Calendar Big Oscars Issue : ‘Gump’ Will Happen : Our film critic doesn’t get to vote on the Oscars, but here’s the next best thing: his plugged-in prognostications.

After all the screenings, the torrent of trade ads, the special events and the cassettes mailed to voters by the carload, the almost inevitable out come of this year’s Oscar race can be summed up in six little words: When in doubt, go with “Gump.”

Having passed the milestone of mere success and become a certifiable national phenomenon, “Forrest Gump” seems poised to convert a high percentage of its 13 nominations into victories. Though it will not win everything it is up for, it is far safer in most categories to bet with the beast than against it, and a final total in double figures (which would rank the film with “Ben-Hur’s” 11 awards and “West Side Story’s” 10) does not seem as unlikely as it should be.

A measure of “Forrest Gump’s” status is that its impressive success at the box office doesn’t seem to have inflicted the kind of damage which similar fiscal good fortune did to “E.T.” Instead, we may be witness to the kind of lemming-type frenzy which gave “Gandhi” an Oscar for best costume design, causing Rex Reed to memorably fume, “For what--wrinkled sheets, burlap sacks and loincloths?”

If there is a potential spoiler in the rest of the field, it is probably not “Pulp Fiction,” though Tarantino-mania remains a potent force. The unknown factor is rather the awkwardly named “The Shawshank Redemption.” Greeted with close to indifference by most critics and audiences, this film has nevertheless managed to arouse strong passion in the hearts of the Hollywood Establishment (screenwriter William Goldman picked it as his best picture choice in the current Premiere) and may make its presence felt in some of its seven nominated areas.

In the key categories, the races look as follows:

Best Picture. As was the case last year, when no one could imagine “Schindler’s List” not going the distance, there seems to be almost no doubt that this is “Forrest Gump’s” time. Best shot for an upset is probably pesky “Pulp Fiction,” but anyone but “Gump” would be a serious surprise.

The pick: “Forrest Gump.”

*

Best Actor. History says that taking this Oscar two years running is quite a feat (only Spencer Tracy managed it, more than half a century ago), but Tom Hanks, who won for “Philadelphia” last year, looks poised to do precisely that with his starring role in “Gump.” For a while Paul Newman’s career-defining work in “Nobody’s Fool” seemed a strong contender, but Hanks appears to have outlasted him.

Most intriguing longshot is Nigel Hawthorne, whose epochal performance in “The Madness of King George” may be able to capitalize on the academy’s fondness for most things British.

The pick: Tom Hanks.

*

Best Actress. A two-person race, and the most difficult of the major categories to call. Jodie Foster is known to be a perennial academy favorite, but her performance in “Nell” did not go over all that well with the younger, nominally hipper members of the organization. Jessica Lange’s work in “Blue Sky,” on the other hand, is probably the best of her career, but can it overcome the institutional bias toward Foster? This one could go either way.

The pick: Jessica Lange.

*

Best Supporting Actor. Not only did Martin Landau do a splendid job as an irascible Bela Lugosi in “Ed Wood,” the fact that he’s a well-liked veteran actor (his Hollywood career started in 1959 with “North by Northwest” and “Pork Chop Hill”) who has been nominated twice but never won gives him all the other qualifications for an Oscar triumph. Landau has taken every supporting actor award this year, and there is no reason to believe that the Oscar should be any different.

The pick: Martin Landau.

*

Best Supporting Actress. Woody Allen has been good for Dianne Wiest’s career: She won a best supporting actress Oscar working for him in “Hannah and Her Sisters” and the same scenario should repeat Monday night. As with her opposite number Landau, Wiest has dominated this category in other awards and ought to be able to overcome the handicap of having another actress from “Bullets Over Broadway” (Jennifer Tilly) on the ballot with her.

The pick: Dianne Wiest.

*

Best Director. Winning the Directors Guild award, which has prefigured the Oscars almost every time, pretty much locked up this category for Robert Zemeckis and “Gump.” His main competition will be Quentin Tarantino and “Pulp Fiction,” but that scenario does not seem especially probable.

The pick: Robert Zemeckis.

*

Best Original Screenplay. This is the place where the “Pulp Fiction” crowd, which is considerable, will get what they came for. Tarantino’s idiosyncratic script is without doubt the film’s strongest aspect, and though the other contenders (“Bullets Over Broadway,” “Four Weddings and a Funeral,” “Heavenly Creatures,” “Red”) make up perhaps the year’s strongest category, none of them has the clout to unseat the man of the hour.

The pick: Quentin Tarantino.

*

Best Screenplay Adaptation. While most critics would probably pick Alan Bennett’s work on his own “The Madness of King George” as the best of the lot, Eric Roth’s version of Winston Groom’s novel should benefit from the academy’s case of Gump fever. However, this is one of the categories where “Shawshank Redemption” and its writer/director Frank Darabont (working from a Stephen King novella) could conceivably pull an upset.

The pick: Eric Roth.

*

Best Foreign-Language Film. Though the greater scandal of the documentary committee overshadowed the flaws in this group, not being able to find a spot for “Red” (good enough to be nominated by the directing, writing and cinematography branches) ought to make the academy ashamed. While the charming “Eat Drink Man Woman” can’t be counted out, the winner will probably be one of the two films that are both sentimental and socially conscious: “Before the Rain” from Macedonia and “Strawberry and Chocolate” from Cuba. Since the later is the easier to take, it is likelier to triumph.

The pick: “Strawberry and Chocolate.”

Aside from these major categories, die-hard Oscar junkies are also going to be focusing on some lesser races with particular interest. Will whatever support “Hoop Dreams” has in the academy be strong enough to give Frederick Marx, Steve James and Bill Haugse an editing Oscar? Will the documentary Oscar further embarrass the academy by not going to the best of the five contenders, “Freedom on My Mind”? And who will win this year’s hardest category to call, art direction, where a plausible case could be made for each of the contenders?

The envelope, please.