WHAT THE SEERS SEE IN THE STARS ABOUT THE STARS

Barbara Stabiner consulted her spirit guides about the Oscars. They reported that “Amadeus,” as a word, carried lots of power and that the letter s will figure heavily in winners’ names. They hinted that names like Sissy Spacek are ones to watch.

Since there apparently is no way to breech the security at Price Waterhouse to get an early fix on the awards, Calendar consulted folks like Stabiner, who live by their sixth sense.

They found the psychic aura surrounding the Academy Awards as smoggy as Los Angeles itself. Predicting the Oscars, they said, was difficult since Hollywood politics--rather than film aesthetics--rule many Academy members’ votes.

Stabiner, who lives on Long Island but flies to the West Coast periodically for sessions with her clients (most work in the entertainment industry), refused to issue specific predictions: “Predicting the Academy Awards is like predicting the outcome of a war.”

But her “channels” (unseen spirits) had some definite opinions on Hollywood. She said they told her that “the Academy Awards are concluded on the basis of the gross at the box office. On rare occasions, a sleeper film arouses the consciousness of the mass public which is stronger than the selfish interests of sheer materialism and upsets the hierarchy of Hollywood.”

(She mentioned “E.T.,” “Raiders of the Lost Ark,” “Twelve Angry Men,” “To Kill a Mockingbird” and others as examples of such films.)

She added, “The honesty portrayed in these pictures is in direct contrast to the hypocrisy that dominates the Hollywood hierarchy.”

Just as writers consult with their Muses, these psychics, clairvoyants, sensitives, seers or what-have-you employ a variety of methods to tap into a consciousness that enables them to interpret the past, present and future for their customers.

They construct astrological charts to interpret stars’ influences. Or they meditate with unseen higher level spirits. They disdain being called psychics , claiming that the title better suits the $25 storefront palm/Tarot card readers.

Lynda Woolf, who has a call-in radio show in Lake Tahoe, is familiar with show biz--her father worked in films as a director of photography. She began working solely as a clairvoyant 12 years ago, after realizing that the “pictures” she saw in her mind could help others. Until then, she had offered free advice to patrons of her beauty shop. Now her clients span the country.

“I prefer to call myself a counselor,” she said over tea in Neiman-Marcus’ restaurant during a visit here to meet with clients. “It’s easier for people to handle.”

She was leery of predicting the Oscars, since, she said, she works better on a one-to-one basis and had no upcoming sessions with any nominees. She finally agreed, explaining that it would be “fun.”

As she scanned the list of nominees, she made her observations from the “energy” emitting from the names and from the images that came into her mind’s eye. She had seen only “Beverly Hills Cop” and “Places in the Heart.”

“It (the ceremony) feels to me that it will be very long,” she said, then repeated herself. “Woooooooooo!! Very long.”

Woolf, who also is conversant in astrology, talked about a planetary configuration (Venus and Mercury in retrograde) and its impact on the ceremony: “I just find it very interesting that a communications industry has their awards when the planets ruling communication and emotions decide to go retrograde (i.e., creating lots of havoc).”

As she gave her predictions, she mentioned the trouble she encountered sensing the winners.

“The politics are getting in the way of it (her predictions),” she said. “The industry has changed so much, the awards aren’t based on quality anymore, they’re based on gross--it’s not art, it’s box office. It’s really a shame to see a fine talent or a great product set aside because of politics.”

She offered several examples of who she “saw” winning as opposed to who might actually win:

Original screenplay: “My gut says ‘El Norte’; the money says ‘Beverly Hills Cop.’ ”

Picture: “Amadeus.”

Director: “ ‘Amadeus’ (meaning Milos Forman) will take it.”

Actor: “Something tells me (Sam) Waterston could pull it out, but my first instinct is Tom Hulce.”

Supporting actor: Pat Morita or Adolph Caesar.

Actress: “I’ll be really disappointed if Judy Davis doesn’t get it. From the energy I get in terms of what was put out there for the project, she deserves it.”

Supporting actress: Lindsay Crouse.

Foreign-language film: “Dangerous Moves.”

Screenplay adaptation: “A Passage to India.”

Her final comment was delivered with a laugh: “I’m gonna hate myself the morning after the Oscars for doing this!”

Woolf’s 19-year-old son, Jonathan Goldner, who lives in Los Angeles, also says he is clairvoyant, with a special proficiency at determining past lives that people may have lived. Although he doesn’t work professionally (“I don’t want to do that; it’s more just a pastime”), he, like his mother, sees “pictures in my mind.”

He had joined his mother at tea and agreed to look over the nominations. Of the movies listed, he’d seen only “The Natural.” Many of his impressions didn’t jibe with Mom’s.

His choices:

Picture: “ ‘Killing Fields’ is gonna get a lot of awards, but there’s some kind of upset in the normal order,” he added vaguely, indicating that he didn’t quite understand what that meant.

Director: Milos Forman. (This could be the upset he referred to, since the director’s film traditionally wins Best Picture.)

Actor: F. Murray Abraham.

Actress: “Sissy Spacek, but watch, Jessica Lange could surprise you.”

Supporting actor: Haing S. Ngor.

Supporting actress: “Glenn Close for ‘The Natural.’ That was the only movie I saw.”

Foreign-language film: “Dangerous Moves.”

Original screenplay: “ ‘Splash’ or ‘Beverly Hills Cop.’ I see ‘Cop’ winning due to politics.”

Screenplay adaptation: “ ‘Amadeus,’ but ‘Killing Fields’ is real close behind.”

Celebrated astrologer/clairvoyant Jeane Dixon, based in Washington, makes predictions for supermarket tabloids and (through the Los Angeles Times Syndicate) about 250 newspapers.

Dixon, adviser to numerous politicians and celebrities, received notoriety for her repeated attempts to dissuade President John F. Kennedy from going to Dallas in November, 1963.

When contacted for this article, she said was “deluged with assignments and on deadline.” She called later, saying that she had time to determine three awards.

“The picture ‘Amadeus’ is going to get the most awards. As far as the top award (best picture), I don’t know,” she said. Later she indicated that “Killing Fields” would win, beating “Amadeus” by a narrow margin.

Dixon said the closest margin between winner and runner-up would occur in the best-actress category. “It will be a toss-up between Vanessa (Redgrave for “The Bostonians”) and Sally Field. I think Vanessa’s gonna get it by a shred. It’s all right, though. Sally will win another one someday.”

Dixon fretted over the fact that she couldn’t “meditate” on best-actress nominee Judy Davis because “I don’t have her birth date.”

Dixon finally acquired Davis’ birth date and called back to say that her original prediction for best actress (Redgrave) hadn’t changed.

“I feel that Judy Davis, one day, will get an Oscar, but not this time. She will really skyrocket--maybe even get two Oscars next year.”

For best actor, Dixon “picked up” Sam Waterston, but wasn’t sure, saying--like the others--that academy politics made it difficult to determine.

“This is gonna be a weird ceremony--a wild Monday,” predicted Denver-based astrologer Greg Konrad during a phone interview.

Konrad said he doesn’t know much about the movie business and saw only “Killing Fields” of the nominees.

Creating charts for every nominee would require too much time, but Konrad agreed to cast a horoscope for the event itself and figured 6 p.m. PST as the event’s “birth date.”

His revelations: “Behind the beauty, charm and mystique of the show, I sense a heaviness. It seems to be in the area of communications--there’s going to be confusion and delays. I see people’s egos getting in the way; I also sense a bit of dirty politics and repression behind the scenes. There’s dissent among the organizers--they spent too much money on this thing.”

As for home viewers, they can expect the longest show yet, Konrad said. (The show’s producers had a press conference the other day and asserted that it will be the shortest ever.)

“It’s probably the worst show they’ve ever done,” Konrad said. “I wouldn’t be surprised if it ran really late this year. The overall public reaction may be disappointing and the reviews not good. In fact, they may be surprised that the ratings aren’t as good either.”