This year's Best Actor race may come down to gratitude. Or a step further, it might be about making amends. Why do we follow the Oscar race? Some of us just want to see our favorite work get nominated, and of the nominees we want to see our personal favorite win. Others just enjoy the game, the politics. The results give us something to argue about, as if it isn't a silly thing to do. Silly as it may be, it's interesting. In a way it's the closest thing we have to a BCS. Both systems are controversial because they rely on so much subjectivity and yes, politics. This is a good thing. Arguing about it is a good thing. At least for the Academy, it is. I used to care way too much about the Academy's picks and get all worked up when their picks didn't line up with mine. The nerve! I care less today but some anger still surfaces every Oscar season. Part of it is the Vader in me, the dark part of my soul that just wants things to be as I see them. But today it has less to do with the result and more to do with how the result was formulated. You reach a point where you realize none of this matters because history far too often looks back at the Academy, points an extended finger and laughs. C'est la vie.

Except the politics still bug me. The Academy's motives and their lack of imagination still bug me. Too often the Academy confuses their concept of doing "the right thing" with getting it right. It infuriates me. You know what doesn't infuriate me? Roberto Benigni winning for Life Is Beautiful. Apparently, this infuriates everyone else. But it doesn't bother me in the least. I didn't agree with it. I still don't agree with it. But I look at that Benigni award kind of like the Academy's version of Mookie throwing the garbage can through the window of Sal's Famous. My reaction is, Well, they certainly did something there. Was it the right thing? I don't know. I loved Benigni in that movie but I would have voted for Edward Norton (who never had a snowbell's chance in hell, by the way) in American History X a thousand times if I could. But at least they did something there. They awarded a broad comedic performance. In a foreign film. A controversial film. That's something. And the reason it doesn't bug me is because from where I'm standing, it looks to me like the Academy just voted for the performance they loved. Call them silly or shortsighted or fools (they so often are). But at least it was honest.

This year the Academy is set up beautifully to provoke the Vader in me once again. There are no right answers, of course, but there are so many political opportunities at play it's going to be hard to tell whether or not the Academy is playing it straight. In the meantime, let's take a look at how the Best Actor race is shaping up. Below are the list of contenders with the best chances of being nominated, followed by some sleepers and my own personal picks.

The Contenders

George Clooney, The Descendants

Clooney's been considered a rock solid Best Actor contender ever since he signed on to Alexander Payne's familial dramedy. Now that more and more people are seeing The Descendants it's looking like he could very well be the front-runner. I think Clooney's biggest challenge this year in terms of winning is he is likely going to be up against a few extremely popular actors who have never won before (Pitt, Oldman, and DiCaprio), while he's already got an acting award under his belt. Of course, the Academy should never really take this into account. They still do.

Leonardo DiCaprio, J. Edgar

DiCaprio is another guy who has been a sure-fire contender from the start. Not only is he a threat for a nomination almost every time out, but here he is playing a historical figure in a film directed by the Academy-friendly Clint Eastwood. The movie has all the DNA required to make little Oscar trophies. Too bad it sounds like Eastwood whiffed at the plate. When the film's trailer was released, I think most prognosticators began to wonder whether or not the movie was strong enough and if DiCaprio -- buried under all that funky makeup -- would be hurt by the film's mediocrity. Word on the film appears mixed so far, but DiCaprio is once again getting "he could win" buzz. Deep down I think regardless of the quality of the film DiCaprio is a lock for a Best Actor nomination. And if he gets nominated, he's never won and that will factor in when the Academy votes.

Jean Dujardin, The Artist

I finally caught up with The Artist at the Asheville Film Fest last week and I am smitten. Much of my love for the film has to do with the splendid work by both Jean Dujardin and the lovely Berenice Bejo. And what I love about all the attention Dujardin is getting for this film is that it is a largely comedic performance -- even more so than Brad Pitt's work in Moneyball. Sure, his character endures darkness and sadness, but even so, Dujardin manages to make you smile throughout the film. His journey is your journey. His happiness becomes your happiness. His antics are contagious. It's ultimately a silent performance, which means you invest that much more in his character because your imagination has to do a little more work. And that is why it isn't simply a "critic-y" thing to say that Dujardin's work is truly inspired.

Brad Pitt, Moneyball

Let me start out by saying I thought Pitt was very good in this movie. It's not a showy part and that's just fine because Pitt delivers real nuance to the role. But there is something missing here; which is to say something is missing from this movie. I agree Brad Pitt delivered one of the very best performances of 2011, but it wasn't in Moneyball; it's his supporting role in Tree of Life and it will go down as one of the actor's finest moments of his career, long after the unimaginative geezers who vote for these things ignore his supporting role. I have no problem with Pitt being nominated for this movie, I just have a feeling a better performance of his will be ignored in a different category.

Gary Oldman, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy

Reading tweets and blogs and articles about Gary Oldman in Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy over the summer it seemed as if critics -- fans of this actor unjustly ignored by the Academy for decades -- were trying to will a nomination for the actor. The good news? The film has garnered raves. By all reports, Oldman is understated and excellent. But are prognosticators championing Oldman's very good work while ignoring a more deserving performance, simply because Oldman is the one they've been campaigning for for months before even seeing the film? I have a feeling that there is at least a sizable portion of the critical community who are reacting this way. And the Academy -- never afraid to pat itself on the back -- would love to show what good people they are by rewarding Oldman with a nomination after giving him the finger for so long. Am I rooting for Oldman to be great and nominated? Yes. Will I suspect the Academy's motives? Yes. Lesson? You cannot win, Academy.

The Sleepers

Michael Fassbender, Shame

Fassbender has had a quietly strong year that began with an excellent performance in Jane Eyre, continued with X-Men: First Class and A Dangerous Method, and is capped off by his reunion with Hunger director Steve McQueen in Shame. Fassbender suffers from a reputation of coming off a bit cold, however, and Shame -- his best chance at a nomination -- may be too NC-17 for voters' tastes.

Michael Shannon, Take Shelter

Shannon is a brilliant actor doing some of the best work in the business, but I think the Academy will have a hard time nominating Shannon because, let's face it, he's got a strange look about him. Billy Bob Thornton looked strange in his Oscar-nominated turn in Sling Blade but that was a result of a funny voice, a funny haircut, a high belt line, and a whole lot of monkeying around in front of a mirror to get the right face for Karl Childers. With Shannon, this is his actual face (granted his facial ticks are his own artistic creation). Looking strange is OK if you're in the running for Best Supporting Actor (just ask Jackie Earle Haley), but Best Actor? Shannon needs to play a regular guy lacking any real weirdness as soon as he can if he wants Academy members to warm up to him. Hey, I don't make up these rules and Shannon has no need to live by them either. The guy is on a great roll.

For Your Consideration

Paul Giamatti, Win-Win

Not too many people have seen this little gem and it's a shame, because Giamatti does some great work here. He is one of those reliably good actors that we just end up taking for granted.

Tom Hardy, Warrior

I'm an unabashed fan of this movie, which shouldn't work nearly as well as it does. But it works primarily because of the performances by Hardy, Joel Edgerton, and Nick Nolte (another guy not getting enough buzz right now). As good as Edgerton is (and he's very, very good), Hardy's physical transformation and his haunted, bruising demeanor make it one of the most interesting performances of the year.