THE OSCARS ACCORDING TO BOB ...

Byline: Bob Strauss Film Writer

BEST PICTURE

There exists a perfect field of five contenders that achieved the highest levels of artistic and emotional impact. Those Perfect Five would be: ``About Schmidt,'' ``Adaptation,'' ``Far From Heaven,'' ``The Hours'' and ``The Pianist.''

But it's not gonna go that way. ``Chicago,'' with its high entertainment value and abject lack of seriousness about murder, corruption and media manipulation, will definitely supplant one of the artier entries.

Martin Scorsese's septic epic ``Gangs of New York'' has successfully projected a seriousness of intent that its simple-minded story line and sensational brutality don't really earn. Still, the film's ambitious scope and its critical view of American history (which, by several coincidences of timing, comes to us at a moment when people everywhere are questioning many things about the nation and its leaders' motives) add up to prestige pick status.

The latest ``Lord of the Rings'' installment, ``The Two Towers,'' mostly kills computer-generated orcs. Of course, even the flesh-and-blood actors are upstaged by the half-computer-generated Gollum, the only character with, well, character, not to mention decent dialogue. But the movie has great sweep and breathtaking visuals like nothing else attempted last year, so it's a definite best picture possibility.

As, though much less so, are two Spanish-language films, Mexico's ``Y Tu Mama Tambien'' and Spain's ``Talk to Her,'' that even the dottiest academy members should know by now are criminally ineligible for this year's foreign language film race.

Expect at least two from the Perfect Five list - most likely the critics' consensus favorite ``Far From Heaven'' and the problematic (because it's by Roman Polanski, and fugitives don't make great acceptance speeches) ``Pianist'' - to be replaced by ``Chicago'' and ``Gangs'' in the academy's final five.

BEST ACTRESS

This is the year's most vexing category. Why, you ask? Isn't this the real Year of the Woman (as opposed to the fake one the academy declared a couple of years back, when it could barely find five performances to round out the category)? ``The Hours'' alone offers three lead contenders, and ``Chicago'' two more, right?

Well, yes. Except the campaign managers - the publicists and studio strategists who try to tell academy members precisely how they should judge these alleged awards for artistic merit - don't see it that way.

They want voters to consider Nicole Kidman and Meryl Streep for the best actress Oscar, but not Julianne Moore, who plays the protagonist of the third, equally weighted story told in ``The Hours'' (and who, by the way, is the only one of the three stars who appears in another story). This is being done for the best of reasons, so Moore won't be competing against herself in ``Far From Heaven,'' for which she's a sure bet to get nominated. Still, the whole thing reeks of dishonesty if the process is to register even a pretense of being about creative merit.

Similarly, am I the only commentator who won't quietly accept a supporting actress campaign for Streep's work in ``Adaptation,'' what may be the great actress' most inventive, complicated and behaviorally wide- ranging film performance ever? I haven't done the math, but she's probably on screen more in ``Adaptation'' than she is in ``The Hours.'' Again, the good argument: Why compete against herself? And again, why diminish great work by promoting it for a less-prestigious category.

Anyway, unless the mass of Oscar voters exhibit discernment, the best actress race looks likely to be Kidman and Streep for ``Hours,'' Moore for ``Heaven,'' Renee Zellweger for ``Chicago'' and Diane Lane for ``Unfaithful.'' ``Frida's'' Salma Hayek is the most likely substitute for one of those. A worthy possibility would be ``Secretary's'' adorably demented Maggie Gyllenhaal (hey, she may like getting spanked, but she doesn't kill herself or anyone else).

BEST ACTOR

The men's races are much less complicated than the women's this year. The likely five in this category include sure bets Jack Nicholson (``Schmidt'') and Daniel Day-Lewis (``Gangs''), with Jack probably winning a precedent-setting fourth Oscar. The all-but-sure-bet is Michael Caine for his career performance in ``The Quiet American.'' Even academy voters who can't follow the movie should understand that neglecting Nicolas Cage's bravura twin work in ``Adaptation'' - really and truly the hardest and best performance by anybody last year - would be the greatest of travesties. And Adrien Brody's oddly passive but deeply affecting portrayal of ``The Pianist's'' Holocaust survivor should round out the field.

I have no problem with any of this, although I would like to see ``Insomnia's'' Al Pacino acknowledged for his best work since (at least) ``Donnie Brasco,'' (maybe) since ``Glengarry Glen Ross,'' and (probably) since ``The Godfather, Part II.'' The clearly talented Derek Luke may be ``Antwone Fisher's'' brightest hope for recognition (in a year dominated by amorality, depression and sociopathy, it's tough for standard feel-good fare to get traction). But a nod for ``Chicago's'' Richard Gere, who won a Globe for the best dancing that modern editing techniques can create, would mean trouble.

SUPPORTING ACTRESS

This category is going to be dominated by women giving lead performances (``Adaptation's'' Streep, ``Hours' '' Moore and ``Chicago's'' Catherine Zeta-Jones). That leaves space for two genuine supporting roles, and hopefully last year's most expertly turned examples, Kathy Bates' exuberant mother-of-the-groom in ``About Schmidt'' and Patricia Clarkson's catty ``Far From Heaven'' neighbor, will get the recognition they deserve. Others who would have earned a berth in a more fairly politicized race include ``Tadpole's'' Bebe Neuwirth and ``Kissing Jessica Stein's'' Tovah Feldshuh.

SUPPORTING ACTOR 

``Adaptation's'' Chris Cooper has owned this Oscar since the first legitimate critics awards (and yes, he has less screen time than Meryl Streep).

Among the also-rans: definitely Paul Newman for his elegant ``Road to Perdition'' crime boss; probably Dennis Quaid for ``Heaven's'' gay husband and Christopher Walken for ``Catch Me If You Can's'' larcenous loser dad; and, we hope, John C. Reilly for anything he did last year (though, most likely, for ``Chicago's'' ``Mr. Cellophane'') and Andy Serkis for the human half of ``The Two Towers' '' Gollum, rather than Ed Harris' overwrought ``Hours'' AIDS victim.

DIRECTOR

Wonder of wonders, this is turning into Martin Scorsese's prize to lose. Despite general acknowledgment of ``Gangs of New York's'' conceptual flaws and awkward final form, America's greatest filmmaker appears destined to get one of those preposterous career-recognition awards from an organization that's been - we'll be delicate here - too stupid to ever recognize him for such masterpieces as ``Taxi Driver,'' ``Raging Bull'' or ``GoodFellas.''

Of course, big sweeps for ``Chicago'' or ``The Hours'' could win the statuette for Rob Marshall or Stephen Daldry, respectively. Peter Jackson will be nominated again, but expect the academy to hold their honors until next year for the final episode of the ``LOTR'' trilogy. Fifth Directors Guild nominee Roman Polanski has, well, the Polanski problem, but ``The Pianist'' is still his best and most personal work in decades.

One of those guys could be replaced with ``About Schmidt's'' Alexander Payne, ``Adaptation's'' Spike Jonze, ``Far From Heaven's'' Todd Haynes, ``Talk to Her's'' Pedro Almodovar or ``Y Tu Mama Tambien's'' Alfonso Cuaron. And never underestimate the power of Steven Spielberg, who directed both a brilliant sci-fi parable (``Minority Report'') and an expertly engaging romp (``Catch Me If You Can'') last year.

CAPTION(S):

6 photos

Photo:

(1) Nicolas Cage and Meryl Streep in ``Adaptation.''

(2) Nicole Kidmas in ``The Hours.''

(3) Catherine Zeta-Jones, left, and Renee Zellweger in ``Chicago.''

(4) Michael Caine in ``The Quiet American.''

(5) Jack Nicholson in ``About Schmidt.''

(6) Tom Hanks