By Jeremy Kinser

Should you bet the ranch that Brokeback Mountain will lasso the best picture Oscar? Will momentum-gaining Crash put the brakes on the cowboys' sweep? Do Academy members vote with their brains, hearts, or other anatomical parts? Tom O'Neil, the media's go-to awards pundit, discusses who might win Academy Awards this year and why.

Need some help filling out that Oscar ballot? Tom O'Neil has made a career of making educated guesses. As demonstrated by his numerous appearances on Good Morning America, Today, Entertainment Tonight, and CNN, to name but a few, he is the show biz awards prognosticator of choice. Besides being an author (his comprehensive Movie Awards: The Ultimate, Unofficial Guide to the Oscars, Golden Globes, Critics, Guild & Indie Honors is in print and gets updated every few years), a playwright (Judy at the Stonewall Inn, his fantasia about events leading up to the historic Stonewall riots, is currently playing at the Celebration Theatre in West Hollywood), and senior editor at In Touch Weekly, O'Neil's Web site www.goldderby.com has been incorporated into the Los Angeles Times www.envelope.com site. With predictions, speculation, theories, news, and blogs, it's become like a one-stop shopping destination for awards show fans.

Fess up Tom, do Oscar voters really choose what they think is best or do they just get caught up in which film has the most momentum?

There's a bandwagon effect -- no doubt about it. If there had been one more week for the Oscar race a few years ago I'm sure The Pianist would have beaten Chicago. You could see the momentum building for it and on Oscar night it took actor, screenplay and director. You think, "Wow, the momentum had not yet penetrated the top category." There are these swings and surges. A very good example is the year Braveheart won. Apollo 13 and Sense and Sensibility were considered the frontrunners. If you go back and look at the L.A. Times when they made their predictions for best picture, they don't even talk about Braveheart. That surge for Braveheart happened in the last 12-15 days. It came out of nowhere. That is such a powerful reminder of the surges that can happen.

It's a historic year with so many wonderful gay-themed films making the final ballot this year. Is there a chance voters could share the wealth and divide the awards preventing a Brokeback sweep?

It could. We're seeing more splits between best picture and best director than we have in recent years -- it's happening more and more. What wins best picture is really a toss up. Brokeback didn't get the 10 nominations a lot of us thought it would and that shows some lagging support. It was shut out of the most gay-friendly union of all, which is the Screen Actor's Guild. You can't get any more gay than that guild. (Both laugh.)

So how vulnerable is Brokeback Mountain to Crash?

Very vulnerable, because of the gay problem. The guys in the Academy are very sympathetic, of course -- they're the most gay-sympathetic people in the world, so they don't feel so militant. They think this revolution was won long ago and don't really see this as such a pressing issue. Not being gay, they think as we all do in tribal terms -- it's not their movie. I don't think it's homophobia. It's not "we're sick of those whiny gays -- shut up already!" It's just a boredom with the movie at this point. It's looked like such a predictable Oscar winner down the line that these very contrary-minded people are not going to vote according to script. I talk to Oscar voters every day. They're talking about how much they love Crash or how much they love Good Night and Good Luck. Or how much they're bored with Brokeback Mountain or it's not as great as they thought it was. You suddenly realize that this could go any which way.

How much will campaigning affect the outcome?

Crash has mounted the most aggressive campaign in modern Oscar history. They sent out 30, 000 DVD screeners of that film during the initial weeks of the campaign, (setting) a record for the most ever sent out. Then they threw on another hundred thousand when they became the first movie ever sent to the full membership of the Screen Actor's Guild. There are Oscar voters I know who have received five or six copies of Crash. This movie has real, real potential to win. If there's a theme to the major nominees this year it's that they're for the most part anti-studio. This is the ultimate Cinderella story. It's a movie made for $6 million by a man [Paul Haggis] who toiled in the TV industry for twenty years writing and directing sitcoms who finally got a chance to direct a feature. He has a heart attack in the middle of it and keeps on going. This man gave us Million Dollar Baby and everybody won Oscars for it except him. It found its audience -- it's one of the top-grossing dramas of the year. It feels important -- it's about racism. It's magnificently written and acted. That all said, there is no movie in history that has had the most Oscar nominations that won at DGA and won the Globe and was a current release that has ever lost being a best picture in the Brokeback situation. Statistically, it doesn't seem like it can lose.

Best director seems like the one easy-to-predict category. It's already engraved with Ang Lee's name, right?

Absolutely. He's a shoo-in you can bet the ranch on if you're a gay cowboy. (Laughs.)

I think best supporting actor is one of the tougher categories this year. Will it be make-up sex for Cinderella Man's Paul Giamatti, who missed nominations for American Splendor and Sideways?

Maybe, but then where do you put the (George) Clooney vote? If there's a multiple nominee they almost always trade down. That would mean Clooney (nominated for producing and directing Good Night, and Good Luck, as well as for acting in Syriana). This could be where they put their Crash vote and go with Matt Dillon. He took on a villainous role and redeems it in the storyline.

Who will take home best actor this year?

Phillip Seymour Hoffman -- another shoo-in.

How do you see the best actress race going this year?

It's one of the most interesting races this year. If you look at Reese Witherspoon, you can say she's got the babe factor. Remember Oscar voters are old straight guys who vote with their dicks. Look at the past winners of best actress -- Halle Berry, Charlize Theron -- they're all these women they want to sleep with. It happens over and over again. Rarely do women over 40 win. The Susan Sarandons win occasionally. Only one woman over 50 has won an acting award in the past 15 years -- Judi Dench. It's OK for men to have wrinkles like Sean Penn or James Coburn or Tim Robbins, but women are punished. If you apply that rule to the best actress race this year, Felicity Huffman is screwed and Reese Witherspoon fits all the criteria. She portrays a real person. She plays against type -- she's a comedic actress who's playing drama and she sings! She's got box office behind her and has won most of the precursor awards so you think, how can she be stopped? Then you realize what's on the flip side, the strong gay vote will go to Huffman, as well as the serious thespian vote, which is often where you see the upset. And you start realizing that Reese Witherspoon's really is a supporting role, not a lead. With Huffman, when you see that performance you realize there's no comparison between her and Reese Witherspoon and she has a chance. She could be that Susan Sarandon -- the serious actress over 40 who is due for a crown.

Considering your "babe factor" theory, the best supporting actress category seems wide open.

It's even more fascinating than the best actress race. All of the wild card factors are played here too. We know they tend to go for sexy ingénues. Well, that's most of the people in that race. You realize that Rachel Weisz has all these pluses and she certainly is the front runner. They loved the movie [The Constant Gardener] and it's one of the great movies of the year that got shafted in the nominations. This is a category that's easy to overanalyze. Then there's the long-suffering wife rule that almost always wins in this race and that's Michelle Williams here. Then there's the rule that says a best picture has to win an acting award. Even if it's Catherine Zeta-Jones for Chicago, or Kevin Spacey in American Beauty, Russell Crowe in Gladiator, and on and on. It's usually in the lead category if it's a performance-driven film. That would theoretically be Heath Ledger, but he's got the problem of the pretty boy. You realize that Michelle Williams has the advantage.

What will you be doing on Oscar night?

I'll be on the red carpet with Joan and Melissa. The drill is they only allow Joan and Melissa one camera position at the Oscars.  I'm on some remote camera filling in when they don't have a star to slobber over. It's quite clear what my role is, but I'm happy to be there. I'm the luckiest queen in the world. I get to go to the Oscars with Joan and Melissa Rivers.

For more on O'Neil's awards show analysis, visit www.goldderby.latimes.com. See O'Neil's Judy at the Stonewall Inn through Feb. 26 at Celebration Theatre, 7051B Santa Monica Blvd., Hlywd. For tickets, call (323) 957-1884, or visit www.celebrationtheatre.com.