Oscar Buzz More Like a Quiet Fizz?

Screenwriter Ed Solomon was studying his Oscar ballot when the realization hit him like a brick--an actor playing someone with an infirmity stood a good chance of walking off again with an Academy Award.

This year’s best actor nominees include Geoffrey Rush as a pianist suffering from a mental breakdown in “Shine,” Billy Bob Thornton as a mentally impaired killer in “Sling Blade,” Ralph Fiennes as a bedridden burn victim in “The English Patient” and Woody Harrelson as a paraplegic in “The People vs. Larry Flynt.”

It would be five with Tom Cruise’s character in “Jerry Maguire,” Solomon said, “if you consider wanting to be an agent some kind of mental illness.”

Go back eight years and seven of the actors who have won played characters with serious mental or physical problems.

The list includes Nicolas Cage as an alcoholic in “Leaving Las Vegas,” Tom Hanks as a simple-minded Southerner in “Forrest Gump” and a lawyer dying with AIDS in “Philadelphia,” Al Pacino as a blind man in “Scent of a Woman,” Anthony Hopkins as a cannibalistic psychopath in “The Silence of the Lambs,” Daniel Day-Lewis as an artist-writer with cerebral palsy in “My Left Foot” and Dustin Hoffman as an autistic savant in “Rain Man.”

Only Jeremy Irons’ 1990 Oscar-winning performance in “Reversal of Fortune” as Claus van Bulow--a man accused of attempting to murder his socialite wife--had no obvious impairment.

On the other hand, actresses have not routinely won the Oscar for such roles, largely because those characters aren’t written with women in mind. Two exceptions in recent years would be Holly Hunter, who captured the 1993 Oscar by portraying a mute in “The Piano” and Kathy Bates’ 1990 performance as a psychopathic fan in “Misery.”

This year, none of the best actress nominees fit into roles that could be compared to the roles showcased with the best actor nominations. They include Frances McDormand in “Fargo,” Kristin Scott Thomas in “The English Patient,” Emily Watson in “Breaking the Waves,” Brenda Blethyn in “Secrets & Lies” and Diane Keaton in “Marvin’s Room.”

Oscar season is a time when members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences engage in spirited debate over films and performances.

But the actor category notwithstanding, this year’s Oscar race seems relatively subdued.

“I don’t hear a lot of talk,” said one veteran producer. “I don’t even hear it being discussed. Maybe it’s because the people up for awards don’t have a lot of enemies or friends in this town.”

Some even wonder if the public’s interest in the 69th Annual Academy Awards Monday night could be impacted because of nominations going to smaller independent films.

“I think we’ll see [if there is an impact],” said academy executive director Bruce Davis. “It hasn’t seemed to matter in the past. Anything one says about this year is pure speculation.”

Davis noted that the Academy Awards has been the second highest-rated TV show next to the Super Bowl “year in and year out.” Viewership doesn’t depend on the popularity of the films or actors that are nominated, he added, since the show itself has become a “national ritual” known for the special moments that occur between the awards.

“It’s not only about who won,” Davis said. “There is the Kirk Douglas moment or the Mira and Paul Sorvino moment or the Christopher Reeve moment. Those are the types of things you have to talk about at the water cooler the next day.”

Tom Pollock, chairman of the American Film Institute, said that box office should not be a determining factor when it comes to the Oscars, but added that part of the fun Americans have in watching the Academy Awards is debating which one should win.

This year’s show, Pollock said, could be less interesting for a large television audience “because fewer people saw the nominated movies other than ‘Jerry Maguire.’ ”

In the best picture category, for example, “Jerry Maguire” has taken in more than $140 million. At an average of $5 a ticket, that means more than 28 million tickets have been sold. The other nominees include “The English Patient” ($60 million), “Fargo” ($24 million), “Shine” ($31 million) and “Secrets & Lies” ($10 million).

Director Joel Schumacher (“A Time to Kill”) said Oscar night draws fans because it traditionally means “glamour, glamour, glamour, just as the Super Bowl means fun, fun, fun.”

But Schumacher added: “I think people get more excited when the contest seems to be between people they know and have invested in for years. I think they don’t know who these people [nominees] are. I hope they find out.”

“There isn’t the viewership [this year] among the general public that causes word of mouth about [a particular] picture,” said entertainment lawyer David Colden.

Colden noted that by the time “Forrest Gump” received its Oscar, it had likely been seen by 40 million to 50 million Americans. “There was a lot of buzz on that movie at that point,” he said.

Yet, even inside the film industry, people say there doesn’t appear to be a picture this year that is embraced with the fervor of a “Schindler’s List,” “Forrest Gump” or even last year’s farmyard comedy, “Babe.”

“I don’t think it is a year that will get anyone’s passions going,” said one veteran producer. “You vote because you vote.”

“Last year, you had ‘Il Postino,’ ‘Sense and Sensibility,’ ‘Braveheart,’ ‘Apollo 13’ and ‘Babe,’ ” said another producer. “They were movies that absolutely inspired passion.”

Producer Marvin Worth said it goes beyond the movies. He said he senses a lack of enthusiasm at the studios themselves.

“I just don’t think the studios worry if they get an Academy Award,” Worth said.

That is not to say that this year’s best picture nominations have not inspired debates.

Is “The English Patient” a film of style and scope that follows in the tradition of David Lean, or is it an overlong, confusing love story whose only comparison with Lean’s “Lawrence of Arabia” is an ocean of sand?

Is “Fargo” clever and entertaining or is it too offbeat for an Oscar?

Does “Shine” make emotional connections with its audience or is it manipulative?

Should “Secrets & Lies” win because of compelling performances or is it too small in its goal as a picture?

Does “Jerry Maguire” reflect modern American culture better than any recent film or is it too commercial?

For that matter, why don’t more actresses get roles that come with infirmities?