I can’t remember a year in which I’ve felt less suspense going into the Oscars. Surely the ceremony has already taken place, hasn’t it? Slumdog Millionaire almost swept, of course: Best Picture, Best Director, Best Cinematography, buncha technical awards. Heath Ledger won Best Supporting Actor, Marisa Tomei won Best Supporting Actress … And didn’t Kate Winslet look gorgeous when she picked up that Best Actress Oscar?

I can’t seem to remember whether Hugh Jackman pulled off the first known instance of Oscar host-age in which the host was more attractive than all the other presenters and winners combined, but probably my brain has not yet recovered from the burn it received from his natural dazzle.

Oh, and wasn’t Richard Jenkins so gracious in his acceptance speech for that Best Actor award for The Visitor?

“Say what?” you say. “Mickey Rourke, you mean. Mickey Rourke won Best Actor for The Wrestler. That was preordained. Wasn’t it?”

Maybe it is. Maybe it has been preordained that Mickey Rourke will win Best Actor. Maybe he was already a shoo-in, and then on top of that he got a sympathy vote for the loss of his beloved Chihuahua. (Actually, that couldn’t have happened: The deadline for Academy voters to return ballots was before Rourke’s sad news broke.)

Or maybe it isn’t preordained.

Look, this has nothing to do with whether Rourke’s performance actually is the best by an actor in a leading role for the movie year 2008, or whether I think he deserves to win an Oscar. It has to do with the strange way the Academy typically goes about doling out its honors. By that yardstick, Rourke isn’t a shoo-in. Oh sure, the Academy loves a comeback kid, and that’s certainly a mark in Rourke’s favor. But there are other factors at play, too.

In Richard Jenkins’s and Frank Langella‘s favor: There’s the longtime-trouper factor. Both actors have been doing well-respected yeoman’s work for years (including, on Jenkins’s part, another solid performance in 2008 in Burn After Reading). This could be the Academy’s one chance to reward that, for either actor.

In Sean Penn‘s favor: Sure, he’s won before, for 2004′s Mystic River, and been nominated thrice prior to that. But the Academy loves piling Oscars onto those it adores as much as it loves giving them to dark horses. And this year we have two additional factors that could give Penn the edge: He’s the least Sean Penn-ish he’s ever been in Milk, which could startle voters, and there’s the embarrassment of California’s anti-gay Prop 8, which could be counterbalanced by honoring a gay hero like Harvey Milk.

In Brad Pitt‘s favor: Honestly, I’m not sure there is much in Pitt’s favor. Not that he didn’t turn in a lovely performance in The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. But he’s young and clearly taking artistic leaps and bounds as an actor of late, so the Academy will figure they’ll have other opportunities to honor him. On the other hand, the only other award Button is likely to win is Best Makeup, and giving Pitt the Oscar could be a way for the Academy to show some more love for an obviously beloved movie.

I’m probably wrong. It’s probably inescapably Rourke who will take an Oscar home on Sunday night. But if there is a major upset this year, this is the category where it’ll happen.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
MaryAnn Johanson, not a frakkin’ Cylon (email me)

Tags: best actor, oscar upsets, oscar winners