I’ll be honest with you: sometimes we put up these posts as a formality. In this case, however, I couldn’t be more curious to know what you make of Lee Daniels’ deranged, divisive and rather delicious adaptation of Pete Dexter’s bayou thriller, a crispy-coated trash pastiche that is at once knowing and brazenly heedless, and features outstanding performances from Nicole Kidman (who career we celebrated in Top 10 form this week) and Macy Gray. It received a critical drubbing at Cannes, where I was one of its few defenders, but is unsurprisingly gaining in stature after being marked in some quarters as a future cult item: Roger Ebert is a fan, while A.O. Scott calls a “hot mess,” and means it as a compliment. Go see where you land, then rate the film and share your thoughts in the comments.

The American Film Institute announced this morning that Oscar-winning all-rounder Mel Brooks will receive the institution’s Life Achievement Award next June, at a gala tribute event to be aired on TNT. The 86 year-old actor-writer-director-producer was actually honored by the Academy at the earliest opportunity, winning the Best Original Screenplay Oscar for his 1968 debut feature “The Producers,” before 1970s streak of genre-pastiche comedies including “Blazing Saddles,” “Young Frankenstein,” “High Anxiety” and “Silent Movie.” AFI chairman Howard Stringer says, “Mel Brooks is America’s long-reigning king of comedy… a master of an art form that rarely gets the respect it deserves.” [LA Times]

“The Paperboy” opens today, and Ebert is one of the critics who gets the joke, calling Lee Daniels’ swampy Southern thriller “great trash.” [Roger Ebert]

After its gala tribute to Nicole Kidman, the New York Film Festival surprised punters with a sneak preview of Park Chan-wook’s “Stoker.” [The Playlist]

The NYFF is all about surprises this year: the news leaked yesterday that “Lincoln” will have its world premiere there on Monday. [Deadline]

The Parents Television Council is none too happy with the appointment of Seth MacFarlane as next year’s Oscar host. [Vanity Fair]

Tom O’Neil checks in with their Golden Globe submissions, and confirms that the Weinsteins are entering “Django Unchained” as a drama, while “Silver Linings Playbook” and the hilarious “Quartet” will compete as comedies. [Gold Derby]

R. Kurt Osenlund considers the Oscar possibilities of “Looper,” concluding that its divisive makeup work is its best bet for a nomination. [Slant]

This skipped my radar earlier, but Daniels Day-Lewis and Craig will be honored at BAFTA’s LA-based Britannia Awards in November, alongside Quentin Tarantino and “South Park” creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone. [BAFTA]

Variety’s Jon Weisman thinks Elle Fanning deserves more serious Best Actress consideration for “Ginger & Rosa” than she’s currently getting. [The Vote]

Walter Hill will receive the Maverick Director Award at the Rome Film Festival, which is also hosting the world premiere of his latest film “Bullet to the Head,” starring Sylvester Stallone. [Rome Film Festival]

It’ll be a few days yet before the Academy officially announces the longlist — the odd last-minute addition, switch or disqualification is par for the course at this stage — but with the official deadline for Best Foreign Language Film Oscar submissions having passed on Friday, we can effectively size up the playing field. And with 68 films having been entered for consideration, it’s a crowded one: indeed, if they’re all approved, it’ll stand as a record number.

I’ve mentioned before that this is looking like an unusually competitive year for nominations in this category. There have been fewer controversial submissions than usual: only Portugal really raised eyebrows by opting for family melodrama “Blood of My Blood” ahead of swoony critical sensation “Tabu,” and even then, they might have made the more Academy-friendly choice. (The same goes for France, who were always going to plump for commercial phenomenon “The Intouchables” over more broadly acclaimed fare.) By and large, however, countries largely submitted what everyone thought they would (and should); it’s a field stacked with festival hits and bracing auteur works, and the executive committee will have their work cut out for them when they choose just three films to rescue after the initial vote.

Even among the straggler submissions, some high-profile contenders emerged — notably a pair of black-and-white titles from countries that are regular high-flyers in this race, Italy and Spain. Italy, which holds the record for most Oscar wins in the category, likely had a tough choice to make between two major festival prizewinners: veteran fraternal auteurs Paolo and Vittorio Taviani’s “Caesar Must Die,” which took the Golden Bear at Berlin, and Matteo Garone’s “Reality,” a surprise winner of the Grand Prix at Cannes.

“Reality” is the more entertaining and accessible film, I’d say — but seniority won out, and “Caesar Must Die,” a semi-documentary about rough Rome prisoners staging an in-house production of Shakespeare’s “Julius Caesar,” got the nod. If nothing else, the selection underlines that while Oscar pundits tend to look to Cannes for tips in this category, they should be paying equal attention to the less-attended Berlin fest. “A Separation” debuted there last year, wowed the jury and won over the Academy. This year, all the major Berlin prizewinners are in the hunt for the Oscar too; in addition to “Caesar,” Best Director winner “Barbara” (Germany), Best Actress winner “War Witch” (Canada), Best Actor and Screenplay winner “A Royal Affair” (Denmark) and Special Jury Prize winner “Sister” (Switzerland) are Berlinale babies.  

Funnily enough,  think those films all stand a better chance with the Academy than the film that beat them to the Bear. I didn’t much care for “Caesar Must Die,” a nobly-intentioned but turgid curio that resorts to repetitious padding even at a scant 76 minutes, but laying my own reservations to one side, I don’t see the voters really jiving with this blend of vérité techniques and heightened performance; unless the executive committee really likes the idea of maintaining the non-narrative slot “Pina” held on last year’s shortlist, I don’t see it faring any better than the Tavianis’ last shot at Oscar glory 30 years ago. (That film, incidentally, was “The Night of the Shooting Stars,” which won the Boston and National Society of Film Critics’ Best Picture prizes, but cut no ice with the Academy.)

Spain, meanwhile, went in a more whimsical direction with their monochrome submission, “Blancanieves,” which recently won both critical acclaim and the jury’s runner-up prize at the San Sebastian Film Festival. I’ll have more to say about the film when I see it at the upcoming London fest, but it certainly sounds like an intriguing contender, not least because it taps into two recent movie trends: the curious mini-wave of Snow White adaptations and the renewed interest in silent cinema aroused by “The Artist.”

Yes, what we have here is a flamenco-flavored take on the tried-and-true fairytale, set in 1920s Spain and filmed in the aesthetic of the period, with no spoken dialogue; Maribel Verdu (best remembered for “Y tu Mama Tambien” and “Pan’s Labyrinth”) takes on Wicked Queen duty. It all sounds delightful, while that combination of novelty and familiarity could tickle some voters. I look forward to checking it out.  

Other notables added to the list include China’s “Caught in the Web,” an internet-age social drama from previously nominated but long off-the-boil director Chen Kaige (“Farewell My Concubine”); Toronto reviews don’t suggest it’s much of a threat. South Africa, meanwhile, has also opted for a film from an Academy-endorsed name: “Little One” is the latest from sometime crossover director Darrell James Roodt, whose AIDS drama “Yesterday” got the country its first nomination in 2004. (He’s bounced back quickly from the failure of his still-unreleased Winnie Mandela biopic starring Jennifer Hudson.) The new film, about a middle-aged woman’s struggle to adopt a six-month baby found abandoned in a Johannesburg township, sounds in a similarly earnest, heart-tugging vein to “Yesterday,” so don’t count it out.

Uruguay have a strong entry in “The Delay,” a quietly powerful miniature tackling the country’s social welfare system that I rather admired when it premiered at — hey, there it is again — the Berlin Film Festival. A desperate-measures tale of a destitute mother-of-three also burdened with caring for her dementia-afflicted father, it’s like too modest and too bleak to wow voters, but it’s a worthy submission — and a neat counterpoint to “Amour,” which takes on some equivalent concerns in a far more privileged milieu.    

Finally, bolstering the already strong chances of Israel’s submission, Rama Burshtein’s Austen-influenced (and Venice-laurelled) arranged-marriage study “Fill the Void,” was the announcement earlier this week that it’s been picked up for US distribution by Sony Pictures Classics. As any Oscar pundit knows, Sony has been an overwhelmingly dominant force in this category of late — winning the award in five of the last six years, and scoring a number of other nods besides — so any foreign submission taken under their wing is worth taking seriously. “Fill the Void” now shares a stable with Austria’s “Amour” and Chile’s “No”; it wouldn’t be a shock to see all three films make the cut.  

Check out the full list of submissions at the category’s Contenders page.

Even though the song is set to officially debut tomorrow, I imagine most interested parties have already heard the leaked portion of Adele’s new Bond tune, “Skyfall.” (UPDATE: The song is available now.) One of the cooler elements of the track is that it incorporates the original Monty Norman “Dr. No” theme that became, of course, the signature Bond melody. But while it’s a nifty nod, it also might have done the song in where Oscar is concerned.

The rules are relatively clear about this. Per rule 15, category I B: “An original song consists of words and music, both of which are original and written specifically for the motion picture.” The bold is the Academy’s, not mine. So judging by that, just having that lingering bit of melody from the classic music is potentially enough to keep it out of contention.

That puts a slight dent in Greg Ellwood’s theory that the category is set to be dominated by popular songstresses like Adele, Florence Welch and Katy Perry. Though, respectfully, I never really thought it would be, and if anything has been proven over the last few years (which have seen the eligible songs presented in context to voters rather than just sent on a CD or something), it’s the song or the artist itself isn’t the thing. Just ask Bruce Springsteen.

Yes, this year the rules were changed to allow for these to be viewed on DVD (as well as to guarantee a full slate of five nominees), but while that might widen the net of those who’ll be doing the actual viewing (since they don’t have to hoof it to a special screening in New York or Los Angeles), it still doesn’t change HOW the songs are being observed and, therefore, considered. So closing credits tracks will, as always, face an uphill battle. (And they rarely were nominated even previous to the rule change a few years back.)

But that’s neither here nor there. Adele’s song, which is admittedly awesome, faces a roadblock here. The letter of the law, if you will, rules it out. And in any case, it’s always tough for a Bond song, regardless of artist. After all, the franchise has only produced three nominees over the years: “Live and Let Die” from same, “Nobody Does it Better” from “The Spy Who Loved Me” and “For Your Eyes Only” from same.

Meanwhile, I don’t even think the Florence + the Machine song from “Snow White and the Huntsman” (“Breath of Life”) ever had much of a shot (closing credits and, even as a fan of the artist, I can’t say much for the song), nor Katy Perry’s from “Katy Perry: Part of Me” (“Wide Awake”). For a variety of reasons, I’d say the deck is stacked against them.

The songs from “Brave” will be worth watching, as will some of the stuff from “Lawless,” I think. But in all likelihood, this will end up being an easy one to call, as the Hugh Jackman-belted “Suddenly” from “Les Misérables” will be formidable, I imagine.

We’ll dig in more on the Best Original Song race in a month or two when more tracks have bubbled up and the Academy prepares to release the full list of eligible contenders. Watch for a future installment of “Tech Support” to cover all bases.

UPDATE: We reached out to Sony Pictures for comment. After contacting the Academy, a rep offered the expected: “The song will be submitted to the Academy as all songs are. They will determine the eligibility and let us know.”

“Skyfall” opens everywhere November 9.

Things are clicking right along for the New York Film Festival The “Life of Pi” bow certainly was an event, and with added press screenings on the west coast, the film has very clearly set itself up as a formidable awards season contender.

“Flight” is all ready to close out the fest on October 14, and with it, surely, plenty of opinions as to whether Denzel Washington is a player this year. And in the middle, all of the great programming, restorations and events that have gone into making NYFF a big hit in its 50th anniversary.

One of those big events is a “secret work in progress” screening on Monday night that I’ll unfortunately have to miss (as I’ll be out of town). “Hugo” got the slot last year and it’s anyone’s guess what it is this time around. I’ve been told no on “Les Misérables,” “Zero Dark Thirty,” “Hitchcock,” “Django Unchained” and “Promised Land,” but it’s possible those working on said film aren’t even aware. My money is on “Lincoln,” which screens for students in New York just two days later.

Anyway, the other big drop in the middle of the fest will be David Chase’s “Not Fade Away,” the second of Paramount’s world premieres here. The press screening is tomorrow morning and the big Alice Tully Hall gala is Saturday night. With all of that around the corner, the film has premiered a new poster via Rolling Stone, and I’d say it’s one of the more fetching designs on a poster all year.

Check it out below.

“Not Fade Away” opens in limited release on December 21.

Welcome back. Today marks the beginning of the seventh year of Tech Support here at In Contention. If I may compliment Kris, this blog has come a long way in seven years. And if I may toot my own horn for a moment, the “Tech Support” columns have become one of the regular staples of this outlet and I”d like to think that our analysis of the categories that award below-the-line achievements, as well as our interviews with many of the artists in contention in such categories, has resulted in a number of other outlets beefing up their coverage in that arena.

Over the next 10 weeks, each of the “technical” category races will be analyzed: Best Cinematography, Costume Design, Film Editing, Makeup & Hairstyling, Original Score, Original Song, Production Design, Sound Editing, Sound Mixing and Visual Effects. We’ll move between visual and audio categories to keep things fresh along the way.

I put the term “technical” is scare quotes and will use it sparingly in the columns in the weeks to come, usually opting for “crafts.”  “Technical,” despite its popular use, unfortunately has pejorative connotations surrounding it. But as Randy Thom pointed out in an Oscar acceptance speech eight seasons ago, decisions that are awarded by these categories are made for artistic reasons. The column name, nevertheless, has become something of a brand, in addition to being catchy in a pun-ish sort of way. That said, I will be concentrating on how the artistic decisions of the contenders in this category improve the quality of their films, and the manner in which the Academy chooses to award them.

And can such accomplishments ever improve the quality of the films. From the cinematography of “Citizen Kane” to the music of “The Godfather” to the costumes of “Cleopatra” to the editing of “JFK,” certain films are simply unimaginable without the work of their crafts artists. But this work need not be showy. Indeed, sometimes the best achievements in these areas are identified by restraint. This dichotomy is something I also plan on exploring over the next 10 weeks.

That said, certain characteristics find homes frequently in particular categories and, despite exceptions, showier jobs tend to lead to more nominations. Period pieces tend to dominate Costume Design, Production Direction and, to a lesser extent, Makeup & Hairstyling and Cinematography. Blockbusters do quite well in Visual Effects and the sound categories. Best Picture contenders excel in Film Editing and Original Score. And Original Song, well, that”s anyone”s guess. I certainly plan on exploring the different idiosyncrasies of each branch in the weeks ahead.

Like actors, directors and writers, Academy voters in the crafts categories are regularly persuaded by well-liked films that do well overall, so factoring in Best Picture potential and box office returns is always wise. Makeup & Hairstyling and Costume Design can be refreshing exceptions.

Here at Tech Support, I will also look at the individual career paths of many contenders who will end up with nominations. This is one of the best ways to handicap the races, and shines light on various approaches to particular crafts.

We”re starting a little later this year, with the benefit of the Cannes, Venice, Toronto and eventually, New York Film Festivals behind us. More and more films will open as I explore each of the categories. This will hopefully make the races clearer than they otherwise would be. At the same time, however, we are always continually surprised right up until December. We may assume now that titles such as “Django Unchained,” “Anna Karenina” and “Les Misérables” will dominate, but who knows? “The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey” and “Cloud Atlas” may seem the most obvious of the titles to come to do well in the crafts races but I”d keep my eye on “Skyfall” as well.

And while Globe, BFCA, BAFTA and guild nominations can provide some guidance, unpredictability continues right up to the nominations announcement in many categories. I embarrassingly failed to have a perfect prediction rate in any of the crafts categories last year.

There is also danger in looking ahead, of course, as many major contenders have opened already! “The Dark Knight Rises” and “The Avengers” seem most likely to garner multiple nominations. But I fully expect many other titles that have already been released to be in the race for multiple nominations. These titles range from “Beasts of the Southern Wild” and “Brave” to “The Amazing Spider-Man” and “Prometheus” to “Mirror Mirror” and “Snow White and the Huntsman.”

And then there are the films that are newly upon us and/or have got a head start at the festivals. “The Master” and “Life of Pi” seem the most obvious choices to shine in the crafts races, but I”d also look out for “Argo” and “Silver Linings Playbook” in particular categories.

Today, however, strikes me as primarily a day for anticipation of the race, and reflection on the achievements of our below-the-lines artists as a whole.

What about the crafts categories really excites you? What achievements and artists are you looking forward to and/or rooting for this year? And is there a moment where a crafts artist was cited that you”ll always remember? Mine is Thom, cited above. Though I also have a fondness for Mark Bridges”s Costume Design win from last year, and Michael Giacchino”s Original Score triumph for “Up.” And that”s just in recent years.

Drop a line in the comments section below! It”s good to be back – next week we begin with the always-stacked category of Best Cinematography.

Earlier this year, the Academy’s alteration of the eligibility criteria for Best Documentary contenders — limiting it to bi-coastal theatrical releases from the calendar year — was generally hailed as a positive move that would de-ghettoise the category. But as branch voters are now being plied with around 100 Academy screeners, some are wondering if the changes are either workable or fair, particularly now that the discs arrive “with a letter suggesting specific films to focus on.” That seems hugely ill-advised to me, and several Academy members too — while most voters may not have time to see all the eligible films, instructing their viewing in this way surely defeats the very point of the new voting system. Dave Itzkoff looks into the issue. (Meanwhile, I’ll be belatedly compiling a Contenders page for the category over the weekend.) [New York Times]

Taking such releases as “The Paperboy” and “The Master” into account, Marlow Stern wonders if this is the year of kinky sex at the movies. (I wouldn’t call what goes down in “The Master” kinky, but it’s a fun read.) [Daily Beast]

Between supposed frontrunners John Hawkes, Joaquin Phoenix and Daniel Day-Lewis, Daniel Montgomery wonders if this year’s Best Actor race is a battle of Oscar-bait archetypes. [Gold Derby]

After completing her Natalie Portman-Michael Fassbender western “Jane’s Got a Gun,” Lynne Ramsay is planning a sci-fi adaptation of “Moby Dick.” Just give the woman everything she asks for, people. [The Guardian] 

In the wake of its SAG disqualification, Glenn Whipp runs down the Oscar prospects for “Beasts of the Southern Wild” across the board. [The Envelope]

Helena Bonham Carter talks “Great Expectations” and dolls up as a slutty usherette. (Her words.) You should brush your hair more often, ma’am. It suits you. [Time Out London]  

As a further reminder that there’s more to the Academy than an awards show, they recently revealed the finalists for this year’s Nicholls Fellowship in Screenwriting. [Thompson on Hollywood]

Speaking of rising talent, Mark London Williams reports from the Emerging Cinematographers Awards at the Directors’ Guild of America. [Below the Line]

Sasha Stone lays out 10 rules of conduct for Oscar pundits this season. We’ll all wind up breaking them. But cheers for namecheck! [Awards Daily]

The Screen Awards, which take place in London tonight, honor the top achievements in UK film marketing. Among the nominees for Poster Design of the Year: “Weekend” and “The Iron Lady.” Well, I suppose you couldn’t miss it. [Screen Awards]

Did you catch the debate tonight? Most seem to agree: no matter your politics, Jim Lehrer loses. Okay, maybe that’s harsh. And you heard Romney, Lehrer has a pink slip coming anyway.

In any case, much has been made of Steven Spielberg’s desire to keep “Lincoln” out of the election cycle so as to not be seen as attempting to impact the proceedings. Hence the AFI Fest premiere and a November release AFTER the election. Regardless, Disney isn’t above using the occasion to drum up interest in the movie, and so a new two-minute TV spot aired tonight with the debate.

The immediate contrast with the trailer that has already been released is the music, which makes this thing feel like Al Pacino is going to pop out any minute and scream, “YOU’RE OUT OF ORDER!” It’s Dramatic with a capital “D,” even if it basically uses the same footage as the other version. There are a few additions, however.

What’s interesting is the choice to end with Lincoln’s proclamation, defiantly conveyed by Daniel Day-Lewis: “I am the President of the United States of America, clothed in immense power!” It’s a defining moment for the president as it represented his utmost conviction in deliberating over the addition of the 13th amendment to the Constitution. Spielberg may want to stay away from the election, but the juxtaposition of that against our own Commander-in-Chief’s somewhat diminutive showing tonight is, well, striking.

Check out the new spot below and tell us what you think of it in the comments section below.

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_PfTl63qQQ&w=640&h=360]

“Lincoln” opens in theaters November 9.

When the Academy announced a fortnight ago that they were pulling next year’s Oscar nominations announcement a full five days forward from the initially scheduled date, you’d have been forgiven for thinking — from the howls of anguished confusion, rippled with the odd delighted cackle, across the Oscar blogosphere — that they’d instead ruled all non-3D features ineligible for awards, or at least appointed James Franco the ceremony’s solo host.

Some pundits’ sense of disorientation was guilelessly geeky: We’ll now know the Oscar slate for Best Film Editing before we do the Eddie nominees? Sacre bleu! Others, however, responded in a more conspiracy-minded fashion, sensing in the shift an open hostility to subordinate awards-season events. The rather specious explanation offered by the Academy for the move was that it was to allow voters more time to see the nominated films — that it simultaneously allows them less time to see the far larger pool of films hunting for nominations was left tactfully unsaid.

Either way, what a difference five days makes. You wouldn’t think so, given that film awards season is a parade I don’t anyone has ever complained went by too quickly — even after the Academy lopped a full month off the dog-and-pony show a few years back by moving the ceremony into February. But observe the intricate domino arrangement of the season’s overstuffed cornucopia of precursor ceremonies and announcements — I serve on the awards committee for the London Critics’ Circle, and the selection of a date for even our comparatively modest shindig requires artful Battleship strategics — and it becomes clearer how a slight schedule switch by the biggest player in the game muddles the natural order of things.

If the Oscar nominations now precede a Guild announcement (ASC, say, scheduled to unveil their nominees the day after the Academy) once regarded as a warm-up rituals, or if ballots are now due before the unlikely tastemakers of the National Society of Film Critics have their say, does that dent the smaller events’ significance? Should it? Idealists would say no, but the echo chamber of awards punditry is not well-stocked with idealists: Time journalist Steven James Snyder opined that the Academy “clearly… made this move to dampen the luster of the [Golden] Globes,” which will now air after Oscar nomination ballots are due — and suggesting that the HFPA’s more irreverent ceremony “will increasingly become a fringe affair.”

This may be true from the tunnel-vision perspective of awards analysts, but certainly not from that of the viewing masses who tune into the Golden Globes solely to watch A-list stars dress up and get drunk — they can scarcely remember who won the next day, much less care about what influence those wins will have further down the road. If the Globes are a fringe affair, so are the Academy Awards — and a less fun one to boot. Furthermore, it’s hard to see why the Academy would take pointed measures to undermine the relevance of a ceremony that, in recent years, has seemed less concerned than usual with pre-empting the Oscars.

That’s not just in their reliably dippy Comedy/Musical slates (trust me, voters didn’t nominate “Burlesque” for Best Picture to rubber-stamp its Academy appeal), but in loftier areas too: when they handed their top prize to “Atonement” in 2007, in the face of the film’s rapidly waning Oscar buzz, it was an act of loyalty, rather than prediction or coercion. As such the Globes have long projected a shade more personality into their choices than, say, the Broadcast Film Critics’ Association, who actively advertise their record of anticipating Oscar winners. And if the Academy’s compression of their voting calendar prods an outfit like the HFPA into further such off-consensus voting, that surely a development to be applauded rather than jeered.

All of which brings the conversation round to what purpose precursors should serve at all. The very word is problematic, implying a level of indicative consequence, and that’s duly how they’re treated in the industry. The Globes, BAFTAs, Guild awards and even some of the high-end critics’ awards are primarily evaluated in terms of the likelihood of their choices mirroring the Academy’s — to the point that a group like the NSFC is labelled “perverse” in some quarters for handing their top prize to such anti-bait items as “Melancholia” or “Yi Yi.” If all voting groups, however, were equivalently independent in their selections — serving up a buffet of favorites from the year, rather than collectively glomming onto a handful of ordained frontrunners — it’s not just just the season that would become more interesting: the Academy’s own final verdict could be more richly informed too. 

If it seems awards season becomes more predictable every year, that’s not an accident. The number of pre-Oscar prizes has mushroomed alarmingly in the last 20-odd years, with the invention of Producers’, Actors’ and certain other Guild awards buttressed by the BAFTAs’ turn-of-the-century decision to precede the Oscars (and shift to an Oscar-echoing five-nominee format), as well as the increasing media attention afforded the misnamed BFCA Critics’ Choice Awards since their inauguration in 1995.

And while the proliferation would appear to promise more prizes for everyone, it all too often comes down to more redundant recognition of single contenders who, however outstanding, are inevitably overloaded: can an awards-guzzling performance like Helen Mirren’s in “The Queen” really be thatirrefutably superior to the competition, or are such sweeps built more on the desire for agreement? And if so, who really wins aside from the trophy-laden champion?

Certainly not the precursor ceremonies, the repetitiousness of which makes them both swiftly forgettable and dubiously prestigious: how many people really remember the odd SAG wins that aren’t cashed in for Oscar statuettes a few weeks later? And certainly not the Oscars, the dwindling viewership figures of which can’t be entirely unrelated to the fact that many of the night’s acceptance speeches have generally been rehearsed and televised several times over in the preceding weeks. If, as some pundits have suggested, the acceleration of their nomination announcement is a preliminary move to bring the ceremony itself closer to January, this may yet be a gesture of retaliation against the pre-Oscars shows.

Should this become a fixed schedule, some precursors will inevitably shift forward too, in dull Simon-says fashion: just look how dutifully the Producers’ Guild hopped to attention after the Academy announced the expansion to 10 Best Picture nominees in 2009. But there’s only so far they can bend without infringing on the notion of voting on a calendar year’s worth of releases. (Though if this helped disperse the annual December prestige-picture glut, that’d be no bad thing.)

Rather, precursor awards should look on the potential de-synchronization of the awards calendar as an opportunity to establish their own distinct voting identities, to divorce themselves from the notion of Oscar clairvoyance. The Hollywood Foreign Press can go with their bad Euro-trash selves. BAFTA members can recognize British films beyond just those pre-approved by overseas awards bodies. Guilds can use their specific professional expertise to recognize outstanding technical achievements that laymen wouldn’t — and not just throw idle bones to the production and costume designers of “The Descendants.” Go free, voters. Five days may not make a lot of difference right now, but a window has been opened.

Check out my updated predictions HERE and, as always, see how Kris Tapley, Greg Ellwood and I collectively think the season will turn out at THE CONTENDERS.

Yesterday I sat down with “Bernie” star Jack Black and director Richard Linklater to talk about their latest collaboration, which was critically acclaimed upon release but, as early releases tend to do, faded a bit as the season’s big efforts took hold. But Millennium Entertainment is trying to stir a little consideration where it can, bringing the two to New York for a SoHo Apple Store conversation on Monday followed by a late-night soiree at Merc Bar downtown.

“Bernie” marks the second collaboration for Black and Linklater after 2003’s “School of Rock.” But, despite the fact that, as noted yesterday, Black really responded to Linklater’s work as an independent filmmaker, he didn’t really think of him for the film (which was written by his friend Mike White, who also stars). It was, in fact, the “stroke of brilliance” from a well-known producer that put the project together with the filmmaker, and the rest, as they say, was history.

Here’s the exchange:

Jack Black: “It’s not because I was a huge fan of his and it was like, ‘Let’s work together on ‘School of Rock.” That was really Scott Rudin.”

Richard Linklater: “That was an arranged marriage.”

JB: “Mike [White] had written this script that was really funny and we couldn’t think of anybody that we thought would be the perfect director, and Scott Rudin was the one that said, ‘Let’s bring in Rick.'”

RL: “He had been offering me things for years that I had been turning down.”

JB: “I was like, ‘I love Rick, but I don’t really think of him as a commercial director. I think of him more as an artist. And this is like a broad comedy.’ But it was a stroke of brilliance on Rudin’s part. That’s one of the things he does best is combining things.”

RL: “That was the first time I had been on someone else’s palette. That was Scott’s palette. I passed on it at first. There were some things I didn’t think I could pull off, so I passed. And my agent called and said, ‘Scott Rudin’s not accepting your pass.’ [Black laughs] I go, ‘Oh, really?’ It’s like, ‘He wants to talk to you.’ And we talked for like an hour and a half. He was fishing around, ‘Well, what do you think could be better,’ or whatever.

“I was paranoid. That was the first film I had come aboard that I didn’t originate. I always turned those down. But it was the best lesson in my life, really, to have that collaboration, because Jack and Mike and myself, we really rock and rolled there. We took it in the area that Mike had wanted it to go all along, and maybe it had been there, but it had been sort of developed out of it, you know? So we were like, ‘Fuck it. We’ve got the commercial concept here. Let’s make our own movie that we’ll be happy with.'”

Black was talking at one point about wanting to do a movie about a jazz singer. Linklater noted he has in fact been trying to put together a film based on a day in the like of 1950s jazz trumpeter Chet Baker for years now, but as idle pitching around the lunch table progressed, we had finally settled on it: “School of Jazz.” Black’s character, 50 years old, music taste a bit more refined. “We’re on a schedule of every eight years, so look for it in 2020,” Black quipped.

Check back later this week for the full interview with the duo. In the meantime, here’s Black’s appearance on “The Late Show with David Letterman” last night:

“Bernie” is currently available on Blu-ray and DVD.

Is Robert Zemeckis’s return to live-action filmmaking a triumph? Is Denzel Washington a new, formidable contender in the ever-competitive Best Actor race? Did the New York Film Festival go out with a bang? Those are all questions that will be answered when the 50th annual fest comes to a close on October 14 with the gala presentation of Zemeckis’s “Flight.”

The film comes into the season as a unique entry. A contemporary, mid-budget adult drama isn’t a box ticked off in a year that already has period pieces, romantic comedies, political thrillers and high concept visual stunners. It’s going to be a “meat-eaters” movie, to be sure, and Paramount could have a sleeper commercial hit on its hands, too (the film releases in November).

Front and center in the marketing will, of course, be Washington, who is said to deliver a sensational performance in the film. The drive toward getting him some awards season recognition has already started and since he’ll be the face of the enterprise, it’s only fitting that he’s big and bold on the official poster for the film, which the studio has presented to us today. Check it out below.

“Flight” opens everywhere on November 2, 2012.

As the Oscar season slowly begins cranking up its machinery, we at HitFix are continuing our broad warm-up survey of the possible contenders in each major category, all gathered in a pretty photo gallery for your reference. We kicked off last week with Best Picture, and this week we move on to what — at this point, at least — looks to be the most stacked of the performance categories.

Sad to say, due to the way Hollywood works, it seems there are always more baity male roles out there to choose from, but this year looks particularly competitive, ranging from acclaimed known quantities like John Hawkes in “The Sessions” to presumed behemoths like Daniel Day-Lewis’s “Lincoln” — with alternatives including another veteran actor’s interpretation of a US president, a former Oscar host looking to prove himself as a dramatic heavyweight, and no fewer than three French-language standouts. (We’ve left out “Cloud Atlas” only because we’re waiting on category confirmation.) Check out the gallery below as we weigh up their individual pros and cons. You can also keep up with the ups and downs of this race at In Contention’s Best Actor Contenders page.  

As we were saying the other day, the Best Animated Feature Oscar — usually sewn up by this time of year — is still very much up for grabs. Chief among the contenders yet to be unveiled is DreamWorks’ “Rise of the Guardians,” which I’ll probably stop confusing with that Zack Snyder owl movie sometime around 2015. Expectations are high, and the film has just added a small but shiny feather to its cap with the news that it will receive the inaugural Vanity Fair International Award for Cinematic Excellence at the Rome Film Festival next month — I don’t quite know what that means, but it sounds impressive enough. It’s also a nice publicity opportunity for the fest itself, which is hosting the film’s international premiere. Rome is under the management of former Venice head Marco Mueller, who is looking to make the lesser Italian festival a rival to the Lido in terms of prestige and press. That’s a long way off, but he’s going about it in the right way. [Rome Film Festival]

Oscar-winning cinematographer and director Chris Menges was the subject of an AMPAS tribute in London last week. Andreas Wiseman reports from the event. [Screen Daily]

David Poland gets Joe Wright and the principal cast of “Anna Karenina” on the couch. [Hot Blog]

Tom Ford, who knows a bit about these things, talks about dressing James Bond for “Skyfall.” This may surprise you, but suits are involved. [Vogue]

Nathaniel Rogers checks in on the Golden Horse Awards, China’s answer to the Oscars. The only nominee I’ve seen is Hong Kong’s Oscar submission “Life Without Principle” — I hope the others are better. [The Film Experience]

Glenn Whipp on why the Academy would do well to consider “Looper” for Best Picture, and why he knows he’s dreaming. [LA Times]

Scott Feinberg interviews his Hollywood Reporter colleague Todd McCarthy about the New York Film Festival, for which McCarthy is a selector. [The Vote]  

Speaking of Scott, who believes that “Life of Pi” won’t be nominated for Best Picture, Tom O’Neil disagrees so strongly he’s willing to make a bet. Over pie, of course. Mmmmm, pie. [Gold Derby]

Nick Davis rounds up the year’s best work so far in the fields of sound and editing. Would that the Academy could also notice how films like “Miss Bala” and “The Turin Horse” excel in these areas. [Nick’s Flick Picks] 

After going from “All the Real Girls” to “Your Highness,” it’d have been foolhardy to predict David Gordon Green’s next move, but still — who’d have guessed “Little House on the Prairie?” [The Guardian]

It’s a good week to be a fan of Nicole Kidman. First off, her deliciously scuzzy performance in “The Paperboy,” Lee Daniels’ ripe Southern-Gothic-meets-Southern-Comfort thriller, hits US screens on Friday — months after hogging the headlines at May’s Cannes Film Festival. While checking that out, meanwhile, viewers may be treated to the just-released trailer for another wild-looking genre outing for the actress, “Stoker,” from an unlikely director who typifies her off-center taste in collaborators — South Korean auteur Park Chan-wook.

The icing on the cake, meanwhile, comes tomorrow at the New York Film Festival, where the Oscar-winning actress will be celebrated — and, of course, interviewed — in a two-hour Gala Tribute, followed by the US premiere of “The Paperboy.” This marks the first year the New York fest have ever done such tributes, which makes the honor all the more distinguished for Kidman, underlining her status as one of the leading actors of her generation. 

So, as I said, a good week for Nicole Kidman fans — a group among which regular readers might know I’m happy to count myself a member. Kidman’s name is one that routinely comes up when people ask me to name my favorite contemporary (or, indeed, all-time) actresses, so this seemed as good a week as any to pledge my admiration in Top 10 form.

Indeed, at some level, a list — albeit a roughly ranked one — feels like the most appropriate way to honor a career perhaps best viewed in collective terms. Not that it wants for outstanding individual performances — and in a formidable range of registers, from austere formalist drama to zonked comedy — but it’s really the vertiginous contrasts and unlikely similarities between these projects that make her oeuvre special.

Kidman may have peers or elders (Cate Blanchett, say, or Meryl Streep, or Juliette Binoche) who can equal or better her for technical aptitude and professional cunning, but it’s hard to think of anyone who matches her for sheer recklessness of instinct. Her script selections range from the defiantly uncommercial to the befuddlingly fluffy — sometimes foolhardily so, but she doesn’t much fear failure either.

Both her best and her worst choices have often been driven by her adventurous taste in collaborators: she’s braved Lars von Trier and Stanley Kubrick, coaxed such iconoclasts as John Cameron Mitchell into meeting her halfway, flirted with Wong Kar-wai (though we’ll likely never see that come to fruition) and literally broken bones for Baz Luhrmann. Detractors may jeer flops like “The Invasion,” but wouldn’t you have wanted to work with Oliver Hirschbiegel after “Downfall?” (I’m less sure why she took on “Just Go With It” or “Trespass,” but a girl’s gotta eat, I suppose.)

In the gallery below, then, I count down the ten best performances to emerge from that combination of good taste, delicate technique and Down Under bravado. It’s a greatest-hits portfolio that, for my money, can go toe-to-toe with the best of ’em — and still it leaves out some strong work. Is her dumbly opportunistic floozy in “The Paperboy” — a turn I described at Cannes as “sexually strident and earthily funny” — good enough to make the cut? Check out the gallery, and be sure to share your own thoughts and favorites in the comments.

Earlier this afternoon I had a quick lunch with “Bernie” director Richard Linklater and star Jack Black. Millennium Entertainment has the duo in town for a few days hitting the east coast post-DVD circuit, trying to ride some of the buzz on the film and particularly Black’s performance and find a little room in the season. They could get there, at least with the Independent Spirit Awards and maybe the Golden Globes.

I’ll post the full interview in a few days, but in the meantime, a couple of nuggets about this and that. Like, for instance, Black’s first exposure to Linklater’s work. Like most, it was the director’s debut feature film “Slacker,” which, along with Steven Soderbergh’s “sex, lies and videotape,” was a harbinger of the 1990s independent film explosion. The film also celebrated its 20th anniversary last year. For Black, though, it was also revelatory of a whole community that, for a young actor working the audition circuit, seemed like a truly inspiring place.

Here’s the exchange:

Jack Black: “The first time I was introduced to his work was a little movie called ‘Slacker.’ Not to be confused with ‘Slackers.’ A lot of rookies make that mistake.”

Richard Linklater: “I’m glad you always make that distinction.”

JB: “I always make that distinction. I always call it ‘Slackers.’ I’m constantly fucking it up. ‘You gotta check out his first movie, ‘Slackers.’ Egggh. The thing that’s confusing is that there’s a ton of slackers in the movie. It’s not about one slacker. Why would you do that?”

RL: “It was perverse, I admit it.”

JB: “And then the poster has only one slacker on it. So you’re saying it’s about Madonna’s pap smear. She’s incredible.”

RL: “Teresa Taylor. Butthole Surfers’ drummer at that time.”

JB: “But she ain’t the only slacker. But yeah, I just wanted to live in Austin, Texas. I had never heard of Austin, Texas before that movie and I was like, ‘That is the destination.’ It just looked like the coolest most bohemian artistic scene in America. And so I started following him after that.

Check back in a few days for the full interview. Meanwhile, Black will be appearing on “The Late Show with David Letterman” tonight for a Mitt Romney bit, so be sure to tune in for that.

“Bernie” is available now on Blu-ray and DVD.

Just yesterday, I was talking about the likelihood of 8 year-old Quvenzhane Wallis becoming the youngest Best Actress nominee on record — but she’s not the only child actor making waves this year. TV critic Mary McNamara goes so far as to label 2012 “the year of the kid,” citing a number of young small-screen talents, alongside Wallis and “Moonrise Kingdom” leads Jared Gilman and Kara Hayward, as proving the universal storytelling power of “the shared experience of childhood.” Not mentioned in her piece, but tying into her argument are Best Actor hopeful Tom Holland from “The Impossible,” and two young standouts from foreign Oscar contenders: Berlinale Best Actress winner Rachel Mwanza in “War Witch” and Kacey Mott Klein in “Sister.” What others? [LA Times] 

Steve Pond gets a few more soundbites out of newly appointed Oscar host Seth MacFarlane, who assures us that his not going to turn the ceremony into “Family Guy.” Thank God for that. [The Odds]  

Josh L. Dickey on how one-time plucky upstart Lionsgate has, thanks to such golden eggs as the “Hunger Games” franchise, become the seventh major studio in Hollywood. [Variety]

Kristin Hohenadal talks to one of the greatest living cinematographers, Agnès Godard, about switching to digital for Switzerland’s superb Oscar mission, “Sister,” which opens Friday. [New York Times]

Speaking of foreign Oscar submissions, Nathaniel Rogers has fallen hard for the Philippines’ entry, “Bwakaw,” at the New York fest This field just keeps getting deeper. [The Film Experience] 

Geoffrey Macnab talks to Dustin Hoffman about making his belated directorial debut with golden-years drama “Quartet.” [The Independent]

Music critic Neill McCormick listens to Adele’s leaked “Skyfall” theme, and declares it “a Bond theme that actually stirs the heart.” [The Telegraph]

Peter Knegt joins the Oscar-predicting masses. No alarms and no surprises here, but it’s nice to have him in the mix. [IndieWire]

India’s Oscar submission, “Barfi!,” has drawn criticism in some quarters for its unapologetic cribbing of Hollywood movies; Mayasnk Shekhar and Heather Timons looks into the country’s complicated Oscar history. [New York Times]

Good news for UK film lovers: “The Master” will be getting a 70mm release exclusively in London’s largest cinema — usually given over to multiplex fodder — for two weeks in November, before going on general release. [ScreenGeek]

When I saw “Beasts of the Southern Wild” back in May at Cannes — in the early stages of a festival that, for all its cinematic riches, hadn’t offered awards pundits much to chew on — I felt emboldened to make my first confident Oscar prediction of the year: that, whatever the film’s fate elsewhere, 8 year-old Quvenzhané Wallis was poised to become the youngest Best Actress nominee in history, on the beguiling strength of her onscreen presence and off-screen charm.

I stand by that call, even if the category has got slightly more competitive than it seemed prior to Toronto. But if/when the young dynamo gets the nod, it’ll be without any help from that prime Oscar bellwether, the Screen Actors’ Guild — which has ruled Benh Zeitlin’s Sundance sensation ineligible in their 2012 awards. In addition to freeing up a Best Actress spot, that also takes the film out of the running for SAG’s ensemble prize.

The Hollywood Reporter reports that the unusual call has been made because the film was made outside the terms of the SAG Low Budget Feature Agreement, which requires that professional actors be used. With its vibrantly non-pro cast led by screen debutante Wallis and baker-turned-thesp Dwight Henry, “Beasts” proudly and purposely falls foul of that clause — the untrained quality of the performances is part and parcel of the film’s appeal. Feinberg writes that the film could reverse its ineligibility only if Fox Searchlight, along with all the film’s international distributors, offers further payment to the actors involved to bring matters in line with SAG standards — an unlikely scenario.

We’re used to seeing such Guild politics elsewhere — notably in the Writers’ Guild Awards, which annually disqualify legions of worthy screenplays for not meeting certain WGA signatory stipulations — but this is a far rarer occurrence with SAG. And, frankly, I think it’s all rather silly: how does one draw such an emphatic line between a professional and non-professional actor, and why would paying more money after the fact alter that status? (If 13 year-old newcomer Keisha Castle-Hughes could nab a SAG nod in 2003 for “Whale Rider,” what made her particularly more professional than Wallis?)

Should a film be penalized for not featuring so-called professional actors if the director’s vision dictates otherwise? A performance caught on camera is a performance, whatever the actor’s method — we’re only in a position to evaluate the onscreen effect, not the off-screen process. (I have similar qualms with those suggesting Wallis shouldn’t be considered for awards because she’s supposedly not “acting”; perhaps she isn’t, but then, some professional actors are coached by their directors more than others. Who’s to know?) 

Some will argue that this represents a setback in the Oscar campaigns of Wallis, Supporting Actor dark horse Henry and the film itself — and yes, given that “Beasts” isn’t likely Golden Globe fodder either, they’ll be more reliant on the critics’ awards to build their buzz than other contenders. (Ironically, it could be Wallis’s Searclight stablemate, Helen Mirren in “Hitchcock,” who fills her spot on the Guild ballot.) But the SAG roadblock is such an exceptional circumstance that I can’t see how it counts for much, particularly given this season’s compressed timeframe.

As Kris so often points out, the Oscars don’t mirror certain precursors because Academy voters are slavishly paying attention to them; it’s because the precursors themselves are picking up on what the community at large is thinking and seeing. My hunch is that the film and its pint-sized star will have enough champions at the year’s end that SAG will be the one missing out, not the other way round.

If you saw the Seth MacFarlane-hosted season premiere of Saturday Night Live a few weeks back, you likely got a little taste of what to expect at the Oscars this year. The Academy has announced that MacFarlane will emcee the 85th edition of the film awards ceremony, hot off a hit summer movie in “Ted” and, of course, years of success with television’s “Family Guy.”

“It’s truly an overwhelming privilege to be asked to host the Oscars,” said MacFarlane via press release. “My thoughts upon hearing the news were, one, I will do my utmost to live up to the high standards set forth by my predecessors; and two, I hope they don’t find out I hosted the Charlie Sheen Roast.”

Newly minted Academy president Hawk Koch added, “Seth is unbelievably talented. We couldn’t be happier with the creative team we’ve assembled. With Craig [Zadan], Neil [Meron], and now Seth, we’re off to a great start.” It should also be noted, this will be MacFarlane’s first appearance on the Oscar stage.

My take: PERFECT. Because I was really sold by that SNL appearance. MacFarlane will bring the right touch of irreverence without the Academy having to resort to Ricky Gervais (who, after the Golden Globe stints, feels a bit done now) and will be a fresh face amid countless stale picks over the years. The last time a host really popped upon announcement was Hugh Jackman (and, for a time, Eddie Murphy), and that’s because it was a new direction while not being a complete stretch.

Furthermore, the “Family Guy” thing does plenty to get the younger demographic somewhat interested. It’s too bad it’s a Fox show, otherwise ABC could use the characters for promos. Or could they still?

In any case, I’m excited and not that anyone’s asking me, but I say thumbs up. A great choice.

Here’s MacFarlane dropping the news on his dad:

And below check out MacFarlane’s opening monologue from SNL, which, if the deal wasn’t already lining up, probably had a lot to do with him landing the gig.

The 85th Academy Awards will take place at the Dolby Theatre on Sunday, February 24, 2013.

What do YOU think of Seth MacFarlane as the Oscars host? Have your say in the comments section below!