the voting is done by members of each branch.

Legislative, judicial, and executive? Or, um, not I guess. Do you mean actors, directors, writers, techies, etc?

It's possible he could get it, but honestly I don't think this is his year.

I'm inclined to agree. I think he did a great job with his role in Neverland, but I don't think the role itself was all that.

I finally got around to seeing him in Man in the Iron Mask over the weekend (well, most of it), and boy, was he annoyingly bad in it! Actually, all the actors were not at their best, especially the four Musketeers.

Do you mean actors, directors, writers, techies, etc?

Yes. And then everyone votes for best movie. (I think. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong.)

here's the iMDb's list of past winners, in case that helps anyone else handicap winners.

The nomination is done by the branches, the voting is by everyone.

I hope not. I don't think Oscars should be based on cumulative work.

But they tend to be. There are a lot of Oscars that boil down to "Oops, you did great work last year (or even years ago), so here's the statue retroactively." See, for instance, Al Pacino in Scent of a Woman. There's a great list here (scroll down) [link] .

I wonder why Phantom gets best Art Direction (it had great art direction, don't get me wrong) and not a costume nom?

I haven't seen a single best picture, best actor, best supporting, best actress, or best supporting actress. Go me and the mindless movie-going! My motto: Candy is dandy.

There are a lot of Oscars that boil down to "Oops, you did great work last year (or even years ago), so here's the statue retroactively."

I thought Sean Penn last year was half for "Mystic River," half because he didn't win for "I Am Sam." (He lost to Denzel Washington in "Training Day," which was another "body of work" Oscar.)

It looks like for the last five years, best actress has always gone to a part that could be described as "pretty actress makes self ugly/grotesque." Is there anything in that category this year?

Great site, Betsy! If this comment on the qualities of a Best Actor performance most likely to be rewarded with a statue is true, than Foxx is a lock for this year:

Biographies of remarkable, real-life individuals (military figures or soldiers, law-and-order enforcers, historical figures) and portrayals of the mentally ill are heavily represented among male Oscar winners, particularly in the acting awards. It helps an actor's chances of winning an Oscar if the character dies a tragic death during the movie, or is slightly eccentric (or genius). An overwhelming number of actors have won the top acting (and supporting) awards for portraying characters with physical or mental disabilities or diseases...And a number of other actors have won awards for portraying alcoholic characters...

Ray Charles was a "remarkable, real-life individual;" even though he doesn't die in the movie, he did die recently in real life; and was a musical genius with a physical disability and drug addict (along the same lines as an alcoholic in voters' minds).

[link]

I think Imelda comes closest to the Hooker Corollary.

There are a lot of Oscars that boil down to "Oops, you did great work last year (or even years ago), so here's the statue retroactively."

Heh. Russell Crowe's Oscar for Gladiator was most certainly *actually* for his role the previous year in The Insider.