Terrence Malick '66, The Thin Red Line: The reclusive, eccentric director has made only two pictures other than the current nominee, but both were hugely influential in the film community. Malick's limited filmography has only made him more of a critical darling--so far, he's three for three. His work in The Thin Red Line is clearly that of a mature artist, but the film's metaphysical slant sticks its creator with an "arty" label that is somewhat limiting.

Steven Spielberg, Saving Private Ryan: Of course he's a sure shot--he's won, what, like ten Oscars already, right? Surprisingly, no. Although big Steve has racked up six nominations, he only has one win to his name, for 1994's Schindler's List. Get ready to make it two, though, folks. Whether viewed as an underdog or a front-runner, Spielberg's got it in the bag this year, and rightly so. No other director in the world could have created the searingly realistic battle scenes of Private Ryan. Don't talk to me about narrative flaws--with his heart-stopping, neorealist D-Day sequence alone, Spielberg has earned his second statuette.

John Madden, Shakespeare in Love, John Madden did a beautiful job directing Shakespeare in Love. The film has been put together with so much verve and confidence that it can veer crazily from slapstick comedy to touching romance without sacrificing a whit of stylistic consistency. I truly do not believe that it could have been directed better; however, the film was just not as technically and logistically demanding as the two WWII pictures. Though it may be unfair to compare apples and oranges, the Academy can and will--such is Madden's misfortune.

Peter Weir, The Truman Show. Peter is in trouble for a few reasons. First, Truman was released months before any of the other nominees. The film has been out of the public eye for too long, and the lack of current hype will take its toll. Second: since the film was Jim Carrey's break-through dramatic role, viewers remember this cautionary tale as an actor's triumph, not that of a director. Third, and most damning: Weir did a good job directing Truman, but perhaps he was too good for his own good (say that five times fast). In creating a dark, surveillance-oriented world, the director forced himself to reach an unappealing level of coldness. Though effective, this style is inevitably quite alienating, and the Academy wants to see more heart in a winner.

Roberto Benigni, Life is Beautiful: Whatever you might think about Life is Beautiful, one thing is certain--direction is not the film's strong suit. Benigni keeps things moving ably enough, certainly. But there is a huge gap between competence and excellence in directing, a gap which is not bridged in this picture. Each scene is shot in a relatively utilitarian manner, and though this method worked well in context, it did not allow Benigni to establish enough of a distinctive style to wow the Academy into suspending their anti-foreign prejudices.

WHO WILL WIN: Steven Spielberg. The Academy loves to reward Spielberg for taking on serious themes. And why not? The fact that he does films like Jurassic Park 2 simply highlights the highflown goals of a movie like this. Saving Private Ryan is every bit the directorial triumph. However, keep an eye out for a dark horse-scads of film critics' organizations have been giving Best Picture to Spielberg while reserving directorial honors for quirky, Harvard-educated Malick.

WHO SHOULD WIN: Spielberg, for creating a cinematic battle experience more immersive and truly frightening than any that has gone before. The filmmaker was lauded for adopting a documentary-like style; however, nothing could be farther from the truth. With his jerky, nervous, human camera and gently varying film speeds, Spielberg has achieved a subtly impressionist vision of war that is far more powerful than a simple documentary aesthetic could have ever been.

Best Picture

Saving Private Ryan: Spielberg's WWII baby is clearly the front-runner here, and notonly because its Oscar victory been foreshadowedby the Golden Globes, the DGA awards and hundredsof critics' associations. Private Ryan is aquintessentially American movie. Despite criticalhyperbole setting the film up as a panculturalantiwar film a la All Quiet on the WesternFront, it is as hyperpatriotic as any JohnWayne picture of the 50s. And that's what theAcademy wants--clean lines. Kill the damnedGermans, and try to get out alive.Shakespeare in Love: John Madden's lovelyfilm came out of nowhere to wow the movie goingpublic with something that rarely comes along anymore: intelligence, humor and a desire toentertain. Madden and screenwriters Tom Stoppardand Marc Norman aren't catering to anyone here,they're just having the time of their lives. Samegoes for a great ensemble cast with anirrepressible joi de vivre that permeatesevery frame. Miramax has mounted a ballisticcampaign for the film in the past few weeks in anattempt to sway staid Academy members.Unfortunately, the film's lack of gun violence,tanks and Tom Hanks will probably take it out ofthe running nonetheless.The Thin Red Line: Terrence Malick's moody,contemplative war film met with mixed reviews andunexpectedly poor ticket sales upon its nationalrelease. Though it boasts a star-studded castsecond only to Private Ryan, audiences(and, I bet, the Academy) have had problemsconnecting with the movie. Malick makes deeplypersonal films, without compromise. This is bothhis strength and weakness--it seems that thegeneral public isn't quite ready to get inside thedirector's head. Nevertheless, the Academy doesrecognize this film's worth, at least as acomeback film for the long-obscure director. Thenomination itself is Malick's prize.

Elizabeth: Elizabeth was a bad, shallowmovie posing as a good, smart one. Neophytedirector Shekhar Kapur made a perfect mess of thealready-thin plot by attempting to cover up itsgaping holes with purple velvet and big, shinyswords. Want to toss historical accuracy out thewindow? Fine. Want to direct a period piece likean Aerosmith video? Okay. But must you givetalented lead Cate Blanchett such an atrociousscreenplay to work from? Must you so steadfastlyrefuse to permit your title character theslightest bit of development until the last reel?Kapur's film may have conned enough dopey Academymembers to secure it a nomination, but inevitablecomparisons to Shakespeare in Love ("thatother Elizabethan film") will destroy Elizabeth'sOscar prospects--and rightly so.

Life is Beautiful: This one's all aboutpolitics: Life is Beautiful will never,ever win Best Picture. Why? Because the Academy iswildly and unabashedly xenophobic. They don't evenlike to give awards to British films, and at leastthey're in English! Only once before, in 1969, wasa foreign film nominated for both Best Picture andForeign Film--Costa-Gavras' taut politicalthriller Z. The movie was great but of course tookBest Foreign Film honors rather than Best Picture.Benigni's film, too, is a very good one and willbe duly rewarded in the same manner.

WHO WILL WIN: Saving PrivateRyan, Movies that score with critics andaudiences alike (Ryan was uniformlywell-reviewed, and its box-office receipts morethan double its nearest Best Picture competitor)have a tendency to dominate the highly politicalAcademy Awards. Another element in the film'sfavor: the Academy will doubtless conform to itsrecently instated unwritten law--the longest moviewins. Sound ridiculous? Believe it. Recent winnersTitanic, The English Patient, Braveheartand Schindler's List all conform to thismoronic but increasingly reliable dictum. Okay,Private Ryan only edges out The Thin RedLine by a few seconds (both films have anofficial running time of 170 minutes), but itsmonster box-office and industry clout virtuallyensure a win. If the two war flicks split thevote, Shakespeare might come from behind,but don't count on it.

WHO SHOULD WIN: This is a tough one, butI'm calling Shakespeare in Love. Maybe thisfilm doesn't have the lofty philosophicalaspirations of its bloodstained competitors, butit succeeds more completely, on its own terms,than any other film in the running. And it's fun!Shakespeare, in my book, is more whollyinvolving than even Ryan, which begins tomeander in its second half. The movie conjures upmemories of the classic romantic comedies of the40s with its brilliant writing, immenselycharismatic leads and flawless, breakneck pacing.It may just be a matter of taste, but I'll take anear-perfect comedy over a flawed drama any day.

Best ActorNick Nolte, Affliction: Nolte's performancein Affliction is dark. Really dark. So incrediblydark, in fact, that his tortured Wade Whitehousedoes not at first appear to be complex enough tobe an Oscar-worthy performance. A few hours afterviewing the movie, though, it starts to sink in.His unobtrusive body language, for one. Withoutspeaking line of dialogue, Nolte communicates tothe audience a world of repressed pain and theveneer of machismo that inadequately stretches tocover it. Though the performance is incrediblygood, the film's obscurity and this year's stiffcompetition may keep the statuette out of Nolte'shands.

Tom Hanks, Saving Private Ryan: TomHanks is America's good man, our decent soldier.The parts that he takes tend to be sointrinsically sympathetic that, combined with hisclassic stoic-yet-vulnerable schtick, it's almostoverkill. Almost, but not quite; no one can denyHanks' talent as an actor. However, Ryan's CaptainMiller is not his best role. And since Hanks hasalready strutted his stuff twice before for a BestActor award, the Academy may be less willing toreward him yet again-which is part of what makesthe Best Actor race so exciting and tough to callthis year.

Roberto Benigni, Life is Beautiful: Thenewly-internationalized comic superstar seems tobe out of luck in the Best Actor race. TheAcademy's aforementioned xenophobia will take itstoll, surely, but there's another problem as well.It's not a great dramatic performance. As in thedirecting category, Benigi's portrayal of therelentlessly mirthful Guido is for the film but bythe same token is necessarily unextraordinary.Bengini is an actor of great comic talent, butthat can only take him so far. The whole point ofLife is Beautiful is that Guido must keephis dopey, funny face on from start to finish inorder to combat the horrors of Nazism. As such,the role ends up being fundamentallyuncomplicated. There is no way that Benigni'sperformance here can compete with the nuanced andcomplex star turns of the other nominees. We mustnote, though, that he did inexplicably take tophonors at the Screen Actors Guild Awards earlierthis month.

Edward Norton, American History X:Edward Norton is unstoppable. At the tender age of29, he's up for his second Academy Award. He wasrobbed in the 1997 race for Best Supporting Actor(though he won the Golden Globe) by Cuba Gooding,Jr., but now he's hit the big time. Norton isalmost unsettlingly talented; in just a few yearsaudiences have watched him leap, chameleonlike,from psycho killer (Primal Fear) to dancingpreppie (Everyone Says I Love You) to thesemi-reformed white supremacist of the year'sAmerican History X. Though the performancewas intense and thrilling, the Academy probablystill feels that Norton is a bit too green for anOscar. Not to worry. He'll be back before you knowit.Ian McKellen, Gods and Monsters: Sir Iancomes from a prestigious tradition of Londontheater and film, and has firmly establishedhimself Stateside as one of the top Shakespeareanactors--a master of his craft. His performance inGods and Monsters, as the aging, gayfilmmaker James Whale, was superb. But like Nolte,he may suffer due to the film's low profile. Don'tcount McKellen out, though. The Academy'spreferences often tend toward older, establishedactors.

WHO WILL WIN: There's no clear answerhere. By process of elimination we can probablynarrow the playing field down to Hanks andMcKellen (commercial darling; critical darling)purely from industry buzz. But to tell the truth,it's anyone's game. Five strong performances, allflawed, make for a tight Best Actor race thisyear.

WHO SHOULD WIN: More ambiguity here.Okay, not Hanks--he's done better. NotBenigni--too one-note. Probably not Norton,because his role did not require the subtlety andsophistication of Nolte's and McKellen's. Butbetween these two? It's a tossup. The performancesare so different and so good that it's almostimpossible to say, but if pressed, I'll nameNolte. He's been working too long and hard withoutample recognition; at least McKellen's a knight