Every time Michael Haneke has an idea for a film, there’s always a different catalyst that makes him sit down and write it. It might be an image that comes to him, or a newspaper clipping that will stir his creativity. “The motivation has to be something that already interests you enough to want to think about it and reflect on it,” he says, calling from Madrid where he’s preparing a new opera. “Then you start collecting material and observations until you feel you have enough to start trying to order the material, structure. And that ordering and structuring is the longest, most difficult process.”

Other times, like in the case of something like “Amour” and star Jean-Louis Trintignant, it might be a specific actor for whom he wishes to write a part. But his latest film, which has landed five Oscar nominations including Best Director and Best Original Screenplay for Haneke, had darker and more meditative beginnings than just that. He had an aunt once who asked him to help her pass away and he was forced to look on as a loved one suffered. And yet, “Amour” is a love story, with all the deeply considered complications of love and a life lived with another. It’s fitting, then, that we’re speaking on Valentine’s Day.

“Amour” has come to be considered one of Haneke’s most universal and accessible works, despite sporting the same rigor as his previous work. That might be because it concerns itself with that very universal concept. But nevertheless, to Haneke, “there’s not a difference between my films besides the subject matter.”

While Haneke wrote the film with Trintignant in mind, it was through a typical casting process. He looked at a great many actresses in France of the appropriate age. It was Riva, who debuted in Alain Resnais’s “Hiroshima Mon Amour” over five decades ago, who stood out for the director.

“From the very first audition it was clear that she was the ideal partner for Jean-Louis Trintignant,” Haneke says. “Not only because she’s very good, but also because together they form a very credible couple.”

It’s clear quickly enough that Haneke isn’t overtly concerned with concepts so much as craft. He avoids dealing in theory too much, which is interesting for someone who’s earliest professional exposure to the art of filmmaking was as a critic.

“Critics are more interested in the theoretical aspect of film and less with the practical aspects of film,” he says. “That’s what disturbs filmmakers when they read critics, because critics are more interested in questions of ideology than they are with questions of craft. You can only learn your craft from making films.”

Nevertheless, Haneke teaches directing at Filmacademy Vienna in Vienna, Austria. And he’s always been interested in the theoretical underpinnings of film, he says, “because that’s enjoyable. But I don’t think that’s necessary for the artistic quality of a film. I think that intelligence and education can’t hurt you as a filmmaker but it’s not the only source for artistic production.”

Quite obviously, Haneke is guided by his gut and instinct when putting together a new film project. What it all might mean, well, perhaps maddeningly, he’ll leave that to discussion. He often deals in ambiguity, though, and there are elements of that even in his “most accessible” latest.

Take the couple’s relationship with their daughter, played by Isabelle Huppert. There is an underlying sense that something has gone quite wrong in that relationship, that they seem more dedicated to each other than to her.

“We live in a society when we’re quite busy in our working lives and it’s the family life that pays the price for that,” he says. “A century ago when the elderly fell sick and died, they would have done so within the prism of their family. Now that family structure no longer exists. And I think that the family relationship that the film portrays is very common.”

So while “Amour” might indeed be more universal, it’s still very much a Michael Haneke film. Of course, then, he was “totally surprised” it was nominated in five categories by the Academy this year.

Now he’s knee deep in mounting a production of the opera “Così fan tutte” in Madrid. It’s a bit of a shift, to say the least. He moves from the deep love and celluloid of “Amour” to the comedic wife-swapping of Mozart. “I’d worked with the same opera company in Paris a couple of years ago on a production of Mozart’s ‘Don Giovanni,’ so I was happy to work with them again,” he says. “The pairing of Mozart with the librettist Lorenzo Da Ponte is really the pinnacle of opera. It’s a huge pleasure.”

In two weeks Haneke may or may not walk out of the Dolby Theatre with an Oscar for his film. Though don’t expect him to Tweet about it. Whether he does or not, “Amour” is his most successful film to date. Accessible? Maybe. But it certainly wasn’t compromised into that position.

“Amour” is now playing in select theaters nationwide.

Hey, have you heard about the Michael Haneke Twitter account? No, of course the “Amour” director hasn’t set up a bit of social networking self-promotion, but someone with a sense of humor sure has.

Yes, in this “Catfish” world of cyber fakery, anybody can be anybody. But I guess it can be particularly hilarious when there isn’t much pretending going on, as is the case with the @Michael_Haneke handle.

Throwing around web verbiage you might attribute to a 12-year-old girl obsessed with Hello Kitty (or something) rather than an astute, multi-Palme-d’Or-winning practitioner of the filmmaking form, the account has amassed some 25,000 followers since it was set up on November 12. And it’s that very aspect that has the REAL Haneke so bewildered.

“A few months ago a student of mine told me about this,” he said with a laugh in a recent interview. “Of course, I hadn’t heard of it before. I tried to read some of the posts but my English isn’t good enough to allow me that. I’m really not interested in what he’s writing, but I’m fascinated by the fact that 25,000 people have subscribed to this feed of nonsense!”

Indeed. And here’s just a sampling of that “nonsense”:

izzy huppert jst sent me a valentynz card!!1! i jst found a love note inside as wel!!1! o wait, i remember this note… lol #awkward

– Michael Haneke (@Michael_Haneke) February 14, 2013

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

. @benaffleck so im hostn a pre-oscars party 4 the best directr nominees. id love u 2 cum as i need sum1 2 take pictures 4 my skrapbook lol

– Michael Haneke (@Michael_Haneke) February 2, 2013

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

gettin nominaytid for five oscars is so xhaustin. u no wot i meen? o wait, u probly dont lol

– Michael Haneke (@Michael_Haneke) January 10, 2013

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

My favorite? The jokester’s penchant for noting Juliette Binoche (consistently spelled “Juliet Binosh”) is the star of “Dan in Real Life.” I don’t know why. Cracks me up. For example:

i jst narrated species 2 usin my werner hurtsog impreshun until juliet binosh (dan in real life) literulee fel off her chair lol #wednesday

– Michael Haneke (@Michael_Haneke) January 23, 2013

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Suffice it to say, the account is NOT Mr. Haneke. In case, you know, you somehow thought otherwise.

Check back later for a full interview with the Oscar-nominated writer and director, which I assure will detail more substantial talking points.

HOLLYWOOD – Being in sound mixer Greg P. Russell’s shoes at the Oscars must be an interesting experience. He’s been 14 times, you see (double nominated in 1998). But he’s never heard his name called. He’s watched his work on high-octane action hits like “The Rock,” “Spider-Man” and the “Transformers” films lose to overall Academy favorites like “The English Patient,” “Chicago” “The Hurt Locker” and “Hugo.” He’s been in the mix (so to speak) consistently since his first nomination, for “Black Rain” in 1989, but hasn’t found himself on a project that the Academy at large — which, whether they know from good sound mixing or not, votes collectively on the Oscar winners each year — could warm to as worthy of their vote.

That could change this year, however. Nominated for the James Bond extravaganza “Skyfall,” Russell finds himself on a production that has clear industry support and sentiment. At the same time, he’s staring down Academy favorites once again in “Argo,” “Les Misérables,” “Life of Pi” and “Lincoln.” But that’s familiar territory for him.

Russell landed the gig mixing the sound effects of Sam Mendes’s film largely as a result of his recent partnership with Scott Millan, who has mixed dialogue in Mendes’s films since his debut, “American Beauty.” Millan and Russell head up Technicolor’s new theatrical sound post-production facility on the Paramount lot in Hollywood and Russell marks it as fortuitous that the relationship could yield such a coveted job as this one.

“It was a real privilege because I’ve always admired Sam”s films,” Russell says, sitting in a plush chair in the facility just after the film’s November release. A moment from Richard LaGravenese’s “Beautiful Creatures” sits frozen on a giant theater screen as a command center of dials and switches waits for him to again take up the task of blending its aural elements after we speak. “He”s always had a distinct sonic signature to his films. They”re not the norm. He makes choices that even though what”s on screen might be whatever you”re seeing, it”s not necessarily what you”re going to hear.”

Nevertheless, it was his first stab at working with the director. With someone like Michael Bay, Russell has an on-going shorthand. So his right hand man, Millan, would provide immeasurable insight into Mendes’ sensibilities.

“It really was beneficial to me because going in I kind of got a real inside look at Sam Mendes from Scott”s perspective,” Russell says. “There was something that Scott had mentioned that, you know, ‘He’s going to want to try things that are out-of-the-box.’ The pendulum, as he says, swings maybe all the way left and ‘let”s pull all of the sounds out and just hear dialogue, music.’ And then he”ll kind of come and add stuff back so that pendulum sways. And where he ends up after his process is usually at a really interesting balance.”

That process reminded Russell somewhat of his collaborations with another filmmaker, Sam Raimi. Raimi is very specific with his mixers about what he wants to hear and certainly what he doesn”t want to hear. “Everything has to be connected to story for him,” Russell says. “Which we always kind of try and do. But in a lot of ways we utilize many colors and textures to fill that frame. Many directors want that energy. They almost are nervous if that energy falls off.”

But Mendes trusts his performances and the narrative enough that it stands on its own, Russell says. He doesn’t want it convoluted or for anything to get in the way, and Russell respected that. He could see in dialing certain elements back how Mendes maybe was focusing on someone’s voice or some other specific track. It’s all part of a sculpting process, as Russell likes to call it.

Mendes also has a tendency to let the work of his composer, Thomas Newman, shine in a given production. And that was going to be of the utmost importance in a James Bond film, a franchise identifiable by its musical tradition.

“The music is such a driving force in this movie and I”ve always been a fan,” Russell says. “That was one of the other big treats for a guy like me is I”ve been a fan my whole life growing up. I”ve seen many, many Bonds. So the idea of actually even working on a Bond movie was very exciting to begin with.”

After getting the basic idea of what Mendes was looking for, the arc of the film from a sound standpoint during the temp mix stage in London, the sound team came back to Los Angeles to prepare all the elements. Everything was refined and smoothed out on a track-by-track basis and then it was back to London for the final mix. And while things like the music are there to drive the production, and the effects, Russell’s domain, certainly enhance the overall mixture, it boils down to one thing for Mendes: dialogue.

“It is crucial that the warmth and the resonance and the soul of the performance sound fantastic,” Russell says. “So that was the core that we then wrap everything else around. And then the next line of importance for him is the music. Thomas Newman, we all knew from the temp dub — which had a lot of music from other movies, including obviously Bond movies and ‘Casino Royale’ — that it was a daunting task to deliver something that connects to the iconic themes but brings something fresh. There’s a constant movement to this movie and the narrative and the score really drive that.”

Russell takes a moment to recall a scene from Mendes’s “Road to Perdition,” which was nominated for Best Sound (now Best Sound Mixing) and Best Sound Editing at the Oscars and even won the Cinema Audio Society’s award for mixing. It’s perhaps the most iconic moment from the film, mobster John Rooney (Paul Newman) and his seedy entourage approaching their cars on a rain-soaked Chicago street. The sound of rain splattering in puddles drops out entirely, allowing Thomas Newman’s score to delicately take over as Michael Sullivan (Tom Hanks) mows down the entourage with his Tommy gun, saving Rooney for last. As Sullivan approaches, the rain and other diegetic elements fade back in for Rooney’s key line — “I’m glad it’s you.” — and Sullivan finally takes his revenge, the rackety sound of gunfire hitting the soundtrack for the first time in the sequence.

It reminds Russell of how Mendes chose to handle the Shanghai sequence of “Skyfall,” which has also been singled out as a particularly stunning example of cinematographer Roger Deakins’s work in the film.

“One of my favorite music pieces in the film happens to be this cue of Bond following Patrice to this particular building,” Russell says. “We get there and there”s all of these cuts of cars and high shots of traffic and low-cut angles to tires. In the past we would have been hitting those sounds, the wet street. Sam didn”t want to hear any of that. It”s much more fluid, those cuts and those images, without hearing sound delineate between each cut. It makes it more poetic. It makes it like a ballet.

“And that’s on up through Bond running in and leaping onto the elevator and following him up to whatever floor they’re on. You don”t want to hear Bond’s movement. The two shots where we are close up on his feet, we hear his feet, his footsteps. Otherwise, you do not hear him. We want him completely stealth in pursuit.”

It’s an interesting sequence for sound, too, because of the constant whirring of a glass cutter that fills the sound space. Bond’s target, who eluded him in the first sequence of the film, is cutting a hole for his rifle on an assassination attempt. The whirring stops and then there’s the “thump” of the cut portion popping out and the whistling of wind outside the hole, which itself yields a visceral reaction about how far up we are (a foreshadowing, in fact, of where the sequence will ultimately go).

“That wind was a very specific sound,” Russell says. “That’s a choice, of what wind that should be. Sam handpicked from, I”m going to say, a half a dozen new winds that we tried, that I would audition for him. And again, it’s part of the narrative of the story. We did have other material and ambiance and we pulled all of it out. So really, Sam just likes it clean.”

But while that kind of work might be a little more noticeable, given that the suspenseful sequence has all of a viewer’s senses piqued, Russell and Millan’s work can also be heard enhancing seemingly mundane moments. Take the entrance of Bond’s villain, Silva (Javier Bardem), in the film. It’s perhaps not so mundane, given the interesting choice of bringing the character down an elevator and having him slowly move across the room until he’s face-to-face with Bond, moving out of focus into focus in a highly dramatic one-shot moment, but it’s certainly not something you would immediately identify for its sound. Yet the mix built on that reveal as much as the visuals.

“That”s a bold move, this long entrance, this introduction to our villain,” Russell says. “Because you focus on him and his speech. And yes, it”s clear, but it certainly has more echo and gets drier as he gets closer, and yet there is still a firmness about it. And the same treatment had to happen with the feet. One of the things that”s interesting about Sam is his perception, because it”s astute, his ear. It”s incredible. He will know that if you have a kind of treatment on the voice, you better match that same treatment on everything else so that it”s all in the same space.

“And one of the other aspects of that scene is there would have been opportunities. It”s a long scene and we had a lot of computer-type hums, low-end things. Other directors would have probably wanted to fill that space up. But it was distracting from the voice. We had all that content and we had been playing with it, and finally he said, ‘Just pull that.’ It was very clear that he wanted to keep this really simplistic and not jazz it up too much. And so we had a very light kind of hum, some light clicking. Every now and then there”s a little beep. It was about lettting the rich power of the performance drive the scene and not distracting from it.”

Whether it was the opening chase sequence with Newman’s pulsating score driving the track, Russell’s signature heard in motorcycles and train engines and bullets whizzing past, or a moment like the above, tailoring the audio to serve performance in quiet but purposeful ways, “Skyfall” had it all. Russell says he learned a lot about patience on the film, that during the process of experimentation, things may lead down a direction that doesn’t feel satisfying, but in further analysis and evaluation of the work, the “pendulum” will swing back around. But mostly, he takes away a unique perspective in a brand of filmmaking that has been his business for over three decades.

“I’ve done a lot of action,” Russell says. “For me, I liked finding the nuance of Sam Mendes in the delicacy and the simplicity of storytelling. And that was my gift, of getting the opportunity to work with him, because he”s a very brilliant, very smart guy. It was a little daunting, the expectations of it, being the 50th anniversary of James Bond. But there were so many really cool, emotional aspects of being a part of this film.”

“Skyfall” is currently available on DVD/Blu-ray.

(Welcome to the Oscar Guide, your chaperone through the Academy”s 24 categories awarding excellence in film. A new installment will hit every weekday in the run-up to the Oscars on February 24, with the Best Picture finale on Friday, February 22.)

The staggering number of quality documentary features this year has been well-covered here and elsewhere. When the Academy made its inevitable cuts in the finalists stage, as usual, a great many gems were left off. But one couldn’t argue with that slate of 15, a truly monumental set of contenders for the most part. And yet, one film has stood out as the frontrunner since it bowed at Sundance over a year ago.

The documentary features were sent to the entire voting membership of the Academy this year, along with the live action and animated shorts. That wider pool could change how one typically picks this race, but it really just means that popularity will reign supreme. And the film leading the charge this year is nothing if not popular.

The nominees are…

“5 Broken Cameras” (Emad Burnat and Guy Davidi)
“The Gatekeepers” (Dror Moreh, Philippa Kowarsky and Estelle Fialon)
“How to Survive a Plague” (David France and Howard Gertler)
“The Invisible War” (Kirby Dick and Amy Ziering)
“Searching for Sugar Man” (Malik Bendjelloul and Simon Chinn)

I found it unfortunate that brilliant studies like “The Central Park Five” and “West of Memphis” couldn’t even get to the finalists stage. And of those that did make the cut, I think a place absolutely should have been made for Alex Gibney’s “Mea Maxima Culpa: Silence in the House of God,” kicking up a fuss on HBO as of late (and surely having a hand in recent news regarding The Pope). To say nothing of my personal top 10 entry, “The Queen of Versailles.” Nevertheless, again, it was a strong overall slate, and it yielded a dynamic group of nominees.

If you’re asking me, far and away the most amazing, gripping, meaningful film on the list is Emad Burnat and Guy Davidi’s Cinema Eye Honor-winning “5 Broken Cameras.” The film’s mere existence is a bit of a miracle, as the eponymous cameras were shot at, tossed on the ground, etc. They pretty much succumbed to every death the filmmaker, Burnat, fortunately dodged as he documented peaceful Palestinian protests in a West Bank village that repeatedly gave way to violent outlash from Israeli security forces. That very pre-Palestine bias (which was nevertheless edited together and sculpted by Israeli Davidi) could hold it back, or it could rise above that and resonate.

Interestingly enough, there is another argument of nuance in this debate nominated, in the form of Dror Moreh’s “The Gatekeepers.” The film is less concerned with formalism, a talking head study of the Israeli Shin Bet from the mouths of six of its former heads. But it is no less explosive for what those former heads have to say about mistakes made in the on-going struggle in the Middle East and, indeed, notions of futility in the overall conflict that has waged from the Six-Day War to the present. It says some things that supporters of Israel might flinch at, but it can’t be dismissed and ought to be seen as a threat to the frontrunner, in fact.

David France’s “How to Survive a Plague,” which won the Best First Feature prize from the New York Film Critics Circle and the Gotham Award for Best Documentary, is as much a feat of editing as anything else. Pieced together from archival footage and audio of the period, the film tells the story of the early years of the AIDS epidemic and the efforts of advocacy groups to put it on a central stage in socio-political awareness. It’s a tale of heroes, nothing less, and is quite affecting particularly considering it’s hardly about ancient history. Yet it’s mounted in such monumental way, a testament, really.

If voters want to spring for a film that could bring about real change, they should look no further than Kirby Dick’s incendiary, infuriating “The Invisible War.” The film first hit at Sundance in January 2012 and has found its way into the political dialogue both among pundits and Congressmen and women ever since. A dissection of rape in the military and the institutional structure that allows it to go on largely unpunished, to say nothing of the post-trauma benefits that system denies countless victims, it made me want to burn down everything in sight when I saw it. And, like “The Gatekeepers,” it should be seen as a potential threat, because that kind of a strong reaction could go a long way this year.

Nevertheless, it’s Malik Bendjelloul’s “Searching for Sugar Man” that has dominated the space since it also bowed at Sundance last year. It’s a delightful film, a compelling story well told with an eye to craft and a charismatic subject to detail. But it’s been confusing to see it so embraced as “the one” in a year as meaningful as this has been on the non-fiction filmmaking front. It is immensely popular, though, and that will only benefit in a voting structure such as this. The film has won awards from the International Documentary Association, the Directors Guild of America and the Producers Guild of America, so there’s no reason to think it’s going to suddenly derail now. Though never say never.

Will Win: “Searching for Sugar Man”
Could Win: “The Invisible War”
Should Win: “5 Broken Cameras”
Should Have Been Here: “The Queen of Versailles”

Do you think there’s any chance of a surprise in the Best Documentary Feature category? Can anyone upset “Searching for Sugar Man?” Tell us in the comments section!

“No mass cultural event has the capacity to infuriate like the Oscars.” A truer line was never written, and so Grantland writer Mark Lisanti launches a “tournament” to determine the most egregious Oscar travesty of all time, rounding up any number of supposed outrages from past Academy Awards ceremonies that people still love to bitch about, and pitting them against each other for you to vote on. Nominees range from contentious winners to infamous onstage moments, many of which I still don’t understand the fuss about. I, for one, think it’s nice that Angelina Jolie is close to her brother. And I’ll never get why it must be a cast-iron fact that “Saving Private Ryan” is a better film than the perfectly delightful “Shakespeare in Love.” Then again, I still feel less than sanguine about “Crash”: everyone has their Oscar sore points. Perhaps the better question would be: what Oscar “travesties” are you totally okay with? [Grantland]

The Oscar-nominated screenwriters of “Argo,” “Lincoln” and “Zero Dark Thirty” talk about the political facets of their work. [New York Times]

Jerry Rice dips into the water tank for a first-hand look at the visual effects in “Life of Pi” — one of the surest Oscar bets of the season, you’d think. [The Vote]

Meanwhile, Eric Eisenberg talks to the artists behind one of the inevitable also-rans in that category, “The Avengers.” [Cinema Blend]

Anne Thompson reflects on the career of recently passed screenwriter Alan Sharp. [Thompson on Hollywood]

Glenn Whipp talks to the folks at the Laika animation studio, who brought us “Coraline” and “ParaNorman,” about going two-for-two with the Academy. [LA Times] 

Kirby Dick and Amy Ziering, the people behind Oscar-nominated doc “The Invisible War,” discuss their film’s brave investigation of sexual abuse in the military. [Gold Derby]

Venerable British film critic Barry Norman picks the 49 greatest British films of all time. [The Telegraph]

Far, far from the Oscar race: I’ve never heard “How to Lose a Guy in Ten Days” described as the golden age of anything, but Amanda Dobbins uses Kate Hudson flick to measure how far the romcom has fallen. [Vulture]

BERLIN – Looking at the list of seen films I have yet to write up out of the Berlinale, I’m finding it harder than usual to forge connections between them that would make for a satisfying review roundup. Some have been good. More have been bad. That’s about the extent of the narrative at a festival that, while enjoyable as ever, hasn’t so far maintained the standard of last year’s “Tabu”-“Sister”-“Barbara”-“War Witch”-“A Royal Affair” mini-feast. Only Sebastian Lelio’s wonderful “Gloria,” meanwhile, seems to have buyers buzzing along with the critics; it’ll be a major shock if it doesn’t take a significant prize from Wong Kar-wai’s jury on Saturday.

So forgive this rather randomly paired duo of reviews, which have little in common beyond their presence in lineup and… well, they’re both vaguely Valentine’s Day-friendly. I thought I’d at least couch bad news with good, which wouldn’t have been the case if I’d opted to pair up two former Best Foreign Language Film winners instead. (More on Danis Tanovic’s drab Competition entry “An Episode in the Life of an Iron Picker” — surely a candidate for the most parodic-sounding arthouse movie title of all time — at a later stage.)

To deliver the bad news first, no major European festival is complete without at least one all-star Europudding — that reliably po-faced subgenre of international co-production, often with a literary source, that tends to cast everybody and please no one — in the lineup. And Berlin presented a particularly wobbly one today in “Night Train to Lisbon” (D), an amusingly dunderheaded adaptation of Pascal Mercier’s international bestseller of the same title.

It comes to us courtesy of Danish veteran Bille August, the name people tend to forget when listing the elite club of two-time Palme d’Or winners — largely because, since his late-80/early-90s glory days (during which he also netted an Oscar for “Pelle the Conqueror”), he has morphed into something of a Europudding merchant. We might have assumed he’d peaked, so to speak, in this regard with 1993’s riotous Isabel Allende travesty “The House of the Spirits,” but we’d have been wrong — “Lisbon,” which reunites the director with “Spirits” lead Jeremy Irons, is at least as cloth-eared and self-regarding a precis of material I’m reliably led to believe has a slightly higher philosophical reach.

The florid-yet-banal tone here, however, is set early, as characters manage not to corpse over such lines as, “We live in the here and now — everything before is past.” Well, quite. Irons stars as Raimund, a fusty classics teacher who, since his divorce, has been living a tweedily solitary existence in Bern, Switzerland. (Already, that Europudding passport is shaping up nicely.) That changes when he rescues a mysterious young woman from a bridge-jumping suicide attempt. She runs away (not, it turns out, to the next-nearest bridge) before he can learn anything about her, but helpfully leaves behind a yellowed old book, enclosing two tickets for a cross-country train that, naturally, is set to leave in just 15 minutes. Raimund acts quickly: Bern, he decides, has proved too much for the man, so the midnight train to Lisbon it is.

Most people, upon taking an impromptu vacation to one of the world”s most beautiful cities, would settle for some leisurely sightseeing and a few drinks at the nearest fado bar, but Raimund has a drearier itinerary planned. The book, it turns out, is an obscure autobiography by by Amadeu de Prado (Jack Huston), a Portuguese doctor turned revolutionary in the last days of the Salazar dictatorship, who eventually died tragically young in the mid-1970s. Raimund, for reasons best known to himself, is sufficiently touched by Prado”s story to harass the man”s remaining relatives and cohorts in pursuit of the full story. Still, it doesn”t take Irons bursting into a rendition of “I”ve Been to Paradise, But I”ve Never Been to Me” to realize that the lonely professor”s quest is a more internal one.

Among the paycheck-hungry faces assisting Raimund in his endeavours are Prado”s still-mourning sister Adriana (an unduly distressed-looking Charlotte Rampling), his politicized German college friend Jorge (Bruno Ganz), and kindly optician Mariana (Martina Gedeck) who, by virtue of being one of the 20-odd residents of the Portuguese capital (extras seem to be in short supply throughout), is the niece of a key figure in the case. Most of these people respond as anyone would to an unidentified Englishman in Donald Rumsfeld glasses making enquiries about a dead loved one: they invite him in for tea and relate the story of Prado”s life, death and affair with fellow radical Estefania (Melanie Laurent, brandishing an aggressive Portuguese accent) in recurring flashbacks.

These may be even more turgid than the present-day action, though at least they aren”t hobbled by the casting department”s curious confidence in the romantic pairing of Irons and Gedeck. If Raimund does indeed find himself, he”s a few steps ahead of the audience, for whom he remains a complete cipher, apologizing repeatedly for his own lack of dynamism. (“You”re not boring,” Mariana reassures him at one point, though she”s pretty much coerced into it.)

At no point is it made clear why Raimund is so possessed by this disconnected memoir, given that Greg Latter and Ulrich Herrmann”s windy script flattens all its political charge and complexity into a rather passionless love triangle. August even achieves the considerable feat of making Lisbon look dowdy under the overlit glare of Filip Zumbrunn”s cinematography. Lena Olin, incidentally, pops up near the end to perform pretty much the exact same explicatory task she was assigned in “The Reader,” principally making you wonder how that project ever escaped the Europudding refrigerator.

On to gladder tidings. Some of you may recall that Arvin Chen”s “Au Revoir, Taipei,” a beguiling romantic caper that I first encountered (albeit without subtitles) at the Berlinale three years ago, wound up on my 2010 Top 10 list. Sadly, the Taiwanese-American director”s debut feature never secured a US release, but fostered enough goodwill on the festival circuit to generate considerable anticipation among the Berlin crowd for his follow-up, “Will You Still Love Me Tomorrow?” (B). If the result is a shade less accomplished and appealing than its pitch-perfect predecessor, that seems a fair price to pay for its increased structural ambition, as it tackles weightier thematic territory and a broader spread of characters without losing the airy whimsy that appears to be Chen”s stock-in-trade.

Indeed, I feared that quality may have tipped alarmingly into tweeness as the pre-credit sequence culminated with a character floating skyward, Mary Poppins-style, on a spring breeze and an umbrella. But it”s an odd, anomalous lapse: while other, more integrated, flights of fancy include one character”s imaginary conversations with the star of her favorite soap opera and another”s karaoke-bar segue into a fantasy musical number, Chen”s fleet feet remain otherwise earthbound.

Where “Au Revoir, Taipei” seemed equally informed by the stylized playgrounds of Stanley Donen”s Hollywood and Wong Kar-wai”s Hong Kong, it”s Chen”s latest that really betrays his background as an apprentice to the late Edward Yang, both in the narrative intricacy of its relationships and the democratic equanimity with which he untangles them. Principally the story of a closeted gay family man surprising even himself as he slips out of the closet, the film is remarkable for the care and constructive humor with which it handles every affected party; no one character is a signposted stand-in for Freedom, Tolerance or Prejudice, just as no one”s behaviour is entirely right or unreasonable.

At the heart of the narrative is a complicated question: if hardly any relationship is perfect, can you be happily married outside the realm of physical desire? Wei-chung (Richie Jen), a mild-mannered optician (hey, there is a link to “Night Train to Lisbon after all) living in Taipei, comes close: an adoring father to a young son, he also loves his gentle, mildly depressive wife of nine years, Feng (Taiwanese pop star Mavis Fan), as much as is humanly possible without particularly wishing to have sex with her. Increasingly antsy for a second child, she”s beginning to sense a drift. Meanwhile, after years of suppressing all sexual urges whatsoever, a chance encounter with an old acquaintance, out-and-proud wedding photographer Stephen (“Au Revoir, Taipei” standout Lawrence Ko, once more the chief comic element here), Wei-chung is lured back onto the gay scene he”d flirted with as a bachelor – and falls hard for receptive customer Thomas (Wong Ka-lok).

An abundance of sub-plots fleshes out the running theme of imperfect loves: as Feng increasingly loses her grip at work, her inordinately forgiving boss pines for her from afar, while Wei-chung”s spoiled, flighty sister (Mandy) breaks off her engagement to her doting dullard of a fiancé (Stone), who in turn finds solace in Stephen”s badminton-playing gay wolf pack.

It”s not exactly “La Ronde,” and some of the threads verge of the insipid, but this distinctly melancholy romantic comedy grows more courageously conflicted as it strolls along, building to a fresh, eminently fair denouement in which no one gets quite what they want in quite the way they thought they wanted it. As he demonstrated more effervescently (and with more technical verve) in his debut — and in tune with the titular song, touchingly sung by Fan in the aforementioned doo-wop fantasy sequence – Chen is a romantic at heart, but one capable of compromise.

(Welcome to the Oscar Guide, your chaperone through the Academy”s 24 categories awarding excellence in film. A new installment will hit every weekday in the run-up to the Oscars on February 24, with the Best Picture finale on Friday, February 22.)

For the first time in Oscar history, we have an acting category composed entirely of past winners. Seth MacFarlane noted this is a “breath of fresh air.” He has a tendency to use sarcasm. Not only are the nominees all past winners, the race for the nominations was terribly predictable, notwithstanding occasional precursor support for Javier Bardem (“Skyfall”), Leonardo DiCaprio (“Django Unchained”) and Matthew McConaughey (“Magic Mike”).

And like Best Supporting Actress, I found this year’s supporting actor nominees largely underwhelming. In my view, two of the nominees are giving slightly different takes on the characters that already won them an Oscar. Two veterans are very good but fall short of greatness in my opinion. And the one truly great performance in the lot is a leading role masquerading as supporting. This is, nevertheless, by far the most exciting acting category when it comes to the race for the win. Indeed, plausible cases can be made for every contender.

The nominees are…

Alan Arkin (“Argo”)
Robert De Niro (“Silver Linings Playbook”)
Philip Seymour Hoffman (“The Master”)
Tommy Lee Jones (“Lincoln”)
Christoph Waltz (“Django Unchained”)

Who would I have preferred to see? For starters, I felt Leonardo DiCaprio and Samuel L. Jackson stole the show in “Django Unchained.” Ditto Sam Rockwell coming out on top of a great cast in “Seven Psychopaths.” Dwight Henry was a perfect foil for Quvenzhané Wallis in “Beasts of the Southern Wild.” Matthew McConaughey electrified the screen in an eerily realistic manner in “Magic Mike.” And Michael Fassbender always drew attention without distraction while being utterly committed to playing David in “Prometheus.”

Alan Arkin seems like a classy individual and he”s always fun to watch. I”ve enjoyed his late career renaissance and he was undeniably joyous in “Argo.” But is his crotchety old man shtick not tiring anyone? The film seems like it will pull off a Best Picture win, and that means other wins will likely come along. There have, however, been precursor wins for the actor. And there’s no rush to reward him again after he won in 2007. So I’d say he”s the least likely to triumph. But it”s not impossible; in such an open category, a showy role in the likely Best Picture winner can”t be ruled out. Could “Argo f*** yourself!” be the new “Show me the money!”?

It”s certainly good to see Robert De Niro back in the race after a 21-year absence. In “Silver Linings Playbook,” he shows convincing warmth that we have rarely seen out of him. Did I always buy it? No. But the Academy clearly loved this film, giving it a nomination in every category where it had a plausible chance. De Niro hasn”t won any precursors but he is working the circuit to an extent he never has before – much moreso than other contenders. Giving him a third Oscar in a similar manner to Ingrid Bergman”s third seems so right. But there is still the lack of ANY precursor wins. And assuming Jennifer Lawrence staves off the brilliant Emmanuelle Riva, there is also the question of whether the Academy will feel like springing for the film outside of Best Actress: 10 of the 13 past Best Actress winners have been solo wins for their films, and two others have won just Best Makeup besides. The Academy doesn”t seem to like anyone pulling attention away from their leading ladies. That”s a somewhat tangential aside but I ultimately won”t go out on a limb and predict De Niro for the win.

Philip Seymour Hoffman“s Lancaster Dodd gripped me. Utterly charismatic with just enough sinister elements shining through, I managed to be enthralled, disturbed and, above all, intrigued by this character. Well done. Despite being the best of the five nominated performances, this leading turn has no business in this supporting category. That, however, rarely matters with Oscar. Indeed, it can help. Like co-star Amy Adams, Hoffman is on his fourth nomination since 2005. I fully expect him to win a second Oscar one of these years. With a BFCA win behind him, this could be it. But his film seems to have underperformed outside the acting branch (to put it mildly). And don”t Waltz and De Niro seem to be preferred contenders from The Weinstein Company?

We grew to like and respect Tommy Lee Jones‘s take on Thaddeus Stevens, with “the face of someone who has fought long and hard for the good of the people without caring much for any of ’em.” And who wasn”t cheering him on during his character”s climax? Then again, I still always felt I was watching Tommy Lee Jones and I never felt for a moment that this Texan was from Pennsylvania. My opinion doesn”t matter but the fact that Jones only has one major award this season does. The fact that he wasn’t able to show up to accept his SAG Award – and his face during the Golden Globes becoming a ludicrous meme – doesn”t help. Moreover, I have an inexplicable intuition that Daniel Day-Lewis is going to emerge as “Lincoln””s only win. Even so, SAG can sometimes be enough (just ask Morgan Freeman) and unlike Hoffman, Waltz and De Niro, he doesn”t have to compete with two other performances from the same production company. He also fits the mould of an actor who becomes a two-time winner…and if not now, when? I”m predicting him, but not without reservations.

I was really convinced that Christoph Waltz would a one-hit wonder, albeit a very deserved one, with Oscar. How to prevent that? Give the same performance in what is essentially a co-leading role but turn the showy bad guy into a showy good guy! My distaste for this nomination is not so much that it isn”t a good performance (on the contrary, I think it is very good) than the fact that I felt there were two better, actually supporting, performances in the same movie. Waltz won both and the Golden Globe and the BAFTA and therefore cannot be ruled out in the race for the win. Indeed, Waltz is the only contender to have won two of the four big precursors. He also has never lost a major award for which he has been nominated. But even if the lack of BFCA and SAG nominations can be explained by a lack of screeners, do people really expect Waltz to become a two-time Oscar winner and on only his second nomination? This film is not a “Million Dollar Baby” or “American Beauty” in the eyes of AMPAS. Precursors aside, this doesn”t feel right to me.

Will Win: Tommy Lee Jones in “Lincoln”
Could Win: Robert De Niro in “Silver Linings Playbook”
Should Win: Robert De Niro in “Silver Linings Playbook” (only because I can”t bring himself to countenance Hoffman”s category fraud)
Should Have Been Here: Samuel L. Jackson in “Django Unchained”

What”s your take on this race? Might the best way to predict be playing eeny-meenie-miny-moe? So much craziness will at least make for suspense until Octavia Spencer opens the envelope!

If you missed yesterday's lead-in to this year's shots column, go catch up. In it you'll find my somewhat unique criteria and reasoning for choosing this year's assortment.

Before diving into part two today, some thoughts on the year in cinematography on the whole. It's worth remembering that, often enough, a great year of cinematography won't yield a high volume of still images that speak to the purposes of a column such as this. Just as often, a poor year for the form might actually yield an incredible array of inspired frames. We're boiling down to the base elements of cinema here, and the combination always turns out something unique each and every year.

This year, I think, is an example of both great photography on the whole and a nice array of single images to represent them. I thought the best photography of the year came from Roger Deakins on “Skyfall,” mentioned yesterday. But I was also blown away by what Greig Fraser was able to capture in “Zero Dark Thirty,” particularly in the film's final sequence.

The other CIA thriller of the 2012 awards season, “Argo,” was a great example of work from Rodrigo Prieto, utilizing everything from Super-8 to 16 mm to digital, two-perf and four-perf 35mm and overall just an underrated accomplishment. Janusz Kaminski, meanwhile, offered up some gorgeous, painterly work on “Lincoln” that would be near the top of my ballot (yet I could never settle on an image for this list). And a real unsung piece of work this year came from Peter Sorg on “Frankenweenie,” immaculately lighting Tim Burton's practical stop-motion vision. If only such an accomplishment could find room for reward.

I wasn't as impressed with Wally Pfister's work on “The Dark Knight Rises” as I have been by his accomplishments on other Christopher Nolan efforts, but the IMAX feat has to be mentioned. The 65mm work on “The Master,” speaking of epic imagery, was pretty stunning, too, as was the work of every DP mentioned on the list this year. It's just been a great season for imagery and craft.

So let's see what came out on top when boiling things down, frame by frame…

#5

“LIFE OF PI”
Director of Photography: Claudio Miranda

“We shot that in like a 30-foot-deep tank and we kind of had it all mapped out where everything was going to be and I think that shot, which I think is really special, worked according to plan. He was silhouetted against the sinking ship, which I think looks really beautiful. And Ang [Lee] wanted to have sort of a 3D moment of having him kind of float out into the audience a little bit. The ship was all blue screen but all the lights and stuff were in there. I was trying to replicate the ship's sinking lights so it's all sorts of small little lights and they kind of descend and slightly flicker out as it goes on. I love that shot.”

– Claudio Miranda

This year's frontrunner to win the Best Cinematography Oscar is Claudio Miranda for the watercolor touches and 3D wizardry of Ang Lee's “Life of Pi.” And it's a film with no shortage of beautiful, potent images. One in particular caught my attention immediately when I first saw the film at the New York Film Festival and has taken my breath away every time I've seen it since.

As the eponymous Pi struggles in the torrential currents of the Pacific after abandoning not just the massive sinking vessel that was carrying him to a new life in Canada, but the tiny lifeboat that has been claimed by the film's Bengal tiger star Richard Parker, he paddles beneath the surface of the water to avoid an epic crashing wave. As he struggles underwater, the camera moving with him throughout, he pauses in suspended animation, silhouetted against the sinking ship taking his entire life down to the depths. It's an arresting image full of profound, unshakable loss.

#4

“THE MASTER”
Director of Photography: Mihai Malaimare Jr.

“A lot of times I'm asked about the shots on the boat but very few people ask about the shot in the prison, so that's a pleasant surprise. We scouted that location a few times and weren't sure we'd end up using it. One of the reasons was it's basically a museum. But it was an interesting location and it gave a lot just from how the cells were. We were discussing a shot like that from the first time we scouted it. But nobody, not even Joaquin, knew he would end up breaking the toilet, which was a piece of the museum! They had a hard time replacing it but it just happened and that was the take pretty much.”

– Mihai Malaimare Jr.

One of the stories in cinematography this year was celluloid's grip on relevance by going big. Wally Pfister, as mentioned, pushed IMAX to new heights. Meanwhile, Paul Thomas Anderson insisted on 65mm for his production of “The Master,” shot by Mihai Malaimare Jr. The idea first came up to use it here and there, the high density image revealing so much clarity. Soon it was used throughout, and for a filmmaker with a vision like Anderson, it makes the already potent imagery pop even more.

The shot that seals the film's thematic ideas, though, was the obvious choice for me. It's almost a split screen motif, Lancaster Dodd and Freddy Quell tossed into a jail cell for unruly behavior. And as the scene plays out, the film's idea of a man split in two comes forth, Joaquin Phoenix raging on one side, Philip Seymour Hoffman cool and collected on the other. Nothing else so clearly illustrates the nature versus composure construct the film is so interested in quite as well.

#3

“MOONRISE KINGDOM”
Director of Photography: Robert D. Yeoman

“When Wes first described this shot we all knew that it would be a challenge to pull off. As the introduction to the scout regional hullabaloo, he wanted to incorporate as much about scouting life as possible into this single shot…We walked the field several times while reading the script so we could determine the length of the fence. We knew that the fence in the foreground would not only give a sense of where the actors were, but would also be a great visual as it quickly moves along at the bottom of the frame. It was a bit of a challenge to keep all of the actors in the frame so they literally walked in each others' footsteps, as close to each other as possible. With so many separate elements it was difficult to coordinate everything, but obviously in the end it worked out beautifully.”

– Robert D. Yeoman

One of my favorite films of the year was Wes Anderson's “Moonrise Kingdom,” and a big part of that was the fact that, finally, his penchant for artifice was reconciled with personal emotion for me. I realize that has happened just as well for other viewers with his previous films, but it never fully clicked as well as it did here. And the photography from Robert Yeoman was criminally ignored most of the season.

There was always a shot from the film that stuck out for me, and it wasn't particularly deep in a thematic sense, but it wasn't so empty as to be merely a stunt, either. It was a wonderfully choreographed tracking shot full of movement in the frame laying out a setting with ease, with this added element of a fence moving along the bottom like the teeth of a saw. It was just dazzling to me and so giving in that it showcased all of the design elements of Anderson's film, the costumes and the sets getting perhaps their biggest moment.

#2

“ANNA KARENINA”
Director of Photography: Seamus McGarvey

“Joe loves playing with time, but in a similar way, he likes for a shot — in one take — to be both subjective and objective. We see Anna and Vronsky move onto the dance floor and sort of activate these dancers with their passion, so there's already a metaphor at work. Then it goes from the real gradually into a more psychological sort of space, when he lifts her up and the camera swirls around her. At that moment there was an almighty stampede behind the camera and underneath the camera as all the extras had to kind of evacuate the auditorium really in the space of five or six seconds! But it's an exciting technique to explore, because when you have that symbiosis between your actors and the camera, you can create another layer of dynamism. It's a cinematic, sort of architectural travel. And that's always the goal. It's not to make a peacock of a shot.”

– Seamus McGarvey

Seamus McGarvey has been here before. Recall a centerpiece steadicam shot from 2007's “Atonement,” moving through the beach at Dunkirk and all the production coordination that went into it. Yet in that introductory year of this column, I resisted the temptation to choose it and instead went with something more modest, but just as powerful. This year, though, I couldn't resist the big moment of “Anna Karenina,” and McGarvey's quote above does a nice job of summing up why.

The shot itself is a feat of choreography, of course. But what it says thematically is key. So much of the film, particularly the cinematography, is exciting and a true testament to artistry this year. There are some days I think it should have found a place on my top 10 list, and certainly, it nearly did. But director Joe Wright is an exciting talent because he is so involved with what the images of his films actually mean. And by the way, a big hand to steadicam operator Peter Robertson, who was holding and guiding the camera on both this shot and the big shot from “Atonement.”

#1

“LES MISÉRABLES”
Director of Photography: Danny Cohen

“One of the things Tom was trying to do was give the audience an experience in tact, which was the reason to do a lot of long takes and not cut into them. You are limited by a frame and where you put a face in the frame is important because it tells more of the story. If you're not conscious of where you're putting the actor and the reason, I think you're missing a trick. One of the things we looked at was 'The Passion of Joan of Arc' by Carl Dreyer, and it's just an amazing film about faces. The only thing you don't get when you see the stage musical is, in your brain, you can't cut to a close-up. The one thing film as a medium can do is cut to the close-up. As soon as you get a face in the frame and you place it in an interesting place in the frame, the rawness just kind of jumps out of the screen.”

– Danny Cohen

I can kind of hear the groans but I really don't care. It's humorous to me that the oft-criticized cinematography of Tom Hooper's “Les Misérables” ended up topping this list, and that I couldn't personally argue with myself on the choice anyway. From the moment I saw the film, this single take of Anne Hathaway performing the showstopper “I Dreamed a Dream” struck me in a profound way. Dismiss the technique of using a great many close-ups in the film if you must, but this one proved the production was on to something, and in all likelihood, it's the single shot that will land Hathaway an Oscar for Best Supporting Actress.

That's the point of this column. To get at the most powerful shots of the year. And what's more powerful than that? Plenty is owed to the performance, of course. Plenty is owed to the song. But the decision to do it this way was brave and could have been a disaster, particularly with the added high wire of live singing, and all involved pulled it off perfectly. It is, in so many words, the best shot of 2012. And it will be remembered for many years to come. It will become one of the identifying images in all of film. It will never go away.

And there we have it. My take on the best shots of the year. But let's turn it over to the readership. What were some exceptional images for 2012 in your book? Have your say in the comments section below!

The top 10 shots of 2012: part one

***

The top 10 shots of 2014

The top 10 shots of 2013

The top 10 shots of 2012

The top 10 shots of 2011

The top 10 shots of 2010

The top 10 shots of 2009

The top 10 shots of 2008

The top 10 shots of 2007

(Welcome to the Oscar Guide, your chaperone through the Academy”s 24 categories awarding excellence in film. A new installment will hit every weekday in the run-up to the Oscars on February 24, with the Best Picture finale on Friday, February 22.)

I”ve loved this Oscar season. Most categories are genuine races. Even in some where there is not much of a race (Best Actor, Best Original Song, Best Visual Effects), the frontrunner is so exceptional and/or it’s such a delight to see the other nominees there that the category is a delight to watch nonetheless. As for Best Supporting Actress? Wake me up when this is over. There is no category about which I care less this year.

The nominations stage was mildly interesting. A frontrunner emerged. As the race went on, it became apparent that the “second and third” (my ranking — it might not have panned out like this) contenders were former winners who in the recent past everyone assumed would never be nominated again. In fourth, we have an actress who has had a remarkable run in recent years while the last slot was taken by a likable actress who managed to work another difficult-to-come-by Oscar nod from two years ago into a lovable part in a beloved film. The resulting lineup of five previous nominees is a first in this category. The race now becomes quite boring as we wait for the inevitable crowning of a princess.

The nominees are…

Amy Adams (“The Master”)
Sally Field (“Lincoln”)
Anne Hathaway (“Les Misérables”)
Helen Hunt (“The Sessions”)
Jacki Weaver (“Silver Linings Playbook”)

It”s difficult to say that there was much of a “snub.” Nicole Kidman scored Globe and SAG nods, resulting in many people assuming her flamboyant performance in “The Paperboy” would end up here. Esteemed favorites Maggie Smith (“The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel”) and Judi Dench (“Skyfall”) missed out, too. I felt Emma Watson was heartbreaking with what was admittedly a somewhat clichéd character in “The Perks of Being a Wallflower,” though. And Samantha Barks got the short end of the stick from an editing perspective in “Les Misérables,” but I relished whenever she was on screen.

One somewhat surprising addition, given how the SAG nominations played out, was Amy Adams. Is she the new Thelma Ritter? Well, I couldn”t see Thelma Ritter playing Lois Lane, but garnering four Best Supporting Actress nominations in eight years is quite something. Adams has never really been a contender for the win over the years and, with the exception of “Junebug,” she”s never really deserved to be. Her performance in “The Master” is quite good, though I found her character somewhat lacking and I don”t think she added to it in the way that her co-stars did. There is no evidence of this actress slowing down, though. Can she become a five-time nominee soon?

After all, “They like her. They really like her.” It’s been 28 years since that controversial second win and a famous acceptance speech, and Sally Field has finally returned to the Oscar race. Being left out for “Steel Magnolias” and especially “Forrest Gump” (as Guy has pointed out, one of the strangest omissions in Oscar history), one would be forgiven for having thought her history with Oscar was over, especially as the three other women who won Best Actress on their first two nominations (Luise Rainer, Vivien Leigh and Hillary Swank) have never managed another nod. But, alas, playing the First Lady in “Lincoln” proved enough to bring her back. For me, this turn was somewhat hit-and-miss. But, to be fair, it is also an unstable character and when Field captured that aspect, it was effective. Her role, and her 100% success rate with Oscar to date, would make me guess she”s in second. But it”s a very, very distant second.

I”ll give Anne Hathaway this: she managed to do all the right things after being cast as the Princess of Genovia in “The Princess Diaries.” What could have been a blip of a career as a tween idol was wisely managed as she grew up in prestige pictures (“Brokeback Mountain”), mainstream hits (“The Devil Wears Prada”) and hard-hitting star vehicles (“Rachel Getting Married,” for which I would have been quite glad to see her win). There”s been the odd misstep but nothing disastrous. After looking great in a catsuit this summer, and marrying her beau, playing a singing prostitute dying of TB in “Les Misérables” has made her an inevitable Oscar winner, with BFCA, Golden Globe, SAG and BAFTA victories behind her. This is notwithstanding insufferable acceptance speeches. That”s not fair, I know. And I totally understand why people love her Fantine, but I actually wasn”t blown away despite adoring both the book and the play. She has a great voice, but I didn”t always believe her as the character, and have also discovered I”m the only person in the world who preferred her arrest encounter with Valjean and Javert to “I Dreamed a Dream.” But I don”t have a vote.

Like Field, one would have thought Helen Hunt“s Oscar career was over, not because the Academy seemed to turn their back on her, but because the unlikely Oscar winner seemed to turn her back on the Academy by making terrible movies and/or taking nothing roles. Somewhere out there, Gwyneth Paltrow and Halle Berry must be breathing a sigh of relief. In all seriousness, I thought her take on Cheryl in “The Sessions” was exceptionally pleasant. But like the film as a whole, “exceptionally pleasant” doesn”t mean Oscar-worthy. I found praise around this whole venture overblown, personally.

After being a solo nominee for the Australian independent film “Animal Kingdom” two years ago, Jacki Weaver managed to capitalize on goodwill, going from monster mother to lovely mother in David O. Russell”s “Silver Linings Playbook.” Her nomination this year came without nods from BFCA, the Globes, SAG or BAFTA. That makes her the most surprising inclusion in any acting category. Some have criticized this nomination as a useless throwaway nod. I disagree. I will admit that Field and Hathaway reached greater heights in their performances but I felt Weaver”s genuinely warm presence livened up the screen in a realistic manner. Indeed, I enjoyed her screen presence the most of any of the nominees!

Will Win: Anne Hathaway in “Les Misérables”
Could Win: Sally Field in “Lincoln”
Should Win: Jacki Weaver in “Silver Linings Playbook”
Should Have Been Here: Maggie Smith in “The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel”

Is anyone else ready to put this race behind us? Could anyone imagine a circumstance in which Hathaway loses? Who got robbed? Chime in below!

“Lincoln” may have unexpectedly received the in-person endorsement of Bill Clinton at the Golden Globes this year, but it’s not the only Best Picture getting some First Family support. Today at the White House, Michelle Obama will be hosting an interactive workshop with the cast and crew of “Beasts of the Southern Wild.” A selection of 80 school students from Washington D.C. and New Orleans has been invited to participate in a discussion — in the State Dining Room, no less — about “the film, its production, and the inspirational themes within it that students can apply to their own lives.” It’s a nice gesture, not to mention a neat bit of publicity for the film in the thick of final Oscar voting, but it underlines just how many of this year’s Best Picture nominees feel relevant to American audiences right now. [Politico]  

Ten years after its Best Picture victory, the cast of “Chicago” will reunite to present at the Oscars. I still like the film’s win more than most, but how much are other people celebrating this particular anniversary? [The Race]

Something to gladden the hearts of the most dedicated Oscar geeks: a database of transcriptions of Oscar acceptance speeches. [AMPAS]

Nick Davis looks back on the individual career achievements of this year’s Oscar nominees that he loves best. [Nick’s Flick Picks].

Joanna Johnston, the Oscar-nominated costume designer of “Lincoln,” talks to Chris Laverty about finding the more flamboyant details in the film’s otherwise somber wardrobe. [Clothes on Film]

Jacki Weaver, who has recently landed a lead in a CBS sitcom, talks about the amazing turn her career has taken in the last three years — surely one of the greatest post-nomination success stories of recent years. [Huffington Post]

John Hazelton looks at the growing muscle of the older cinema audience, as demonstrated recently by the success of such films as “The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel.” [Screen]

Catherine Shoard goes as far as donning a trashbag in tribute to “Silver Linings Playbook,” telling us why it deserves to win Best Picture. [The Guardian] 

The man who shot Osama bin Laden in real life has some issues with “Zero Dark Thirty,” but none with Jessica Chastain’s performance. [E!]

Oscar-winning visual effects pioneer Petro Valhos passed away on Monday at the age of 96 — here’s a look back at the significance and influence of his work. [Variety]

(Welcome to the Oscar Guide, your chaperone through the Academy”s 24 categories awarding excellence in film. A new installment will hit every weekday in the run-up to the Oscars on February 24, with the Best Picture finale on Friday, February 22.)

Though it’s the second most prestigious award in the Oscar race, Best Director all too often feels, oddly, like an afterthought — it’s generally so tied into the Best Picture race that it’s come to be regarded as half of a two-part award. Any director of a Best Picture winner who doesn’t get his own award is liable to feel somewhat slighted, and vice versa — blame the advent of auteur theory, if you will.

This year, however, the Academy’s directors’ branch made a stunning statement of independence, albeit one that may have been enabled by an unusually compressed voting calendar. For the first time since 1965, the DGA — traditionally the most reliably Oscar-aligned of all precursors — agreed on only two of the eventual Oscar nominees, as Tom Hooper, Kathryn Bigelow and, most surprisingly, Ben Affleck all missed the Academy’s cut. You know the rest: Affleck, who had arguably ascended to frontrunner status before the nominations were announced, has since won everything in sight, including the all-important DGA prize. It’s It’s an exciting twist that leaves the Oscar race almost unprecedentedly free of bellwethers, as the five men in the running have won scarcely any major precursor awards between them.

The nominees are…

Michael Haneke (“Amour”)
Benh Zeitlin (“Beasts of the Southern Wild”)
Ang Lee (“Life of Pi”)
Steven Spielberg (“Lincoln”)
David O. Russell (“Silver Linings Playbook”)

The first thing to be said about this field, surprising omissions notwithstanding, is just how interesting and representative it is, spanning the Hollywood old guard, world-cinema royalty and a bristly independent upstart. No one here feels like an insignificant filmmaker, or simply a journeyman who attached himself to the right project: these are five very distinct voices. The directors’ branch may have thrown us for a loop, but I think they did themselves proud in the process.

The first non-American director to score a nomination here for a foreign-language film since Fernando Meirelles nine years ago, Michael Haneke may have surprised some pundits in this category, but the truth is that he’d been a firm prospect since Cannes, when “Amour” won him his second Palme d’Or in four years, essentially elevating him to the top of the contemporary auteur pile — the Academy may not be that clued up on world cinema, but they’re not deaf to universal reverence either. Other directors in this category may boast flashier work, but Haneke’s is the most immaculate — not a frame in this tough-minded love story is wasted, and he conducts the film’s exquisite duet of lead performances with impeccable care and compassion. Could he be the first man to win this award for a foreign-language film? The “steak-eater” vote says no, but his followers are devout — and in this very strange year, it doesn’t seem entirely impossible, though his likelier reward (beyond an inevitable Best Foreign Language Film win) is in the writing race.

If you’d told me a year ago that Michael Haneke wouldn’t even be the most surprising of the Best Director nominees, I wouldn’t have believed you. But the inclusion of 30 year-old rookie Benh Zeitlin was one of the category’s biggest jaw-droppers in memory — his name was read out last on nomination morning, and who didn’t think that “Ben” sound would be followed by “Affleck?” With hindsight, though, perhaps we shouldn’t have been so shocked: it was clear throughout the year that “Beasts of the Southern Wild” was a film people felt very strongly about, Academy members included — and it’s nothing if not a director’s film. The film’s gutsy balancing of various vividly realized worlds, plus the impressive performances from its two non-professional stars, are a credit to the modest young New Yorker’s fearless vision. The category’s youngest nominee since John Singleton 21 years ago, he feels like the longest shot here: but even if he doesn’t become the first person since Sam Mendes to win for a debut feature, he still has the industry’s attention for whatever he does next.

The remaining three nominees have all been to the dance before, and Ang Lee‘s Oscar history is trickier than most: surprisingly left off the list for “Sense and Sensibility,” he failed to convert his first DGA win for “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon” and, after finally winning for “Brokeback Mountain,” endured a painful defeat in the Best Picture category. The presumption for most of the season was that Lee would be an also-ran for “Life of Pi,” despite its formidable technical elan — until an unexpected haul of 11 nods for the well-liked but quietly campaigned fantasy, combined with those surprising shut-outs, had some of thinking he could take his second Oscar after all. But “Pi” hasn’t really capitalized on that surge in the post-nomination stage: his best shot to gain some heat, given the film’s popularity in the UK, seemed to be with BAFTA, but that didn’t pan out. Still, while we haven’t been given any foreshadowing of such an outcome — a few smaller critics’ awards notwithstanding — there’s every chance voters will respect the massive logistical challenges Lee pulled off in this film and vote for him anyway.

It’s indicative of this very curious year that Steven Spielberg remains the de facto favorite in this category, despite not having won a single significant precursor for his direction of the year’s leading nominee. Certainly, the stately, sometimes even chamber-y “Lincoln” ranks among his lower-key directorial achievements, but that could actually count as a virtue for many voters: if you’re going to give someone a third Oscar, after all, you want it to be for something you haven’t seen from them before. The lingering question is whether Academy voters, who haven’t always embraced Spielberg over the years (remember that he, like Ben Affleck, was a DGA winner without an Oscar nomination back in the 1985 race), are ready to welcome him into this category’s three-or-more club — which, at present, comprises only John Ford, William Wyler and Frank Capra. Spielberg by now feels like enough of an American institution to rank alongside those names, but if he does, it’ll be partly because the directors’ branch cleared the path for him.

It’s a funny thing when Oscar voters finally latch onto a singular talent who previously seemed a little out of their range: certainly around the time of his ingenious “I Heart Huckabees,” you wouldn’t have bet money on David O. Russell eventually scoring nominations for back-to-back films. But with “The Fighter” and now “Silver Linings Playbook,” Russell has won over the Academy by playing fresh games with Hollywood formula, and exerting deft control over his bustling, hand-picked ensembles. It’s particularly easy to imagine a lot of actors checking off his name on their ballot — that nifty stat of the film being the first in 31 years to score nods in all four acting races reflects particularly well on him — but the spiky craft and distinctive rhythm of this acid-laced romantic comedy shouldn’t be underestimated. If everyone just saw it as an actor’s film, after all, the directors would have included him. Whether his work will be seen as quite substantial enough to surpass Spielberg’s gravitas or Lee’s formal wizardry is another question.

Will win: Ang Lee, “Life of Pi”
Could win: Steven Spielberg, “Lincoln”
Should win: Michael Haneke, “Amour”
Should have been here: Paul Thomas Anderson, “The Master”

What are your thoughts on the Best Director category? Offer up your predictions in the comments section below.

Supervising sound editor Wylie Stateman earned his sixth Oscar nomination this year for “Django Unchained.” The soft-spoken industry veteran has now managed to earn a nomination in four decades – the 1980s (“Born on the Fourth of July”), the 1990s (“Cliffhanger”), the 2000s (“Memoirs of a Geisha,” “Wanted,” “Inglourious Basterds”) and now the 2010s.

I recently had the chance to speak with him about his passion for the craft, his career and, of course, the experience of working on “Django Unchained.” And that passion for sound has been present for a very long time.

“The very first toy that I can remember in my childhood that I truly fell in love with was a tape recorder,” Stateman says. “When I think of the most valuable toys I”ve had they”re all capable of recording sound.”

Those “toys” have certainly changed over the years, however, as digital technology has changed what Stateman does on a daily basis. “In terms of its indestructibility and ability to manipulate data, it”s amazing,” he says. “We can do truly complex things that in an analog world require miles of wire and millions of dollars of physical equipment.”

Did this result in anything being done on “Django” that would otherwise have been impossible? “Actually, the answer is ‘yes,” but I”m not sure it”s terribly interesting,” Stateman says humbly. “We have tools to allow us to look at sound that have changed it like Photoshop has changed how you change picture. Syllable by syllable, it”s become more ‘photoshop-friendly.” Basically, that”s what”s happened.”

When it comes to passion about movies, sound and music, Stateman found a kindred spirit in Quentin Tarantino. The duo have continuously collaborated since the “Kill Bill” movies. “Working with Quentin is always a unique experience,” he says. “He really takes pleasure in experiencing film. He wants his films to represent a style that he”s been exploring for two decades. So when you see a Quentin Tarantino film, it”s clearly based on his vision.”

In the aural realm, Stateman says Tarantino “experiences sound from the view of an audience member. He has a tremendous love for music of all genres and time periods. He has in his mind every word of the dialogue, every beat of the music and a sense of pleasure from the combination of music, dialogue, sound design and sound effects. And all of that gets blended into a vision of presenting his take, his twist on a genre.”

So was this film meant to be a “western” such that meant Stateman felt obliged to recreate the soundscape in an old school way? The answer is a pretty clear “no.” They used many classics and some obscure films as references, but things moved independently from there in accordance with Tarantino”s vision. “This wasn”t just a ‘western” to him – it was a ‘southern.””

Tarantino was of course not the only other person integral in creating the movie”s sound, as a massive team came together to make the film work. Production sound mixer Mark Ulano, film editor Fred Raskin and Stateman worked together throughout the editing process. At the final mix with Michael Minkler, everyone got together and everything that had been fluid was made permanent in the soundtrack – dialogue, effects, music, etc.

As for the Oscar race? “It”s flattering and it”s a wonderful feeling to be a finalist amongst my peers,” Stateman says. He acknowledges, however, that the experience brings him out of his comfort zone in both good and bad ways. “I”m much more comfortable behind the scenes in the studio, so it”s a chance to step out a little bit,” he says. “I feel that it”s a great honor and with all honor comes responsibility. That”s the responsibility to my team, and it”s a lovely thing.”

Stateman is one of many nominees this year whose failure to capture a statuette to date is surprising. I”m confident he”ll win one of these years. Will this be it? We”ll find out on the 24th.

I decided to do something a little different with the shots column for this, its sixth year (and finally imitated — we're flattered). I thought I'd go with a metric of instinct rather than analysis.

First let me introduce the overall concept for those perhaps unfamiliar. Every year I recap the year in my own unique way. Film is, after all, about the image first, and so what better way to put 12 cinematic months in a time capsule than to feature the most striking single images of the year? But what is striking to one is always not so much to the next. Like all of this, it's in the eye of the beholder.

For my part I would always try to give my perspective on shots that might seem, well, unexpected to others. I would posit that an Eric Gautier shot of an eagle picking away at a carcass in “Into the Wild” says something about a country weighing on the soul; or that an unassuming Anthony Dod Mantle shot crammed into a frenetic “Slumdog Millionaire” montage better sums up character motivations than any other frame; or that the simplicity of Anna Kendrick riding slowly away on an airport people-mover as seen through Eric Steelberg's lens in “Up in the Air” speaks elegant volumes.

Of course, room for sheer aesthetic beauty has often been made. A devastatingly gorgeous Luc Montpellier capture of Patricia Clarkson in “Cairo Time,” for instance, or an iconic Wally Pfister distillation of The Dark Knight in, well, “The Dark Knight.” I've even argued for a Ben Seresin angle on Megan Fox against a glass bottle wall in “Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen.”

Then there are the stunts that dazzle. Jason Bourne leaping from window to shattering window in “The Bourne Ultimatum” had a hand in inspiring this annual column, while complex takes from “Let the Right One In,” “The Secret in Their Eyes” and “The Adventures of Tintin” have stood out in respective years.

And now, our sixth year. As I said, I decided to try something a little different this year. Typically I would set aside a frame of time to specifically look back at many films and note the imagery. A revisit purely for this column's purposes. This year, both so I could get the piece out sooner than usual (oh how hungry you can be — though that didn't end up happening, anyway) and so I could simply shake up the way I build it, I shot from the hip and went with the gut.

I always keep a bit of an eye out on first viewings, almost subconsciously, for potential contenders for this piece. But this time I let those stick sooner than usual. I let whatever struck me first survive, and when I had 10, that was it. Along the way this included inevitable revisits, which mostly just strengthened the original take anyway, but the point was I wondered what a first blush would look like rather than a (perhaps over-)analyzed take.

This is what I came up with…

#10

“THE GREY”
Director of Photography: Masanobu Takayanagi

“I remember it was a very tiny space to shoot. We shot on the section of the plane that the art department had cut and placed. We didn't really fake the spacing of the seating or anything. It's the real aisle space. And Joe had this idea of going through the fuselage and we start seeing the breath of the people. Not to make a big statement but just we'd see the breath and then land on Liam [Neeson]. The crew came up with a great little dolly that I was sitting on, much skinnier than a normal dolly. It was really done in a quick, elementary way. We had the plane beforehand in the prep stage and we went up there with my crew and decided to do that shot.”

– Masanobu Takayanagi

My favorite film of the year was shot by one of the great up-and-coming (though really, he's already arrived as far as the industry is concerned) DPs in the game: Masanobu Takayanagi. And “The Grey” is a film highly dependent on its imagery as it's very much a film about setting tone and atmosphere. One shot did that simply but effectively early on and always stuck with me as something worth bringing up when this column rolled around.

With the film's ensemble aboard a late-night flight over Alaska, the shot begins on a fizzling monitor before tracking back down the aisle. As it goes, the frosty breath of the passengers comes into focus, eerie, raising plenty of questions. We fall on star Liam Neeson, fast asleep, before a violent shake snaps him out of it and answers all: this bunch is in for a bumpy ride. It's a quiet, delicate little moment and it gets such a visceral reaction.

#9

“DJANGO UNCHAINED”
Director of Photography: Robert Richardson

“I believe the image speaks magnificently to Quentin [Taranitno]'s perspective on slavery as well as a portrait of what style 'Django Unchained' is about to release. Jackson Pollock immediately surfaces to my mind, but Jackson Pollock magnified through a visceral if not near-pornographic eye. It's less abstract but equally expressionistic. And it's interesting if you compare it with the final explosion of Candie's mansion; the explosion might be seen to represent the collapse or comedown of false idols and the cotton emblematic of the first shot fired towards that demise.”

– Robert Richardson

Robert Richardson has become a staple of this list each year, and while recent entries have come for Martin Scorsese efforts, this year he pops up for Quentin Tarantino's latest, “Django Unchained.” The film is a design showcase on a number of fronts, not just photography, but Richardson, as ever, gives Tarantino's work a certain visual flare that has grown into the filmmaker's new aesthetic.

The shot I chose is full of overt thematic subtext, a spray of red blood across a crop of white cotton plants. I couldn't really put it any better than Richardson does in the quote above, but to reiterate, it goes hand in hand with the blatant revisionism of the film and its current of stylized, cathartic vengeance and, indeed, violence. The visual contrast is obviously striking but what's lurking in between the lines is what makes it so righteous and powerful.

#8

“THE QUEEN OF VERSAILLES”
Director of Photography: Tom Hurwitz

“The hard and unforgiving truth about documentary photography is that the odds are against anything really good happening twice. So we must get it the first time. If it does happen twice, we should be filming it both times, with different frames. Sometimes this means taking risks or pushing limits. It can take a career to learn when to push and when to step back. In a combat situation, one”s life can be in the balance. In less lethal environments, one”s ability to continue filming may be at risk.”

– Tom Hurwitz, IndieWire*

Lauren Greenfield's “The Queen of Versailles” wasn't just the leader of the pack in a long line of great documentaries this year, in my opinion. It was also one of the very best films of the year, period. I reacted so strongly to it because, however unexpectedly, it ended up being a powerful thematic piece of work and so crisply dialed into a time and place in this country. And one shot from the film in particular always struck me as perfectly emblematic of that.

It's a simple shot. Not much fuss to it. A seemingly mundane instance. The son of the film's subject, Jacqueline Siegel, pushes a merry-go-round round and round until finally tripping up and falling face first into the dirt. There was something so potent about it, this idea of “keeping up with the Joneses” and a shifting values landscape in the film, leading to a great fall. And all of that is right here in this unassuming real-life moment. I unfortunately couldn't get DP Tom Hurwitz on the phone to discuss but his quote above about capturing a moment when it happens seemed applicable.

#7

“SKYFALL”
Director of Photography: Roger Deakins

“We wanted it to feel a lot more kind of mysterious and controlled. So everything”s on a dolly, and they”re all kind of constructed shots as we developed the scene. Sam [Mendes] said, 'Well, why don”t we just play this? I don”t want to do it all in a lot of cuts because we”re doing enough of that. It would be just much more interesting.' And because we had this big screen with a jellyfish on it, just the idea of these silhouettes playing against this huge jellyfish, it”s just such an interesting sort of idea just to play it in one [shot]. Each little sequence had a slightly different feel to it.”

– Roger Deakins

Like Richardson, Roger Deakins has also become a staple of the list, and it's understandable why. He is, if not the greatest working cinematographer, then certainly on the top tier. And it's been a joy to hop on the phone with him each season to discuss what went into whatever stunning image might have tickled my fancy. This year, Deakins was responsible for perhaps the best digital photography we've seen in a feature yet, for Sam Mendes's James Bond effort “Skyfall,” and three sequences in particular, set in Shanghai, Macau and the Scottish Highlands, made for eye-popping imagery to say the least.

The shot I chose came during the Shanghai portion, which as a sequence is enveloping and awe-inspiring with its neon flourishes against the blackest of night. It's a single take of an action beat, fists and kicks flying as 007 dukes it out in a high rise with a baddie against a bright blue moving jellyfish marquee of light. Finally the camera moves in on the commotion as the antagonist is sent flying out the window. It's not the most thematically dense image I've chosen from Deakins over the years, but there was a majesty to it nevertheless.

#6

“CHASING ICE”
Director of Photography: Jeff Orlowsky

“That camera was called AK-3. It was the third camera that was installed in Alaska. I was involved on maintenance on that camera but James [Balog] was the one who actually installed that camera. We certainly weren't expecting that [amount of movement] at all. Fortunately the camera was in a place where we could pan it a while. Since then, that camera has actually physically been moved to another location because the glacier retreated so far out of frame that it was pretty much inaccessible to capture from that spot. We weren't expecting the glaciers to change as much as they were, but this was far more dramatic.”

– Jeff Orlowsky

One of the great feats of photography this year was unquestionably Jeff Orlowsky's “Chasing Ice.” Part profile of photographer James Balog and his mission to capture the world's receding glaciers on film, part eye-opening document about climate change, the film had more than its fair share of staggering images. But one in particular was the film's money shot, and it may be a bit of a cheat to include it on here, but when you get down to it, it's actually the essence of cinema.

The shot is a time-lapse depiction of the Columbia Glacier in Alaska receding on an epic scale. In fact, as the context of the film reveals, they had to keep going back and panning the camera to capture the full extent. So this shot is really a series of single frames, shown at a key moment toward the end of the film in a keynote setting. But then again, no cinema “shot” isn't a series of single frames. So it's fair. And in a great year for documentaries, two showing up on this countdown already, none had a moment on camera quite like this.

Continue to part two and the top five shots of the year!

*Tom Hurwitz was unavailable for original comment.

***

The top 10 shots of 2014

The top 10 shots of 2013

The top 10 shots of 2012

The top 10 shots of 2011

The top 10 shots of 2010

The top 10 shots of 2009

The top 10 shots of 2008

The top 10 shots of 2007

With the roundly acclaimed “Before Midnight” playing out of competition at the Berlin Film Festival, Richard Linklater wasn’t expecting to leave with any prizes, but he received one anyway before the film’s European premiere last night, as he was honored with the Berlinale Camera, traditionally presented to “film personalities or institutions to which [the festival] feels particularly indebted and wishes to express its thanks.” It’s especially sweet that he should receive it in conjunction with this film, given that “Before Sunrise” won him the fest’s Best Director prize way back in 1995. It also leads me to wonder how many other institutions will pick up the meme of acknowledging Linklater’s long, diverse career this year, particularly if “Midnight” gathers the awards steam I suspect it will. [Berlinale]

Amid the Berlin whirl, I hadn’t heard that Oscar-nominated editor Gerry Hambling had passed away. There’s no obituary more informed than the one written by his longtime collaborator, Alan Parker. [The Guardian]

This is obviously wonderful: illustrator Olly Moss has worked up a modified Oscar statuette illustration for every Best Picture winner in history, gathered her in an official Academy gallery. [AMPAS]

It slipped my mind to mention this yesterday, but “The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo,” “Midnight in Paris” and “The Hunger Games” were honored for the musical assets at the Grammy Awards on Sunday. [HitFix]

I’m really glad Jon Weisman wrote this: he revisits the 1998 Oscar race and reminds people that “Shakespeare in Love”‘s Best Picture win was not the upset people now routinely describe it as. (I mean, I predicted it, and I was 15.) [Variety]

The American Cinema Editors will honor Larry Silk and Richard Marks with Career Achievement Awards at Sunday’s ACE ceremony. [ACE]

Seven-time Oscar winner Gary Rydstrom almost certainly won’t win an eighth for “Lincoln,” but that’s not to say he didn’t have plenty to play with in the category’s quietest nominee. [The Wrap]

Lindsey Weber and Bobby Finger master the fine art of internet-style Oscar debate, and go to war over the duelling Snow White stories up for Best Costume Design. [Vimeo]

Best Actress nominee Naomi Watts talks on CBS News about acting “The Impossible,” so to speak. [CBS News]

Zach Laws talks to “Paranorman” director Chris Butler about mixing influences to create the quirky underdog Oscar contender. [Gold Derby]

BERLIN – Some films, like “Gloria,” enter Berlin with no profile and leave with their heads held high; others merely shuffle away quietly after a reasonably noisy arrival. David S. Rosenthal’s drab backwoods thriller “A Single Shot,” a rather surprising inclusion for the festival’s more esoteric Forum sidebar, is in the latter group.

One of the few world premieres at the festival to boast a modicum of US star power — well, to those for whom high-end character actors like Sam Rockwell and William H. Macy are stars, at any rate — it’s the kind of indistinct genre potboiler that might have seemed more at home in the lower reaches of the Sundance programme. Not that this overextended pulp is particularly flattered by the festival circuit to begin with: happened upon at the halfway mark on TV, preferably after a few beers, its identikit premise and logical stumbles may seem more comfortingly expected. 

What cred the film does have comes courtesy of Rockwell, the kind of actor who’s compellingly peculiar even when he’s phoning it in — and even here, there are sporadic flashes of dedication visible in his eyes, inasmuch as we can see them behind an impressive forest of facial hair. He plays John Moon, a self-sufficient but none-too-bright yokel eking out an existence of irresponsible carousing and illegal game hunting in a rural corner of Nowheresville, USA. I’m not being facetious with the town name: one of the many details given scant thought in Matthew F. Jones’s adaptation of his own novel is any clear indication of where the film is set, though it’s evidently in that possibly mythical band of the South so beloved of Hollywood screenwriters, where bucktoothed horndogs spout dialogue like, “The shape I’m in, about one cousin’s all I can handle tonight.”

Until the mechanics of the mystery narrative take over, “A Single Shot” seems amusingly engaged to conjure the most stereotypically hickish line ever committed to screen, like an “SNL” skit on “Winter’s Bone.” The plot, to its detriment, seems rather less self-aware in its commitment to cliche. While out hunting in the woods, Moon mistakes an unfamiliar young woman for a deer and shoots her dead. Naturally, when he finds her campsite, an irresistible stash of cash is there for the taking, a windfall that facilitates his decision not to alert the cops, and sets any number of unsavory types in hot pursuit.

The stolen-cash manhunt has formed the basis of many a great thriller, but only in the cadence of its title does “A Single Shot” resemble, say, “A Simple Plan”: Jones and Rosenthal seek the most opaque, long-winded way to tell a rather tight story, running out of time sufficiently to necessitate a risible expository monologue for Jeffrey Wright (a great actor here on fragrantly hammy form) as Moon’s perma-drunk pal and potential antagonist.

Also showing up to uniformly limited effect are an unfortunately coiffed Jason Isaacs on chief villain duty, William H. Macy as a crooked lawyer and Kelly Reilly, still getting good wear out of that “Flight” accent, as Moon’s ex-wife. None of them are bringing as much to the table as Rockwell, who lends a kind of dumb dignity to Moon’s ill-considered quest — save for British up-and-comer Ophelia Lovibond, who gives this glum film some late moments of sweet zeal as a wholesome neighboring girl with a curiously persisent soft spot for Moon.

Lovibond reflects a little light in a film that otherwise wallows in murk of both the narrative and visual kind — as one shot after another is swallowed in indecipherable shadow, you’d never guess this was shot by Eduard Grau, the Spanish cinematographer behind “A Single Man.” That film’s narrative, of course, also hinged on a single shot — a wholly irrelevant connection I found myself making only because my attention had wandered sufficiently far from this agreeably mediocre effort.

BERLIN – We’re roughly at the midway point of the Berlin Film Festival, and should probably tell you how this year’s Competition lineup is shaping up. The truth, however, is that I haven’t seen enough of it to say, as my schedule for the last couple of days has kept me in the smaller, often more interesting, sections of the vast Berlin programme, meaning I’ve only seen about five of the films in the running for the Golden Bear.

The festival grapevine, however, suggests I haven’t missed that much. Consensus has it that the Competition, with the exception of Ulrich Seidl’s excellent “Paradise: Hope,” got off to a bit of a slow start, and was only kicked into touch yesterday by Chilean entry “Gloria” — which I resolved to see at this morning’s public screening after hearing glowing reports from multiple trusted colleagues. Good news travels fast in Berlin: I arrived at the city’s vast Friedrichpalast theater to find it improbably crowded for a freezing Monday morning.

“I hope this is the one,” the young German student seated next to me said brightly, having been disappointed after shelling out for the premieres of tepidly reviewed Nina Hoss Euro-western “Gold,” and widely despised convent melodrama “The Nun” — which I didn’t see and with which I now have no desire to catch up, particularly after being warned by another friend that it contains the worst performance of the great Isabelle Huppert’s career. I smiled sympathetically: critics may routinely whine about the standard of festival films, but at least we don’t have to pay for them.   

I would gladly, however, pay the price of admission for another Berlinale film is good as “Gloria,” a warm, wise, wickedly funny study of middle-aged female desires that seems a modest achievement only until you try to remember the last mainstream film you saw that treated comparable characters with half as much care. Next to Sebastian Lelio’s broadly accessible but uncompromising charmer, even a superior Hollywood relationship drama like “Hope Springs” looks ersatz: beginning with the unfazed full-frontal shots of lead actress Paulina Garcia’s imperfect fiftysomething body, Lelio (who won much festival acclaim for his 2005 film “The Sacred Family,” though I admit I’m new to his work) treats women of a certain age with respect and generosity, but also enough matter-of-fact humor to dodge condescension. 

Introducing its eponymous protagonist (Garcia, who may as well take the festival’s Best Actress award right now) at a slightly shabby singles night for professionals of a certain age, “Gloria” makes no bones about the fact that being a working divorcee pushing sixty sucks more than the self-help books are generally willing to admit. But as piped 1970s Eurodisco wafts over the soundtrack, it’s immediately clear that Gloria, her face dominated by Dorothy Michaels glasses, is determined to make the best of her lot. All too refreshingly for an older female character, she’s in full possession of her sexuality as she hits the dance floor and swiftly snares sweet, soft-bellied schmo Rodolfo (Sergio Hernandez); they go home and have the kind of satisfying, straightforward sex that over-40s don’t ever seem to have in the movies.

Though Gloria’s ensuing on-off relationship with the frustratingly reticent Rodolfo takes up the bulk of the narrative, this remains largely a one-woman show, as a life is built from loosely sequenced but finely shaped scenes: we learn much about the character from her loving but awkward interactions with her two grown children, whom she tries to avoid admitting need her a lot less than she needs them, from her darting, slope-shouldered movements at her drab office job, from the contentment on her face as she sings along to gloopy radio ballads while alone in the car. It’s clear that years of dedication to her failed marriage has left her without many true friends; in the film’s tangiest, altogether most moving stretch, as a planned dirty weekend at the coast goes hurtfully awry, it’s left to Gloria’s hired cleaner to pick up the pieces.

Never intellectualizing or sanctifying Gloria’s unhappiness when it could be laughing — or grimacing — with her at the occasionally absurd turns her life has taken, Lelio openly loves his character, and isn’t afraid to grant her moments of triumph amid the ruins. It spoils nothing to say “Gloria” ends with her in an ecstatic dance with herself to the 1980s Umberto Tozzi hit of the same title, since this is a film that knows most lives run in circles rather than narrative arcs: better days lie ahead for Gloria, but so do worse ones.

Though it’s written and produced by men (Pablo Larrain, the leading Chilean auteur behind current Oscar nominee “No,” is among those on board), it doesn’t feel a stretch to call “Gloria” a feminist film, one with a profound understanding of how women are seen even by the most generous societies, and how they in turn respond to that perception.

The script certainly couldn’t give more of itself to its leading lady, and Chilean TV star Garcia accepts with a wondrous star turn that makes plain Gloria’s inner vitality, but doesn’t stint on the petty insecurities holding her back in other respects. Meryl Streep would grab a US remake with both hands, and would probably be wonderful, but it’s hard to imagine the surrounding film supporting her with quite such grace and maturity. To answer my seatmate’s question, “Gloria” may or may not be “the one” at Berlin, but watch it fly anyway.  

It’s easy to see why Sam Fell and Chris Butler’s “ParaNorman” from the LAIKA animation studio ended up reaping the most critical prizes throughout the film awards season. At a time when the issue of bullying is very much in the social dialogue, the film’s themes resonate and elevate it from the ghetto of “mere entertainment” that animated feature films can often struggle to escape.

The idea of what would become “ParaNorman” first came to Butler 16 years ago. It was just the superficial spark of “how cool would it be to make a stop-motion zombie movie for kids?” But the more he mulled over the genre and why it had always been so compelling to him, the more he realized there was a thematic draw there.

“The zombie movies that worked best, and certainly my favorites, are the ones that have social commentary,” Butler says, “that use zombies as a metaphor to say something about a human condition.  And so it made sense to me that if I was going to do a zombie movie for kids that I should try and address an issue that affects kids. I think that was like a fundamental part of the movie right from the start. It’s part of the fabric of it.”

Butler mulled over ideas of tolerance and not judging a book by its cover as he went, but he notes that bullying, while very much in the media these days, has always been around. And so he tried to work all of that into his slowly percolating story. He would work on it when he could and it would sometimes be years before he’d go back to it. There was something about this idea of “John Carpenter meets John Hughes” that kept it alive for him as something worthwhile. “I think all that time I was just expecting somebody else to do it, to be honest,” he says. “So I was quite pleased that they didn’t!”

Meanwhile, he made his way to LAIKA as a storyboard supervisor on Henry Selick’s “Coraline” after working on films like “Tarzan II” and Tim Burton’s “Corpse Bride.” It was at the Portland studio that he met his future co-director, Sam Fell, who stopped by to have a look at all the things they had going on.

“Chris’s project really stood out to me and a lot of the references, all the things he was talking about, really clicked with me,” Fell says. “The story resonates with all of us, with myself and with the whole crew, really, because it’s a story about an outsider, someone that didn’t quite fit in. I think a lot of people end up in animation because they have some kind of notion that they want to do something different with their lives.”

And beyond just the themes, it was Butler’s various movie references that really clicked, too. In addition to the two Johns, Carpenter and Hughes, Butler “was talking about schlocky kind of zombie stuff, talking about Dario Argento and Scooby-Doo and early Spielberg,” Fell says. “All of the things in that recipe really appealed to me.”

At a time when companies like Pixar Animation Studio are brand-building around production identity, the collective screenwriting process, etc., LAIKA’s identity isn’t as defined for the public yet. And as a still young-and-growing studio, that’s understandable. “It’s a little bit more like a renegade outfit,” Fell says of animator Travis Knight’s company. “LAIKA is fresher. It’s a very young-feeling place. It was quite open to getting behind someone like Chris, who had an idea and worked it out, and pushing him forward.”

Butler says at first people may have looked at LAIKA as “the studio that makes the scary movies for kids,” but he believes it’s much more than that. “I think what people are starting to see is that we are making stories that the other studies aren’t,” he says. “You can’t mistake ‘ParaNorman’ for a DreamWorks movie or a Disney movie. It has its own feel; it has its own sensibility. And it’s also very different from ‘Coraline.’ I think the point of view for the studio is that there are so many different stories you can tell with this medium. Animation is not a genre; it’s a medium. There are so many different stories that have not yet been told and we can maybe address that balance.”

Butler also appreciates that with only a handful of films under its belt, the company is doing well with the critical press also. As noted, “ParaNorman” has collected more critics awards for Best Animated Feature Film than any other contender in the Oscar race. As much as Pixar gets attention for offering critically hailed work, LAIKA, which recently announced the start of production on its latest feature, is right there in the same boat.

“We actually had something to say with this movie,” Butler says. “We’re not using animation as just a colorful babysitter. We’re actually trying to address an issue. And yes, absolutely, all those awards are great, but we were also aware that we were doing something that was quite irreverent and therefore quite risky in a way. So it wasn’t a guarantee that we would get all these accolades at the end.”

Adds Fell, “But I think it’s good to stand out, isn’t it? There’s more and more product out there, if you like, and in some way the formula has begun to solidify. So I guess people are just happy to see someone go somewhere slightly different.”

Speaking of going somewhere slightly different, “ParaNorman” also stands out in that it embraces CGI as an additive element for enhancing practical stop-motion effects. It’s part and parcel of the further hybridization across the visual media industry, from conflation of visual effects wizardry with digital cinematography and production design to the synthesis of performance via performance-capture.

“I used to do stop-motion in the 1990s and I kind of got frustrated by it,” Fell says. “There was just a number of limitations to it. I’ve always loved the fact that it’s real photography and real objects, but there’s so many laborious and difficult things. And coming back to it I found that with plugging the new technology into it, it just lightened the medium.”

“I’m exactly the same,” Butler adds. “I’m not interested in making curios or novelties. I think that we are using a medium in order to tell the story and, therefore, you should use whatever tool that is at your disposal to tell that story best. We don’t want to limit our storytelling because there is a practical limit to the things that we’re using.

“In ‘ParaNorman,’ if we hadn’t used any digital effects, our mob scene, for example, would have been about six characters. That’s not a very scary mob. So it would have undermined the story. What you want to do is maintain what’s beautiful about the craft, about the artistry of stop-motion, but you also want to present the best possible image on screen. I’m not interested in just creating some coldly respectful thing that doesn’t serve the story.”

Nevertheless, those strong feelings on his medium of choice aside, Butler makes it a point of mentioning the wide cross-section of media on display in the animated feature film Oscar category this year. There is the reverent, classic stop-motion of Tim Burton’s “Frankenweenie” as an interesting complement to “ParaNorman” and the claymation arena of the form well-represented in “The Pirates! Band of Misfits” from Aardman Animations (which Fell worked for when he co-directed “Flushed Away”). Meanwhile, Disney has two of the top-tier examples of computer-generated animation in “Wreck-It Ralph” and especially Pixar’s “Brave.” And the variety stretches out of the ultimate list of nominees, too.

“The 21 movies that were up for consideration, they’re actually very different,” Butler says. “I’m just thrilled there is a lot of diversity and to have three stop-motion movies made in one year is already special. To have them all nominated for an Oscar is even more special.”

He mentions that in a year without such stiff competition (21 eligible contenders is a big number), a movie like the Cesar Award-winning “The Rabbi’s Cat” might have received more notice. Fell, meanwhile, cites Studio Ghibli’s “From Up on Poppy Hill.” Each of those films are distributed by GKIDS, a presence both filmmakers are thankful for amid the dominance of bigger-budgeted animated features.

“They each have their strengths and they’re quite different,” Fells says of the landscape. “So it doesn’t feel like it’s especially dominated by one picture, which sometimes happens in a way. And I think it’s great that we’re kind of like the plucky little indie film.”

RELATED: Read the Oscar Guide for Best Animated Feature Film.

“ParaNorman” is currently available on DVD/Blu-ray.

(Welcome to the Oscar Guide, your chaperone through the Academy”s 24 categories awarding excellence in film. A new installment will hit every weekday in the run-up to the Oscars on February 24, with the Best Picture finale on Friday, February 22.)

A modern epic on the Pacific Ocean. A historical epic in 19th Century Russia. A historical epic in 19th Century America. A Presidential biopic in 19th Century America. And Roger Deakins. Sure sounds like a group of Academy Award nominees for Best Cinematography!

The ASC and BAFTA cited the same five films this year, and AMPAS followed by nominating four of them. This left Danny Cohen of “Les Misérables” as the most obvious “snub.” But some major critical favorites have every reason to feel shafted after outstanding critical notices for films that earned multiple nominations. History, both recent and more historic, strongly points to what nominee will win, notwithstanding my sincere wish for an upset.

The nominees are…

“Anna Karenina” (Seamus McGarvey)
“Django Unchained” (Robert Richardson)
“Life of Pi” (Claudio Miranda)
“Lincoln” (Janusz Kaminski)
“Skyfall” (Roger Deakins)

Interestingly, these five exceptionally talented gentleman originally hail from five different countries – Northern Ireland, Chile, Poland, England and, yes, the United States. But this branch failed to nominate any new nominees for the first time since 1976! This left three contenders I sorely desired to see in the final five on the outside looking in. Let”s start with Mihai Malaimare Jr’s gorgeous 65mm lensing of “The Master.” Following him closely is the continually self-improving Aussie Greig Fraser, who was responsible for “Snow White and the Huntsman” and “Killing Them Softly,” but his work in the climax alone of “Zero Dark Thirty” could have secured a nod. Finally, Dariusz Wolski”s continuously superb work continues to be left behind, likely because it is so genre-heavy. But I can”t imagine “Prometheus” without his distinctive look.

Northern Ireland native Seamus McGarvey has been working with Joe Wright for two decades, starting when Wright was making only short films. “Anna Karenina” marks the second time, after “Atonement,” that he has earned an Oscar nomination for a Wright film. I loved the look of this feature and while I”m not convinced the lensing was as difficult a feat as some non-nominees, I”m quite happy for McGarvey. However, I can”t see him winning. The film isn”t loved enough, nor do people necessarily come out wowed by the cinematography, especially when compared to the production design and the costumes. If the category goes for a non-Best Picture nominee, there seems a far more plausible choice.

Three-time winner Robert Richardson snuck in after all for “Django Unchained” regardless of ASC and BAFTA snubs. He is the only American born-and-raised DP in the final five. I was predicting Richardson until the day before the nominations were announced, when I swapped him out for “Les Misérables””s Danny Cohen. I didn”t think there”d be a perfect match with ASC and BAFTA but I had Fraser instead of McGarvey. Oops. I”d consider this Western (or “Southern” according to many of the filmmakers) to be a greater threat for the win if I felt it was firmly in the hunt for the Best Picture win. But if I had to bet, it was likely number nine of nine. And while I doubt the Academy at large cares, the precursor omissions give me further pause. Last year’s winner for “Hugo” will be able to simply enjoy the show this time around.

Let”s not beat around the bush – “Life of Pi” was a visual marvel that left even detractors saying “wow” with respect to its visuals. And however much of that was due to the visual effects team, it couldn”t have worked without Claudio Miranda”s photography. The fact that “Avatar” and “Hugo” have won this category in recent years for 3D marvels suggests that second nomination (he earned his first nod four years ago for “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button”) will prove lucky for this Chilean, especially given that “gorgeous” seems to be a word applied even more frequently to this film than those. Now with BAFTA and BFCA victories, the stage seems set for a victory. Even so, the grumbling from many circles that this is an accomplishment more of visual effects than of cinematography does give me a tiny bit of pause, especially with a ludicrously overdue nominee having also done great work this year.

Janusz Kaminski is a living legend among cinematographers, and justly so. His reputation is such that he is the only cinematographer in history to have actually presented an Oscar! “Lincoln” represents his sixth nomination, his fifth for a Steven Spielberg film. The lighting truly helped create the mood, and the starkness of the film”s few forays onto the battlefield was eerily appropriate. If “Lincoln” pulls a “Braveheart” on us, I wouldn”t entirely rule Kaminski out. But I doubt it. The film”s visuals aren”t as memorable as “Life of Pi” nor does the film seem loved enough to pull a mini-sweep.

Oh Roger Deakins. The 10-time nominee (more than any other working DP) is still waiting for his first statuette. I really thought he”d win two years ago for “True Grit.” But perhaps Wally Pfister”s guild and Oscars triumphs for “Inception” show the branch is becoming open to cinematography that complements practical special effects in a prestigious action movie like “Skyfall?” I ask you – could anyone other than Deakins pull off the scenes in Shanghai so effectively? Or in the Scottish Highlands bouncing between fog and fire with equal beauty? His fellow cinematographers recognized this, giving him his third ASC win yesterday. Even so, the ASC doesn’t have the best prediction record. In any event, his fellow cinematographers likely recognized how accomplished his work was in a way I doubt the Academy as a whole will. Plus, non-Best Picture nominees rarely win this category and Miranda seems to have such a lead.

Will Win: “Life of Pi”
Could Win: “Skyfall”
Should Win: “Skyfall”
Should Have Been Here: “The Master”

Will Deakins ever win? Who got robbed this year? Chime in below!