It’s that time of year again – time for my predictions of the winners at the upcoming annual Academy Awards. For me, this is a labor of love, especially since there were some excellent releases in 2023 that are very deserving of the accolades they have received, either as Oscar nominees and/or as nominees or winners in the major competitions leading up to this event. And so, with these contests now in the books, that leaves just the main event for the season’s biggest winners to be announced.

Many of the prospective victors in the top six categories – actor, actress, supporting actor, supporting actress, director and picture – have come into view, though a few are still potentially up for grabs. So, with that said and for what it’s worth, here are my picks for who will take home statues on Oscar night.

Best Actor

The Field:  Bradley Cooper, “Maestro”; Colman Domingo, “Rustin”; Paul Giamatti, “The Holdovers”; Cillian Murphy, “Oppenheimer”; Jeffrey Wright, “American Fiction”

Who Will Likely Win:  This is essentially a two-horse race between Cillian Murphy for “Oppenheimer” and Paul Giamatti for “The Holdovers,” with Murphy currently holding the edge. I wouldn’t go so far as to call this a lock, but this result comes about as close to that as one can get. Murphy has won many of the major prizes in this year’s awards season contests, including top honors in the Golden Globe, BAFTA and Screen Actors Guild Award competitions. Giamatti, meanwhile, has taken home statues in the National Board of Review, Golden Globe and Critics Choice Award programs. However, Murphy has bested his chief rival in head-to-head contests, and that track record, combined with the overall juggernaut momentum behind “Oppenheimer” with its 13 overall nominations, are likely to sway in Murphy’s favor on awards night. Admittedly, there has been considerable campaigning behind Giamatti’s candidacy, and some prognosticators are expecting an upset. Personally, however, I don’t sense enough support to score him the win. In large part, this seems to be due to the fact that his role as persnickety boarding school instructor Paul Hunham isn’t all that different from many of his previous screen roles and doesn’t represent a project in which he has been able to stretch his capabilities. That sets Murphy apart, who has shown acting chops here that we haven’t seen from him in earlier roles, a quality that often wins over Academy voters in close races. That could well be the deciding factor in bringing home the prize for Murphy’s performance in the film’s title role.

Who Should Win (Based on the Nominees):  Cillian Murphy, “Oppenheimer.” Murphy truly is the class of this field, and he’s earned this award, not only for this portrayal, but for years of solid, journeyman work as an actor. Should he win, it will be a well-deserved honor.

Who Should Win (Based on All Eligible Candidates):  Cillian Murphy, “Oppenheimer.” Murphy has been front and center in this category even before the film was released. He’s the year’s best lead actor and deserves the win.

Possible Dark Horses:  Paul Giamatti, “The Holdovers,” and Jeffrey Wright, “American Fiction.” It’s somewhat misleading to call Giamatti a dark horse, given the place he currently holds in this field, but he nevertheless appears to be the most likely candidate to pull off an upset. Meanwhile, Jeffrey Wright can’t be totally ruled out at this point either, particularly in light of his victory for best lead performance at the Independent Spirit Awards. However, at this point, Wright seems to be an even longer shot than Giamatti, although, to his credit, this nomination has put the actor on the radar for future awards competitions, having finally broken through the barriers that have held him back over the years, despite the many fine performances that he has delivered in a wide range of pictures. Wright should consider his nomination as his award, one that could well represent a significant down payment toward future victories.

Also-Rans:  Bradley Cooper, “Maestro,” and Colman Domingo, “Rustin.” Like Wright and Giamatti, these nominees should consider their nominations their awards. That’s particularly true where Domingo is concerned, who, like Wright, has finally been recognized for his efforts and has likely placed himself on the radar for future awards consideration. As for Cooper, please see below.

Who Should Have Been Left Out:  Bradley Cooper, “Maestro.” To be perfectly honest, Cooper has no business being a nominee in this category. His hammy overacting and mugging for the camera alone should have gotten him ruled out. There were other contenders more deserving of an Oscar nod here (see below).

Who Else Should Have Been Considered:  Leonardo DiCaprio, “Killers of the Flower Moon,” and Nicolas Cage, “Dream Scenario.” Both of these performances were worthy candidates for nominations and could have easily replaced the undeserved slot occupied by Cooper. Cage turned in one of his finest portrayals in years in this wickedly funny satirical dark comedy, and DiCaprio was very effective as a dimwitted stooge taken in by slick 20th Century con men. Either of them would have made fine substitutes.

Snubs:  Andrew Scott, “All of Us Strangers.” As much as I enjoyed the performances by DiCaprio and Cage, however, I truly would like to have seen Scott earn a nomination for his stellar portrayal in this surreal, deeply affecting romantic drama, a picture that, sadly, was completely shut out for Oscar nods despite having received recognition in virtually all of the season’s other awards competitions. Scott’s exclusion is truly a snub in every sense of the word. He should have been in the running.

Best Actress

The Field:  Annette Bening, “Nyad”; Lily Gladstone, “Killers of the Flower Moon”; Sandra Hüller, “Anatomy of a Fall” (“Anatomie d’une chute”); Carey Mulligan, “Maestro”; Emma Stone, “Poor Things”

Who Will Likely Win:  As with the best actor category, this one is also a two-horse race between Emma Stone for “Poor Things,” and Lily Gladstone for “Killers of the Flower Moon.” But, unlike the actor’s race, this one is tighter, and, at this point, it’s a virtual toss-up, with each nominee’s prospects being just about even. While Stone dominated the early awards season contests with wins at the Golden Globe, Critics Choice and BAFTA Awards, Gladstone appears to have been making up ground with her high-profile win in the Screen Actors Guild competition, often a barometer of what occurs at the Oscars. Gladstone has also received recognition from the National Board of Review and the Golden Globes, a combination of honors that has helped to level the playing field in this category. The actresses each have elements working in their favor (and potentially against them) that could contribute to victories (or losses) on Oscar night. Stone’s performance is easily the best of her career, showing a range we haven’t seen from her, even in some of her previous impressive work. However, Stone received an Oscar not long ago for her performance in “La La Land” (2016), and such a recent win could work against her if voters want to spread around the slate of victors a little more evenly. Gladstone, meanwhile, also delivers a solid performance, and her nomination represents a milestone event as the first Native American woman to receive an Oscar bid, a quality that could work to her advantage in an increasingly politically correct Hollywood. But, as good as her performance is, it faces stiff competition from a chief competitor with a better known track record and wider name recognition. So who will take home the statue? At this point, it’s too close to call, a prediction I’m reluctant to make (and have never done so before in all of the years of writing these blogs). In light of that, my “prediction” for this category comes down to who I believe should win, despite the fact that there’s no guarantee behind that call (see below).

Who Should Win (Based on the Nominees):  Emma Stone, “Poor Things.” As much as I enjoyed Gladstone’s portrayal, I believe the edge belongs to Stone for her wildly wacky, inventive and wide-ranging portrayal. The role demands more from its performer than that of the character Gladstone portrayed, and it’s on that basis – simplistic though it may sound – that prompts me to give the edge to Stone as the more deserving nominee. Whether that turns into a win, however, remains to be seen.

Who Should Win (Based on All Eligible Candidates):  Emma Stone, “Poor Things.” Bella Baxter is handily one of the most distinctive female characters to have graced the screen in years, requiring much from the actress portraying her, and Emma Stone truly delivers the goods in her performance. To me, she’s the class of the field and of the universe of potential nominees. She deserves to take home the top prize on Oscar night.

Possible Dark Horse:  Carey Mulligan, “Maestro.” As with Jeffrey Wright in the actor category, Mulligan is a very long shot to win the Oscar, though it certainly wouldn’t be unwelcome if it were to come to pass. To be honest, Mulligan’s performance is easily the best thing this film has going for it, and it’s unfortunate that the actress didn’t have better material to work with in carrying out her portrayal. Both the actress and the character she played deserved better from this production, and the deficiencies in the film’s narrative and screenplay may be responsible for diluting Mulligan’s chances of a victory here. This is Mulligan’s third Oscar nomination, and she’s likely to be passed over again, having to wait for yet another future role that will finally bring her that elusive award.

Also-Rans:  Annette Bening, “Nyad,” and Sandra Hüller, “Anatomy of a Fall” (“Anatomie d’une chute”). These actresses should consider their nominations their awards. Despite having earned five Oscar nods and delivering yet another stellar performance as marathon open water swimmer Diana Nyad, it unfortunately looks as though Bening will be passed over yet again for a portrayal that, in almost any other year, might have been strong enough to garner a win. As for Hüller, she has a lot working against her. This previously little-known German actress stars in a French arthouse film, the kind of boutique picture that can be a hard sell to Academy voters, qualities that could well work against her candidacy. What’s more, Hüller likely would have stood a better chance at taking home an award if she had received a nomination for her supporting role in “The Zone of Interest,” a far superior portrayal that earned her a well-deserved BAFTA Award nomination. It’s not unusual for the Oscars to nominate the right actress for the wrong film, as has happened here. However, this bid has put Hüller on the radar for future consideration, a development that could pay dividends down the road.

Who Should Have Been Left Out:  Sandra Hüller, “Anatomy of a Fall” (“Anatomie d’une chute”). As noted above, given the strength of her supporting performance in “The Zone of Interest,” Hüller and the Oscars would have been better served with a nomination in that category. Such a change would have opened up a slot in the lead actress race for someone more deserving and would have provided Hüller with better prospects for her own chances elsewhere.

Who Else Should Have Been Considered:  Jessica Chastain, “Memory”; Jennifer Lawrence, “No Hard Feelings”; Natalie Portman, “May/December”; Julia Louis-Dreyfus, “You Hurt My Feelings”; Charlotte Rampling, “Juniper”; and Fantasia Barrino, “The Color Purple.” While none of these actresses delivered portrayals capable of winning in this category, they were all certainly noteworthy enough to earn a nomination should a slot have opened up with Hüller’s reassignment to the supporting competition. It’s regrettable that their chances were passed over.

Snubs:  Margot Robbie, “Barbie.” While I have to question the merits of including Robbie as a nominee in this category, I nevertheless recognize that many viewers found her exclusion to be a definite (and inexcusable) snub. Personally, I didn’t think her performance was strong enough for such an honor this time out, but I understand (and can’t rightfully ignore) why so many moviegoers saw this development in this light.

Best Supporting Actor

The Field:  Sterling K. Brown, “American Fiction”; Robert De Niro, “Killers of the Flower Moon”; Robert Downey Jr., “Oppenheimer”; Ryan Gosling, “Barbie”; Mark Ruffalo, “Poor Things”

Who Will Likely Win:  Robert Downey Jr., “Oppenheimer.” This is Downey’s award to lose, as he has a virtual lock on it. Except for National Board of Review honors, he has swept everything else throughout this year’s awards season competitions. If anyone else’s name is called on Oscar night, I’ll be shocked.

Who Should Win (Based on the Nominees):  Robert Downey Jr., “Oppenheimer.” The many accolades Downey has earned are certainly well deserved. He demonstrated acting capabilities here that I don’t believe anyone knew he possessed. He truly is the class of this year’s field, especially given the relative strength of the category’s nominees.

Who Should Win (Based on All Eligible Candidates):  Robert Downey Jr., “Oppenheimer.” Again, Downey has proven himself in this performance, and that’s not an easy feat in light of the many fine supporting actor portrayals that appeared in 2023’s releases. This really is a case of the right actor winning for the right role.

Possible Dark Horses:  Robert De Niro, “Killers of the Flower Moon,” and Mark Ruffalo, “Poor Things.” In any other year, DeNiro and Ruffalo would both make very deserving winners, but, given the strength of Downey’s portrayal, they probably don’t stand a chance, no matter how remote. DeNiro gives one of his best performances in years, and Ruffalo is the only actor to have bested Downey with his receipt of the National Board of Review’s award in this category. But, that aside, these two are still long shots and likely to remain that way.

Also-Rans:  Sterling K. Brown, “American Fiction,” and Ryan Gosling, “Barbie.” Brown and Gosling should be grateful for their nominations, questionable as they are (see below).

Who Should Have Been Left Out:  Sterling K. Brown, “American Fiction,” and Ryan Gosling, “Barbie.” In my opinion, these two nominations were careless throwaways. Brown’s portrayal was adequate, but award-worthy? (I have to wonder what the Academy was thinking.) Likewise, Gosling’s cloying portrayal of an implausible character was annoying (and how he succeeded in capturing a nomination when many of his more qualified peers failed to do so is utterly baffling). In a category where there are only five available slots, the Academy can’t afford to waste them on substandard prospects.

Who Else Should Have Been Considered:  Matt Damon, “Oppenheimer”; Jeffrey Wright, “Rustin”; Aml Ameen, “Rustin”; Glynn Turman, “Rustin”; Michael Cera, “Dream Scenario”; Nicolas Cage, “Renfield”; Glenn Howerton, “BlackBerry”; and Jacob Elordi, “Priscilla.” Any of these performances would have been acceptable as replacements for the misguided nods granted to Brown and Gosling. It’s too bad they weren’t recognized as such.

Snubs:  Willem Dafoe, “Poor Things.” Having earned nominations in the Golden Globe and Screen Actors Guild Award contests, Dafoe should have been a shoo-in for an Oscar nod. His exclusion represents a blatant snub. Like Downey, DeNiro and Ruffalo, he should have been in the running.

Best Supporting Actress

The Field:  Emily Blunt, “Oppenheimer”; Danielle Brooks, “The Color Purple”; America Ferrera, “Barbie”; Jodie Foster, “Nyad”; Da’Vine Joy Randolph, “The Holdovers”

Who Will Likely Win:  Da’Vine Joy Randolph, “The Holdovers.” This is Randolph’s award to lose, as she has a virtual lock on it. If anyone else’s name is called on Oscar night, I’ll be shocked.

Who Should Win (Based on the Nominees):  Da’Vine Joy Randolph, “The Holdovers.” The many accolades Randolph has earned thus far are certainly well deserved. She truly is the class of this year’s field, especially given the strength of the category’s nominees.

Who Should Win (Based on All Eligible Candidates):  Da’Vine Joy Randolph, “The Holdovers.” From the moment I saw this film, I knew that Randolph was someone special. While I was unfamiliar with her and her work, she instantly stood out in this role, clearly the best thing about this picture. It’s been so gratifying to see her capture honor after honor throughout the 2023 awards season, accolades that are richly deserved and stand out above all other potential candidates in this category.

Possible Dark Horses:  Jodie Foster, “Nyad,” and America Ferrera, “Barbie.” Having turned in one of her best performances in years, Foster might easily have captured her third Oscar were it not for the frontrunner. And Ferrera, winner of this year’s Critics Choice SeeHer Award, made a huge splash with her now-famous monologue about female empowerment in “Barbie,” significantly raising her profile in the film industry. However, both face an uphill battle to surpass Randolph, so they remain long shots at best, despite the quality of their work. This is another case of their nominations being their awards.

Also-Rans:  Anyone who isn’t Da’Vine Joy Randolph. The frontrunner’s competitors, unfortunately, won’t be able to overtake her.

Who Should Have Been Left Out:  Emily Blunt, “Oppenheimer.” I’m somewhat surprised about the amount of attention that has been given to Blunt’s performance. She’s a fine actress, and she’s certainly capable here. But award-worthy? I can’t say I see the rationale behind this selection. It could be that she got swept up in the “Oppenheimer” momentum, even if her performance didn’t quite measure up to the same level of quality of the work in the other categories in which the film received nominations. If anything, I would have much rather seen a nomination bestowed on the performance of Florence Pugh from the same film instead (see below).

Who Else Should Have Been Considered:  Florence Pugh, “Oppenheimer”; Leslie Uggams, “American Fiction”; CCH Pounder, “Rustin”; Gloria Münchmeyer, “El Conde” (“The Count”); Stella Gonet, “El Conde” (“The Count”); Rhea Perlman, “Barbie”; Teyonah Parris, “They Cloned Tyrone”; Laurie Metcalf, “Somewhere in Queens”; and Sherry Cola, “Shortcomings.” Pugh’s case is made above. As for the others listed here, any of them would have made fine additions to this field in place of Blunt. Granted, some of them may have flown below the radar, but that doesn’t diminish their worthiness, and I would have loved to have seen them recognized.

Snubs:  Claire Foy, “All of Us Strangers.” The lack of recognition given to this performance throughout awards season genuinely mystifies me. Except for a BAFTA Award nomination, Foy was completely overlooked for this outstanding supporting performance, and I’m at a loss to understand why. It seems that there’s always one acting portrayal that inexplicably stays below the radar each year, and Foy’s role, regrettably, was the one to do that for 2023.

Best Director

The Field:  Justine Triet, “Anatomy of a Fall” (“Anatomie d’une chute”); Martin Scorsese, “Killers of the Flower Moon”; Christopher Nolan, “Oppenheimer”; Yorgos Lanthimos, “Poor Things”; Jonathan Glazer, “The Zone of Interest”

Who Will Likely Win:  Christopher Nolan, “Oppenheimer.” While there are many fine directorial efforts in this category, Nolan truly is the class of the field and is long overdue for this recognition. And, given his track record of wins leading up to the Oscars, I don’t see this changing on awards night. This is a virtual lock at this point.

Who Should Win (Based on the Nominees):  Christopher Nolan, “Oppenheimer.” See above.

Who Should Win (Based on All Eligible Candidates):  Christopher Nolan, “Oppenheimer.” Even though there were some other fine directorial efforts that weren’t nominated, I don’t think there’s anyone who can beat Nolan’s work this year, no matter how commendable their films were. This has been a virtual slam dunk for Nolan ever since this offering was released.

Possible Dark Horses:  Martin Scorsese, “Killers of the Flower Moon”; Yorgos Lanthimos, “Poor Things”; and Jonathan Glazer, “The Zone of Interest.” In theory, any of these filmmakers could pull an upset for their fine movies, but I certainly wouldn’t bet on it. If Nolan weren’t in this category, this would be a much tighter race, and, conceivably, any of these three could have been squarely in the running. Not this time, though.

Also-Rans:  Justine Triet, “Anatomy of a Fall” (“Anatomie d’une chute”). She should consider her nomination her award. Foreign pictures seldom receive much recognition outside of the best international film category, and, among directors in particular, only Bong Joon-Ho comes to mind as a victor for his work on “Parasite” (“Gisaengchung”) (2019). I don’t expect that to change here this year.

Who Should Have Been Left Out:  Justine Triet, “Anatomy of a Fall” (“Anatomie d’une chute”). In my view, this was one of the most overhyped releases of 2023, and much of its praise is, frankly, undeserved. I find it hard to fathom how the filmmaker ended up as a nominee in this category. There were others more deserving who should have been recognized here.

Who Else Should Have Been Considered:  Kore-eda Hirokazu, “Monster” (“Kaibutsu”); Nicole Holofcener, “You Hurt My Feelings”; and Pablo Larraín, “El Conde” (“The Count”). All three of these filmmakers could have (and should have) replaced Triet for her ill-considered nomination. The fact that their films didn’t receive much attention probably worked against them, which is unfortunate in light of the quality of each offering. That’s especially true of Kore-eda; how his picture managed to fly so low beneath the awards season radar truly baffles me.

Snubs:  Andrew Haigh, “All of Us Strangers,” and Greta Gerwig, “Barbie.” While Andrew Haigh’s exclusion was a definite snub in my book, I was neither upset (nor surprised) by the same for Greta Gerwig, despite the widespread criticism for being left out. The snubbing of Haigh’s superb film for any Oscar consideration was criminal in my view, but especially in the directors’ category. As for Gerwig, her film and her work on it were vastly overblown, and her exclusion for directorial consideration was a good call. While the picture may have excelled at the box office, it has underperformed during awards season, and that comes as no surprise to me. It helps to restore my faith in the notion that it’s indeed possible to spot the emperor when he’s naked, as is very much the case where “Barbie” and Gerwig are concerned.

Best Picture

The Field:  “American Fiction,” “Anatomy of a Fall” (“Anatomie d’une chute”), “Barbie,” “The Holdovers,” “Killers of the Flower Moon,” “Maestro,” “Oppenheimer,” “Past Lives,” “Poor Things,” “The Zone of Interest”

What Will Likely Win:  “Oppenheimer.” Given the number of projected wins for this film, as well as in other categories not discussed in this blog, it’s hard to see anything stopping the momentum behind this release and preventing it from taking the top prize on Oscar night.

What Should Win (Based on the Nominees): “Oppenheimer.” This was the best picture of 2023 and deserves to win – hands down.

What Should Win (Based on All Eligible Candidates):  “Oppenheimer.” See above.

Possible Dark Horses:  “Killers of the Flower Moon,” “Poor Things,” “The Zone of Interest” and “The Holdovers.” Unlikely though the prospects are, these four films could conceivably pull an upset. In the case of the first three, it’s primarily due to the quality of the pictures, all of which are quite commendable, though I don’t believe they have enough gas in the tank to put them over the top. As for “The Holdovers,” there has been an aggressive marketing campaign to secure a win, but I think that’s money being wasted on a lost cause. To begin with, the film just isn’t of the same quality as “Oppenheimer” and the other three contenders. And, second, this offering did not earn a best director nomination, a qualification that’s a virtual prerequisite for any film hoping to be named best picture. While “The Holdovers” was modestly entertaining and featured the superb performance of Da’Vine Joy Randolph, this was not one of director Alexander Payne’s better efforts, and that’s apparent by his exclusion from the directors’ category, both here and in many other competitions. That’s why it’s ironic that this release is simultaneously a dark horse and an also-ran. Either way, don’t expect it (or any of the other three dark horses) to take home any hardware on Oscar night.

Also-Rans:  Anything that isn’t “Oppenheimer,” “Killers of the Flower Moon,” “Poor Things” or “The Zone of Interest.”

What Should Have Been Left Out:  “American Fiction,” “Anatomy of a Fall” (“Anatomie d’une chute”), “Barbie,” “The Holdovers,” “Maestro” and “Past Lives.” Since all of these nominees (except “Anatomy of a Fall” (“Anatomie d’une chute”)) failed to receive nominations in the directors’ category, that alone should explain why they should have been left out, given that nominations in these categories nearly always walk in tandem. More importantly, though, except for “American Fiction” (and, to a certain extent, “The Holdovers”), these other nominees simply left much to be desired as award-worthy contenders. They had to have been riding the crest of a wave of hype to reach this point, especially given how many other more noteworthy candidates were out there.

What Else Should Have Been Considered:  “Monster” (“Kaibutsu”), “Fingernails,” “You Hurt My Feelings,” “Dream Scenario,” “El Conde” (“The Count”), “Upon Entry” (“La Ilegada”), “When Time Got Louder” and “The Teachers’ Lounge” (“Das Lehrerzimmer”). These contenders were all laudable candidates and should have received consideration ahead of those that should have been left out. It’s unfortunate that they’ve not been accorded that recognition.

Snubs: “All of Us Strangers.” I probably sound like a broken record where this offering is concerned, but I’ll say it again: The exclusion of this film from the best picture field is just plain wrong. It deserves to be there.

The Oscars will be handed out in televised ceremonies on Sunday March 10. I’ll post my report card on these predictions thereafter. Enjoy the show!

(Oscar® and Academy Award® are registered trademarks of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences.)

Copyright © 2024, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.