A battle of heavyweights

The “terrible twos” describes more than a minefield for young parents. It also encapsulates the dilemma of considerably older Academy Award voters and the people (no names, please) who try to predict their behavior.

Best picture

For this year, more than any other in recent memory, it’s easy to identify a pair of Oscar front-runners in most key categories but much harder to decide which of the two is likely to win. And in a couple of the main events, best picture and best director, the co-favorites -- Clint Eastwood’s “Million Dollar Baby” and Martin Scorsese’s “The Aviator” -- present the voters with a total contrast between completely different schools of filmmaking, both of which have proved popular with the academy in the past.

“The Aviator,” of course, is an epic of the bigger-than-a-breadbox kind, the type of film that used to come complete with ad campaigns boasting casts of thousands. Its 11 nominations are more than any other contender managed, and it’s of a piece with other best picture winners including “Ben-Hur” and “Braveheart,” “Gladiator” and “Titanic.” The academy doesn’t like to give its biggest award to small pictures.

Except when it does.

When it’s in the mood, the academy enjoys having its heartstrings plucked by plucky little pictures. Think everything from “Rocky” to “Chariots of Fire” to “Shakespeare in Love” and “A Beautiful Mind.” Emotion doesn’t trump epic every time out of the box, but when there are reasons, it does. And this year, there appear to be reasons.

Reason No. 1 is the element of surprise. Oscar voters don’t like being taken for granted, don’t want to be voting for the film everyone said they’d be picking three months earlier. While “The Aviator’s” pedigree made it a contender from the moment it was announced, “Million Dollar Baby” has literally come out of nowhere, getting added to 2004’s release schedule at the last minute. It’s the one film that has not been around long enough to wear out its welcome.

And then there is the Clint Eastwood factor. No one in Hollywood has had anything remotely like his career arc, from action hero to auteur, and he is held in such high emotional esteem that things like the conservative backlash against his film, which might have hurt another picture, actually seems to have worked in its favor. “Aviator’s” scale might yet give it a close victory, but all the momentum is pointing in “Million Dollar Baby’s” direction.

The pick: “Million Dollar Baby.”

Best director

In the best director category, it’s still a question of Eastwood versus Scorsese, but here things get trickier. For one thing, Eastwood has already won this award and Scorsese, generally conceded to be one of the most accomplished in the business, has been nominated so many times without a victory he’s in danger of turning into the directing version of actress Susan Lucci, who didn’t take home a Daytime Emmy until her 19th nomination.

The conventional wisdom around town about the top two categories has been that “Baby” and “Aviator” would split them, and much of the smart money still thinks that’s the likeliest scenario. But right now sentiment seems to be moving toward a “Baby” sweep. For one thing, though Scorsese is admired and respected, Eastwood is closer to revered, and that makes a difference. For another, actors hold the balance of power in the academy, and they like to see one of their own do well. That’s how Kevin Costner beat Scorsese in 1990, and it just might happen again.

The pick: Clint Eastwood.

Best actor

When it comes to the best actor category, none of this agonizing is necessary. As his two acting nominations indicate, this is Jamie Foxx’s year, and his star turn in “Ray” is one of the surest bets.

Yes, it is always possible that Foxx fatigue will infect the voters, that they might decide to reward the best performance of Don Cheadle’s career or the most emotional of Eastwood’s, but don’t bet on it. If Foxx doesn’t win, it’ll be the upset of the year, and more people than host Chris Rock will be hot and bothered.

The pick: Jamie Foxx.

Best actress

The best actress category is everything best actor is not: rife with candidates and the possibility for surprise. Annette Bening in “Being Julia” squares off against “Million Dollar Baby’s” Hilary Swank, the woman who bested her five years ago. Both give terrific performances, and while fairness would seem to mandate that this is Bening’s turn, the academy is rarely fair. “Baby” receiving seven nominations and “Being” only Bening’s does not bode well for her.

The catch in this category is “Vera Drake’s” Imelda Staunton. She does tremendous work in an admired film, and should Bening and Swank split the vote, the academy’s admiration for British acting could get her the trophy. It’s still a long shot, but it could pay off.

The pick: Hilary Swank.

Best supporting actor

The best supporting actor category mirrors the best actor contest, with one actor dominating the scene. That would be Morgan Freeman as Eastwood’s “Million Dollar Baby” sidekick, Eddie “Scrap Iron” Dupris.

Scrap is Freeman’s fourth nomination, with no victory to date, but it is a classic supporting turn complete with the requisite number of great scenes. The only possible competition comes from “Sideways’ ” Thomas Haden Church, but Freeman is too deserving and too long denied to leave empty-handed this time.

The pick: Morgan Freeman.

Best supporting actress

Don’t look for the best supporting actress category to be this easy to pick, though; as opposed to supporting actor, it has two real contenders. But what contenders they are.

Cate Blanchett is one of the most respected of today’s young actresses, and her nervy impersonation of Katharine Hepburn in “The Aviator” has the wind of a Screen Actors Guild victory at its back. How could she lose?

In truth, she may not, but in the opposite corner is the comeback story of the year, Virginia Madsen’s transcendent work (after too many forgettable films) as the emotional heart of “Sideways.” If the academy can resist this trajectory, it has a hard heart indeed.

The pick: Virginia Madsen.

Best adapted screenplay

The two screenplay categories follow the same pattern as the acting categories: One is difficult, one is not.

Best adapted screenplay looks to be the simpler choice. With five nominations and no major stars, “Sideways” has been the little film that could all year, and its Alexander Payne and Jim Taylor screenplay from Rex Pickett’s novel is perceived as its greatest strength. Paul Haggis’ exemplary work on “Million Dollar Baby” could sneak in here, but it’s a long shot.

The pick: “Sideways.”

Best original screenplay

With the best original screenplay nominees, a strong case could be made for and against each. The conventional wisdom favors Charlie Kaufman, the choice of writers and critics alike and denied for the dazzling “Adaptation.” He could still win, for “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind,” but the animus many older voters have against his unconventional style may hamper him again. If that is the case, it’s possible that the academy, with its weaknesses for being perceived as doing good in the world, may take this opportunity to reward Keir Pearson and Terry George for “Hotel Rwanda.”

It’s not the expected choice, but Oscar voters have never wanted to make it too easy for prognosticators, and they’re not about to start now.

The pick: “Hotel Rwanda.”