Oscars 2024: Who will win? Who should win?

Questions abound about this year’s Oscars.

Will odds-on-favorite Christopher Nolan win his first director’s trophy?

Will “Killers of the Flower Moon’s” Lily Gladstone score a win and make Oscar history?

Will the telecast be more playful and less painful than this year’s Golden Globes?

Heck, we have as many questions as we did after watching “Anatomy of Fall.”

And while races tighten and clear favorites emerge as the awards season progresses, we’re holding out hope the Academy will toss in a surprise or two during its 96th Oscar presentation on March 10. The show starts at 7 p.m. — an hour earlier than usual — on ABC with late-night TV funnyman Jimmy Kimmel returning for a fourth time as host.

Many figure it’s a fait accompli that Nolan’s “Oppenheimer,” which amassed more nominations (13) than any other film, will continue its chain reaction and dominate Hollywood’s biggest night. Should it, though?

There are other vitally important issues that concern us, including:

When, exactly, is Ryan Gosling performing “Barbie’s” Oscar-nominated song “I’m Just Ken?” (It better not be while we’re refreshing our Cosmos!)

Will Messi, the 7-year-old border collie who stars in “Anatomy of a Fall,” be a presenter?

Will East Bay filmmaker Sean Wang’s adorable grandmothers — who star in his nominated short documentary “Nai Nai and Wài Pó” — make an appearance up on stage should that film win?

We are glad to note the Academy has already answered another burning question: Yes they are bringing back the routine — executed to great effect in 2009 — of having the five past winners in all four acting categories introduce the nominees in the performance categories this year.

In short, the ceremony needs to create some indelible moments this year to enliven what’s shaping up as a predictable yawner of an awards show, with few categories truly up for grabs.

In the meantime, here are our predictions for what/who will win Sunday night, and what/who should win.

Best picture

• The nominees: “American Fiction,” “Anatomy of a Fall,” “Barbie,” “The Holdovers,” “Killers of the Flower Moon,” “Maestro,” “Oppenheimer,” “Past Lives,” “Poor Things,” “The Zone of Interest”

• What will win: This is hardly a Chiefs/49ers nail biter. Let’s shake it down anyway. “American Fiction” meted out stinging truths about a publishing industry that isn’t nearly as woke as it likes to think it is, and in the process made us laugh and cry over issues of race, sexuality and family. It’s good enough to score an upset — just not tonight. “Anatomy of a Fall” is a mystery that raises more questions than it answers, a no-no for Hollywood, which prefers resolution over opaqueness. “Barbie” transformed a Mattel doll into a feminist statement. It’s a clever concept and a clever movie, but it’s not enough to win. “The Holdovers” warmed hearts and souls, but will have to be satisfied with likely evolving into a holiday movie tradition. The laborious length of “Killers of the Flower Moon” (3 and … a … half … hours … ), not to mention Leonardo DiCaprio’s prosthetic teeth, gave us the fidgets. No one’s going to pick up the baton for “Maestro.” No one. “Past Lives” featured a subtle build with a gale-force emotional ending. Oscar prefers writlarge movies with more exclamation points. “Poor Things” is way too naughty and outside the box for the pious Oscar crowd. And “The Zone of Interest” is unlike any other movie, making it too nontraditional and nonconforming for the win. That leaves Christopher Nolan’s prestige title “Oppenheimer” sitting ever so pretty with a lock on the prize.

• What should win: “The Zone of Interest.” Jonathan Glazer’s unique creation about a family that lives next door to Auschwitz is an unsettling classic in the making. It serves as a historical testament and a reminder that the mundanity of evil can make all of us complacent to, and complicit in, the horrors of mass cruelty. It’s a staggering work of genius. And it has almost no chance.

Best actor

• Nominees: Paul Giamatti (“The Holdovers”), Cillian Murphy (“Oppenheimer”), Jeffrey Wright (“American Fiction”), Bradley Cooper (“Maestro), Colman Domingo (“Rustin”)

• Who will win: Giamatti turned a grousing prof with a lazy eye and some secrets into a joy to behold. But character actors playing everyday people — no matter how good they are — rarely snare an Oscar in the top acting categories. Wright brought his thespian skills and

gravitas to his literary fussbudget role and it was a seamless performance. It could score an upset, but we doubt it. Cooper gave it his all but he wasn’t always on the nose with his portrayal of Leonard Bernstein take. (Too soon?) Without that electrifying turn from Domingo as a largely overlooked gay civil rights pioneer, “Rustin” would have been just an OK biopic. He’s dynamite, but the performance and film has no awards season traction going. So that leaves Murphy. As he’s known to do, he flung himself fully into the part of the enigmatic J. Robert Oppenheimer, father of the atomic bomb. He was good, but he’s been better. Doesn’t matter. He’ll win.

• Who should win: Wright. As an indignant and pompous author whose outrage lands him an accidental bestseller, Wright made a prickly character relatable, even likable.

Best actress

• Nominees: Annette Bening (“Nyad”), Lily Gladstone (“Killers of the Flower Moon”), Sandra Hüller (“Anatomy of a Fall”), Carey Mulligan (“Maestro”), Emma Stone (“Poor Things”)

• Who will win: Bening dove into her role (even becoming quite the swimmer) to play the larger-thanlife Diana Nyad. Expect her to feel the sting not from a nasty jellyfish, but from yet another loss come Oscar night (she’s already 0 for 4 on best actress nominations). Hüller delivered a deliciously ambiguous performance as the did-she-or-didn’t-she wife of a writer who has died in a mysterious fall. It’s way too nuanced to win. Mulligan played a spouse in love with a man who could never be entirely devoted to her. It was crushing to behold, but the movie was more preoccupied with its bigger moments than with fleshing out its characters — including hers. Stone’s already won an Oscar and that erodes her odds, even if her re-animated girlto-woman Bella is a piece of physical and emotional acting brilliance. This will be Lily Gladstone’s night. She was the best thing about “Killers,” which was too preoccupied with its male characters. Another factor in her favor is a win would maker her the first Native American to take home the acting prize.

• Who should win: Stone. Hers was one mad dervish of a performance that demonstrated an extraordinary commitment — even creating that funky walk and that weird diction. How Bella changes incrementally throughout the film makes for a performance for the ages. Stone, who won best actress for “La La Land,” has never been better.

Best Supporting Actor

• The nominees: Sterling K. Brown (“American Fiction”), Robert De Niro (“Killers of the Flower Moon”), Robert Downey Jr. (“Oppenheimer”), Ryan Gosling (“Barbie”), Mark Ruffalo (“Poor Things”)

• Who will win: Too many great performances (Christopher Melton in “May December” and Willem Dafoe in “Poor Things”) received the cold shoulder from Oscar in this category. But let’s handicap what we’ve got. Brown did something extraordinary as a recently out gay man who’s burdened and burnt by a father’s scorn. Not gonna happen. De Niro channeled his past roles to play a crime boss who orchestrated the Osage Indian murders, and it wasn’t much of a stretch. Gosling was hilarious as clueless Ken, but it was simply a fun performance, not a great one. Ruffalo played a sleazebag ever so well, but he sounded the same note throughout. That leaves showstopper Downey Jr., who tore up the scenery as a duplicitous politician. (Isn’t that an oxymoron in this election year?)

• Who should win: Downey Jr. without that greatest showman on Earth’s performance, “Oppenheimer” would have deflated like a leaking balloon during the final lap. He kept us riveted.

Best Supporting Actress

• Nominees: Emily Blunt (“Oppenheimer”), Danielle Brooks (“The Color Purple”), America Ferrera (“Barbie”), Jodie Foster (“Nyad”), Da’Vine Joy Randolph (“The Holdovers”)

• Who will win: We love Blunt, but hers was one of the most underwritten female roles of last year. If Oprah can’t land an Oscar, don’t expect Danielle Brooks to stick that award landing for the same role. Ferrera delivered a feminist monologue that rallied audiences and elicited applause, but there wasn’t much else to her performance. Foster took the one-note role of a coach/former lover and swam laps around everyone else in the film. But she’s won before, and the competition out of the water here is too strong. This will be Randolph’s year. There was nothing half-baked about her tender performance as a cook and grieving mom trying to get through the holidays.

• Who should win: Randolph. No contest. There was so much emotion in her every move.

Best Director

• Nominees: Justine Triet (“Anatomy of a Fall”), Martin Scorsese (“Killers of the Flower Moon”), Christopher Nolan (“Oppenheimer”), Yorgos Lanthimos (“Poor Things”), Jonathan Glazer (“The Zone of Interest”)

• Who will win: Triet’s “Anatomy” fan base keeps on expanding — just not enough. Scorsese’s been here 10 times before, even won once. But he won’t win here. Lanthimos choreographed a feminist Frankenstein tale with brilliant, so-alive madness, but his film’s too perverse for Oscar. Glazer gave us a real crawl-under-your-skin living nightmare filled with the sounds of violence. But his unique approach will probably disconnect with some voters. This is Nolan’s year. His “Oppenheimer” is a big movie about a game-changing event and person. He’s a shoo-in.

Who should win: Glazer. He created a movie unlike any other. There is no one else in this category that can claim the same, except for Lanthimos, and Glazer’s work was better.