CRYSTAL BALL GAZING : The ‘Emperor’ That Would Be King

It’s fearless prediction time, the moment at which we risk friendships, good will and, most of all, reputation. People like to feel superior to film critics, though; it seems to be part of our job description, so once again here’s a nice chance for reader satisfaction.

Various publications have been polling various film critics for some time now; if you’ve seen any of the results, I have to admit that I’ve changed my mind slightly since the first flush of nomination fever. Not my own favorites, heaven knows. But with more time to hear the talk around town, I’ve reappraised slightly what I think “the academy” may consider a sure thing. (Beware the sure thing. There appear to be two or three of them this year, but there is nothing sure in the world of the Oscar, as we all know, or Frank Capra wouldn’t have been up from his table and halfway to the dais when the actual winner turned out to be Frank Lloyd--for “Cavalcade” in 1933.)

Let’s begin well away from the Big 6 and work upwards. I’ll start with original song, which seems to be one of those few sure things. Are people whistling the theme from “Cry Freedom” at your bus stop? No. And they’re not bopping to “Shakedown” from “Beverly Hills Cop II,” either. “Dirty Dancing’s” ebullient “I’ve Had the Time of My Life,” which seems to bring the whole movie back in a rush, will win handily, I suspect, and it certainly is the winner at our house.

The question of the best original score is harder. “Cry Freedom” was exceptional, yet I suspect that the equally unhackneyed and interesting music for “The Last Emperor” will win, partly because more academy members saw the Bertolucci film and also because it may be part of a “Last Emperor” sweep.

Then we move into the real office pool tie-breakers, the short films and the documentaries. This is one of the rare fields where proof of seeing all the nominated films is required; the foreign-language film is the other. (Is that so peculiar? Wouldn’t it seem that the minimum requirement in any category would be to have seen all the movies involved? Ah well, and who among us has listened to every one of the political candidates, either? All they decide is our future. Idealism, that’s all this is.)

If idealism is still a big factor among the documentary crowd, then “Eyes on the Prize,” the last in a series tracing our country’s civil rights struggle, might win the documentary feature. However, I suspect we are in a very different mood today and that a lighter, expertly done film about the wits of the Algonquin Round Table, “The Ten-Year Lunch,” will make it; it would also be my own choice.

Among the documentary shorts, there is a searing film, “In the Wee Wee Hours . . .,” about our own homeless, photographed in alleys and under downtown Los Angeles freeways by a pair of USC students, which seems to me to be the best and most telling of the group. Want to bet that “Young at Heart,” a movie about a pair in their 80s who meet on a painting trip to England, fall in love and marry, is the winner?

For the animated short films, “The Man Who Planted Trees”--my choice, too--seems superior in every way, even to the charming “George and Rosemary.” The live-action shorts may be a tussle: “Ray’s Male Heterosexual Dance Hall” is engaging and deftly done; audiences love it. Yet essentially it’s a one-line joke. “Making Waves,” on the other hand, is one of those marvelous English entries whose wit comes from character and which sticks with you like a great short story. I would hope the membership liked “Making Waves” (I do), but I wonder if they might not go for the trendy appeal of “Ray’s.”

Another hard choice is the makeup category. You haven’t seen “Happy New Year”? Join the crowd. If enough people haven’t, then the award will go to the Dynel Bigfoot in “Harry and the Hendersons.” I think “Happy New Year,” one of those painstaking makeup transformation miracles, may edge out its competition; it would be my own choice. One thing is certain: this is the least-seen category of the year and maybe of the 1980s.

On the matter of little-seen films, you begin to realize how few votes it takes to win in the foreign-language film category. If only a very few members took the trouble to see “Pathfinder” from Norway, or Spain’s “Course Completed,” in order to qualify to vote, it means that the winner here might be decided by a dozen or so of the membership. This category is a real wrencher: I think academy members will go for France’s “Au Revoir Les Enfants” over its next closest competitor, Denmark’s “Babette’s Feast.” I suppose the French film is my choice as well, but this is the hardest call of the bunch for me, I admire the soaring message of the Danish film so much.

Sound is one of those categories understood best by the branch that nominates it, but voted upon by the entire membership. Into this maelstrom I put my hand and pluck out “Empire of the Sun,” as both the academy’s choice and my own. Best not to inquire into reasons too closely here. (Should it have been “RoboCop”? “Lethal Weapon”?) This is gut reaction speaking here.

Best visual effects is another choice from the same school of thought; I think the membership would cozy up more to the “Innerspace” milieu and its special effects rather than to the ones in the ultra-violent “Predator.” (“Innerspace” is my pick as well.)

For best editing, this may be the one spot where the appalling trashiness of “Fatal Attraction” has its moment in the sun. Most people in the industry know the story of the remaking of the film through editing after its early previews, and if it was nominated by people who admire bottom-line success, they might also choose this as the place to register their applause. My own choice would be “Broadcast News.”

In the writing awards, you might look to John Patrick Shanley’s original screenplay for “Moonstruck,” even in the face of such heavyweight competition as “Broadcast News” and the endearing “Hope and Glory.” Shanley did win at the Writers Guild awards, don’t forget, and his lovely, off-center poetry seems particularly fresh. (It would be my pick too.)

For an adapted screenplay, I think the problems of whipping “The Last Emperor” into anything even remotely watchable will seem even more impressive than “My Life as a Dog,” although the Swedish film would be my personal choice.

Among the cinematography choices, Vittorio Storaro’s simultaneously sumptuous and delicate work on “The Last Emperor” will probably appeal to the greatest number of academy voters, only 5% of whom probably saw Haskell Wexler’s cinematography in “Matewan.” Comparing budgets, difficulty--”Matewan” is probably three-quarters night shooting--and final result, “Matewan” seems a breathtaking human achievement. For that reason, it and I go down the road together, but I don’t expect the academy to join us.

Art direction and costume design seem this year to belong to “The Last Emperor,” and deservedly so, although there is enormous affection for the great Dorothy Jeakins, who came out of retirement to join the emeritus company of “The Dead.” For sheer challenge, scope and refined elegance, however, “The Last Emperor” has my votes this time too.

Among the strong best supporting actor collection, Sean Connery is as sure a bet as you can find, although his role has nowhere near the challenge of ones he’s been passed over for in the past. (“Robin and Marian” and “The Man Who Would Be King” spring to mind.) With every bit of admiration for Connery, and for Albert Brooks as well, the unparalleled performance this year was Morgan Freeman’s in “Street Smart.” What he has going against him is the tiny number of voters who actually saw this Cannon film, and Connery’s 30-year career achievement clout.

Over on the best supporting actress side, this is one place where “everyone” seems agreed on Olympia Dukakis. (Me too.) The sentimental runner-up would be Ann Sothern; the most mystifying nomination of all is Anne Archer’s, unless it’s for her aim.

The best actor category was a surprise to me. I thought the world at large was as bowled over by Robin Williams as I had been--turns out it’s Michael Douglas who’s supposedly bowled everyone over. (See? Don’t trust us critics, what do we know?)

Cher, I think, will be allowed to come into her own as best actress at last. The only upset I see lurking might come from dark horse Sally Kirkland (my own favorite, much as I adore “Moonstruck” and Cher in it).

For director, I think we’ll have Bernardo Bertolucci, especially if you look back over the kind of movie for which directors have won in the past. My own heart stays with John Boorman and “Hope and Glory,” for ever and ever.

And exactly the same configuration may prevail for best picture--”The Last Emperor” seems to fulfill all the requirements people think of as A Best Picture.

Stanley Kauffmann was one of the few critics to come out flat-footedly and use the “b” word in discussing “Emperor”; he called it boring. Others of us have settled for “cold,” but it is certainly breathtaking, and here in the best picture category, that counts for a lot. (You can tell from the previous category where my own vote would go.)

For anyone with the perfectly valid howl, “Who cares what anyone but the voters think,” I would normally be in your corner. However, this year, one of the sponsors of the Academy Awards telecast has given print critics a remarkable use for all our abstract brow-furrowing: a ballot in which the highest number right wins $1,000 for the film-related charity of the writer’s choice. A humane use for all this wild speculation--amazing!

(Pssssst, anybody got a really sure thing?)