's top honor over the seven-year run of "The Sopranos." Two years ago, the much-hyped series finale of that mob crime drama whacked the competition in the ratings. Among the shows it trounced — that year's Tonycast.

Both Edie Falco and James Gandolfini were relatively unknown actors before "The Sopranos" made them household names after it debuted on HBO in 1999. Each had worked extensively in the theater when they were cast in these life-changing roles. Falco had made her Broadway debut earlier that year in the Tony-winning play "Side Man." And Gandolfini had been on Broadway twice — in the hit 1992 revival of "A Streetcar Named Desire" and the  flop 1995 adaptation of the Oscar-winning "On the Waterfront."

While Falco has returned to the rialto twice since becoming a star, neither of her efforts met with much success. She headlined poorly received revivals of "Frankie and Johnny in the Claire de Lune" in 2002 and "'night Mother" in 2004. On the other hand, Gandolfini is a frontrunner this year in the lead actor race for his performance in best play contender "God of Carnage." And as his three co-stars from that dark comedy — Jeff Daniels, Hope Davis and Marcia Gay Harden — are also presenting, we may not see Tony and Carmela together onstage at Radio City Music Hall.

One of Harden's chief rivals in the lead actress race is also presenting — two-time Oscar winner Jane Fonda, who returned to Broadway after a 46-year absence to rave reviews for "33 Variations." Less welcomed was Oscar champ Susan Sarandon, who was snubbed for "Exit the King." But good sport that she is, Sarandon will be on hand to present and no doubt cheer on her current co-star Geoffrey Rush, who is another strong contender in the lead actor category.

Jessica Lange, another two-time Oscar winner, was also snubbed for her two appearances on Broadway but returns to present as does Nicole Kidman, who was slighted a decade ago for her Broadway debut in "The Blue Room." Kevin Spacey, a two-time Oscar winner and a Tony champ as well, leaves his post as head of the renowned Old Vic theater in London to appear here.

A pair of four-time Tony winners will also be on hand to present. Angela Lansbury —  who earned two of her 18 Emmy nods for hosting the Tonycast in the 1980s — could tie with Julie Harris if she wins a fifth Tony this year for her featured work in the revival of the Noel Coward play "Blithe Spirit." Private Practice" star and presenter Audra McDonald has won four featured Tonys, two for musicals and two for plays. Three-time Tony champ Frank Langella will appear as will single winners Kristen Chenoweth and David Hyde Pierce.

Come to think of it, maybe Matt Damon was right when he recently said that the Oscars "get it wrong more often than they get it right."

If I were the king of the Oscars (someday — just you wait, Derbyites!) and had the power to take away past wins, the first awards I'd yank from the clutches of undeserved winners are these: Reese Witherspoon ("Walk the Line"), Nicole Kidman ("The Hours"), Sean Penn ("Mystic River" — I'd let him keep the Oscar if he'd won for "21 Grams" that year), Russell Crowe ("Gladiator"), Geoffrey Rush ("Shine"), Jack Nicholson and Helen Hunt ("As Good as It Gets"), Al Pacino ("Scent of a Woman" — he could keep the Oscar if he'd won it for any other nomination any other year), Sally Field ("Places in the Heart"), Glenda Jackson ("A Touch of Class"), Cliff Robertson ("Charly") and Elizabeth Taylor ("Butterfield 8").

Those are examples just among the living. If I had the monarchical powers to reach beyond the grave, all of the following would be in big trouble: Paul Newman ("The Color of Money"), Jack Lemmon ("Save the Tiger"), John Wayne ("True Grit"), Katharine Hepburn ("Guess Who's Coming to Dinner"), Ingrid Bergman ("Anastasia"), Lee Marvin ("Cat Ballou") and Charlton Heston ("Ben-Hur")

Oh, yeah, and I'd not only force another member of the royal class, Princess Grace of Monaco, to abdicate as Oscar queen for "Country Girl," but I'd make her give the 1954 best-actress crown to Judy Garland ("A Star Is Born") — along with an apology. Ditto Judy Holliday ("Born Yesterday") to poor Gloria Swanson ("Sunset Blvd.").

"Best pictures" that must be rescinded: "The Departed," "Braveheart," "Unforgiven," "Dances With Wolves," "Out of Africa," "Gandhi," "Rocky," "Ben-Hur," "Around the World in 80 Days," "The Greatest Show on Earth," and "An American in Paris."

All of the above are examples only since 1950. I'm too lazy right now — and too whipped up with outrage since starting to write this post— to go back further or to address the supporting races (Goldie Hawn in "Cactus Flower"!).

But the posters in The Envelope's Gold Derby forums don't shrink from any Oscar year and have been playing this same fantasy game themselves since just before the recent Academy Awards in February. Check out their fumings here. Click through the page numbers at the bottom and top of the forum thread to keep reading. And then add your own picks for an Oscar pull-back.

Caresa: "I would take away 'Crash''s BP Oscar and give it to 'Brokeback Mountain' in 2005."

Pacinofan: "'Since I think no one ever squandered their Oscar win more than Cuba Gooding Jr., I would take his Oscar and give it to ... anyone I happened to come across on the streets."

AJ: "Jack Lemmon should give his 'Save the Tiger' Oscar to Al Pacino for 'Serpico,' but Jack Lemmon deserved the lead Oscar for 'Some Like it Hot' over Charlton Heston in 'Ben-Hur.' "

When Tariq Khan makes a bold Oscar prediction, take heed. He's one of the savviest Oscarologists I know and this year he's going where no other guru dares: out onto a thin, shaky limb for Amy Adams ("Doubt") for supporting actress. Interesting call! That category, after all, is where most Oscar upsets happen.

Tariq has one of the best Oscar prediction rates every year. Check out the forecasts he made last year for Fox News — he scored 100%. Earlier this derby season he was one of the first pundits warning us that Kate Winslet might be nommed for "The Reader" instead of "Revolutionary Road."

Below, Tariq makes his argument for Amy Adams, building his Oscar case carefully by citing past award trends and issues at play this year. I dare to disagree with him, though. I think the two points he's not giving enough due are the Babe Factor and the fact that, while, yes, Amy Adams has the most screen time, she doesn't have the big impact scene emotionally that, say, her costar Viola Davis has or even front-runner Penelope Cruz. The Babe Factor boosts Cruz hugely, I think, and it's a trump card that shouldn't be downplayed. Over the last two decades the largely male academy has turned the lead and supporting actress winners' circles into a beauty pageant.

But Tariq has proved me wrong often in the past. Just for Gold Derby readers, he's written out his case below.

I know that most pundits seem to think that Penelope Cruz in "Vicky Cristina Barcelona" is ahead in the supporting actress race. However, I am going to make a bold prediction: Penelope Cruz will lose to Amy Adams in "Doubt."

I'll admit that I'm not certain about this, the way I felt certain last year that Julie Christie in "Away From Her" would lose to Marion Cotillard in "La Vie en Rose." Still, there are some key historical voting patterns that suggest an upset victory by Adams over Cruz may be likely. Allow me to explain.

An Oscars upset usually happens when two factors are in place: support for the presumed front-runner is softer than people realize and support for another nominee is stronger than people realize.

First, let's take a look at reasons why support for Cruz may be weaker than we think it is.

1.) She lost both the Golden Globe and SAG Awards. True, she lost to Kate Winslet in "The Reader," who isn't competing in this category at the Oscars. But how can one really be a front-runner without winning at least one of the two awards? In the previous 14 years (since the inception of the SAG awards), only nine out 56 nominees have won an acting Oscar without a Globe or SAG win. They are Kevin Spacey in "The Usual Suspects," Juliette Binoche in "The English Patient," James Coburn in "Affliction," Russell Crowe in "Gladiator," Marcia Gay Harden in "Pollock," Denzel Washington in "Training Day," Adrien Brody in "The Pianist," Alan Arkin in "Little Miss Sunshine" and Tilda Swinton in "Michael Clayton." That's a 16% Oscar success race for those with neither a Globe nor SAG victory. It's true that the other four supporting actress nominees this year face the same odds -– but they're the same odds faced by Cruz.

2.) Her film, "Vicky Cristina Barcelona," is up for no other awards. Remember the one-nomination wonder factor I used when dismissing the chances of Cate Blanchett in "I'm Not There" and Amy Ryan in "Gone Baby Gone" last year? Well, I'm using it again here. Over the past 15 years, only four actors have won Oscars for films not nominated for any other awards. They are Jessica Lange in "Blue Sky," Angelina Jolie in "Girl, Interrupted," Charlize Theron in "Monster," and Forest Whitaker in "The Last King of Scotland." That's four out of 60 nominees, just under 7%. And Jolie, Theron and Whitaker were all both Globe and SAG champs, while Globe winner Lange only lost the SAG race to Jodie Foster in "Nell" because no one had seen her long-shelved "Blue Sky." (The film played in just a handful of theaters for about a week.)

The biggest jaw dropper among the Golden Globe nominations is the omission of "Milk" in the best picture category, of course — just one day after it won that prize from the New York Film Critics Circle. Can it still win at the Oscars? Sure. Twice, Oscar's eligible best pic champs weren't even nommed at the Golden Globes: "Crash" and "The Sting." Besides, we're used to the Oscars and Golden Globes going their own ways recently. The Golden Globes dispense separate kudos for drama and comedy-musical races, which makes comparisons to the Oscars difficult, but in the past 64 years, the Oscars have validated one of the Golden Globe top pics 42 times. Over the past three years, they disagreed on best picture, which is odd. Last year, the Oscars opted for "No Country for Old Men," Globers went for "Atonement." Two years ago: Oscars, "The Departed"; Globes, "Babel". Three years ago: Oscars, "Crash"; Globes, "Brokeback Mountain."

It's also curious that Cate Blanchett is missing from the lead actress lineup while her costar Brad Pitt got nommed and "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" is up for best pic. A lot of pundits had predicted that the Hollywood Foreign Press Assn. would take care of Pitt with a supporting-actor nom for "Burn After Reading" and snub him in lead in favor of Clint Eastwood ("Gran Torino"). However, please note that I didn't fall for that in my predictions! (Voters still took care of Clint in the music categories with two bids.) In the past, Brad won one Globe ("12 Monkeys," 1995) out of three nominations. Cate Blanchett has won two Globes for seven nominations: lead drama actress for "Elizabeth" (1998); and supporting for "I'm Not There" (2007).

Since Angelina Jolie got nommed for "Changeling," that means both halves of Brangelina will be at the Globes. Too bad Jennifer Aniston didn't make the list for "Marley & Me." She was considered to be a serious contender in the comedy-musical race for lead actress.

Other notable acting snubs in the film races at the Golden Globes:

Will Smith, "Seven Pounds"
Melissa Leo, "Frozen River"
Josh Brolin, "Milk"
James Franco, "Milk"
Dev Patel, "Slumdog Millionaire"
Richard Jenkins, "The Visitor"

Globers are so crazy for musicals that if a successful one gets nominated it almost always wins the best pic prize. Consider these champs of recent years: "Sweeney Todd," "Dreamgirls," "Walk the Line," "Chicago," "Moulin Rouge!" and "Evita." Heck, they even nominated flops like "The Producers" and "Phantom of the Opera." So there was a chance that they might give a top slot to super-hit "High School Musical 3: Senior Year." I'd heard ahead of time from trusty Globe sources that that was unlikely, but some said that the HFPA might toss Zac Efron a bone. That didn't happen either, though. Whazzup? Don't Globers like bubblegum?

Lucky that Ben Stiller has a good sense of humor. He got snubbed for his "Tropic Thunder" but got upstaged by supporting stars Robert Downey Jr. and, in an uncredited role, Tom Cruise! 

Photo credit: Hollywood Foreign Press Assn.

Seven years after director Baz Luhrmann experienced a crazy romp through the kudos derby riding "Moulin Rouge!" he's back with "Australia. " What does he think of awardsmania? Why does he risk the wrath of gritty film critics to make his wildly romantic movies in the cynical 21st century? Last Wednesday night, Baz and I teamed up to do a Q&A screening chat at the Directors Guild of America theater in New York. We didn't have enough time to cover all key topics, so we hooked up again on Friday afternoon to continue dishing — this time with a video camera tuned in so you can watch.

Camerawork by Paul Sheehan

Good news for Sean Penn fans: At the end of "Milk" — SPOILER ALERT — you get to watch your hero get blown away by gunfire.

Sorry, but that seems to be the price Penn must pay if he wants to win another Oscar to match the chunk of academy gold he nabbed for 2003's "Mystic River." That's because gay roles that win Academy Awards for actors almost always must suffer ghastly deaths.

No star has ever won an Oscar for portraying a gay, lesbian or transgender person who lives happily ever after. The character of Truman Capote (Philip Seymour Hoffman) gets to live, yes, at the end of "Capote," but we know that he'll end up croaking from booze and pills someday while stumbling around Joanne Carson's house in Beverly Hills.

The five other roles that paid off with Oscars have horrible ends on screen: Tom Hanks dies of AIDS in "Philadelphia," Hilary Swank gets beaten to death in "Boys Don't Cry," Nicole Kidman commits suicide in "The Hours," Charlize Theron is executed in "Monster," and William Hurt gets shot — much like Sean Penn — in "Kiss of the Spider Woman."

If you don't count roles that just hint at a character's homosexuality (Paul Newman in "Cat on a Hot Tin Roof" or Tom Courtenay in "The Dresser"), I've tallied up 28 gay, lesbian and transgender roles that have been nominated for Oscars. (Have I missed any? If so, click the comments link below.)

Nine get killed off. Some snuff themselves: Kathy Bates uses a pistol in "Primary Colors," Ian McKellen drowns himself in "Gods and Monsters," Ed Harris jumps out a window in "The Hours, " Javier Bardem dies of AIDS in "Before Night Falls."

The fact that Sean Penn is heterosexual in real life hikes his Oscar hopes significantly. No gay person has ever won an Academy Award for playing gay, and only two openly homosexual actors have been nominated for portraying someone with a lavender lilt: James Coco and Ian McKellen. Coco wasn't officially and fully "out" of the closet, but he was candid about his private life to friends and colleagues and frequently flaunted a flamboyant nature in public.

ACTORS NOMINATED FOR GAY ROLES
(X = Winner)
Estelle Parsons ("Rachel, Rachel") (1968)
Peter Finch, "Sunday Bloody Sunday" (1971)
Al Pacino, "Dog Day Afternoon" (1975)
Chris Sarandon, "Dog Day Afternoon" (1975)
John Lithgow, "World According to Garp" (1982)
Marcello Mastroianni, "A Special Day" (1977)
James Coco, "Only When I Laugh" (1981)
Robert Preston, "Victor, Victoria" (1982)
Cher, "Silkwood" (1983)
X - William Hurt, "Kiss of the Spider Woman" (1985)
Bruce Davison, "Longtime Companion" (1990)
Tommy Lee Jones, "JFK" (1991)
Jaye Davidson, "The Crying Game" (1992)
X - Tom Hanks, "Philadelphia" (1993)
Greg Kinnear, "As Good as It Gets" (1997)
Ian McKellen, "Gods and Monsters" (1998)
Kathy Bates, "Primary Colors" (1998)
X - Hilary Swank, "Boys Don't Cry" (1999)
Javier Bardem, "Before Night Falls" (2000)
Ed Harris, "The Hours" (2002)
X - Nicole Kidman, "The Hours" (2002)
Julianne Moore, "The Hours" (2002)
X - Charlize Theron, "Monster" (2003)
X - Philip Seymour Hoffman, "Capote" (2005)
Felicity Huffman, "Transamerica" (2005)
Heath Ledger, "Brokeback Mountain" (2005)
Jake Gyllenhaal, "Brokeback Mountain" (2005)
Judi Dench, "Notes on a Scandal" (2006)

Photos: TriStar, Island Alive, Miramax, Fox Searchlight

At the Q&A screening of "The Reader" in New York on Tuesday night, director Stephen Daldry revealed the back story of how Kate Winslet was cast in his film.

"I offered the role first to Kate Winslet, but she couldn't do it because she was busy making 'Revolutionary Road,'" he added. "So I offered it to Nicole Kidman, who I worked with before, and she said yes. We started filming for several weeks, shooting scenes she wasn't in, when we got word that she was pregnant. So I went back to Kate Winslet, who was available at that point."

The reason that Daldry approached Winslet first was because she was the top choice of Bernhard Schlink, who wrote the popular book upon which the film is based. (It's compulsory reading in German schools, he noted. Here in the U.S., it was included in Oprah Winfrey's Book Club.)

The last time Nicole Kidman teamed up with Daldry it was in "The Hours," which was based on a popular book translated to the screen by the same writer, David Hare. Is that a good omen now for Winslet? If so, perhaps Kidman might've won a second Oscar for teaming up with Daldry and Hare again? Won't it be curious if the two stars end up facing off this year in the lead actress contest for "The Reader" and "Australia"?

Photo: Miramax

In the best-actress derby right now there seem to be two good bets for nominations: Meryl Streep ("Doubt") and Kate Winslet ("Revolutionary Road" or "The Reader"), but one of them is actually vulnerable. (More on that later.) Anne Hathaway looks likely, but — ummm — she's not quite a slam dunk. She just got a nice boost this past week, though, when Sony Pictures Classic shipped DVDs of "Rachel Getting Married" to Oscar voters before the Thanksgiving rush.

Other rivals with the best hope of snagging a nom probably come from this batch of five contenders: Cate Blanchett ("The Curious Case of Benjamin Button"), Sally Hawkins ("Happy-Go-Lucky"), Angelina Jolie ("Changeling"), Nicole Kidman ("Australia") and Kristin Scott Thomas ("I've Loved You So Long"). Outside shots: Melissa Leo ("Frozen River"), Michelle Williams ("Wendy and Lucy"), Kate Beckinsale ("Nothing but the Truth"), Emma Thompson ("Last Chance Harvey") and Penelope Cruz ("Elegy").

Cate Blanchett has two things going for her. First, she stars in what many Oscar gurus consider to be the best-picture front-runner, which is always a plus. Secondly, academy members adore her so much personally that they seem to nominate Cate Blanchett for anything, even two films they didn't like last year ("Elizabeth: The Golden Age," "I'm Not There"). However, the "Benjamin Button" roles played by Blanchett and costar Brad Pitt are rather emotionally passive. They don't showcase the kind of theatrical grandstanding that voters often like to see.

What about Angelina Jolie? Last year she seemed like a shoo-in for a bid after scoring strong critical reviews for "A Mighty Heart." She got nominated by virtually every other award (Golden Globe, SAG, Critics Choice, Indie Spirit), but, alas, got snubbed by Oscar. Part of that was probably the fault of the film's subject matter, which was shrugged off widely by academy members. Other movies about the Mideast war fell short of Oscar expectations too ("In the Valley of Elah," "Charlie Wilson's War"). Also, it was a summer release that bombed in theaters. It helps that "Changeling" is a late-year release, closer to Oscar voting, but it also was a financial disappointment. Produced for $55 million, "Changeling" reaped only $34 million worldwide ($29.7 million U.S., $4.4 million global).

Jolie hasn't been nominated since she won in the supporting race in 1999 ("Girl, Interrupted"). It's possible that Hollywood is punishing her for her tabloid life, but she continues to gain respect in the public's eyes. According to the New York Times, "Jolie's Q score, a measurement of a star's likability, has continued to increase. Around the time she won her Oscar, 13% of people surveyed viewed her positively, according to Marketing Evaluations. The average rating for female stars is 18%. Today, about 24% of respondents view Jolie positively."

Nicole Kidman gives a truly winning performance in "Australia," looming luminously over virtually every scene in the 2-hour, 35-minute epic. She got nominated the last time she starred in a Baz Luhrmann pic ("Moulin Rouge!"). Both films are unapologetically campy and, ahem, overly theatrical, but "Moulin Rouge!" didn't pretend to be serious. "Australia" plays it straight, with occasional winks to the audience. Its lighthearted touches may detract from its seriousness in the eyes of notoriously pretentious voters. Nicole doesn't need to win over the whole acting branch, though. She just needs a goodly chunk of No. 1 votes from a faithful minority in order to be nominated and, based upon the fanatically enthusiastic response of some viewers like Oprah Winfrey, Nicole may get those.

Film critics are all gushing over Kristin Scott Thomas ("I've Loved You So Long"), who was nominated for best actress for "The English Patient" (1996). That means she'll have a strong rooting contingent too. It helps that her performance is in French, just like that of last year's winner, Marion Cotillard ("La Vie en Rose") — that gives it snob appeal. But I think Kristin Scott Thomas has the same problem that Richard Jenkins ("The Visitor") faces in the best-actor race. Both performances are extremely reserved. We observe the anguish that their characters suffer, but it's deeply internalized. Not until late in their movies do we see any emotional fireworks, each expressed in one sole scene. Is that enough?

I think that a lot of Oscar pundits are mistakenly downplaying the chances of Sally Hawkins ("Happy-Go-Lucky"). Curiously, she has the same problem as Kristin Scott Thomas, but in a different way. She also has only one big, flashy eruption late in her movie, but before then, instead of being emotionally reserved all the time, she's unflaggingly perky. Almost annoyingly so. But that also makes her enormously appealing and lovable to many viewers, which boosts her rooting factor. Voters who might be tempted to dismiss her constant chirpiness as fluffy thesping may shrug that off because her flick has snooty art-house credentials. It's directed by Mike Leigh, whose past films paid off with best-actress nominations for Imelda Staunton ("Vera Drake") and Brenda Blethyn ("Secrets and Lies").

Lucky for Melissa Leo, "Frozen River" was the first DVD screener sent to voters this derby season back in late September. Her performance is dynamic and worthy of an Oscar nom, yes, but frankly, the character is haggard — not sexy to many of those older dudes in the academy who usually prefer babes. That's cruel to say — sorry — but it's true. Still, there have been many exceptions to that voter trend in the past, of course — like Staunton and Blethyn — but Leo probably needs the same boost that those gals got: a top award from one of the early, prestigious film critics' groups.

Michelle Williams' critically praised performance will get serious attention this derby season thanks to sympathy in the aftermath of Heath Ledger's tragic death, but many Oscar pundits believe the plot of "Wendy and Lucy" is too lightweight. They just don't care if Wendy (Williams) gets reunited with her dog Lucy after it's tossed in the pound.

There are other serious contenders too, but the software of our Envelope poll only permits 10 entries, so I had to curtail the list.

Penelope Cruz is aces in "Elegy," which was sent via DVD to the academy's acting branch in October, but most Oscar gurus think that she's such a stand-out as a gun-toting crazed ex-lover in "Vicky Cristina Barcelona" that she'll be considered chiefly for that role in the supporting slot.

Kate Beckinsale gives the performance of her career as a journo who goes to jail to keep her sources secret in "Nothing but the Truth," and she got lots of praise from film critics who first saw the film at the Toronto fest in September, but early Oscar buzz isn't strong. That's probably because the film doesn't open in theaters till late next month, which is a mistake. Little, struggling indie flicks like this need to get out early in the derby in order to build traction. That didn't used to be the case, but it's been true ever since the Oscars moved up from March to February in 2003. Now it seems that only the big, high-profile pics can debut so late.

Art-house flick "Wendy and Lucy," which debuts in theaters on Dec. 10, may also pay a terrible price for lateness, but Michelle Williams gets special notice now because of her personal back story.

Even though Emma Thompson is a past Oscar fave, I think she may be penalized for the late release of "Last Chance Harvey" (Dec. 25) too. She gives a soulful performance as a lonely middle-aged gal aching for love, but the best-actress category is crowded this year and the film may not stand out as being special enough to merit the attention of voters scrambling to see dozens of other films before they get nomination ballots about the time "Harvey" hits theaters.

KEEP READING - CLICK HERE!

Now that we Oscars gurus have actually seen "Australia," it's harder to size up its kudos prospects. Yes, it's good. It's another one of those big-hearted Baz Luhrmann pics that sends moviegoers like Oprah Winfrey into swoons of euphoria. Me too. I admit that I'm a sucker for great weepies — and this one's very, very good. But will Oscar voters consider it high art and nominate it for best picture? Or dismiss it as a pile of Cheez Whiz?

Just a few years ago voters gave the cold shoulder to another big, melodramatic, historical epic starring Nicole Kidman: "Cold Mountain." But I think that occurred because the old Miramax studio hadn't yet figured out how to campaign late releases after the Oscars ceremony moved up from March to February. Remember, the New Yorker magazine said "Cold Mountain" was even better than "Gone with the Wind"! Alas, it's remembered today as a flop because it wasn't nominated for best picture or director after being seen too late in 2003 by guild and academy members.

"Australia's" best Oscar parallels are probably "Out of Africa" and "The African Queen." All three flicks are about uppity dames who arrive in primitive places where they get humbled by tough local chaps with whom they fall in love.

"Out of Africa" won seven Oscars, including best picture. "African Queen" was, surprisingly, snubbed in the top race! But at least Katharine Hepburn and Humphrey Bogart got nominated — and Bogie, of course, won.

"Out of Africa" and "The African Queen" have an edge on "Australia." Their scripts were adapted from esteemed books, which gave them snob appeal. "Australia" is an original creation meant to be a big, fluffy homage to the epic weepies of the past. That means that there's a deliberate cheesiness to "Australia" when scenes surrender utterly to unhinged melodrama. That's a big creative gamble to take in the cynical 21st century, but Baz Luhrmann pulls it off. But will Oscar voters punish the pic for that?

Of course, those kinds of flicks used to be nominated automatically in the past ("Giant," "A Passage to India") and many won ("The English Patient"), but things may be different nowadays. It's hard to say. Lots of big epics got snubbed recently ("Apocalypto," "Flags of Our Fathers," "3:10 to Yuma") despite getting good reviews. "Atonement" got in last year, but only halfway: director Joe Wright wasn't nommed.

Baz Luhrmann knows what that feels like. His "Moulin Rouge!" scored eight noms in 2001 and was considered a serious candidate for best picture (Roger Ebert predicted it would win), but Luhrmann wasn't nominated for helming! So that means that the academy owes this guy big time. However, the academy is ruled by macho old dudes who aren't the types of moviegoers who get giddy with the hope that Nicole Kidman and Hugh Jackman might drop their huffy reserves, hurl themselves against each other in the rain and drink in a big, passionate kiss that can make the woes of the world go away. "Australia" isn't just sappy. It's swimming, blissfully, in molasses.

How will film critics respond? Lots — those too-cool-for-the-room, cynical types — will crucify "Australia," of course. That may not matter, though. If it's successful at the box office, all will be forgiven by Oscar voters. However, its commercial success is a big question mark. It's an unabashed chick flick. Will guys go to see it if their girlfriends try to drag them? Maybe. It does have all those cowboys, horses and stuff. Does it even need guys to go? Another chick flick, "Sex and the City," defied prophesies of doom earlier this year and made $152 million in the U.S., $413 million worldwide.

If nothing else, "Australia" does have two strong things going for it. Big, effective weepies like this do great repeat business. Also, it's being released to theaters over Thanksgiving weekend. It has time to prove itself as a hit with moviegoers before Oscar voters ink their ballots.