I hate to go and be the cynic that I’m so hastily labeled behind my back, but it’s about time we go ahead and look at how unspeakable of a year in film it has been up to this point.

But before we do that, let me stress the importance of “up to this point.” No football team has ever made it to the playoffs based on their record at week 10, nor any UW student graduated on prospect after his junior year. We are, after all, only 80.822% of the way through the year.

But, like the Redskins missing the playoffs, some things are inevitable, or at least lend themselves to a pretty fair educated guess. Having said such, I stand firm: 2001 was a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad year.

In a rather futile exercise, let us try to make some predictions for the Oscar season based on what we have seen so far. In doing that, try not to get too downhearted — we do have two and a half months left to redeem film as we know it.

The easiest category to predict is the best picture award, but therein lies the problem of small indie hits and those that require any actual thinking. Saying the Academy abhors both of these might be a teeny bit of a stretch. However, I find it fair enough to mention that there have been plenty such films that have been snubbed, seemingly for these reasons.

Case in point, this year’s two “thinking man’s movies:” “Mulholland Drive” and “Memento.” Firstly, let me clearly state that, if “Memento” is truly the difficult movie that we’ve all made it out to be, then the collective movie-going public watches at a kindergarten level. It’s not that difficult, it’s not that good and in my opinion it won’t even be brought up come Oscar time.

“Mulholland Drive,” on the other hand, is deserving of any good fortune bestowed upon it — perfect fall timing (not too late, not too early), a good comeback story (it started as a failed TV pilot) and the praise of most critics. If critics are as accepting of “Mulholland Drive” as they are now come January, it could snatch up more than a handful of awards, including best picture — but it seems unlikely, given the gluttony of heartfelt, simpler-to-follow films we can expect between now and then.

Another “difficult” movie — but in a different sense — is Baz Luhrmann’s “Moulin Rouge.” It seems unlikely that the Academy will be willing to let a steroid-induced musical slip onto its elite list, but I’ve miscalculated their judgment before and would be more than happy to see these guys show their wild side.

Other potential nominees at this point — all far from being realistic contenders — include “Sexy Beast,” “Sidewalks of New York,” and, yes, “A.I.” For every rational person who hated “A.I.,” there are just as many irrational critics unwilling to bash Spielberg or Kubrick, let alone the two combined. I’ve even heard talk of “Shrek” sneaking in there, but at this point it seems more likely that we will have enough animated films to implement the first animation award, with “Shrek” mopping up its stale competition.

Examining actors, we have a couple recognizable faces: Nicholson, Depp, Rush. Nicholson was pretty intense in “The Pledge,” but will have it held against him that not only did his movie come out in the first quarter of the year, but it was a pretty awful and distressing episode — even for January. Depp did his best Ray Liotta impression and turned a few heads in “Blow,” but to me it’s a matter of too much “Goodfellas,” too much “Scarface” to take seriously.

Another perennial, Geoffrey Rush, made a solid appearance in the early year thriller “The Tailor of Panama,” but it pales in comparison to some of his better work, such as “Quills,” for which he was snubbed last year. Still, even at this point in the year, it seems that there are more strong performances from the younger, unheralded class. Ewan McGregor put in a solid effort, but it’s anyone’s guess as to whether “Moulin Rouge” will gather the Academy’s attention. Let me say: It should. If so, expect nominations for McGregor, Kidman, the picture, its music, or all together.

There is much speculation as to whether the Academy will be receptive of indie hit “Memento” and, if so, Guy Pearce may hang on for the ride. But Pearce has little to show for himself in the past, and there’s a feeling that he kind of ducked his performance by landing a simple, but perfect role. He’ll be forgotten come January.

For the first time in as long as I can remember, we have witnessed an excessive amount of notable female performances within a year — something I’ll bring up in a column to be. Mark my words, one of the two stunning leads from “Mulholland Drive” will be nominated. These two no-names demonstrated the power of being unheard-of actresses with two extremely believable performances for a director known to be difficult to work for.

Otherwise, Nicole Kidman stands out as the most likely nominee, but like McGregor, her fate rests on the Academy’s sense of humor. Were this a November movie, I’d say “Watch out for flying legs, ‘cuz ‘Moulin Rouge’ CanCan win lots of awards,” but as a spring release I think critics have been given too much time to let this splendid film sour in their constantly churning minds. Same goes for Renee Zellweger in “Bridget Jones’ Diary,” but at this moment she stands out for both her acting and her physical performance — something DeNiro has time and time again proved to be a factor.

EARLY OSCARS:

Picture: “Mulholland Drive”

Actor: Ben Kingsley, “Sexy Beast”

Actress: Naomi Watts, “Mulholland Drive”

Supporting Actor: Jim Broadbent, “Moulin Rouge”

Supporting Actress: NO NOMINATIONS