MOVIES : Let the Games Begin : If 81 critics can’t agree, what will Oscar voters do? Our expert knows . . . sort of.

If you listen very carefully, you can hear it building, bit by bit, day by day. Yes, things are relatively quiet now, but in six weeks, the fuss will be considerable. Because on Wednesday, Feb. 19, at some ungodly hour of the morning (the better to accommodate the eager minions of the world’s press), the nominees for the 1991 Academy Awards will be somberly announced.

Between that day and this, a massive publicity apparatus will be at work, trying to persuade the members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences to cast their ballot this way or that among the 238 eligible films. Elaborate screenings will be held, cassettes mailed en masse and determined ad campaigns will fatten both Daily Variety and the Hollywood Reporter. For no matter how mightily some folks might protest, the winning of an Oscar is the recognition calculated to salve the most painful of show business wounds.

Because so many care so much about the Oscars and also, frankly, because the academy is a somewhat mysterious group with arcane voting procedures and a well-deserved reputation for baffling choices, predicting what the group will do is one of Hollywood’s favorite spectator sports. Civilians may talk about what ought to win an Oscar, but those closer to the inside, like high-stakes gamblers everywhere, are concerned chiefly with figuring out who will end up with the brass ring, not who deserves it.

It is in that spirit, and after an informal poll of faithful Oscar watchers, that the following predictions are modestly offered. This year has been an especially trying one for prognosticators, largely because of the absence of any guaranteed academy pleaser like “Dances With Wolves.” On the other hand, even in the easiest of years no one can say for certain what the academy will do, and, in all honesty, probably no one would want it any other way.

Best picture: Sure to be nominated are three pictures: “The Prince of Tides,” “Bugsy” and “The Silence of the Lambs.” With its glossy mainstream romanticism, “Tides” is the most academy-friendly picture around, and most observers consider it the early favorite to actually win the Oscar. “Bugsy,” albeit somewhat colder in tone, has many of the same qualities and “Lambs,” though its violence would ordinarily make it suspect, has enough adherents to at least make the final five. With strengths across the board, these three films should also be the leaders in total nominations.

The last two slots are more problematical. There is a great deal of sentiment for “Beauty and the Beast” but it faces several hurdles, including the fact that the academy has never ever nominated an animated feature. Also, no one knows how much resistance actors, who form a major voting block, will have toward a film that does very well without them, and there is also chafing at the perception that Disney is trying to stuff the film down the academy’s throat. Still, “Beauty” delivers so handsomely on so many traditional Hollywood virtues that, in a weak year, it is a good bet to make the grade.

“The Fisher King” is a possibility for the fifth slot, as are “Grand Canyon” and both “Thelma & Louise” and “JFK,” though the tinge of controversy that surrounded both will hurt more than help. More likely, though in some senses a long shot, is “Boyz N the Hood.” This is a picture very much in the traditional academy mold (in the way that Spike Lee’s movies, for instance, never are) but it is hampered by having been released so early in the year. If Sony, which has the delicate sensibilities of Warren Beatty and Steven Spielberg to worry about, can carve out enough time and money to mount a major campaign and jog voters’ memories, “Boyz” could be nominee No. 5.

Best director: Following the best picture pattern, Barbra Streisand, Barry Levinson and Jonathan Demme should be nominated for “Tides,” “Bugsy” and “Lambs,” though the academy’s past indifference to Streisand makes her more of a question mark than she deserves to be.

The final two slots could go any number of ways. Both Oliver Stone (“JFK”) and Terry Gilliam (“The Fisher King”) are seen to have stronger shots as directors than their films do, and though “Cape Fear” is definitely not the academy’s cup of tea, a director of Martin Scorsese’s ability can never be counted out within his own branch. If “Boyz N the Hood” gets a nomination, and possibly even if it doesn’t, John Singleton’s name will come up.

The longest shot, but a very real one, is Polish director Agnieszka Holland. The directors have a history of nominating overseas talent, and Holland’s film, “Europa, Europa,” which is not eligible for the foreign-language film Oscar, garnered a great deal of support over the many months it played Los Angeles. In fact, this film could make surprise appearances in any number of categories.

Best actor: Once again, the same three names occur: Nick Nolte for “Tides,” Warren Beatty for “Bugsy” and Anthony Hopkins for his lip-smacking chores in “The Silence of the Lambs.” Because Robin Williams is an actor the academy seems fond of (two nominations over the past four years), he should get picked for “Fisher King” but not “Hook” (whose nominations will be almost exclusively in the visual categories).

The last slot, once again, is wide open. Danny Glover is possible for “Grand Canyon,” as is William Hurt for “The Doctor,” though that film may have faded from voters’ memories. River Phoenix was very strong in “My Own Private Idaho,” but it’s not clear whether enough voters saw the film. And Robert De Niro, though his work in “Cape Fear” had the quality of reprise, can’t be totally dismissed either. Still, in the long run, none of this will matter very much, for if there is one award that can be called at this early date it is that Nick Nolte will walk off with not only his first nomination but his first Oscar as well.

Best actress: Once you get past Jodie Foster for “Silence of the Lambs” and both Geena Davis and Susan Sarandon for “Thelma & Louise,” this category appears to be the most amorphous of the lot, with voters likely to go with familiar names and faces in the absence of any other guidelines.

In this spirit, and because the film probably appealed to academy types more than the general public, Bette Midler (who was in fact fine once the latex was removed) should get nominated for “For the Boys” and even Michelle Pfeiffer has a chance for “Frankie & Johnny.” Both Laura Dern in “Rambling Rose” and Mary Stuart Masterson’s excellent work in “Fried Green Tomatoes” depend for their chances on how many members saw their films. But even though everyone saw “Prince of Tides,” Streisand’s odds for a nomination seem considerably slimmer here than in the director’s category.

Best supporting actress: Mercedes Ruehl as Jeff Bridges’ long-suffering partner in “Fisher King,” Juliette Lewis as the abused innocent in “Cape Fear” and Kate Nelligan as the mother from hell in “Prince of Tides” head everyone’s list of nominees. Because the studio has placed “Fried Green Tomatoes’ ” Jessica Tandy in the supporting category, a nomination for her seems likely. Rounding out the group could very well be Maggie Smith, well-liked (five nominations so far) and truly luminous in “Hook.” Long shots in this grouping include Judy Davis in “Barton Fink,” Alfre Woodard in “Grand Canyon” and “Tomatoes’ ” Mary Stuart Masterson if the academy gets uppity and decides hers was not a leading role.

Best supporting actor: The richest selection in any of the categories, with so many potential names that picking them blindfolded out of a hat seems as good a way as any of determining the nominees. Surest selection looks like canny veteran Jack Palance, twice nominated but never a winner, who stole “City Slickers” right out from under his no doubt better-paid co-stars. Right behind him should be the not-quite-as-amusing Alan Rickman, whose Sheriff of Nottingham was easily the best thing about “Robin Hood.” Also very promising are Robert Duvall’s much-put-upon father in “Rambling Rose” and Ned Beatty’s cameo in “Hear My Song.”

From here on in, it gets cloudy. Both “Bugsy” and “Barton Fink” have multiple possibilities, with gangsters Ben Kingsley, Harvey Keitel and Elliott Gould looking good in the former, and studio chief Michael Lerner and tireless insurance salesmen John Goodman impressive in the latter. Then there is Larry Fishburne in “Boyz,” Joe Pesci in “JFK” . . . well, you get the idea.

Best original screenplay: The writers’ branch of the academy is traditionally the most adventurous, opting for choices that would give the rest of the membership a coronary. This year, the surest nominees include James Toback for “Bugsy” and Callie Khouri for “Thelma & Louise.” In the next tier are Richard LaGravenese for “Fisher King,” John Singleton for “Boyz” and Lawrence and Meg Kasdan for “Grand Canyon.” The longest shot, though possible given this branch’s predilections, is John Sayles’ intricate script for “City of Hope.”

Best adapted screenplay: After you get past “Silence of the Lambs,” it’s anybody’s guess. “At Play in the Fields of the Lord,” which should have won the academy’s heart but apparently did not, has a chance here, as do “Prince of Tides,” “JFK,” even “Naked Lunch.” This is another spot where “Europa, Europa” could spring up, and some wise souls might even remember that “Beauty and the Beast” had a screenplay and that someone--Linda Woolverton--wrote it. Stranger things have happened. Even in the academy. Come to think of it, especially in the academy.