Handicapping the Oscars - Best Actress/Supporting Actress

Best Actress is the least contentious major category at this year's Oscars. Since "La La Land" premiered at the Venice Film Festival last summer, where Emma Stone won that Festival's Best Actress award, the film's lead actress has gone on to dominate almost every expert poll. The same goes for for Viola Davis ("Fences"), who decided to compete in the Supporting Actress category and continues to be a lock for the win.

Not that there can't be an upset in the race for Best Actress, since this is a category in which all the nominees are worthy: Isabelle Huppert for her headstrong rape victim seeking revenge in "Elle," Natalie Portman as the shaken Jackie Kennedy after her husband's death in "Jackie," Meryl Streep singing with delicious badness in "Florence Foster Jenkins," and Ruth Negga bringing quiet dignity to an unheralded civil rights advocate in "Loving."

In the supporting category, expect Octavia Spencer ("Hidden Figures"), Michelle Williams ("Manchester by the Sea"), Naomi Harris ("Moonlight") and Nicole Kidman ("Lion") to applaud politely when Davis's name is announced. If any award is a foregone conclusion, it is this one.

Jason St. Amand

Best Actress:

This might be the most impressive category at the Oscars this year. The performances from the five women nominated are across the board some of the best of 2016. Though Emma Stone is projected to come out on top Sunday night, deservingly so, a surprising win from Isabelle Huppert, or Ruth Negga (or even Meryl Streep or Natalie Portman, really!) would be welcomed.

Best Supporting Actress:

If you're betting on the Oscars, wager a lot on Viola Davis taking home the tiny golden man. Like Leonardo DiCaprio's win at last year's event, the Academy will likely award Davis out of respect, and not necessarily for her just fine performances in "Fences." Once again, Michelle Williams will be just edged out of scoring the win.

Robert Nesti

I agree that this is the most impressive category this year with each of the nominees deserving to win. Personally I would love to see Ruth Negga win simply because she does so much with understatement in her performance as Mildred Loving, the soft-spoken wife and mother who (with her husband Richard) were pivotal in breaking down anti-miscegenation laws in the 1960s. That Negga pushed out Amy Adams ("Arrival") for a nomination points out that there are voters out there for her; but it is doubtful that she can overcome Emma Stone -- clearly the frontrunner. Stone's been in the lead for months. Her only real challengers are Isabelle Huppert, so confident as a middle-aged woman dealing with a sexual assault in "Elle," and Natalie Portman, whose letter-perfect take on Jackie Kennedy is a wonder. Also in the mix is Meryl Streep who is funny and touching in "Florence Foster Jenkins," but would only win because voters are thinking more of her recent Golden Globe speech than her performance in the film.

The supporting character brings up a bone of contention in the Oscar rules: that is, why does someone in a lead role get to campaign for a supporting one? If the Academy had rules in place to define exactly what a lead performance is vs. a supporting one, then likely Viola Davis would have been placed in the leading actress category. Instead it was determined that Davis would be entered in the supporting category, making it next to impossible for any of her competition to win. It's a case of apples and oranges. Davis is powerfully persuasive as Denzel Washington's long-suffering wife in "Fences," but it is not a supporting performance. She will win, though either Michelle Williams or Naomi Harris should win. Is there a moment in film as shattering as when Williams confronts her ex-husband in "Manchester by the Sea?" Or as visceral as Harris shaking her son down for money in "Moonlight?" I don't think so.