I love a good film and, even though the Oscars in an overblown, self-congratulatory love fest, I enjoy it. Let’s be honest, the Oscars aren’t about films or movie-making, they are about Hollywood and money-making. The fact that the vast, vast majority of films that have won the big four (Film, Director, Actor, Actress) have been American Hollywood films shows just that. It’s not just easy to mock them, it’s important as the Oscars only deal with a small sample of the films being made, but it’s just as important to remember that the Oscars make a difference where it matters; in the pockets of film makers.

Money is king in Hollywood, which is why 2010′s  highest box-office earners are all sequels. As far as Hollywood is concerned, why pay for something that is a risk when you have an audience just waiting to see Toy Story 3, or Iron Man 2? Nothing is certain with a new film, just look at The Tourist; two of the most bankable and best looking actors around and it flopped. So they stick with a formula and in comes the money.

This is where the Oscars come in. Hollywood likes to think of itself as artistic. So, they only choose the best of what they consider highbrow films to be nominated. Sequels being nominated are rare, it happens of course, but they have to be particularly good. Without the Oscars, they would churn out the same old same old. To a certain degree, the Oscars keep them honest. There is, though, always more money to be made.

When Slumdog Millionaire won Best Film in 2009, it had made $43.9 million, after it won it added $97.5 million more. You don’t even have to win. Actors, directors and producers will all be harping on about how it’s just an honour to be nominated. When it comes to the producers, they mean it. For example, this year the wonderful Winter’s Bone is nominated. It is, in my opinion, the film of the year but no one has seen it. It’s been nominated for Best Film, Best Actress for Sarah Lawrence (left) and Best Supporting Actor for John Hawkes. It won’t win, though it should take the first two, but you can be guaranteed that every mention of it during the evening will be worth more in advertising than it took to make the film.

The best way to predict the winners is actually quite simple. Each of the categories has a guild; the Screen Actors Guild votes for the acting awards, the Screen Director’s Guild votes for directing and so on. Each of these guilds has their own award ceremony too, so it stands to reason if you win one you’ll win in the category in the Oscars as it’s the same people voting. The only category that is open to all is Best Film. I love the old cliches of the ceremony, which more than not follow through. Note that none of the following have anything to do with how good they are.

Natalie Portman will win Best Actress because they love when any actor has to change their body for a role.

Jeff Bridges could win, but he won last year so probably won’t. If he does and Colin Firth doesn’t, it’ll be seen as two fingers to English films and a hark back to the good old days of the Western.

For me it’s between Christian Bale for The Fighter and John Hawkes for Winter’s Bone. They are both worthy, so it comes down to, does Winter’s Bone deserve an award more than the Academy thinks Christian Bale is a highbrow actor they should take seriously?

It’s all hilariously self-conscious, with The Academy trying to look seriously arty when they would be happy making money out of muck. In the case of The Kids are Alright, they did just that.

Popularity: 2% [?]