Alas, Yorick Predicts the Academy Awards, 2008 Version

The entertainment staff at Alas, Yorick are all a-quiver at the prospect of the upcoming 2008 Academy Award presentation ceremony. We are so glad those silly writers quit trying to get a couple of pennies out of every dollar and just got back to work. And we so look forward to the continuing flow of high-quality entertainment from La-La Land.

Loyal reader(s) will remember that last February we predicted the winners for 2007 - and I am proud to say that we actually were correct on 5 out of 10 predictions, a better batting average than Barry Bonds.

So, here are THIS year's fearless predictions.

Let's start with best actor. Unfortunately, I have seen none of these movies but I can still make predictions based on my intimate knowledge of how Oscar voters think. Clearly Daniel Day-Lewis and Johnny Depp cannot win; their respective movies were "There Will Be Blood" and "Sweeney Todd The Demon Barber of Fleet Street", and everybody knows Oscar doesn't reward slasher flicks. Viggo Mortenson is starring in a sequel to "The Lord of the Rings" called "Eastern Promises", where Aragorn takes over the post-Sauron rule of Mordor but is criticized for failing to live up to his campaign promises to the orcs. Michael Clayton starred in a movie called "George Clooney", or is that the other way around? Either way, it sounds boring. So I pick Tommy Lee Jones for "In the Valley of Elah", which I think is a sequel to "Brokeback Mountain" featuring old cowboys.

For supporting actor, the voters will disqualify Javier Bardem for being in a movie called "No Country for Old Men", a science fiction flick like "Logan's Run" about old people being exiled. Most Oscar voters are old men - this hits too close to home. Michael Clayton got another nomination, for being in "Tom Wilkinson." The name is too boring. Philip Seymour Hoffman got Oscar love recently for playing gay authors, I don't know why he would expect one for a Rambo-style action flick called "Charlie Wilson's War," about a Texas Congressman who single-handedly destroys a Soviet armored column in Afghanistan. I thought Hal Holbrook was dead and I bet most voters do too so he won't win for "Into the Wild." That leaves Casey Affleck, who was creepy, weird, and excellent in "The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford", the only move of these five that I have actually seen. Affleck gets it and makes his big brother jealous.

Best leading actress. Well we can quickly dismiss Marion Cotillard ("La Vie en Rose") 'cause she wasn't acting in English. Julie Christie was good in "Away from Her" (about a guy who runs away from his aging mommy) but Oscar male voters like young chicks, not 60-year-old ladies no matter how attractive or talented. Cate Blanchett has no chance for "Elizabeth: The Golden Age" because who wants to see a movie about Elizabeth Taylor? And this was an odd casting choice anyway since Blanchett doesn't much resember Taylor. Laura Linney played Jane in "The Savages" (I forget who was Tarzan), but Tarzan movies don't win. That leaves Ellen Page to win for her role as a Greek goddess in "Juno"; mythology movies are always popular.

I am confused; Michael Clayton got yet ANOTHER nomination this time as supporting ACTRESS for his/her role in "Tilda Swinton." I think s/he'll be disqualified when they do the testosterone test. They won't give the nod to Saoirse Ronan in "Atonement" because they don't know how to pronounce her first name. Rube Dee I'm sure was great in "American Gangster" but Al Capone biopics are so yesterday. Amy Ryan was probably really good in "Gone Baby Gone," but movies about runaway children are depressing. So that leaves Cate Blanchett to win, and she probably won't show up to collect her statue for her role in "I'm Not There", about an absentee landlord in 18th century Wallachia.

Now to turn to best picture. As previously explained, Hollywood's old men won't vote for "No Country for Old Men." Slasher flicks don't win, so good bye "There Will Be Blood." Apparently, Michael Clayton had himself turned into a movie too; that will confuse the Oscar voters. "Atonement" got some good reviews, but I don't see the attraction to watching some old person confessing to a priest and working on her rosary for 90 minutes. So "Juno," with its epic battle scenes between the Greek gods and the titans, wins it all.

Now for Best Dirctor. Michael Clayton gets ANOTHER nomination for directing a film called "Tony Gilroy." Never heard of him, won't win. You know the problems with "No Country for Old Men" and "There Will Be Blood." Julian Schnabel was nominated for "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly" but I don't see a movie about an aquatic insect winning anything. So give it to Jason Reitman for "Juno."

Now for a couple of the "other" categories. Look for the statue for achievement in cinematography to go to Roger Deakins for "The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford", coincidentally the ONLY movie nominated for ANY Oscar that I have managed to see so far. For best documentary, I like "Taxi to the Dark Side," about the shuttle service from Kazakstan to the Dark Side of the Moon, a service that has gotten surprisingly little attention. For best foreign language film, I'm sure there will be a winner but I can't pronounce any of them. Look for "Beaufort," the Israeli entry - "Beaufort" is Hebrew for "We Like Oscar Voters." And for best original screenplay, I think "Ratatouille" will win if only because it is the first-ever recipe to be made into a feature film.

So, log onto your favorite betting website (illegal in America, sorry) and place a ton of cash on the above.* You'll thank me.

* Disclaimer: not responsible for you losing your mortgage betting on Oscar picks. Try a wiser investment, like the horses.