Focus Features is very much in he LAIKA business now, and after the success of “Coraline” and “ParaNorman,” the two are teaming up again on “The Boxtrolls.”

The film, which began production today and is set for an October 17, 2014 release, will be another stop-motion/CG hybrid 3D endeavor directed by Anthony Stacchi and Graham Annable. It’s based on Alan Snow’s best-selling fantasy adventure novel “Here Be Monsters” and will feature actors Ben Kingsley, Toni Collette, Elle Fanning and Isaac Hempstead-Wright on the voice cast, among others.

From the press release:

“‘The Boxtrolls’ is a comedic fable that unfolds in Cheesebridge, a posh Victorian-era town obsessed with wealth, class, and the stinkiest of fine cheeses. Beneath its charming cobblestone streets dwell the Boxtrolls, foul monsters who crawl out of the sewers at night and steal what the townspeople hold most dear: their children and their cheeses. At least, that”s the legend residents have always believed. In truth, the Boxtrolls are an underground cavern-dwelling community of quirky and lovable oddballs who wear recycled cardboard boxes the way turtles wear their shells. The Boxtrolls have raised an orphaned human boy, Eggs (voiced by Mr. Hempstead-Wright), since infancy as one of their dumpster-diving and mechanical junk-collecting own. When the Boxtrolls are targeted by villainous pest exterminator Archibald Snatcher (Mr. Kingsley), who is bent on eradicating them as his ticket to Cheesebridge society, the kindhearted band of tinkerers must turn to their adopted charge and adventurous rich girl Winnie (Ms. Fanning) to bridge two worlds amidst the winds of change – and cheese.”

Said LAIKA President & CEO Travis Knight, “The Boxtrolls is a visually dazzling mash-up of gripping detective story, absurdist comedy, and steampunk adventure with a surprisingly wholesome heart. It”s Dickens by way of Monty Python. Tony and Graham have crafted a strange and beautiful world replete with fantastical creatures, good-for-nothing reprobates, madcap antics, and rip-roaring feats of derring-do. But at its core, like all LAIKA films, The Boxtrolls is a moving and human story with timelessness and powerful emotional resonance. We”re thrilled to partner with Focus Features and Universal to bring this remarkable story to family audiences around the world.”

Look for it in a year and a half. Meanwhile, “ParaNorman” is he most critically awarded film of the Best Animated Feature Films in competition at the Oscars this year.

“The Avengers” was a pet project of Marvel Studios for years. After planting characters in solo films for half-a-decade, the superstar extravaganza hit the big screen last summer. Despite much risk, it was a rapturous success. Last month, the film earned a well-deserved nomination for Best Visual Effects and I recently spoke with Jeff White, visual effects supervisor at Industrial Light and Magic and one of the four artists who shared that nomination, as well as Victoria Alonso, Executive Vice-President of Marvel and executive producer of the film, about crafting the film and the visual effects.

What was the process of bringing this to screen like? Alonso describes it as “you don”t ever sleep again. It”s like having a newborn for two years. You say goodbye to your life.” White, on the other hand, had to balance working at the studio and being on the set. “I was on the set mostly to cover the scenes I knew would come to ILM,” he explains.

Notwithstanding, or perhaps because of, the film”s large budget, the corresponding expectations, and reliance on visual effects put great pressure on everyone. “There”s never enough money and time to make things be what they need to be,” Alonso notes. “We had to ask what are the things we will be able to make for this amount and what for that degree of time? It”s a struggle but there was never any compromise on the quality.”

White looks to the bright side of hard expectations. “The upside of deadlines and budget is it gives you a creative framework,” he says. “Some of our greatest ideas came out of having a two-week deadline.”

From Alonso”s perspective, the biggest challenge remained telling a story the fans would be happy with. “Trying to put the different Marvel characters together could be a good Christmas dinner or a bad Christmas dinner,” she says.

White, whose role was obviously more discrete, nevertheless ended up being concerned with very large tasks. “For ILM specifically, the biggest challenge was the Hulk,” he says, noting that the prior attempts to bring this character to the screen were met with mixed success. But his worries were hardly confined to that. “The great thing about this project was the amount of variety we had in the visual effects.”

Alonso picks up on that. “The Hulk had been done twice before. We wanted to apply every technological advance. And a great challenge when shooting the movie was imagining how the effects would fill in the blanks. The movie had 2,200 blanks.”

One of those technological advances is obviously 3D technology. “We were always conscious of it,” White says. “We had shots where we had done some animation but then in 3D, we realized it didn”t work.” Of course, this resulted in amendments.

Alonso is quick to add that the film was not shot with 3D in mind. “We knew we were going to convert,” she says. “The challenge was to tell the director to tell your story and don”t get tangled up in the technicality of conversion. We”ve been successful in how Marvel movies have been converted.”

As for the producers’ and director’s hand in crafting the visual effects, it is unsurprising that Alonso chimes in quickly. “We are 100% involved all the time in creating and guiding the visual effects,” she says. “Jeremy [Latcham, executive producer], Joss [Whedon, the director] and I were in every review. Kevin [Feige, producer] and Lou[is D”Esposito, executive producer] were in most of the reviews.”

Adds White, “I would agree and I think that was a really important part of its success. Joss and all the producers at Marvel were always available to discuss the work. The fact that we were talking improved the work.”

As for the experience of being nominated for an Oscar? “For me, it”s an incredible honor to be nominated,” White says. “You”re there through thick and thin with the artists to get the work done. I really see it as a recognition of all the efforts everyone put in. It”s really not one person but a collaboration. The fact that it was able to get nominated is a great tribute.”

The nomination is a highly deserved reward for this longstanding and highly successful Marvel project. We”ll see how the crew does on the 24th.

“Argo” may have taken a decisive lead in the Best Picture race with its slew of guild wins, but with two weeks of voting left, “Lincoln” isn’t going to go away quietly — indeed, the year’s most nominated film seems to be renewing its media presence, most notably with an extensive interview piece in the New York Times, in which Steven Spielberg and many of his below-the-line collaborators, including nominees Janusz Kaminski, John Williams, Michael Kahn, Rick Carter and Joanna Johnston, weigh in on the challenges and rewards of making the film. This emphasis on team effort should cast the film in a positive light to voters, as does Spielberg’s explanation of what separates the film from his other work: “I”ve never made a film where this was going to succeed or fail based on the writing and based on the performances … Maybe this is the quietest directing I”ve done in my life.” [New York Times]   

Jon Weisman looks at the list of stars confirmed to cross the pond for Sunday’s BAFTA award ceremony. [The Vote]

Kevin Fallon rounds up the Oscar contenders looking to cry their way to the podium this year. [Daily Beast]

As more people come round to the idea that Emmanuelle Riva could win the Best Actress Oscar, Xan Brooks takes a closer look at the actress and her chances. [The Guardian]

Why Kathryn Bigelow is the right director to tackle the war on terror. [New Republic]

Scott Feinberg examines why outside endorsements of key contenders — whether from Bill Clinton or Mehmet Oz — matter in the Oscar race. [The Race]

Naomi Watts talks to Daniel Montgomery about her second Oscar nomination, how the Academy’s non-alphabetical announcement gave her a pleasant break, and her upcoming role as Princess Diana. [Gold Derby]

WGA East secretary-treasurer Bob Schneider will receive the Richard Jablow Award for service to the guild at their ceremony on 17 February. [Deadline]

Joe Reid picks 10 titles from the recently completed Sundance Film Festival that he thinks could be in the Oscar conversation this time next year, going so far as to predict potential categories. [Film.com]

Finally, set decorator Garrett Lewis, who received four Oscar nominations for his work on “Beaches,” “Glory,” “Hook” and “Bram Stoker’s Dracula,” has passed away at the age of 77. RIP. [Variety] 

I’d say I’ve written about Richard Linklater’s beautiful and profound “Before Midnight” enough as it is. Sony Classics picked up the film out of Sundance and I’ve been waiting for release plans anxiously. Because if played right, this is a film that could land nominations for Best Adapted Screenplay and Best Actress, easy.

So it’s looking like May 24, according to a Tweet from Exhibitor Relations. The film will begin with New York and Los Angeles bows and move out from there. That’s right after Cannes. They won’t be taking it there since it’s playing Berlinale, but a post-Cannes bow worked for Woody Allen’s “Midnight in Paris,” which debuted at the fest in 2011, released soon after and was kept in theaters long enough to be a box office story and, eventually, an Oscar winner.

“This movie, particularly within the context of its predecessors, truly gets the progression of a relationship,” I wrote shortly after the film’s world premiere at Sundance. “And it gets that, most of all, that progression never has a destination. It is always in transit, rarely if ever reconciled. Love is a process…perhaps most profoundly, the film steers toward epiphany, but elegantly, truthfully, avoids it completely, never getting there.”

Also dropped by Exhibitor Relations is the news that Pedro Almodóvar’s latest, “I’m So Excited,” will get a limited release beginning on June 28. The film will release in March in Spain and Sony Classics released a teaser trailer for it in December. They didn’t find a whole lot of traction for “The Skin I Live In,” and Spain has notoriously snubbed Almodovar’s work when it comes to foreign film submissions as of late. But maybe they can whip something up for this. Conceptually, it sure does seem out there, a return to the filmmaker’s early work, perhaps.

And finally, speaking of Woody Allen, his latest, “Blue Jasmine,” was also acquired by the studio. It’s been set for a July 26 limited release.

Right now, though, I imagine Sony Classics’ focus is on getting the word out on “Amour,” which could take home upwards of three Academy Awards on Oscar night. It’s important that hold-out voters actually see the film, though. Here’s hoping they do.

(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.) 

Have things finally turned around in what used to be the Oscars’ most annually frustrating category? It’s one where the commendable requirement that members see all five nominees before voting can lead to some unpopular upsets. But after year upon year of controversial omissions, vanilla inclusions and frequently forgettable winners, the Academy looks likely to crown the year’s most universally acclaimed world cinema title for the second year in a row. To make matters all the sweeter, it’s not their only reasonable option. This year’s slate of nominees in the category is arguably the richest in recent memory: a healthily border-crossing mix of perspectives with one revered auteur balanced by a couple of bristly, exciting up-and-comers.

One might credit the Academy’s consistent tweaking of the rules in this category for making it appear a little more on the money in the past few years: they were aware there was a problem, and hats off to them for addressing it. But it must be said that the individual countries played ball this year, too — with very few exceptions, the national committees charged with selecting their official Oscar submission chose wisely. The resulting longlist of 71 films, the largest in Oscar history, was veritably stacked with festival sensations and under-the-radar gems. Winnowing it down to five was always going to be a heartbreaking process, but we still have reason to cheer those left standing.

The nominees are…

“Amour” (Austria)
“War Witch” (Canada)
“No” (Chile)
“A Royal Affair” (Denmark)
“Kon-Tiki” (Norway)

The four shortlisted titles that failed to make the cut were Switzerland’s “Sister,” Romania’s “Beyond the Hills,” Iceland’s “The Deep” and France’s “The Intouchables.” The omission of France’s crowd-pleasing entry was the most surprising: the highest-grossing foreign-language film of 2012, it was being heavily campaigned by The Weinstein Company, and even looked like it could give presumed frontrunner “Amour” some stiff competition for the win. By not nominating this middle-of-the-road buddy comedy, it seems the voters sided with art over commerce — not that the Weinstein property they did nominate is appreciably better. No field in this category can ever be perfect, but the branch has acquitted itself well here. 

In principle, it should stand that the category’s strongest slate in years should also amount to its most competitive, but few would disagree that this race looks just about sewn up for Austria and “Amour.” If France’s non-nomination didn’t already clear the path to victory for Michael Haneke’s lavishly praised Palme d’Or winner, the Academy gave it a further boost with nominations in four other major categories — including Best Picture, where it’s the first foreign-language feature from a non-US director to compete since “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon” 12 years ago. No film nominated for both Best Picture and Best Foreign Language Film has ever lost the latter award, and there’s no reason to think Haneke’s stately, moving, exquisitely acted paean to enduring love will be the exception. Even if some voters find its unblinking perspective on the indignities of old age hard to stomach, the combination of immaculate craft with an emotional wallop will be hard to surmount. I suspect it won’t be the film’s only win on the night, either.

Still, nothing can ever be taken as 100% given in this frequently perverse category. If any film can pull off a whopper of an upset, I’d look to what has perhaps been the field’s least discussed nominee, Kim Nguyen’s devastating child-soldier survival drama “War Witch.” Canada has recently been a regular runner in this race — this marks their third consecutive nomination — but they’ve never had an entry quite like this one. Set entirely in an unnamed African country, with dialogue in French and Lingala, it’s a headlong dive into the war-torn Third World, suffused with magical realism, and given emotional immediacy by its core narrative of a 12-year-old girl drafted into a rebel army and finding love in the darkest of places. It’s a bruising, beautifully shot film that had grown men in tears at last year’s Berlin Film Festival, where it won the Best Actress award for teen newcomer Rachel Mwanza. The Academy has often shown a liking for child’s-eye stories in this category, and while they tend to prefer them a little more sentimental than this one, many voters will be taken off-guard by its emotional impact.    

One film I felt confident would show up here ever since its hugely popular debut at Cannes is Pablo Larrain’s smart, witty political thriller “No,” which has landed Chile its first Oscar nomination in 17 attempts. Others were less convinced, believing Larrain’s gutsy, thematically apposite decision to shoot the film on grimy 1980s video stock would count against it with less adventurous voters. But a narrative this rousing and riveting was always going to connect with a significant band of voters, whatever its presentation. The concluding, and by far the most accessible, chapter in Larrain’s superb trilogy documenting life under the crushing Pinochet dictatorship, it stars a top-form Gael Garcia Bernal as an adman charged with steering the liberal opposition’s campaign ahead of a momentous 1988 referendum. You might be alternately reminded of “Z” and “Mad Men,” though Larrain’s film, laced with black humor, is, in its own way, as exacting a dissection of electoral process as “Lincoln.” Chile submitted the trilogy’s first chapter, the grotesquely funny “Tony Manero,” to no avail in 2008, and didn’t even try with 2010’s despairing “Post Mortem”; this starrier, sprightlier summation is still a little too rough-edged to win the Oscar, but it ought to draw attention to one of the great film trilogies of recent years.

Throughout the pre-nomination process, I kept getting mixed signals about Denmark’s handsome historical drama “A Royal Affair.” On the one hand, the film looked like prime Academy bait in this category: a polished, romantic, elaborately appointed biopic, featuring an international star in Mads Mikkelsen and a conspicuous newcomer in Alicia Vikander (who also made an impact last year in “Anna Karenina”), it had also been garnering better-than-expected notices since its debut at Berlin a year ago, where it won both Best Screenplay and Best Actor for co-lead Mikkel Folsgaard. Other sources, however, suggested the film had been more coolly received at its Academy screenings than one might have thought — perhaps because the film itself is a little cooler than it looks, freshening up the stale royalty-porn genre with a brisk sexual charge and invigorating political detail. That might have been just idle speculation, since the film evidently seduced enough voters to make the cut — and while it’s likely too reserved to land the country its fourth Oscar win, look out for the Danes next year if they decide to submit another Mikkelsen-led festival hit, “The Hunt.”

Calling it the category’s weak link may sound harsh, but Norway’s true-life maritime adventure “Kon-Tiki” does feel a little safe beside its competition. And while “safe” is certainly an adjective that links many of the category’s winners over the years, it’s hard to imagine even the Weinsteins’ campaign magic doing the trick for a high-seas epic that, however slickly crafted — it’s the most expensive production in Norwegian cinema history — doesn’t offer much in the way of emotional nourishment. Still, more Hollywood-minded branch voters will find comfort in the traditional storytelling that anchors Joechim Rønning, and Espen Sandberg’s account of the famously foolhardy Kon-Tiki mission, whereby six scientists set out to cross the Pacific on a balsa-wood raft in 1947. “Life of Pi” it ain’t, but it’s still a physically impressive production, robustly shot across a global spread of locations, and offers the most in the field to spectacle-hungry voters. Clearly, there are a number of those in the branch, since it’s unlikely this made the shortlist with any help from the executive committee. Still, I think we all know how this is going down.

Will win: “Amour”
Could win: “War Witch”
Should win: “No”
Should have been here: “Sister”

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

Aside from last night’s VES Awards, it’s a pretty slow day on the circuit, so let’s lead with some unsurprising but reassuring news. Not that you had any reason to suspect otherwise, but last year’s quartet of acting Oscar winners — Jean Dujardin, Meryl Streep, Christopher Plummer and Octavia Spencer — will all be on hand to present at this year’s awards, joining Mark Wahlberg and his fuzzy friend from “Ted” on the list of confirmed presenters. Assuming the Oscarcast producers don’t veer from the traditional format, you could already start imagining the juxtapositions: many people’s choice for Greatest Actress Alive handing the Oscar to many people’s choice for Greatest Actor Alive, welcoming him into the triple-winner club to boot, is a particularly nifty photo op waiting to happen. And while Jennifer Lawrence remains at the front of the Best Actress race, how sweet would it be to see Jean Dujardin present the award to his senior compatriot, Emmanuelle Riva? [The Wrap]

The Venice Film Festival has added a Grand Jury Prize to its roster of juried awards. It comes at the expense of their Technical Achievement Award, though, which seems a shame. [CineEuropa]

Still on the subject of European festivals, Cannes has tapped Palme d’Or winner Jane Campion to head up their short film jury. She’d be a pretty great Competition jury president, for my money, though the fest doesn’t much favor female filmmakers for that position. [Screen Daily]

A treat for those still stumping for “ParaNorman” in this year’s Best Animated Feature race: Focus has released an interactive booklet on the film and its intricate construction. [Focus Features]

Eric Sasson on why Hollywood, for all its advances in other areas, still can’t quite handle gay sex. [New Republic]

Chris Laverty explains why the skill of Joanna Johnston’s Oscar-nominated costumes for “Lincoln” is that you don’t notice them. [Clothes on Film]

James Cameron has successfully seen off a lawsuit from a visual effects consultant who claims his ideas were purloined without credit for “Avatar.” [The Guardian]

Jennifer Lawrence marvels at the prospect of car-pooling with Sally Field. Wouldn’t we all? [The Carpetbagger]

Celebrating Ben Affleck’s career via the time-honored medium of YouTube. [Vulture]

It’s not new, but for those (like me) rooting for the late Eiko Ishioka in the costume design race this year, check out this look back at her Oscar-winning work on “Bram Stoker’s Dracula” 20 years ago. [YouTube]

It was a predictably great night for “Life of Pi” at tonight’s Visual Effects Society Awards as the film picked up four prizes, including the big daddy, Outstanding Visual Effects in a Visual Effects-Driven Motion Picture. Not only that, but as previously announced, the film’s director, Ang Lee, received the Society’s Visionary Award. “It’s not visual effects. It’s visual art,” Lee said upon receiving the prize.

On the animated side of things, Pixar’s “Brave” swept the board, picking up four prizes as well. Elsewhere, “The Impossible” beat out the only real competition, “Flight,” in the supporting visual effects department, while “The Avengers” picked up a pair of honors and “The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey” claimed one.

I think it’s safe to say this is the easiest category to predict on Oscar night. “Life of Pi” has it wrapped up with a bow on top. And it’ll be a nice shot in the arm for the Rhythm & Hues effects house as it staves off bankruptcy.

Check out the full list of winners below, and as always, keep track of the ups and downs of the 2012-2013 film awards season via The Circuit.

Outstanding Visual Effects in a Visual Effects-Driven Feature Motion Picture
“Life of Pi”

Outstanding Supporting Visual Effects in a Feature Motion Picture
“The Impossible”

Outstanding Animation in an Animated Feature Motion Picture
“Brave”

Outstanding Animated Character in a Live Action Feature Motion Picture
“Life of Pi” – Richard Parker

Outstanding Animated Character in an Animated Feature Motion Picture
“Brave” – Merida

Outstanding Created Environment in a Live Action Feature Motion Picture
“The Avengers” – Midtown Manhattan

Outstanding Created Environment in an Animated Feature Motion Picture
“Brave” – The Forest

Outstanding Virtual Cinematography in a Live Action Feature Motion Picture
“The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey”

Outstanding Models in a Feature Motion Picture
“The Avengers” – Helicarrier

Outstanding FX Simulation Animation in an Animated Feature Motion Picture
“Brave”

Outstanding FX Simulation Animation in a Live Action Feature Motion Picture
“Life of Pi” – Storm of God

Outstanding Compositing in a Feature Motion Picture
“Life of Pi” – Storm of God

Visionary Award
Ang Lee

Lifetime Achievement Award
Richard Edlund

Chuck Hagel weathered quite the storm from his fellow Republicans during his confirmation hearing for Secretary of Defense. But part of the debate strewn about in those eight hours pertained to something very much at the fore of discussion in this year’s documentary feature race.

I’ll be breaking down the category in an upcoming edition of the Oscar Guide, but one of the nominees got name-checked by Sen. Richard Blumenthal during the hearing. In asking for a “strong commitment” on the issue of rape in the military along with Sen. Kirsten Gillbrand, Blumenthal actually asked Hagel if he had seen Kirby Dick’s film “The Invisible War.”

All eyes are on the popularity of “Searching for Sugar Man” to turn up an Oscar for the film in a few weeks, but it’s possible something like Dick’s film, which has a real shot at bringing change, might be weightier and mean more to voters. Who knows what opening the category up to the entire membership could mean, but never rule out this kind of attention.

Check out a clip of the exchange below.

For an actor who hasn’t courted much publicity in recent years, Robert De Niro suddenly appears to be everywhere at once. Yesterday, in addition to attending the Academy’s official nominees luncheon, he showed up at Grauman’s Chinese Theater to have his hands and footprints cast in the ceremonial cement of many a Hollywood legend. That evening, meanwhile, the American Cinematheque kicked off a three-day restrospective of De Niro’s work with a screening of his current nomination vehicle, “Silver Linings Playbook” — followed by a Q&A with the actor, introduced by Harvey Weinstein himself.

If this sudden, uncharacteristic availability is evidently all part of a ramped-up campaign to snare De Niro his third Oscar — a possibility that, given the popularity of the film and the malleability of the field, remains strong — it’s a pleasure simply to see him up and at ’em. The 69-year-old screen legend has never stopped working — far from it, as he consistently pops up in at least one film a year — but he’s nonetheless felt like a spent force for far too long, granting his considerable presence to many less-than-considerable films, and looking none too enthused in the process.

“Silver Linings Playbook,” in which he’s alternately boisterous and affecting as the cantankerous, football-mad dad of Bradley Cooper’s bipolar misfit, may not rank among the most remarkable roles of De Niro’s remarkable career, but in it, he seems more emotionally engaged and attentive to detail than he has been in any number of “Righteous Kills” or “Hide and Seeks” over recent years. It offers a gentle reminder of the gifts still held by the fiercely committed, creative Method actor who enjoyed one of the hottest hot streaks of anyone in his craft in the 1970s and early 1980s, and it’s no surprise that his peers in the Academy have rewarded him with a nomination — his first in 21 years, and his seventh overall.

 Now, then, seemed the perfect time to celebrate De Niro’s career with a Top 10 list. A simple Best Performances countdown may seem obvious, but with a filmography so large and rich in pickings, it was irresistible — it’s hard to imagine too many people’s lists of favorite De Niro turns looking entirely alike, after all.

Of course, as much as one often uses lists like these to draw attention to outstanding but less celebrated work, a few classic titles feel mandatory in a De Niro Top 10. It eemed inevitable that my list would wind up being rather Scorsese-centric — among others, how do you not include “Raging Bull” and “Taxi Driver,” in which the actor’s technical expertise merged with a less tangible grasp of screen iconography? Both performances have entered the screen acting canon almost without dispute, but have scarcely beened rendered less thrilling by consensus.

As such inarguables filled the list, though, I found myself disappointed by what I was leaving out, from an early breakthrough like “Bang the Drum Slowly” to a later time-marker like “City by the Sea,” which isn’t quite the idle shrug of a performance most would have you believe. There are great films on the sidelines that nearly made the cut, including “1900” and “Once Upon a Time in America”; there are decidedly average ones too, like “Stanley and Iris” and “Falling in Love,” both of which put his underexplored skills as a romantic lead to work opposite actresses willing to work at his level.

Not all seven of his Oscar nominations are featured, either — the Academy has largely done well by De Niro, catching onto his talent reasonably early and recognizing much of his most vital work, but perhaps not everything he’s done has received its due. Check out the Top 10 gallery below — I’d call it his own silver linings playbook, if that meant anything at all — and be sure to share your own reflections on De Niro’s career in the comments.

(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.)

There is a key change in the way the Best Animated and Live Action Shorts, as well as the Best Documentary Feature categories will be decided. Members will receive screeners of all nominees and the voting will be opened up to the entire membership, and the honor system will be used, as it is with every other category, as to members actually seeing the films in play and voting accordingly. No more showing up at special screenings and proving you saw them by signing in, at least with these categories.

This could be huge in a category like Best Animated Short, where big studio productions often lose out to smaller, more artful fare because those voting are usually animators very interested in the product. This is why it’s been a while since Pixar has won here, for instance, and this year, it’ll be all the more crucial, because three of the nominees are involved with big companies.

The nominees are…

“Adam and Dog” (Minkyu Lee)
“Fresh Guacamole” (PES)
“Head Over Heels” (Timothy Rckart and Fodhla Cronin O’Reilly)
“Maggie Simpson in ‘The Longest Daycare” (David Silverman)
“Paperman” (John Kahrs)

This is a pretty solid group of nominees, as it tends to be, really. The animators know how to whittle this down to a nice assortment of media and it’s always a diverse bunch. If it were a typical system of voting, I might be tempted to predict otherwise, but this year, it could boil down to a studio effort that played before this year’s Best Animated Feature Film frontrunner.

The best of the lot (in my opinion) is the first on our list: Minkyu Lee’s “Adam and Dog.” The film won Best Animated Short at the Annie Awards last year and tells the story of man’s first relationship with, well, Man’s Best Friend. Set in the Garden of Eden with Eve eventually coming along to complicate things for the little mutt protagonist, every frame of the film could be a painting on a wall. Lee also self-funded the enterprise while working as a Disney character design animator on films like “Winnie the Pooh” and “Wreck-It Ralph,” which will surely be seen as commendable by fellow animators. In another year, I’d be tempted to predict it. The film is a longer breath than the other films and is really absorbing. It could still win, frankly.

To be perfectly honest, the 2-minute “Fresh Guacamole” is one of my favorites of the bunch. It’s slight, short, not at all thematically potent, but it has an energy and an excitement for the form that is contagious. Animator PES (Adam Pesapane) first started building on his aesthetic — using everyday odds and ends to varying animation effect — in his short film “KaBoom!,” and it’s come to a peak with this brief romp that depicts a guacamole recipe cobbled together from unlikely sources. Nevertheless, I doubt he has much of a chance to win as the other contenders simply have more meat on their bones. I hope the “Garbage Pail Kids” film he’s developing comes to fruition, though, because I love his voice.

Like “Adam and Dog,” Timothy Reckart’s “Head Over Heels” might be very formidable in any other year. It’s a student film that has won prizes all year long, most recently taking the Best Student Film prize at last weekend’s Annie Awards. It tells a meaningful story of a marriage grown apart, the theme laid blatant with the husband living on the floor and the wife living on the ceiling. It’s wrought with claymation, always nice to see, and it’s ultimately touching and maybe even a little profound. That would tend to go a long way, but will opening the voting up to a broader group mean something more intimate like this fails to gain the proper traction? Or will it transcend that altogether?

I like “The Simpsons” as much as the next guy, and “Maggie Simpson in ‘The Longest Daycare'” is a fun little film with a delicate twist. Director David Silverman is also a great guy who has been with the show for ages (and indeed, used to work with “Wreck-It Ralph” director Rich Moore on the series). But the film wasn’t aiming at awards or anything grand, it was merely conceived as a nice gift to fans of the show and played before screenings of “Ice Age: Continental Drift.” So I don’t know that an Oscar is in its future, but who knows? It would be cool to see a Simpsons movie win an Academy Awards, no? And when opening up the ballot to the entire membership, the Fox voting bloc could come out in force behind it. So keep that in mind.

In any other year, I would say beware predicting Annie Award-winner John Kahr’s “Paperman,” because it has all the elements of a film that gets shut down by the animation branch. Films like “One Man Band,” “Lifted” and “Presto” from Pixar, as well as “The Little Matchgirl” from Disney, and even “A Matter of Loaf and Death” from Aardman, have been passed over for indie productions from promising artists. This Disney film is indeed one of the best shorts, technically and conceptually, that the studio has ever done (it played before “Wreck-It Ralph”), but still, this kind of thing has a tendency to be upset. I say again, however, with the voting change, a big studio effort could get a rallying cry behind it, so it might be a safe pick after all this year.

Will win: “Paperman”
Could win: “Adam and Dog”
Should win: “Adam and Dog”
Should have been here: (abstain)

The ever-adventurous Makeup and Hairstyling branch once again showed independence in its choice of nominees this year. While many people assumed transforming Daniel Day-Lewis into Abraham Lincoln would yield a nod for “Lincoln,” it was turning Anthony Hopkins into Alfred Hitchcock that tickled the branch”s fancy as Sacha Gervasi”s film managed to score its sole nomination in the category.

Howard Berger, Oscar winner for “The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe,” shares this nomination with co-special makeup effects artist Peter Montagna and hair stylist Martin Samuel. But a little over a year ago, in November 2011, he was getting ready to wrap up shooting of “Oz: The Great and Powerful” when Gervasi called him to say the project had been given the green light.

Convincing the audience that Anthony Hopkins was Alfred Hitchcock was always going to be a daunting task. “We had a very little amount of time and money but I wanted to take that time and money and use it towards testing,” Berger says. “We were able to get six different makeup tests to see what was and was not going to work on Tony.”

There was still a fine line between creating Alfred Hitchcock and not losing the charisma of the actor underneath the prosthetics. “We wanted Tony to be able to perform and allow facial movement,” he says. “As we got more comfortable with the character and Tony got comfortable with the character, things modified.” An important change that Hopkins became open to was with respect to contact lenses, which he originally did not want. “Tony has these piercing blue eyes and persuading him to wear lenses to replicate Hitchcock”s brown eyes became an important part of the makeup,” Berger says.

When you”re creating something, it”s a team effort. Berger’s team had to create a specific look but also a look that the actors were comfortable in. Hopkins “is in 90-95% of the movie and we needed to make sure the makeup we were doing wasn”t hours and hours and hours in the chair,” Berger explains. “He”s 75 years old – a very fit 75 years old but still 75 years old. And Tony realized that our job was as important. Sometimes an actor won”t respect the makeup by eating a hamburger or sleeping on the newspaper.”

When I ask Berger what it was like to create Old Hollywood, he doesn”t take long to respond. He says it was “super-cool” and like a childhood dream. Having grown up in Los Angeles, the journey was all the more rewarding for him. Not only that, as is rarer and rarer these days, the opportunity to actually shoot a film in Hollywood was one he savored. But there were also plenty of challenges that came with that dedication to period.

“If the makeup hadn”t worked, the movie wouldn”t have been successful,” he says. “I had to be very resourceful and smart about how I approached everything. I”m a pretty quick makeup artist and I wanted to make sure I could do a great job every single day but within the confines of what the movie needed of me.”

Berger, who has “Oz” set for release next month and, as noted above, won his first Oscar for “The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe,” is familiar with fantasy endeavors as well as period pieces with more practical effects. How does he compare the two efforts? “I approach everything kind of the same way,” he says. “Even if you”re dealing with a giant enormous film such as ‘Oz,” time is always of the essence. In ‘Oz,” I put together an army of artists. Here, with Martin and Peter, the way we do makeup for one is the same for 100.” He also praises costume designer Julie Weiss, who created the pivotal fat suit for Hopkins, who didn’t exactly want to gain a ton of weight for the role.

Berger is quite involved in the Academy Awards, too. “I love the Oscars,” he says. “I”ve watched the Oscars my entire life. In 2006, getting nominated and then winning was a dream come true.”

As for this year? “People seem very positive,” he says. “I just like the ride. It is an honor to be nominated. It”s awesome to win as well and we want to go and represent the film as best we can.”

His involvement with his branch has led him to have strong opinions on the rules for choosing the nominees for makeup. And he emphasizes that he is not disconcerted about only having three nominees in the category. “The voting process changes if we had five,” he says. “We like the voting process we have. We look at all movies, it whittles down to 15-17 and then seven in the bake-off and then three that get nominated. The process has worked for years.”

And he”s proud in the branch”s tendency to give films their only nomination and look past overall reputation. “We”re very satisfied. It is a very serious thing and we take it very seriously. It”s not about what is the best film or who has the most makeup but who has the best makeup.”

As for the addition of “and Hairstyling” to the category”s title this year? “What prompted that was so many years where success of the makeup is because of makeup and hair. I think it”s a long time coming and our branch felt it was fair to have ‘Best Makeup and Hair” as opposed to ‘Best Makeup” – doesn”t mean that every year both makeup artists and hairstylists will be up but it opens up that opportunity.”

When looking back on “Hitchcock”, Berger remains thrilled to simply have had the chance to do a film about the master filmmaker.

“It was shot in 35 days,” he says. “Every day we would count off. And on the last day, we were really blue. The next day, I got a text from Tony that was ‘I”m really sad that I”m not having my makeup done today by you.”” And to Berger, that was the ultimate compliment.

Determined as they are by a small jury of London print critics, the Evening Standard British Film Awards — which are limited to British cinema, as well as British artists in international films — tend to occupy the independent end of the spectrum. Recent winners of their Best Film award include such small-scale critical favorites as “We Need to Talk About Kevin,” “Neds,” “Fish Tank,” “Hunger” and “Control.”

So it represents a significant deviation from the norm that the winner of the top prize last night was a blockbuster franchise entry that has become the highest-grossing film in UK box office history. But “Skyfall” has itself been something of an anomaly in the way it has curried critical and audience favor to an extent that the James Bond series has never previously managed in 50 years of trying. I had thought that BAFTA would be keen to recognize the achievement of Sam Mendes’s slick, savvy spy game, but they somehow resisted nominating it for Best Film; instead, it fell to a generally highbrow critics’ award to give 007 the first Best Film win of his long career.

That said, the wording of the award on this occasion as “Film of the Year” is significant. Jury members backing the artier films in contention — “Skyfall” was nominated alongside comparatively minuscule British indies “Sightseers” and “Berberian Sound Studio” for the honor — could concede the Bond juggernaut’s claim to being one of the year’s most defining films, even if they didn’t think it was the very best.

There was consolation for both the also-rans, and several smaller British titles besides, as the jury gave no film more than one award. (“Skyfall” did, however, somewhat inevitably win the public-voted category for Blockbuster of the Year — an award perhaps initially devised to balance out the jury’s less populist choices, here serving as a neatly symmetrical indication of public and critical consensus.)

“Berberian Sound Studio,” Peter Strickland’s witty, unsettling ode to Italian giallo horror that made my personal Top 10 of 2012, was rewarded with the Best Actor award for Toby Jones’s perfectly underplayed performance as an out-of-his-element sound designer. It marks the second time, following the London Critics’ Circle Awards two weeks ago, that the diminutive Jones has beaten Oscar frontrunner Daniel Day-Lewis to an award, though that didn’t stop him looking sincerely gobsmacked at the podium. He stated in his speech that simply being nominated alongside Day-Lewis is reward enough — and it didn’t sound like a line. 

Andrea Riseborough, who has also won at the British Independent Film Awards and the London Critics’ Circle Awards for her quietly measured turn as an IRA turncoat in James Marsh’s thriller “Shadow Dancer,” was the group’s Best Actress winner. The acclaim is deserved, and it bears mentioning that Riseborough has taken the some trio of British precursors that Olivia Colman did last year for “Tyrannosaur” — and, like Colman, has been unceremoniously ignored by BAFTA.

The British Academy needn’t be as home-focused as these smaller awards, but they do seem increasingly out of touch with what is going on in its own industry. Did Riseborough really have to be blanked so Helen Mirren could get another filler nomination? Could they not stand to be a little prouder of “Skyfall,” at the risk of deviating slightly from the Oscar template? It’s a discussion worth having.

Full list of winners below, as well as at The Circuit: 

Film of the Year: “Skyfall”

Best Actor: Toby Jones, “Berberian Sound Studio”

Best Actress: Andrea Riseborough, “Shadow Dancer”

Best Screenplay: Malcolm Campbell, “What Richard Did”

London Film Museum Award for Technical Achievement: Seamus McGarvey (cinematographer), Sarah Greenwood (production designer) and Jacqueline Durran (costume designer), “Anna Karenina”

Peter Sellers Award for Comedy: Ben Wheatley, “Sightseers”

Most Promising Newcomer: Sally El Hosaini, “My Brother the Devil”

Best Documentary: “The Imposter”

Blockbuster of the Year (public vote): “Skyfall”

(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.)

This year’s race for Best Animated Feature Film was as competitive as it’s ever been. There were a boatload of qualifying contenders (21) and many of them had an angle on a nomination. And after last year’s one-two punch from GKIDS, many wondered whether the usual studio product would be laced with indie players, or whether an atypically quality slate of Hollywood toons would dominate the list.

As it turned out, it was the latter, as none of the four GKIDS hopefuls this year found room. But while studios were out in force in the category, one in particularly was tellingly left out of the conversation: DreamWorks Animation’s “Rise of the Guardians” failed to land a nod after turning out to be a critical and financial disappointment. It was instead replaced by a surprise nominee from a highly respected animation studio.

The nominees are…

“Brave” (Mark Andrews and Brenda Chapman)
“Frankenweenie” (Tim Burton)
“ParaNorman” (Sam Fell and Chris Butler)
“The Pirates! Band of Misfits” (Peter Lord)
“Wreck-It Ralph” (Rich Moore)

For the most part I’d say the branch got this right, as there’s very little room to complain. Nevertheless, GKIDS entry “The Painting” was dazzling and I still wonder if enough animators saw it (as it came up empty at the Annies, too).

Pixar sat it out last year but, despite weathering a lot of “it’s not up to par” criticism for the studio’s latest, Mark Andrews and Brenda Chapman were able to secure a nod for “Brave” anyway. I’ve long said that this film has been unduly criticized and I still feel that way. It’s a beautiful effort that may not be on the top Pixar tier, but that’s still higher than many titles that come along. And while the category this year appears to have an alpha waiting to walk away with the trophy, a win for this one would not surprise me at all. In fact, I’m beginning to lean that way.

Both of Tim Burton’s Oscar nominations to date have come for animated features, and this one for “Frankenweenie” is touching given that the director has come full circle on the property that got him fired from Disney nearly 30 years ago. The film is a personal treasure, but it hasn’t caught on. Critics liked it, but it stumbled at the box office and didn’t net a single Annie Award this past weekend. It would be great to see Burton up there holding an Oscar for this project. The odds appear to be stacked against him, but with a dogfight on the top tier, I actually wouldn’t be shocked to see him, well, shock. So to speak.

In case you’re wondering, the critics’ choice for best of the lot this year ended up being “ParaNorman,” from Laika and directors Sam Fell and Chris Butler. Before long it was winning animated feature category after animated feature category, somewhat quietly, and it ended up with 13 prizes total at the end of the day. it really is a lovable take on the theme of bullying and is a refined, smart entry. But despite that critical adoration, Laika may need to wait a little longer for its first Oscar.

The surprising entry was “The Pirates! Band of Misfits” from Peter Lord and the respected Aardman Animations. Perhaps, given the esteem the studio holds, it shouldn’t have been that much of a surprise after all. And the variety of having a claymation entry is nice. Nevertheless, I doubt many Academy members even saw the film and it’s facing a lot of stiff competition. It’s probably least likely to turn up a win, but kudos to the team for landing the nod.

All eyes are on Rich Moore’s “Wreck-It Ralph,” which mopped up five wins at the Annie Awards Sunday and is just a brilliant piece of work all around. It’s also part of the big story within the animation arena this year, which is that it’s been a great year for in-house offerings at Disney. With three nominations (including the Pixar title), it dominated the scene, and this film coupled with Burton’s made for a terrific home-grown one-two punch. But don’t snooze on the possibility of an upset from Pixar. It holds the prestige element and one wonders how much of the superficial pop culture stuff kept voters away from even watching this one.

Will Win: “Brave”
Could Win: “Wreck-It Ralph”
Should Win: “Wreck-It Ralph”
Should Have Been Here: “The Painting”

How do you expect the Best Animated Feature Film race to pan out? Are you taking the safe bet or banking on an upset?

The great Frank Rich has weighed in on the Oscar race with what is sure to remain one of the best pieces of the season, in which he celebrates what he sees as the Academy’s return to relevance: “Whatever the explanation-and little in show business happens by design-the movie industry has reconnected with the country. It has produced no fewer than four movies that have provoked animated, often rancorous public debate: ‘Zero Dark Thirty,’ ‘Argo,’ ‘Lincoln,’ and ‘Django Unchained,’ a film that pushes so many hot buttons you can”t quite believe it was made.” He goes on to make the case for why “Django” deserves the Best Picture award, and even if you disagree — I certainly do — it’s an essential, exuberant read. [New York]

Why “Amour,” for all its focus on senior citizens, may play better to younger audiences. [The Guardian]

Sasha Stone believes “Argo” vs. “Lincoln” is this year’s David vs. Goliath awards narrative. Though with a star director, season-long hype and over $100 million in the bank, “Argo” is a pretty beefy David. [Awards Daily]

With “Before Midnight” still hot from Sundance, Nathaniel Rogers asks what kind of sequels are necessary at the movies. [The Film Experience]

In a tight race for Best Animated Feature, Glenn Whipp wonders if Academy members are actually going to watch all the nominees before voting. [Gold Standard]

How an exhausted Jessica Chastain has discovered the difficulty of balancing a Broadway show with the awards circuit. It used to be more common for actors with the same dilemma to opt out of the latter. [The Wrap]

Five reasons why Joaquin Phoenix should beat Daniel Day-Lewis to the Best Actor Oscar. [Jeremy Helligar]

Melena Ryzik listens in on a PGA panel in which producers of many of this year’s Best Picture nominees spill production secrets. [The Carpetbagger]

Mark Boal on the scene he found hardest to write in “Zero Dark Thirty.” [Vulture]

In a movie landscape where Abraham Lincoln has pierced ears, Rebecca Keegan investigates how faithfully our contemporary appearances can serve period pieces. [LA Times]

(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.)

Best Original Score, are you ever predictable. This year”s nominees are not diverse in terms of being films not cited in other categories – Best Picture nominees took three of the spots, while the other two contenders are from films that have nine nominations between them. Also predictably, only one first-time nominee is in the mix. Diversity was nonetheless made up for in the nationalities of the composers (four countries represented) and the locales of the nominated films – the nominees are set on three different continents and the movies” themes resulted in Russian, Indian and Persian influences, among others, on the music.

To most of us watching this race, there were four very predictable nominees and all came through. The fifth spot was always up in the air so there were no shocking omissions. That said, I think three titles could reasonably considered “snubbed”: “Cloud Atlas” and “The Master” both received notable precursor attention. It”s also somewhat odd that “Beasts of the Southern Wild””s great score by Benh Zeitlin and Dan Romer couldn”t score even with the film”s four big nominations. The branch kept up its tradition of only nominating one new composer.

The nominees are…

“Anna Karenina” (Dario Marianelli)
“Argo” (Alexandre Desplat)
“Life of Pi” (Mychael Danna)
“Lincoln” (John Williams)
“Skyfall” (Thomas Newman)

On nominations day, I was truly torn about who would win this category. But my opinion is beginning to firm up. Even so, it”s hardly a sure thing, and only one nominee, I fell, can be ruled out. I found this to be an entirely respectable set of nominees. But while there is nothing embarrassing, there is only one score I”m passionate about: I was particularly sorry to see “The Master” come up short. While Jonny Greenwood was disqualified for “There Will Be Blood,” leaving him out for his eerie “The Master” score seems to be evidence of either not liking him or the branch”s insularity. Maybe both. I also loved Patrick Doyle”s Celtic-influenced “Brave” score. And I know I”m not the only one who felt Alexandre Desplat”s spare but oh-so-effective contributions to “Zero Dark Thirty” were his best work of 2012.

With “Anna Karenina,” Dario Marianelli earned his third nomination for his collaborations with Joe Wright. And like “Pride & Prejudice” and “Atonement” (for which he won), is it ever a deserved nomination. A lush score that is appropriately operatic and never distracting, Marianelli has proven himself yet again as one of his generation”s most talented film composers. Even so, his film is not a Best Picture nominee (not a good sign – the last nine winners in this category were all Best Picture nominees) and has fewer nominations than any other contender. Maybe it”s naivety that I don”t want to rule him out, though objectively I feel his chances are slim.

Alexandre Desplat, the man who never sleeps, returns this year with his fifth nomination. His “Argo” score is exotic and suspenseful. He is going to win one of these years, no question. And if this film is really going to win Best Picture, it”s presumably going to tally up some other wins, too. But the score just doesn”t “feel” like a winner this year. It isn”t noticeable/memorable like most winners in this category. I”d rank Desplat”s chances similar to Marianelli”s – plausible, but unlikely.

Mychael Danna fulfills the annual role of first-time nominee. Given how much “Life of Pi” relied on aural elements outside of dialogue to build its themes, his Indian-influenced contributions made for a logical nominee. That rationale makes him an equally logical choice as a winner in my view, especially as, of the past 10 years in which a new composer has been nominated, one has won on seven occasions. With a Golden Globe in his back pocket, I suspect Danna is headed towards the podium come Oscar night.

In my Oscar Guide last year on this category, I cited John Williams for “Lincoln” as the surest thing in any category from a year out. Lo and behold, I was right! What I did not expect was for him to show such restraint on a major Steven Spielberg feature. His compositions were appropriately subtle contributions to the film. Williams won the BFCA for this score. I”ve expected him to win again for years now; it”s been 19 years since his last victory. Even so, this year, once again, doesn”t seem to be it. Danna just seems a likelier victor. The themes of “Lincoln” are not as memorable as those which have led Williams to victory in the past (“Fiddler on the Roof,” “Jaws,” “Star Wars,” “E.T.,” “Schindler”s List”).

Finally, we have Thomas Newman”s “Skyfall” score. While the other four nominees were fairly predictable, I did not see Newman coming. It took a second viewing of the film for me to truly appreciate his contributions. The four-year gap since his two nominations for “WALL-E” is actually the longest he has ever gone without a nomination. It”s nice to see him back in the race with nod number 11. Even so, I can”t see him winning with more noticeable scores from Best Picture nominees floating around. His time will come, however. Of that I”m confident.

Will Win: “Life of Pi”
Could Win: “Lincoln”
Should Win: “Anna Karenina”
Should Have Been Here: “The Master”

Which of these five talented men do you want to see on the podium on Oscar night?  Who is your money on? Who got robbed?  Chime in below!

If I wasn’t clear enough at Sundance, I’m a huge fan of Jeff Nichols’ “Mud.” I can’t wait to see it again and I have no doubt it will linger in my top 10 list until the end of the year. Roadside Attractions has begun its roll-out of the film, which is set for an April 26 release, first with a trailer in advance of the North American premiere at Sundance and now with a sweet poster that puts the film’s star, Matthew McConaughey, front and center. Check out my interview with McConaughey from Park City here and get a load of the full poster (which debuted at Entertainment Weekly) below.

The last time Tim Burton made the awards press rounds, he was a nominee for 2005’s “Corpse Bride.” Interestingly enough, after a few decades in the live action trenches carving out his own identity and aesthetic on the screen, it’s been only in the animation arena that Oscar has taken notice. He’s back again this year as a nominee for his most personal film in some time, “Frankenweenie.”

Eight years ago, though, he was questioning whether stop-motion animation would continue to find a place or whether computer animation would dominate. What has happened, though, is a touch of hybridization, as exemplified by films like fellow nominee “ParaNorman.” And Burton seems a bit more hopeful for his chosen method going forward.

“I remember a number of years ago when they said they wouldn’t do hand-drawn animation anymore and it looked like it was going to be all computers,” he says. “Fortunately they did more hand-drawn, so I feel the same way about stop-motion. You hope that it transcends what the studios feel about box office. It’s still an interesting art form.”

He gravitated toward the art form largely because of the physicality of it, which makes perfect sense when you consider the heavy art department influence on his films. And it’s something that stretches back a long way for him, too. His first experiences with stop-motion came with the Ray Harryhausen effects in films of the 1960s like “Jason and the Argonauts” that he would watch with wonder while growing up in Burbank, California.

“It was strong and goes right inside you and sticks with you like a dream,” he says. “Harryhausen was always a singular artist. It was like he was an actor; he was like the character. There was a personal feeling about the medium and the way he sort of infused it that made it a strong, visceral experience. The way all the monsters died, there was just a real sense of emotion in there that was really interesting.”

With notions like that in mind, “Frankenweenie” became an exercise in memory perception. But first a little background.

The film is a revisitation of the 1984 short film that in essence got Burton fired from Disney all those years ago. After graduating from the California Institute of the Arts in Valencia with future animation greats like Brad Bird and John Lasseter, he and a number of his classmates made their way to the Walt Disney Animation Studio as grunts of a sort, animators in the trenches.

“At that time it was a new program,” Burton says, “and I guess it seemed to attract an interesting group of people who wouldn’t have these sort of strange opportunities. And to be fair, I was really lousy at it. I wasn’t really suited for it. I always admire animators because it takes two sides of your brain at one time. It takes patience and it takes creativity, and I found that my patience wasn’t quite up to it. Sitting at the desk, there was something about it that I couldn’t quite click with.”

But stop-motion, again, was always something that stuck with him. So it’s ironic that he’s come full circle with the property that got him booted from the company that would go on to distribute an Oscar-nominated feature version, but it’s also part of the meta narrative of the material: It became a memory piece.

“I started thinking about all the kids I knew in school and certain teachers, certain specific locations in Burbank, the feeling of the classes,” Burton says. “And the other monster movies, adopting this ‘House of Frankenstein’ structure, putting different monsters into one movie. All of that made it feel different and sort of expanded on those memories. And when I was first at Disney until now, there’ve been lots of incarnations. But it’s where I started, so it certainly has some resonance with me. To go back and revisit that story and expand on it and do it in stop-motion, it felt very positive for me.”

Even still, Burton isn’t the sort to revisit his work. He can’t remember the last time he looked at his introductory animated short, “Stalk of the Celery Monster.” At a recent MoMA retrospective of his work over the years, he says he just “wandered through like a zombie. I find it difficult to watch films I’ve done. I don’t feel like Norma Desmond sitting there running them all night long.”

Which makes something as personal as “Frankenweenie” special, and frankly, rare for Burton these days. No matter what you do, you try to personalize art, he says. So there are touches to be found in the high gloss of things like “Dark Shadows,” “Alice in Wonderland,” “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” and “Planet of the Apes,” films that have felt more superficially “Tim Burton” than things like “Edward Scissorhands,” “Ed Wood” or, indeed, “Frankenweenie.” But the new film was a personal process, he says, “to relate it to a memory of something.”

With that in mind, Burton says he doesn’t really have anything on deck at the moment. His “Alice in Wonderland” has wrought desperate fairytale money-grabs like “Snow White and the Huntsman” and “Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters,” which he jokes about, and the experience of his latest Oscar nominee has seemingly had an effect on him. He pauses for a moment of introspection.

“I’m taking a moment to sort of feel it out,” he says. “I haven’t done that in a while and I maybe need to do that for a second.”

“Frankenweenie” is nominated for Best Animated Feature Film and is now available on DVD and Blu-ray.

There were precious few of us who thought Michael Haneke’s brilliant “Amour” had the proper support to show up in the major categories at the Academy Awards. At the end of the day, it was faith well-placed, as the film was nominated for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actress and Best Original Screenplay (though I still wonder why Jean-Louis Trintignant was lost in the shuffle).

That is, in some ways, a win in and of itself. It’s huge, really. But I’m troubled in my calls and conversations lately: many members, despite this strong showing, still haven’t seen the film. And I would like to implore them now: watch the movie. It’s not as much of a downer as you think it is. It’s a beautiful exploration of its namesake. Actors in particular, it’s a stunning display of your craft. And with a Best Actress race that has some excitement to it, it behooves you to make an educated pick.

See all the movies, actually. What do you think all this extra time is good for? And if “Amour” has been lying near the bottom of your stack, move it up a bit, if only to give Emmanuelle Riva’s work a long, hard look. Because she deserves your attention. If you don’t think she deserves your vote after that, fine. But at least you’ll know and it won’t have been this nebulous thing that you never got to.

Allow me, though, to explain why I think Riva does deserve your vote. It’s in the physicality of the performance. Discussing Helen Hunt’s work in “The Sessions” earlier this year, John Hawkes told me that “brave” is a word that gets tossed around a lot, and that it applied to his co-star. He was right. It also applies to Riva, perhaps more than any other actor or actress in the race. It takes something to stare down the brutal truths of this film and to lay yourself bare as Riva does in the latter portions of “Amour.” It’s more lived-in than any other piece of work in the category. There is zero artifice. It’s not a movie star turn. It’s not a firecracker starlet lighting up the screen. It’s a drilled down examination of character. I ask you, what other definition would you apply to “acting?”

It’s your vote. I implore you to do with it what you want. I just want to give you my perspective. And no other performance touched Riva’s in my opinion this year. Denis Lavant came close in “Holy Motors,” but he didn’t make the Oscar cut. It’s a miracle enough that Riva did.

The race itself has boiled down to Jennifer Lawrence’s to lose. This is her second trip to the Oscars and we all know she’ll be back. You do have three other areas to recognize the acting in “Silver Linings Playbook,” and others besides if you’re really in love with it. Jessica Chastain fell off her perch somewhere along the way. Naomi Watts has her industry supporters. Quvenzhané Wallis is a lovely time capsule story for the year. But Emmanuelle Riva gave us one for the ages.

And you wouldn’t just be throwing your vote away, mind. I have a hunch there will be a lot of voters right there with you. Because when you have the chance to recognize someone like this, it’s hard not to take it.

But again, if you’ve been holding out on watching the movie, give it a go and just see if you feel similarly. You just might.