Going for a gong

Which films, performers and directors are tipped for Academy Award success this year? David Thomson delivers his Oscar predictions

It says something for the movie treatment of The Lord of the Rings that as episode two, The Two Towers, dominates the holiday box office and sends viewers of all ages away agog with the rediscovery of authentic epic, so Peter Jackson's inspired attempt on Tolkien is already rather taken for granted. But $200m (£124m) at the box office in 12 days is not a flash in the pan – not when so many of the people in love with the picture and its wild New Zealand of legend can't wait to go back and see it again. And yet one feels the dumb orthodoxy mounting that The Two Towers is so successful and satisfying, so much like episode one, and so much in its unique, private world, that why should anyone need to think of it as best picture?

So I want to start my Oscar forecast by insisting that The Two Towers be nominated, and honoured as the favourite. The achievement is already far out of the ordinary, and waiting for episode three (only a year away) is beside the point. Very well; with what films must it compete this year? Certainly The Hours, the Stephen Daldry/ David Hare adaptation of Michael Cunningham's prize-winning novel. I would add Roman Polanski's The Pianist. Some say that film is old-fashioned in its tragic view of the Holocaust. But I see it as, quite simply, the most moving picture Polanski has made since Chinatown, and the belated vindication of both the artistry and the personal history that he has so often preferred to bury.

Will Far from Heaven get a nomination? I'm still not sure. Its recreation of the 1957 and the stylistics of the great melodrama director Douglas Sirk is astonishing, but there is some air of a film buff's homage hanging over it. I wish the subjects (racism and the dishonesty of family life) had been given the Sirkian treatment, but set now. That would have left the film more dangerous and more alive. A fifth nomination? It has to be Pedro Almodóvar's Talk to Her.

It follows from that five that I am not sufficiently impressed by – or, rather, I do not think the academy will be swayed by – Gangs of New York, About Schmidt, Adaptation and even Steven Spielberg's merry Catch Me If You Can, all of which have their supporters. But the academy is tipped to like Chicago, just because it's an old-fashioned musical, in love with show business and a popular hit.

In the best-actor category, Jack Nicholson is a certainty for a nomination for About Schmidt. I wouldn't demur, for I'd like to see Jack equal Katharine Hepburn's four victories, but I found the film (directed by Alexander Payne) a disappointment and far too easily content with its own misanthropy. Indeed, Nicholson could be miscast: he is so innately explosive and antic, that we expect Schmidt (a retired insurance man) to be changed, or to change the world around him. Instead, he ends in deeper sadness than the almost concrete fatalism with which he greets retirement. There's something complacent about the film's careful discovery of its own cul-de-sac.

As rivals, Nicholson will have Daniel Day-Lewis, who is not just spectacular in Gangs of New York – he is the film, or the chief reason for seeing a very confused work. Then I'd nominate Adrien Brody as the lead character in The Pianist. And I'd nominate two performances that were largely ignored by the public: Greg Kinnear as Bob Crane in Paul Schrader's Auto Focus, and Adam Sandler as the lead in Paul Thomas Anderson's Punch-Drunk Love. It's much more likely that those last two spots will go to Michael Caine for his sour, devious journalist in The Quiet American and to Nicolas Cage, who does a good, funny job of playing twins in Adaptation.

With best lead actress, we face a serious puzzle: what defines the terms and the idea behind "lead" and "supporting" roles? To my mind, Nicole Kidman, Meryl Streep and Julianne Moore in The Hours are supporting players – supporting the film's ambitious scheme with time, and actually on screen for only a third of the film each. On the other hand, when they are on, they are unmistakably lead actresses.

I suspect the academy will treat them as leads, and if that leaves only two other nomination spots then they have to be Julianne Moore (again) in Far from Heaven and Diane Lane, who excelled herself and brought pathos to a novelette in Unfaithful. But if the academy elects to honour the idea of support, then there are vacancies in the actress category, likely to be fought over by Salma Hayek in Frida (not my choice, but there is a political correctness factor); Jodie Foster in Panic Room (flat-out camera acting); Catherine Zeta Jones and Renée Zellweger in Chicago; and Samantha Morton in Morvern Callar (a long shot, yes, but deserved).

In supporting actor the field is very rich: Willem Dafoe as the intermediary in Auto Focus deserves notice; Christopher Walken is enchanting as the father in Catch Me if You Can; Ed Harris has to play a bit of a prig in The Hours, but Ed Harris is our most natural supporting actor. Dennis Quaid was excellent as the husband edging out of the closet in Far from Heaven – this is an actor who seems to have rediscovered his early promise. And then you get the real challenge: Paul Newman as the wicked patriarch in Road to Perdition, and Jude Law as the photo-mad assassin from the same film.

Kidman, Streep and Moore could be three supporting actress nominations. But I doubt it, so I'll predict a full five in this category: Kathy Bates in About Schmidt – it's only schtick, really, but she delivers one of the more unexpected nude sequences in a movie, and there are elderly people in the academy who may be touched by her generosity; Samantha Morton as the pre-cog Agatha in Spielberg's Minority Report; Patricia Clarkson in Far from Heaven, bringing back fond memories of Agnes Moorehead as the next-door gossip masking malice with cookies and sympathy in so many Fifties films; Toni Collette is another possibility from The Hours.

But the real coup in this section, I think, is Miranda Richardson, in three aspects of the female presence, in David Cronenberg's Spider. Of course, for her to win enough people are going to have to brave Spider – one of the bleakest film experiences in recent memory. But if you see it, then Ms Richardson is home – and her lovely Vanessa in The Hours is a bonus.

Nominated directors? Well, Peter Jackson for one. And then I think the academy will reward Martin Scorsese, if only for the teeming metropolitan scenes he has achieved (Gangs will win several craft Oscars, too, in design and costume). Polanski will get a nod – but will he come to the ceremony? Todd Haynes is a very likely nominee for Far from Heaven, and I think that Almodóvar is more deserving than any other contender. But then what about Stephen Daldry? Has he simply presided over the extraordinary talents assembled for The Hours, or has he been crucial? And what about Sam Mendes, whose Road to Perdition was expertly done, even if some found it over-arty?

As for the writing nominations, there's far more wealth under adapted screenplay: I expect David Hare for The Hours; Christopher Hampton for The Quiet American; Charlie Kaufman for his script from Chuck Barris's book for Confessions of a Dangerous Mind; Bill Condon for Chicago; Alexander Payne and Jim Taylor for About Schmidt. And why not Jeff Nathanson for Catch Me if You Can; and Charlie Kaufman and his alleged twin brother for Adaptation? Under originals – Todd Haynes for Far from Heaven, and not much else.

All of those ifs and buts asides, how do I think the Oscars will fall? Best picture: The Hours. Best director: I have a wild hunch for Polanski. Best actor: Daniel Day-Lewis. Best actress: Nicole Kidman – her Virginia Woolf is the most startling upward step in the ladder she has made for her career. Best supporting actor: very tough call, but I think it's Paul Newman in Road to Perdition – which is reason enough to note that all of a sudden, very late in life, Newman has become a wonderful actor. Best supporting actress: Miranda Richardson in Spider.