Next week Walt Disney Pictures will be premiering Pixar’s “Brave” in conjunction with the Los Angeles Film Festival at the newly named Dolby Theatre (formerly the Kodak) in Hollywood. But while it promises to be a fun time for the event at hand, the fact that it’s the grand re-opening of the space is what has me a little bit more excited.

See, I’ve never actually been in that room. No concerts, no Cirque du Soleil, no Academy Awards (I’ve never sought Oscar night credentials). So I’m happy to finally case the joint, as it were. But Dolby taking over the naming rights of the facility has also brought in the added attraction of its aural upgrades, namely the company’s new Dolby Atmos technology, which was first revealed at CinemaCon in April.

Touted by Dolby as “the most significant development in audio since the arrival of surround sound,” the promise of Atmos is an important one: keeping the theatrical experience unique and superior to what can be accomplished at home.

“The theaters want an immersive experience,” Dolby Senior Vice President Ioan Allen says in a promotional video for the technology. “That’s what keeps the cinema business thriving, and I think we’ve really achieved that.”

“Immersive” is obviously the key language there. Some have referred to Atmos(phere) as 3D for the ears, and indeed, providing an environment that virtually places the viewer inside the film has been a goal of theatrical for the last few years.

Dolby first started tinkering with Atmos in 2008/2009, around the same time James Cameron’s work with performance-capture 3D during the production of “Avatar” was a considerable talking point around the industry. If picture enhancement was taking such monumental (in some ways, detrimental, if you consider how most post-conversion jobs have turned out) strides in putting the viewer in the film, surely sound needed to keep up.

It’s perhaps too simple to merely say that Dolby Atmos takes the surround sound environment to the level of placing speakers on the ceiling. There are other elements at play, like the ability to send aural elements through each speaker in a “pan-array,” which differs greatly from panning sound from one wall of speakers to another. There is also the future-proofing benefit, allowing for a film to be “authored once, optimized anywhere,” as Dolby puts it. One digital sound file can be broken down amongst the various stereo, 5.1 and 7.1 systems present in theaters around the world.

Dolby held a big demonstration of Atmos technology at the Dolby Theatre Monday. In Contention was not on hand. Steve Pond was there and gave a concise rundown, but Brent Butterworth at Sound and Vision Magazine gave a real thorough assessment of things.

“Atmos…combines traditional multichannel audio (i.e., 5.1 or 7.1) with the new object-based audio also being touted by SRS [Sound Retrieval System],” he wrote at the mag’s Tech-2 blog. “With Atmos, a mix can contain as many as 128 objects and channels simultaneously. While the channels are assigned in the traditional way-front left, center, and right, plus side and back surrounds – the objects are assigned only vectors. That means they emerge from a spot in space (and if desired, move to another spot in space) rather than being assigned to a specific channel. The Dolby Atmos processor then ‘maps’ the objects to the available speakers in a theater.”

Nicholas Tsingos, Senior Manager at Sound Technology Platform, is one of a host of experts interviewed in the SoundWorks Collection’s brief but comprehensive sound profile of Atmos. “For the first time it features the ability to pan in three dimensions,” he says, further to Butterworth’s explanation. “So including both on the plane and on the ceiling of the environment. The mixer can also precisely pinpoint locations in the environment and render sound specifically from those locations, so that’s really interesting to tie off screen action more accurately to what’s happening on screen.”

Most compelling, though, is how Oscar-nominated sound editor Erik Aadahl (“Transformers: Dark of the Moon”) put it in the aforementioned promotional video: “Recently I’ve been thinking about this format and designing material to play in this format and I’ve been realizing more and more that this is like an instrument now. And the beginning will just be cracking the surface of what this format can do, but it itself is an instrument.”

I reached out to a sound design friend about this piece to make sure I sounded like I knew what I was talking about and to get his overall perspective on Atmos. “Essentially Atmos is a Dolby-fied version of this thing out of Germany a few years back called IOSONO with the major difference being IOSONO required literally hundreds of speakers in the theater to achieve the pan-array effect, and Dolby appears to be able to do it with far fewer,” he responded. “I will say that when I went to a demonstration of this technology it was mind-bogglingly awesome. You heard a drop of water fall just past your ear and land on your shoulder.

“It was admittedly distracting because we were only listening to audio without picture, but it was a game-changer. When you walked around the theater, your aural perspective never changed, meaning every seat in the house was the best seat, audio-wise…We all walked away from that demonstration super excited about the storytelling possibilities of the system…then we all agreed it was cost-prohibitive.”

Indeed, as revolutionary and pomp-and-circumstance-accompanied as Atmos may be, there are inherent caveats. And cost, as my guy notes, is a serious consideration. Ramzi Haidamus, Dolby’s Executive Vice President of Sales and Marketing, may have advised that “this is not [merely] about adding more channels and more speakers” at Monday’s demo, but nevertheless, those speakers aren’t cheap.

Then there’s the point, conceded even by Ioan Allen, that most films won’t need to employ the “voice of God” elements overhead. So it will be difficult to justify the cost of mixing in this format to studios.

And, as ever, the potential for unnecessary imposing on the overall film-going experience must be considered. “The mantra of the industry is that sound should never distract from picture,” my sound guy says. “And a poorly-mixed film could have me looking at a dark ceiling.”

Still, I bet that sandstorm sequence from “Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol” sounded SICK at Monday’s demo.

The bottom line is this: the implications are important. It’s interesting that the passing of the torch on the marquee at the Hollywood and Highland theatre from Kodak to Dolby, in the wake of film/analog’s decline, so elegantly marks the turn to the digital era. And that era must be tapped thoroughly for any answers to keeping the theatrical experience attractive to the public. Hopefully, Atmos is just one of many such answers.

Dolby recently announced that 20 theaters across the globe, including, of course, the Dolby Theatre, would be outfitted with Atmos this month.

Meanwhile, fingers crossed “Brave” is indeed able to take advantage of the new aural infrastructure next week. The film was the first to be test-mixed in Atmos, but a recent Deadline report suggested that, though the mix is complete, there is “no guarantee” that things would move ahead as planned. Something about necessary approvals not being sealed or something. I imagine it’ll all pan out in the end, though. I hope so, anyway. I’m eager to “hear the whole picture,” as Atmos’s tagline says.

One of the categories we did not touch in yesterday’s inaugural 2012 Oscar prediction was Best Documentary Feature, a race that routinely requires a greater magnifying glass than its narrative counterparts — and even then, tend to defy prediction. This year, however, I have less of an excuse than usual for not building up a documentary contenders list — because for the first time, the category’s eligibility schedule is more or less in sync with the US release calendar.

You may recall the recent rule adjustments the Academy, assisted by Oscar-winning firebrand Michael Moore, recently made to a beleaguered category that, on an near-annual basis, finds a way to exclude some of the year’s most significant documentaries from consideration. Last year, the critical wails were as loud as ever, as acclaimed favorites like “The Interrupters,” “Senna,” “Page One” and “Into the Abyss” failed to make the Academy’s longlist, while a number of scarcely-seen mediocrities took their place.

The milquetoast taste of the Academy’s documentary branch is largely to blame for such oversights, but the situation wasn’t helped by an opaque qualifying process that ran across separate years and allowed non-theatrical titles to enter the race with the barest of qualifying releases. Greater clarity was called for, and while the Academy can’t do much about voters’ preferences, they have attempted to simplify the eligibility issue: switching the qualifying window from January 1 to December 31, as it is for all non-ghettoized Oscar categories, and requiring that all contenders both complete a week-long commercial release in New York and Los Angeles theaters, and receive reviews in both the New York Times and Los Angeles Times.

Some complained that the new stipulations discriminate against smaller and/or distributor-less titles — to which one can only say that the Academy is damned if they do and damned if they don’t. As it stands, the new rules aim increase the relevance of the category by limiting the race to contenders that have some form of public and critical profile. That seems reasonable enough to me: you can’t expect people to care much about a category where no regular moviegoers have had a chance to view certain nominees. If you ask me, the Best Foreign Language Film award should work the same way.

Under the new system then, we (well, NY and LA folk, at any rate) have already seen half a year’s worth of contenders for the 2012 documentary Oscar — and in a category that’s less tilted toward late-year releases than most, that’s more than enough to begin the contender conversation. So, what are the January-to-June documentary standouts we should be considering?

The top-grossing non-fiction effort of the year so far doesn’t pose much of a threat: Disney may have racked up $28 million for their Tim Allen-narrated nature doc “Chimpanzee” (pleasingly, it sits one rung above Katherine Heigl’s “One for the Money” on the 2012 box-office ladder), but this kind of family fare needs to be a cultural phenomenon on the scale of “March of the Penguins” to register with voters.

Moving from the commercial champion in the field to the critical one, Jafar Panahi’s “This is Not a Film” would be a leading contender for the title if journalists had their way: the embattled Iranian filmmaker’s deeply personal, not-quite-categorizable essay on his own house arrest, filmed covertly and smuggled out of the country, has received a steady stream of critical adulation since premiering at Cannes last year. (For those of you who rate such statistics, it currently tops Metacritic’s 2012 chart with a score of 90.)

It’s arguably an even better news story than it is a film, but nonetheless, expect a number of critics’ awards at the year’s end. The fusty Academy voters, however, are more likely to take the film’s ironic title as given: even those aware of Panahi’s predicament may not be ready to accept an intimate film partly shot on an iPhone as one of the year’s best. 

Between those two poles, however, lie a number of more viable possibilities. Running a fairly distant second to “Chimpanzee” in the box-office stakes, with a healthy $3 million-plus gross, is the year’s most well-publicized documentary. Lee Hirsch’s “Bully,” a candid study of bullying in North American high schools, benefited from the mini-controversy over its MPAA rating: when its teen-delivered profanity earned at an R rating, effectively barring its target audience from seeing it unaccompanied, the ever-savvy Weinstein Company garnered much media awareness and sympathy from their (ultimately only semi-successful) appeal.

Reviews were mostly strong, particularly from the now-crucial coastal beacons, and the Weinsteins (who, amid their overwhelming domination of the 2011 Oscars, also nabbed the documentary prize for “Undefeated”) will no doubt campaign hard for it. Whether its cause célèbre backstory attracts or deters voters — and whether the middle-aged Academy is all that sympathetic to contemporary teen troubles — remains to be seen.

A more surprising, and far more modestly promoted, commercial success is “Jiro Dreams of Sushi,” a gentle character study dedicated to an 85 year-old Tokyo sushi chef widely deemed to be the world’s greatest. It doesn’t sound the likeliest topic for a feature, but critics and audiences alike have been charmed to the tune of over $2.3 million. If voters decide there’s room for a lighter entry on their ballots — or if, perhaps, they’re simply feeling hungry while watching it — this Magnolia Pictures sleeper could fit the bill nicely.

Rounding out the commercial success stories is an entry from a former Oscar winner: since taking the award for “One Day in September” in 1999, Kevin Macdonald has become more widely known for big-scale narrative work, but his substantial, straightforward “Marley” represents a robust return to the documentary form. A generous, entertaining account of the life and times of reggae legend Bob Marley, it’s perhaps a little too fat with detail — I wrote in my Variety review at Berlin that its 145-minute running time could hinder its crossover success, and I maintain that it could have done better if tightened a little — but it’s rousing and moving in all the right places. The Academy is often resistant to music documentaries, often preferring more self-consciously weighty human-interest fare, but Macdonald’s profile is a major plus. (A BAFTA nod for the British hit, meanwhile, is a safe bet.) 

Beyond that, things get murkier — though it’s not for lack of options. A glance at the New York release schedule reveals that over 80 feature documentaries (precious few of which I’ve seen, or even know anything about) have been released in the city so far this year. Meanwhile, it’d take someone with more time on their hands than I have to check how many of them had, or will have, a corresponding LA release, plus the requisite reviews. 

Still, a few titles seem worth keeping an eye on. If “Marley” can’t overcome the Academy’s music-film resistance, perhaps the well-reviewed Paul Simon doc “Under African Skies,” with its added political resonance, can. “Indie Game: The Movie,” with its youthful focus on game developers, isn’t exactly up the Academy’s alley, but Sundance prizewinners should never be discounted in this game. “The Island President,” a look at the crises faced by first post-democracy president of the Maldives, won an Audience Award at Toronto last year, and could have the gravitas voters tend to favor in this race. Meanwhile, the film that polled just behind it in Toronto, IFC’s youth ballet doc “First Position,” is doing strong business and could be another contender for the category’s part-time cultural slot.

I could go on: “Marina Abramovic: The Artist is Present?” “Bill W.?” “Five Broken Cameras?” “Scenes of a Crime?” I think we can safely discount former nominee Morgan Spurlock’s double-shot of male-grooming doc “Mansome” and the self-explanatory “Comic-Con IV: A Fan’s Hope,” but I’m doubtless overlooking something. Have you seen anything that should be flagged up for consideration? Let me know in the comments and we’ll soon devise a skeleton for that Contenders page. 

For more views on movies, awards season and other pursuits, follow @GuyLodge on Twitter. 

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!

This article first appeared in part at InContention.com in 2009. It seemed like a good time to re-purpose it for new readers here at HitFix and to give the usual list-making shenanigans a rest for a week.

In case you”re like me and you happen to forget these things throughout the year, let today”s edition of The Lists serve as a reminder: Father”s Day is this weekend!

With that in mind, and as a personal tribute of sorts to my pops, who turns 59 this weekend in addition to celebrating his 31st Father”s Day on Sunday, I thought I”d offer up a rundown of the films that remind me of those days in front of the big console television growing up back east.

My personal movie awakening came in the mid-1990s, when films like Michael Mann”s “Heat” and Bryan Singer”s “The Usual Suspects” made me realize I wanted to have a hand in this business. But I can”t ignore the impact decades of film product had on my youth in the form of my father”s viewing habits. I didn”t like every film my Dad loved, but somehow, his taste frequently seemed to either correspond with my own or correspond with how it would eventually evolve.

There are a number of films that didn”t make the collective that deserve some measure of notice, despite not having a particular impact. Peter Hyams”s “Capricorn One” comes to mind, or horror flicks like William Girdler”s “The Manitou” and Stan Winston”s “Pumpkinhead.” Not to mention more recent efforts like George Tillman Jr.”s “Men of Honor.” And even though I remember watching “The Godfather” with Dad (and Mom, actually) as a kid, I don”t immediately connect the two when I consider that film today.

The order of the list is a mish-mash of criteria. I wouldn”t say it”s tiered by quality so much as by how much the films remind me of the old man (though quality certainly figures in here and there). Mostly, this is just a tip of the hat to one guy”s movie tastes that galvanized his son in some way. I hope you enjoy.

It’s that time of year. Well, no, not THAT time. Awards season is still a healthy ways off and anyone giving it overtly serious consideration right now is in for a hurtin’. But with 2012’s midway point fast approaching, it’s a valid time to take stock of the film year so far, and to take a glance ahead at the season to come.

And yes, I suppose it’s as good a time as any (on the early side of things) to update the sidebar predictions with uneducated stabs in the dark so we don’t go on looking like we’re living in the past.

First, a quick recap. Very quick, actually, as the only Best Picture stories of the year so far have been made on the basis of admittedly impressive box office success. But to me, considerations of “The Hunger Games” and “The Avengers” for serious Oscar contention feel a bit like hot air in the hot months with little else to grease the awards conversation gears.

On the flip side of box office success is, obviously, box office failure, as films like “John Carter” and “Battleship” and the already hypothetical crafts consideration they were expected to receive took on some damage.

One of the best films of the year is still one of the earliest films to release: Joe Carnahan’s “The Grey.” If Open Road senses some weaknesses in the later part of the year, I suppose they could bring it back around for re-release and test the waters. But perhaps the ship has sailed.

Also in the cream of the crop is Wes Anderson’s “Moonrise Kingdom,” already a box office lightning rod in limited release. But how far can Focus Features push it? And how long can they keep it alive, particularly with a perceived heavy hitter like “Anna Karenina” on the way?

Speaking of box office in limited release, the under-the-radar story of the season could well end up being Fox Searchlight’s “The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel.” The film has already crossed $100 million worldwide and is in the top tier of the studio’s box office successes to date. Not only that: Academy members eat it up with a spoon.

So on that point, this is a pretty good spot to start the looking ahead, and we might as well keep it with Searchlight. The studio has “Beasts of the Southern Wild” coming right around the corner in a shrewd counter-programming summer release slot, hot off festival kudos at Sundance and Cannes. Many are expecting it to be a big Oscar play for Searchlight, but there’s the studio’s other Sundance pick-up, “Six Sessions” (née “The Surrogate”), set for latter year release and potentially more viable. Oh, and who knows if they’ll be in business with Terrence Malick again for “To the Wonder,” and if it will make it out this year (I’m currently running on an assumption that it will)?

Regardless, it might be wise for Searchlight to pay attention to how “Marigold” is being received by those who have a vote.

Parent 20th Century Fox also has some things to work with this year, namely Ridley Scott’s sci-fi prequel “Prometheus” and Ang Lee’s “Life of Pi.” Footage of the latter is being attached to 3D prints of the former in an interesting strategy to raise awareness in the wake of a very successful CinemaCon reveal in April. There’s also “Won’t Back Down,” which could be a performance play for last year’s near winner Viola Davis and co-star Maggie Gyllenhaal.

Disney will have, in addition to its two sides of the box office spectrum (“John Carter” and “The Avengers”), one of the year’s perceived frontrunners: Steven Spielberg’s “Lincoln.” But no one wants to be chalked up as a frontrunner this early (even if “War Horse” pulled it off by a nose last season after being in a similar position). There’s also “Brave” from Pixar and in-house animated efforts “Frankenweenie” and “Wreck-It Ralph.”

The aforementioned “Anna Karenina” is looking like a big play for Focus Features, along with “Moonrise Kingdom” and the animated “ParaNorman.” The ensemble from “Hyde Park on Hudson,” fronted by Bill Murray doing his best FDR, could be additional leverage. This or that could pop up in addition from the company, but for now, it’s a pretty straightforward line-up.

Paramount Pictures has been in it in a big way the last few years. In the post-Vantage era, multiple campaigns per year have been the norm. This year, though, save maybe some performance considerations for “The Guilt Trip,” some crafts pushes for “Jack Reacher” and a serious animated campaign with DreamWorks on “Rise of the Guardians,” there’s just one major film in sight: Robert Zemeckis’s “Flight.”

I’ve offered this up as a potential below-the-radar contender already, but at the very least perhaps stars Denzel Washington and Kelly Reilly will find support. And a lengthy airline crash sequence could pique the interests of the sound and visual effects branches. Regardless, it’s a pretty slim and streamlined slate for Paramount this year.

The complete opposite of a slim and streamlined slate? Warner Bros., which is bringing on added firepower in the form of successful Oscar strategist Cynthia Swartz (who spearheaded campaigns for “Crash,” “No Country for Old Men” and “The Hurt Locker”) to assist long-time WB strategist Michele Robertson with a heavy load.

Hopes will be high for Christopher Nolan’s Batman denouement “The Dark Knight Rises” after “The Dark Knight” was such a fixture (though ultimate Best Picture snubee) in the 2008 Oscar season. Also on the blockbuster side of things is Peter Jackson’s “The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey,” which has some big shoes to fill as well after each film in the “Lord of the Rings” trilogy saw major awards success.

Scaling back a bit, but still big and bold, we have Baz Luhrmann’s “The Great Gatsby,” which might not even be an awards play at the end of the day. After all, the director’s only real brush with Oscar was “Moulin Rouge!” over a decade ago. Nevertheless, the film appears to be a design showcase.

My hunch, though, is that, with all this heavy firepower, little, unassuming “Argo” — from director Ben Affleck — is going to look like something special. There’s also the Clint Eastwood starrer “Trouble with the Curve,” Steven Soderbergh’s “Magic Mike” and genre fare galore. And who knows if “Cloud Atlas” will release and be a player?

After a bit of a drought, Universal will finally be sporting a contender with meat on its bones in the form of Tom Hooper’s “The King’s Speech” follow-up, “Les Misérables.” Much like “War Horse” last year, the sight-unseen heavy launched a summer teaser to get the conversation going. Meanwhile, the studio will also have things like “The Bourne Legacy” and Judd Apatow’s “This is 40” to play with. Who knows about Oliver Stone’s “Savages,” which has one of the more headache-inducing trailers out there (in my humble opinion)?

Summit Entertainment might have a pair of sleeper possibilities in Stephen Chbosky’s self-adapted “The Perks of Being a Wallflower” and Juan Antonio Bayona’s “The Impossible,” both of which are stirring positive word. A Lionsgate merger brings “The Hunger Games” into that fold, but, again, I think major awards consideration for that young adult phenom go a bit too far.

Looking out over some of the smaller companies out there, IFC Films will be taking “On the Road” into the season with a full-on campaign for awards after bowing it at Cannes, while Magnolia Pictures has things like Sundance documentary premiere “The Queen of Versailles” and Sarah Polley’s “Take This Waltz.” Millennium Entertainment (“Bernie”), Oscilloscope Pictures (“Wuthering Heights”) and CBS Films (“Seven Psychopaths,” “The Words”) all have campaigns to play with, depending on what kind of money they want to spend. And Sony Pictures Classics will have a typically big and varied slate, Michael Haneke’s Palme d’Or winner “Amour” joining the likes of “Rust and Bone” and “West of Memphis,” among others.

Speaking of Sony, there’s big Sony, which has had a busy couple of seasons between “The Social Network,” “The Ides of March” and “Moneyball.” They slid on past a potential disaster with “Men in Black III” this summer and have “The Amazing Spider-Man” set for next month, but Kathryn Bigelow’s bin Laden hunt thriller “Zero Dark Thirty” will be a heavily anticipated title later in the year.

Finally, there’s our returning champion: The Weinstein Company. Harvey had a pretty big presence at Cannes this year, even if he didn’t walk away with a story like “The Artist” to carry him into the season. “Lawless” and “Killing Them Softly” each landed, well, softly, and he picked up the lightweight “The Sapphires” for a potential push, as well as Dustin Hoffman’s directorial debut, “Quartet.”

However, two auteurs in Quentin Tarantino (“Django Unchained”) and Paul Thomas Anderson (“The Master”) lie ahead yet. A lot of talk about David O. Russell’s “The Silver Linings Playbook” is coming out of the company, too, but who knows what kind of misdirection is afoot. The trick in an awards season these days is to keep people looking the other way, because if they see you coming, they could talk you to death.

Guilty.

Now, who knows which of these could fall off the 2012 map and take a seat until next year? And who knows what is lurking, waiting for a soft spot in the schedule? Things that are filming or recently wrapped are always worth keeping an eye on, whether it’s Scott Cooper’s “Out of the Furnace” from Relativity, Sacha Gervasi’s “Hitchcock” from Searchlight or this and that from Focus and Universal (we’ll see on those).

Then there are any number of films awaiting acquisition that could be latter year spoilers, the most attractive of those being Mike Newell’s “Great Expectations,” Shari Berman and Robert Pulcini’s “Imogene,” Jeff Nichols’ “Mud” and James Gray’s “Lowlife.”

But I think the above is plenty to chew on for now.

So with that foundation laid, Guy and I have put our heads together to crank out the year’s first set of Oscar predictions, which can be found in the right sidebar, per usual. The Contenders section has also been re-populated with ranked list of 30 contenders in every — yes, every — Oscar category. Well, save the handful of fields that need a few more layers stripped away before we can really start analyzing them. Guy has also offered up his opening salvo for the new season, searching for those little engines that could.

Please don’t take all of this too seriously. We’re just knocking the ice off the windshield here. We haven’t even cranked the car. The season is still a few months off and we won’t update these considerably until just before the starting gun in late August, so for now, consider this a setting of the field. We’ll get back to it all in due time.

For year-round entertainment news and awards season commentary follow @kristapley on Twitter.

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!

After three peaceful months in which the “O” word was among the furthest things from my mind — even at Cannes, where unusually few films sparked such speculation — the distant-but-not-invisible threat of the 2012 awards season entered my consciousness in a number of ways this week.

First, before a screening of the emphatically not Oscar-bound “Rock of Ages” (hey, I don’t mean that as a slight), my usual no-trailers policy was involuntarily broken as Warners subjected me to gorgeous glimpses of “The Great Gatsby” and “The Dark Knight Rises”… and as much as the moviegoer in me got excited, I’d be lying if I said my mind didn’t wander to their intriguingly uncertain awards prospects. The next day, I had only myself to blame to raising the subject. After seeing Sarah Polley’s wonderful “Take This Waltz,” due for US release later this month, I foolhardily tweeted that it feels like a viable Oscar play for Michelle Williams — only to wish I hadn’t said anything as numerous followers replied with their skepticism.

Then, as if unwittingly punishing me for these tentative steps, Kris suggested that we finally dust the cobwebs from our Contenders pages and get the 2012 Oscar predictions under way. With the 85th Academy Awards ceremony still, reassuringly, over eight months away, it may seem absurdly early to start drawing up charts, but we’re far from the first site to do so. And as I spent the weekend wallowing in names and titles I haven’t seen and of which, frankly, I have only the dimmest knowledge, the words “TOO SOON” still flashed in big red capitals in my brain.

As Kris will point out in his introductory column, you can count on a vast number of the predictions to your right being wrong. This or that year-end prestige production will inevitably disappoint; this or that middleweight contender will inevitably have longer legs than we’re currently imagining. Until we — and by “we,” I don’t just mean those of us in cosseted festival environs — see the movies, we’re doing little more than pinning assorted tails on donkeys.

Even within this distinctly scattershot game, however, there’s a range of strategic approaches. Many pundits opt for the tack that a major prestige hopeful is innocent until proven guilty, predicting a nomination in every conceivable category, and waiting for critical, commercial or precursor stumbles to dictate otherwise. It’s the safest way to play the game, particularly with the widened Best Picture category allowing films far more room for error: last year, “Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close” and “War Horse” scraped top nominations despite a tepid reception and significant precursor shut-outs.

While the first year of the enlarged Best Picture field pretty much obeyed the Academy’s wish for more populist and genre fare at the expense of more obvious contenders — hello, “District 9” and “The Blind Side,” goodbye, “Invictus” and “Nine” — the years since have proved it to be more of a safety net for falling Oscar-bait. Following this wisdom, widely presumed frontrunners like “Lincoln” and “Les Misérables” would have to bomb pretty hard with critics and audiences alike not to figure in the final lineup.

Which is not to say, however, that it’s necessarily correct to predict them as frontrunners. When drawing up such long-lead prediction lists, I’ve always favored a different tactic: anticipating upsets as well as inevitabilities, guessing potential underachievers and identifying potential sleepers. It’s as spotty a clairvoyant process as any — I may have struck gold by predicting Oscar success for “The Artist” last summer, but didn’t believe in “The King’s Speech” for far too long the year before — but no less enjoyable for it.

Which is why you might notice certain films featuring more prominently in Kris’ Contenders pages than in mine. (Like last year, we’ve split them 50-50, but have swapped some categories to keep us on our toes.) He, sensibly, sees little reason to bet against glittering prestige titles like “Anna Karenina” and “Les Mis” — but with little more than gut feel to go on, I’m not sure either film will live up to expectations in this regard. Neither of us is right or wrong at this stage: “too obvious” is a phrase that comes up a lot in this game (certainly in mine), but sometimes, as “The King’s Speech” taught us after bluffing behind “The Social Network” for most of the season, the most obvious answer is eventually the correct one.

Betting against frontrunners, however, usually requires a reserve team of alternative contenders to field in their place. (Do forgive the tortuously mixed sports metaphor here.) Those can be tricky to pick out — a sleeper, by definition, isn’t easily seen coming — and while I again got lucky with “The Artist” last year, I have more than enough doomed predictions for the likes of “Made in Dagenham” and “The Informant!” to remind me that most little engines that could, in fact, couldn’t. 

There’s plenty of time yet for the underdog challengers to announce themselves — after all, in June 2008, “Slumdog Millionaire” was still headed for straight-to-DVD obscurity — but this year, they’re harder to spot than usual. Unlike last year, Cannes didn’t launch too many potential Oscar stories — unless you read Harvey Weinstein downplaying the chances of cheery Aussie export “The Sapphires” as a diversionary tactic. However, ecstatic audience response (and a further brace of trophies) confirmed what Sundance had already announced: that the Searchlight-backed “Beasts of the Southern Wild” is shaping up as a feisty indie contender, with 8-year-old Quvenzhané Wallis (start practicing that name, Mr. Sherak) poised to break an age record in the Best Actress race.

The universally reverent critical response to Palme d’Or winner “Amour,” meanwhile, set it up as this year’s “A Separation” — i.e. the foreign-language favorite that brooks no argument. Ironically, that sets it up even more comfortably in the Best Original Screenplay and Best Director categories, both ruled by reasonably cosmopolitan voting branches, than in Best Foreign Language Film, where the question of which country will even submit it remains.

With the familiarly austere “Amour” nonetheless ranking as Michael Haneke’s most accessible film to date, foreign-language experts Sony Pictures Classics even have a chance of breaking into Best Picture, a category that has shamefully remained a wholly English-language zone through its three years of expansion. You’ll notice its broadly acclaimed leads in our Best Actor and Actress charts, too, though Sony may have a better international hopeful in that area with crossover star Marion Cotillard in “Rust and Bone” — the film didn’t get quite the push it might have hoped for out of Cannes. But her superb performance as a disabled whale trainer will benefit from the typically male focus of most of the supposed big-league studio contenders. 

Indeed, Best Actress currently looks the most indie-friendly of the major categories — a situation already leading some observers to label it a “weak” field, however strong the individual performances in play might be. Sundance has been a generous feeder for this category in recent years — since 2008, Melissa Leo, Carey Mulligan, Gabourey Sidibe, Annette Bening, Jennifer Lawrence and Michelle Williams have all started their awards trails a year ahead of time at the January fest — and this year looks to be no different, with Wallis and Helen Hunt (in the retitled “Six Sessions”) both having received a significant head start in Utah. (Fingers crossed that Hunt gets to shake off the “one-and-done” disdain that surrounds her unfairly maligned 1997 win for “As Good As It Gets.”)

With both Sundance ladies, as well as their respective vehicles, likely to receive a lot of help from Fox Searchlight, my prediction of a third consecutive nomination for Williams in the Magnolia-backed “Take This Waltz,” which hasn’t amassed a storm of buzz since bowing at Toronto last year, might seem a little optimistic, particularly with seemingly baity work from Keira Knightley and Laura Linney waiting to pounce. (That Williams’s performance kicks last year’s nominated “My Week With Marilyn” turn into next week is, regrettably, a secondary concern.)

Still, this early stage of the game is the best time to take note of the worthy and potentially Academy-friendly work that we have seen — with many months yet to get caught up in heavyweight uncertainties, seeing the trees for the forest isn’t always a bad thing. I’ve often been surprised by the staying power of a modest first-half possibility: “Away From Her,” say, or last year’s Best Actor lurker “A Better Life.” A nomination for Liam Neeson in “The Grey?” Absurd, sure — but given what we know at this point, no less absurd than predicting Best Picture for “Lincoln.” Have fun.

Check out Kris’ broad, per-studio rundown of the upcoming awards season here and, of course, enjoy devouring our Contenders section here.

For more views on movies, awards season and other pursuits, follow @GuyLodge on Twitter. 

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!

Someone noted recently that we didn’t put up a call for reactions to Wes Anderson’s “Moonrise Kingdom.” It’s been moving steadily through a very limited release for a few weeks (and breaking box office records previously held by “Brokeback Mountain” in the process — both are Focus Features films), but this weekend it tacked on 80 screens. So maybe more of you will have a chance to check it out now. Personally speaking, as someone not in the Anderson wheelhouse at all, I quite liked it. So head on back here whenever you get around to it and let us know your take. And if you’ve already seen it, join in! Also, feel free to rank the film above.

I was out of town for all the LA “Prometheus” press screenings, so I’ll be heading out to the theater in a few to catch it myself with the masses. I actually had hoped to hit the midnight screening last night but it sold out. For now, though, I’m sure plenty of you will have something to say on the matter as Ridley Scott’s film has been one of the most anticipated of the year. When you get around to it, head on back here with those thoughts and soon enough, I’ll dive into the conversation with you. Also, feel free to rank the film via the tool above. (UPDATE: Okay, I’m back. Incredibly disappointing.)

Your heart has to melt for Quentin Tarantino. The guy is nothing if not protective and supportive of his crews, many key members loyal to him over the years.

Back in 2010, he was dealt a blow when long-time editor Sally Menke tragically died amid hot summer temperatures while hiking in Runyon Canyon, and today, the production designer of his hotly anticipated western “Django Unchained,” J. Michael Riva, has reportedly died at the age of 63, according to Variety.

Tarantino has worked with designer David Wasco for the majority of his career and Riva was a bit of a departure for “Django.” But judging by the look of the film in the trailer, which just hit the net yesterday, the collaboration is a fruitful one. Filming has been taking place at the Melody Ranch Motion Picture Studio up in Newhall, California, north of Los Angeles, and is currently on-going in New Orleans.

But it’s not just “Django” that Riva put his name on this year. He was also the production designer of Marc Webb’s reboot “The Amazing Spider-Man,” which hits theaters this summer and is notable for its grittier departure from the high key look of Sam Raimi’s original trilogy (the third of which he himself designed).

No cause of death has been given at this time, though the Variety story reports that Riva died in a hospital.

Riva’s career has been a rich and varied one, the kind I imagine any designer would covet. He never found himself in a stylistic rut. He was Oscar-nominated for Steven Spielberg’s “The Color Purple” in 1985, the same year his work on Richard Donner’s Spielberg-produced “The Goonies” was given an opportunity to shine.

Riva teamed with Donner a number of times over the years, in fact, including stints on “Scrooged” and the “Lethal Weapon” series, among others. Most recently he had waded out into superhero waters, heading up the art departments of Jon Favreau’s “Iron Man” films on the heels of the aforementioned “Spider-Man 3.”

Not to be indelicate and go to such matters, but I think it’s entirely likely Riva was already on his way to awards season recognition for his “Django Unchained” work this year. The film, as noted, appears to be a design showcase that pops, Robert Richardson’s photography capturing a buffet of flourishes. Pity that recognition will be posthumous, but Riva’s work lives on, on the screen.

Riva’s swansongs, “The Amazing Spider-Man” and “Django Unchained,” open nationwide on July 3 and December 25 respectively.

I apologize for leaving my Cannes coverage somewhat unfinished. General fatigue combined with the post-festival distractions of Paris to put all film-related thoughts on the back burner for a week — which frankly, with films as gnawingly variegated as “Holy Motors” or the only superficially tidy “Amour,” can only aid an eventual review. All will be discussed eventually; the films, sadly, are many months away yet.

I did, however, want to start my Cannes catch-up work with a personal viewing highlight about which I’ve received more questions from readers, Twitter followers and the odd colleague than any of the festival’s big winners — perhaps as a result of my placing it one slot ahead of Michael Haneke’s Palme d’Or winner in Indiewire’s critics’ survey of the best of the fest. Invited to name the best five films across all strands of the festival, I didn’t stray too far from consensus: alongside “Amour,” films like “Holy Motors,” “No” and “Rust and Bone” were hardly short of champions. What, then, was “Ernest and Celestine” doing among them?

A humble French-Belgian animated feature aimed squarely and unapologetically at the very little ones — no smug postmodern foolery in the “Shrek” vein here, though there’s plenty to charm adults regardless — “Ernest and Celestine” was an eleventh-hour relief in a festival that, however stimulating, had been markedly short on joy. I’d marked it early on as a viewing priority in Directors’ Fortnight, having been a keen admirer of Belgian directing duo Stephane Aubier and Vincent Patar’s previous feature, the gleefully antic stop-motion curio “A Town Called Panic.” Animation of any form is a rarity at Cannes; to see it in the carefully curated Fortnight lineup was most exciting.

Sadly, scheduling conflicts conspired to make me miss the film’s festival screening — an oversight that piqued me more than most until a market showing popped up on the penultimate day. The downside, given the screening’s target audience of European buyers, was that there were to be no English subtitles this time round: my schoolboy French was going to have to carry me through.

I needn’t have worried. From first watercolor-textured frame to last, “Ernest and Celestine” is schooled in the gentle economy of picture-book storytelling: its words are witty and well-chosen, yes, but it’s the delicate visual construction of its parallel worlds that invites the most scrutiny and empathy. Based on a bestselling series of French children’s books, it shares with “A Town Called Panic” its off-center intelligence and methodical environmental detail, but surprises by being that film’s tonal opposite in almost every other respect: sweetness and compassion trump anarchy here, and yet the film, co-directed with first-timer Benjamin Renner, doesn’t feel like a cop-out. Instead, it’s the kindest, purest celebration of friendship I’ve seen on screen so far this year.

That the friendship in question is between a lonely, busking bear and an orphaned, artistically-inclined mouse — the Ernest and Celestine of the title — wouldn’t make this any less humane an exercise, even if the anthropomorphism on display were less extreme. As it stands, adults and children alike can attach as much allegorical value as they wish to the film’s curiously divided under-versus-overground story world, wherein the subterranean-dwelling mouse population has long been at war with the bears above ground. (Both strata are littered with quirky practical details: that dentistry is the rodents’ dominant industry is a touch that will please anyone who, like me, grew up with a Tooth Mouse instead of a Tooth Fairy.)  

When Ernest and Celestine, neither of whose bohemian inclinations makes them a natural fit in their respective societies, meet and swiftly bond despite their ingrained distrust of the other species, their eventual escape — a chaste elopement, of sorts — to Ernest’s remote forest hut is a bolder act of social rebellion than either of these furry naifs seems to realize. Ascribe a racial or class-based reading to this story if you like: either works, as a pair of neatly twinned climactic court cases bring both populations to the epiphany that, hey, they aren’t so different after all. Still, lest one risk flying too many symbolic flags off this easygoing kids’ fable, this is less preoccupied with PC notions of community than the value of connecting with just one like mind.

If that’s a roundabout way of saying that this cotton-soft, pastel-hued romp nonetheless made me sniffle here and there, I’d prefer to see it once more — with subtitles, this time — before I make yet greater claims for its emotional subtext. Even taken as minor whimsy, however, the film remains a delight, not least for animation buffs: I imagine more digital assistance than is immediately evident might have gone into the film’s graceful pencil-and-wash aesthetic, but the gorgeous results still evoke classic illustration techniques. He may not have written the source books, but one senses Maurice Sendak would be proud.

For all its universal charms, “Ernest and Celestine” is still seeking a US distributor. The film represents a slight challenge to prospective backers: it’s perhaps too child-focused for the kind of highbrow arthouse play that, say, “The Illusionist” received through Sony Pictures Classics, but a little too quiet and rarefied for a crossover kid audience, even in redubbed form. GKIDS, which has recently handled such in-between animated items as “A Cat in Paris” and “Chico and Rita” (earning Oscar nods for both), would be the ideal home for Aubier, Patar and Renner’s lovely film — though as Kris wrote recently, their slate is already looking quite robust. “Ernest and Celestine” is exactly the kind of classy, exquisitely crafted European item that regularly springs a surprise in the Oscar race; here’s hoping it gets a chance to do so.

For more views on movies, awards season and other pursuits, follow @GuyLodge on Twitter. 

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!

One of the films you’ll soon see I’m pretty high on for the upcoming awards season is Ben Affleck’s “Argo.” I don’t know what it is but I just find myself rooting for Affleck to really succeed behind the camera. Guys like him, Bennett Miller, George Clooney, Tom McCarthy, Scott Cooper, Billy Ray, Sean Penn, they trade in a sort of stripped-down, frill-free cinema that nevertheless never sacrifices thematic potency for subtle strokes.

It’s interesting to note, then, that a number of those filmmakers are either current or former actors themselves. Affleck did his time building a movie star image that eventually became fodder for gossip column inches, and he also made his share of dubious role choices. But he was surely always learning from those experiences. He is still, after all, an Oscar winner for one of the richest screenplays of the late-1990s.

So with that in mind, I happened to be watching “Kevin Smith: Burn in Hell” last week. It’s another of the director’s Q&A specials, this one taking place in Austin, Texas after a screening of his latest film, “Red State.” (Whatever you might think of Smith or his films, I think he’s always had shrewd insight into the business and I really enjoy these appearances. If you ever make it to Comic-Con, it’s worth it to check it out, as he has a standing program there to just take the stage and listen to questions from his fans.)

Early on in the special, one attendee brings up Affleck and mentions how relieved he is that the actor/director is out of the doghouse following the success of films like “Gone Baby Gone” and “The Town.” He asked Smith if Affleck ever reached out to him for some advice on the gig, and of course, Smith was self-effacing and noted that Affleck’s talent would inevitably be borne out.

I’ve included a clip from the special below. This exchange starts at the 10:22 mark, so feel free to scroll down and watch for yourself if you prefer, but I thought I’d just offer up Smith’s thoughts here, too.

“That dude was always going to pop as a director,” Smith says, “because most actors, when they transition to directing — think about it, you sit behind how many directors over the course of your career, watching a bunch of different styles? You see people doing it all the time. You pick and choose. You’re like, ‘Oh, I’d do that.’ ‘I would never do that myself.’ ‘Ooh, that seems like a good idea.’ So you’re putting together a trick bag without even knowing it.”

It reminded me of some things Affleck said back in November of 2010 when I sat down with him to talk about “The Town.” We were in the middle of discussing his potentially teaming up with “Good Will Hunting” collaborator and best buddy Matt Damon on another project. The problem, Affleck says, is Damon’s so busy as an actor, and with incredibly talented directors calling him up — Steven Spielberg, Robert Redford, Martin Scorsese, the Coen brothers, etc. — who can blame him. But he’s learning from all those experiences, and, Affleck predicts, will make a hell of a director when he finally takes the plunge.

“Matt is honestly a great director who hasn”t directed a movie yet,” Affleck said at the time. “He”s extremely smart about movies. He really understands how to make a scene work. He has really unique ideas and he has the ability to see a movie from the audience”s point of view. I think that”s what makes him a great writer and it”s what”s going to make him a great director. He really gets that perspective, and it sounds obvious, but it isn”t. For a guy who”s made a lot of art movies, he”s got a very strong sense of satisfying an audience in a broad and interesting way.”

That’s obviously the kind of thing you can really acquire as someone on the other side of the camera, I think, and it’s part of what makes Affleck’s directorial work stand out so far. It’s smart, economical filmmaking that entertains without overwhelming. And the trailer for “Argo” promises more of the same.

“Ben let the performances go front and center [in ‘The Town’],” Smith continues in the clip. “Ben let the actors kind of speak for themselves in that movie and it was a performers’ movie. The cinematography looked great but it was really an actors’ flick. So I was proud of him for that, because this was the dude who was on ‘Chasing Amy’ constantly trying to tell me how to make the movie. He was always, not so much directing, although he’d say, ‘God dammit, move the camera. Move it!”

From there Smith goes on to detail Affleck’s cherry-picking of the “Red State” cast for “Argo,” which features actors like John Goodman, Kerry Bishé and Michael Parks who appeared in Smith’s film. It’s a funny story that leads to Affleck’s pull quote for the poster (which wasn’t used, but is still funny in context): “I fucking love this movie MORE than Quentin Tarantino!”

Check it out below. The second part is also available on YouTube here.

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpydeIT-5Ns&w=640&h=360]

One more trailer today — a sneaky one. If you take a look at the slate of films Paramount Pictures has for this year’s Oscar season, you’ll find that the studio might want to go shopping on the fall festival circuit. But for a company that isn’t huge on acquisitions, particularly for awards product, you can bet that’s not likely to happen.

What you’re left with are two films: the animated “Rise of the Guardians” out of DreamWorks and Robert Zemeckis’s first live action film in over a decade. The latter is “Flight,” starring Denzel Washington as an embattled airplane pilot in legal hot water following his crash-landing a commercial flight — and saving many lives in the process.

The smart play for Paramount this year might just be to focus on a smaller slice rather than split its focus across a wide spectrum. Indeed, the last few (post-Vantage) years have seen collectives like “Star Trek”/”Up in the Air,” “The Fighter”/”Shutter Island”/”True Grit” and “Hugo”/”Super 8″/”Young Adult” chew up that focus (not that they haven’t come out with plenty to show — four Best Picture nods in those three years, after all).

The trailer for “Flight” was launched — quietly — today on Apple and is strongly constructed. But it’s aiming for commercial value, where, as I hear it, the film is a little more dialed in and dramatic than that representation. But it could be something worth paying attention to when the season really starts to heat up (and as the film releases right in the middle of it). Could Washington be in the hunt for his first nomination since winning Best Actor over 10 years ago in “Training Day?”

We shall see.

I’ll get into this a little bit more next week when we offer up an initial preview of the upcoming Oscar season. For now, have a glimpse of “Flight” below and tell us what you think in the comments section or by rating the trailer yourself above. The film opens in theaters November 2.

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RtCMIe9oj8&w=640&h=360]

The Weinstein Company is bursting at the seams with possibilities for this year’s awards season, as I’ll detail further when I write up the year’s first Off the Carpet column next week. One of those films is Quentin Tarantino’s hotly anticipated “Django Unchained,” which gets a nice, shiny trailer today on the heels of some footage that debuted at the Cannes Film Festival last month.

It looks like an exciting western romp, as we might have expected. Leonardo DiCaprio appears to be having a blast. Everyone does, really. There are lots of immaculately crafted frames throughout, proving what we already figured: the material is a showcase for lenser Robert Richardson. Indeed, all the design elements in the film appear to be top notch.

I like that Tarantino is stretching his work into the realm of period with this and “Inglourious Basterds” before it. And I have rather high hopes that the western genre will get a healthy injection by the box office success this is sure to have (a nice compliment to the success of “True Grit” two years ago).

With this and the recently revealed “Les Miserables” trailer, it’s clear studios are beginning to get their prestige/potential awards fare out there in the consciousness. Disney did the same thing with that mid-summer “War Horse” teaser last year and more and more, using opportunities like Cannes and Comic-Con to unveil this and that and get the conversation going is becoming the norm.

Drew McWeeny offered a very thorough write-up on the footage presentation of The Weinstein Company’s year-end product, including “Django Unchained,” out of Cannes. (I don’t know how he remembered all of that.) “It was so confident, so alive, and so very, very funny in execution that I have to believe Quentin’s on his way to another monster hit here,” he wrote at the time. “The cinematography by Robert Richardson looks great. The production design is lush and period-accurate.  The soundtrack choices were great.  And Christoph Waltz appears to be well on his way to his second major awards season in LA next year.”

Indeed, we can now gather as much for ourselves from the new trailer. Check it out below and feel free to rate it up there in the space provided above. “Django Unchained” hits theaters Christmas Day.

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rC8VJ9aeB_g&w=640&h=360]

Rather like that dully nice party guest whose name refuses to stick in the memory, “Bel Ami” is a film of which I have had to be reminded more than once this year. I saw it back in February, in the wilting days of the Berlin Film Festival, and even then a colleague had to wheedle me into accompanying him. The film evaporated from memory within days, only to crash it once more as London bus banners bedecked with Robert Pattinson’s face flashed past my living-room window, announcing the film’s March release in the UK. It swiftly exited consciousness again, in a fug of limp reviews and indifferent box office, only to resurface this week, with a fresh round of critical sighs signalling the film’s arrival in US screens on Friday. 

I meant to review “Bel Ami” out of Berlin, but somehow kept putting it off until the film slipped my mind altogether. Nearly four months later, I still think my tweet review pretty much suffices. The film is a harmless would-be prestige picture whose only real prestige lies in the pilfered genius of Guy de Maupassant — the 19th-century French author’s sly society satire, concerning a dim Parisian cad ascending the political ladder on the backs of his mistresses, here simplified into a ruffled bed-hopping soap, preoccupied principally with getting Pattinson and the attractive female ensemble into tasteful states of undress.

Every bit as anonymous and over-sweetened as its Europuddingy production cachet and untested directing duo of Declan Donnellan and Nick Ormerod would suggest, its virtues — an indistinct, well-appointed prettiness, a reasonably spiky supporting turn from an oddly cast Christina Ricci — are as unremarkable as its lumpen, floss-headed flaws. Pattinson pouts effectively enough in it, though his curiously compelling blankness is far better showcased in the soon-to-be-released “Cosmopolis”; Uma Thurman is, as has too often been the case lately, regrettably stiff and mannered; Kristin Scott Thomas, bafflingly cast as a reed-weak naif, has a rare off-day. (If you’re looking for her to light up a lame tissue-paper movie, check out “Salmon Fishing in the Yemen” instead.)

That’s about the size of it: “Bel Ami” is, to pull a Nick Davis quote from his 2009 review of “Cheri” (not coincidentally, a slightly superior Berlin premiere that this one more than passingly resembles), a film for those “who like the house best when there’s no real art in it.”

And yet I have a curious hunch that — as forgotten as the film will rightly be by the time the awards-season conversation begins in earnest — it’s likelier than many far better first-half releases to score a single Oscar nomination come January. The Best Costume Design category has been a safe haven over the years for many a sharply dressed, roundly dismissed flop, and “Bel Ami” fits the profile pretty tidily — not least because Odile Dicks-Mireaux’s Belle Epoque-era threads, if not especially witty or character-building (certainly not as much as the designer’s more modest, but deservedly BAFTA-nominated, work on “An Education”), are very lovely indeed.

It’s a well-known maxim among awards-watchers that, in the Academy’s technical categories, more tends to be more — and the yards of richly colored silk, crinoline and taffeta, bound by further reels of ribbon, that decorate these drawing-room shenanigans certainly make for one of the year’s more fabric-heavy films so far. (My notes from the screening are sparse, but at one point the words “SO MANY HATS” were scrawled in exhausted capitals.)

The first-half release schedule has been generous to costume-watchers: between the exotic fantasy garb of the twin Snow White films (see my celebration of the late Eiko Ishioka’s threads in “Mirror Mirror” and Kris’ interview with “Snow White and the Huntsman” costumer Colleen Atwood) and the more classical corset-porn of “Bel Ami,” there’s already plenty of stuff up the costume branch’s alley to compete with the colder-weather charms of “The Great Gatsby,” “Anna Karenina,” et al. (This branch is friendlier than most to early releases: “Jane Eyre” stuck in their minds all the way from March last year, though it was a significantly better film.)

I’m not explicitly predicting that “Bel Ami” will be up for a golden statuette in nine months’ time — much less relishing the idea. But the branch that has recently allowed such otherwise undistinguished films as “The Affair of the Necklace,” “Troy” and “W.E.” to forever brand themselves Academy Award nominees lives to bestow a sense of accomplishment on the “Bel Amis” of this world, rewarding excellence in craft even in films where said excellence seems to exist in a title vacuum. It’d be untrue to say that “Bel Ami” is a film about its frocks — it’s a film about nothing at all — but it certainly knows more about them than anything else. This might not be the last time I’m reminded of its name.  

For more views on movies, awards season and other pursuits, follow @GuyLodge on Twitter. 

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!

Science-fiction fans have been looking forward to “Prometheus,” Ridley Scott”s return to the genre, for over a year. The film has already opened in Europe after its London premiere last Thursday and comes to U.S. theatres this weekend. Scott has long been renowned for his contributions in the field — “Blade Runner” and “Alien” — as both films have shaped the genre’s visual and thematic aesthetic in a broad context.

The grittier feel of the futuristic depictions became the norm rather than the exception in the wake of “Alien””s immediate success and “Blade Runner””s long-term impact, as did the genre blending Scott employed in each (sci-fi/horror in “Alien” and sci-fi/noir in “Blade Runner”). Scott gave himself a mandate to discover a new way to approach and refresh the genre with “Prometheus.” One of the ways he”s done so is to evolve and expand upon artist H.G. Giger”s original imagery, depicting the primordial integrated with the technological.

The director is, of course, known for his visual palette and dynamic use of the camera and that tradition continues with his employment of 3D technology in “Prometheus.” But he is also a director who respects actors, one who frequently generates an atmosphere wherein they are able to shine. Scott utilizes multiple cameras to provide the talent with the freedom to let a scene play out and, like a good leader, has both the clarity of his vision as well as the flexibility to allow them to discover for themselves.

Scott has directed five actors to Oscar nominations: Geena Davis and Susan Sarandon (“Thelma & Louise”), Russell Crowe and Joaquin Phoenix (“Gladiator”) and Ruby Dee (“American Gangster”). It”s exceedingly difficult to narrow the performances in Scott”s films down to a top 10, even when we limit it to his science fiction fare, but that’s what we’ve done for this week’s installment of the lists. It seemed a good way to go because each of these films is built on the power of ensembles, with interesting singular notes within each.

There are indelible moments to be found in even the most minimal of roles. Joe Turkel”s turn as Dr. Eldon Tyrell in “Blade Runner” stands out as one such example, as does Guy Pearce”s Peter Weyland in “Prometheus ” and the viral campaign that supported the film”s marketing (perhaps it”s something to do with the portrayal of ruthless captains of industry). Though I would count William Sanderson”s J.F. Sebastian, the prematurely aging toy creator in “Blade Runner,” as a part of that cadre as well.

Tom Skerrit”s Dallas, Harry Dean Stanton’s Brett and Yaphet Kotto”s Parker from the crew of the Nostromo in “Alien” each served to ground the film and are worthy of noting as well.

The list has shifted and restructured several times over as I”ve been writing it and I feel certain that there are those who may disagree with some of the selections, as well as the order, and there may well have been an alternate list on another day. There are elements to Charlize Theron”s turn as Meredith Vickers, the “company woman” of “Prometheus,” that count as some of my favorite from her body of work, but, ultimately there were other performances that I felt compelled to highlight. The first three of my final selections, numbers 10 through eight, will likely be particularly controversial.

Take a look at the list in the gallery below and feel free to rate the selections as you go. Be sure to share your own thoughts, or even your own list, in the comments section!

UPDATE (6/6): Well, GKIDS just announced another acquisition, this one with an expressly intended Oscar qualification release noted: “From Up on Poppy Hill.” Add that one to the fire.

EARLIER: I’m asked daily at this point so I guess I’ll just say, yes, predictions are coming. By the end of the month.

One of the things I start doing around this time of year, in preparation for that package, is suss out the animated feature category as best I can. Things change often with this field as we’re always focused on the magic number of qualifying contenders necessary for five nominees (16), and even that can offer surprises as this film or that fails to submit paperwork, or this or that pops up as a sudden fringe possibility.

Last year there were three such possibilities, all of them from scrappy indie GKIDS. The distributor landed its first (surprise) nomination in the field back in 2009 for “The Secret of Kells” and muscled in with two showings last year for “A Cat in Paris” and “Chico & Rita.” This year, once again, GKIDS has a few options.

Via press release this morning, the company has announced the US acquisition of “The Rabbi’s Cat” (thought to potentially show up last season) and “Zarafa,” both of them set to screen at the upcoming Annecy Animation Festival. The former actually won the festival’s top honor last year. Also set to play the fest are 2011’s “Arrugas (Wrinkles),” as well as “The Secret of Kells.”

However, the company has two other films primed for the fest, “Le Tableau,” which premiered at Berlinale earlier this year (alongside “Zarafa”), and “A Letter to Momo,” which bowed at the Toronto Film Festival last year.

So to break all that down, GKIDS has four films in the mix for 2012’s animated feature category so far: “A Letter to Momo,” “The Rabbi’s Cat,” “Le Tableau” and “Zarafa.” Add that to the other films presumably in play and I’m already looking at a list of 18 titles.

We all know Pixar will be back in a big way with “Brave” via Disney, and the Mouse House will also be pitching Tim Burton’s “Frankenweenie” and the arcade-styled “Wreck-It Ralph.”

DreamWorks will be looking to capitalize on a solid showing last year with two more productions, “Madagascar 3: Europe’s Most Wanted” and likelier bet “Rise of the Guardians.” Sony, meanwhile, didn’t get far with “Arthur Christmas” last season, but they’re right back at it with “Hotel Transylvania” and “The Pirates! Band of Misfits” this time around.

Elsewhere, Fox will be bringing another “Ice Age” film into contention, “Ice Age: Continental Drift.” Focus will have another Laika production in “Coraline” follow-up “ParaNorman” and Universal will have “The Lorax” to play with.

That’s 14, but I also have my eye on four currently distributor-less titles that could find a home and push things into the five-nominee realm: “Dorothy of Oz,” “Ernest and Celestine,” “Pablo” and “Zambezia.” And who knows what other wild cards are out there?

Remember, according to the new rules installed last season, there could be anywhere from two to five nominees, depending on the number of eligible contenders. Per last year’s rules and eligibility language, “In any year in which 8 to 12 animated features are released in Los Angeles County, either 2 or 3 motion pictures may be nominated. In any year in which 13 to 15 films are released, a maximum of 4 motion pictures may be nominated. In any year in which 16 or more animated features are released, a maximum of 5 motion pictures may be nominated.”

Last year we had 18 eligible animated feature films. This year it looks like we’re well on the way to that number if not more.

So there’s a little taste of the year to come. Again, we’ll be setting early predictions (many of which will be wrong anyway) in the next few weeks. So bear with us as we finally get those hammered out and slowly wade into the upcoming Oscar season.

So the MTV Movie Awards are tonight. I don’t think I’ve said or typed that phrase in years. I think there was a time when these awards had a slightly transgressive place in the world. But that time came and went, likely faster than I remember.

I’m talking about a time when films like “Menace II Society” and “Se7en” could win awards for Best Movie and still seem to be a vote from the youth. Maybe it’s the movies that changed. Maybe things like that stopped appealing to an audience fed a steady diet of “Harry Potter” and “Twilight.” But it would be rather difficult to imagine Quentin Tarantino today offering of his “Pulp Fiction” win in 1994, “Pop quiz, hot shot. You go to awards shows all year long. You keep losing to ‘Forrest Gump.’ What do you do? You go to the MTV Movie Awards.” Though props for the “Speed” reference, sir.

But rather than get hung up on such things, I thought I’d use tonight’s 21st annual show as an opportunity to go back in time, to June 10, 1992, and a look at the first annual MTV Movie Awards.

Those were the days. Day-glo, glam rock hanging on by a thread, gangsta rap hitting the suburbs, grunge taking hold, “The Real World” was actually interesting, Clinton playing sax on Arsenio and a whiff of change in the air. Dennis Miller, fresh off SNL and on his way to HBO was our host. Live entertainment on the show included performances from En Vogue, Ugly Kid Joe, Arrested Development and Vince Neil, cranking out his “Encino Man” track “You’re Invited (But Your Friend Can’t Come).”

Are the memories back yet? Good, now — let’s take a look…

BEST PICTURE (“Terminator 2: Judgment Day”)

The big winner that year all across the board was “Terminator 2: Judgment Day,” and I actually think it’s a legitimate choice given the demographic and the film itself, hardly a big dumb actioner. Still, “JFK” is one of the greatest films of all time, and since it was shockingly in the mix, I’d have to go with that. The other nominees were “Backdraft,” “Boyz n the Hood” and “Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves.”

BEST MALE PERFORMANCE (Arnold Schwarzenegger in “Terminator 2: Judgment Day”)

“Terminator 2” again, this time for Arnold Schwarzenegger. The big guy added a lot to the mythos of the character this time around, and I certainly would have given him the edge over Kevin Costner (“Robin Hood”) in the category. But it’s difficult to argue against Robert De Niro’s lunatic in “Cape Fear” and Val Kilmer’s eerie channeling of Jim Morrison in “The Doors.” I’d have to go with De Niro.

BEST FEMALE PERFORMANCE (Linda Hamilton in “Terminator 2: Judgment Day”)

The nominees were Geena Davis, representing “Thelma & Louise” by her lonesome (though both her and co-star Susan Sarandon were nominated for Oscars), Rebecca De Mornay in “The Hand That Rocks the Cradle,” Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio in “Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves,” Julia Roberts in “Dying Young” and our winner, Linda Hamilton in “Terminator 2: Judgment Day.” I’d lean toward Davis but it’s an ugly category.

MOST DESIRABLE MALE (Keanu Reeves in “Point Break”)

I’m secure enough in my sexuality to offer an opinion here, I think. Somehow Jean-Claude Van Damme was in the mix for “Double Impact” alongside Kevin Costner in “Robin Hood,” Christian Slater in “Kuffs” and Keanu Reeves and Patrick Swayze in “Point Break.” To be perfectly honest, I can’t argue with the eventual winner: Keanu. Dude jumped out of a plane without a ‘chute.

MOST DESIRABLE FEMALE (Linda Hamilton in “Terminator 2: Judgment Day”)

Linda Hamilton won this for “Terminator 2” and, well, “desirable” isn’t the word I’d use for her in that film. Particularly when you have Christina Applegate (“Don’t Tell Mom the Babysitter’s Dead”), Kim Basinger (“Final Analysis”) and Tia Carrere (“Wayne’s World”) hitting the height of their hotness. Julia Roberts rounded out the nominees in “Dying Young,” and if you’re asking me, I gotta go with Tia. Schwing!

BREAKTHROUGH PERFORMANCE (Edward Furlong in “Terminator 2: Judgment Day”)

Another award for “Terminator 2,” this time for Edward Furlong. He was nominated alongside “Veep” star Anna Chlumsky (“My Girl”), Campbell Scott (“Dying Young”), Ice-T (“New Jack City”) and Kimberly Williams (“Father of the Bride”). God, I don’t know. Furlong really popped back then so I guess I’d side with the popular vote.

BEST ON-SCREEN DUO (Mike Myers and Dana Carvey in “Wayne’s World”)

Okay, now we’re getting a little silly. The obvious answer here is Geena Davis and Susan Sarandon in “Thelma & Louise,” who were nevertheless beat out by Mike Myers and Dana Carvey in “Wayne’s World.” I’d have even gone with Damon Wayans and Bruce Willis in “The Last Boy Scout” over those two, but, alas. The other nominees were Anna Chlumsky and Macaulay Culkin in “My Girl” and Kevin Costner and Morgan Freeman in “Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves.”

BEST VILLAIN (Rebecca De Mornay in “The Hand That Rocks the Cradle”)

A fun category. Wesley Snipes in “New Jack City?” Alan Rickman in “Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves?” Robert Patrick in “Terminator 2: Judgment Day?” Lots of diversity. Rebecca De Mornay won for “The Hand That Rocks the Cradle” but of course Robert De Niro should have walked away with it for “Cape Fear.”

BEST COMEDIC PERFORMANCE (Billy Crystal in “City Slickers”)

The boys from “Wayne’s World” were of course in the mix, as was Steve Martin in his “Father of the Bride” remake and eventual winner Billy Crystal in “City Slickers.” If you’re asking me? I laugh my ass off at Bill Murray in “What About Bob?” every time I see it, so chalk me up for that.

BEST SONG FROM A MOVIE (“(Everything I Do) I Do It for You” from “Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves”)

It was never going to be anything but chart buster “(Everything I Do) I Do It for You” from “Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves” from crooner Bryan Adams. I challenge you to think back on 1991-1992 and not think of countless times you heard that thing playing. Still, I’ve have gone with Eric Clapton’s “Tears in Heaven” from “Rush.” MC Hammer was in the mix for “Addams Groove” from “The Addams Family,” as was Color Me Badd for “I Wanna Sex You Up” from “New Jack City.” The category didn’t limit itself to original songs, which should help explain the latter, as well as Guns N’ Roses’ “You Could Be Mine” from “Terminator 2” being in the mix.

BEST KISS (Anna Chlumsky and Macaulay Culkin in “My Girl”)

Ah, the truly novel addition of the MTV Movie Awards. Well, this and the next category. And the winner was perfect: Anna Chlumsky and Macaulay Culkin in “My Girl.” It just had more spark and resonance than the smooches from Anjelica Huston and Raul Julia (“The Addams Family”), Annette Bening and Warren Beatty (“Bugsy”), Juliette Lewis and Robert De Niro (“Cape Fear” — you know, the creepy scene) and Priscilla Presley and Leslie Nielsen (“The Naked Gun 2 1/2: The Smell of Fear”). And I can’t believe I just broke that category down.

BEST ACTION SEQUENCE (“Terminator 2: Judgment Day”)

The winner here was the L.A. Freeway Scene from “Terminator 2: Judgment Day,” which beat out sequences from “Backdraft,” “The Hard Way,” “The Last Boy Scout” and “Point Break.” Hard to argue.

John Singleton won the inaugural Best New Filmmaker award for “Boyz n the Hood,” which is perfectly reasonable, while Jason Vorhees won the Lifetime Achievement Award for the “Friday the 13th” series, which obviously could have been better considered.

The nominees for this year’s awards, hosted by Russell Brand, include “Bridesmaids,” “The Hunger Games,” “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2,” “The Help” and “The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn – Part 1.” You can check out the full list of contenders at Awards Campaign, but I think we can surmise it’ll be between the two young adult adaptations, but c’est la vie. It’s MTV.

I’ve been out of town for about a week and a half so I’ve missed the screenings for “Show White and the Huntsman,” which opens today. A friend at Fox told me some time ago that Charlize Theron gives “one of the great Al Pacino performances of the 1990s,” which is hilarious to me. Alas, I don’t have an opinion yet. We talked to costume designer Colleen Atwood about her work on the film, though, and even dedicated a list to her greatest work. No surprise that the design elements seem to be getting most, if not all, of the praise, but we’d love to hear what you think. So give us your thoughts in the comments section below if/when you get around to seeing the film.

We would probably be a bit remiss around these parts if we didn’t bring up two summer screening series the Academy is launching this year: “Oscars Outdoors” and “The Last 70mm Film Festival.”

The former was initiated at the organizations new outdoor facility in Hollywood with an exclusive screening of “Field of Dreams” on May 19. Highlights of the upcoming schedule, which kicks off June 15 with an already-sold-out screening of “Casablanca,” include “The Goonies,” “Shane,” “The Dark Crystal,” “North by Northwest” and “Back to the Future.” The idea is to screen classic and contemporary adult gems on Fridays and family-friendly fare on Saturdays.

Meanwhile, a press release issued today promoting the latter program asserted that “as theaters increasingly move towards digital projection, there has never been a better time to celebrate these vibrant, clear 70mm prints.” That program kicks off on July 9 with a screening of “It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World.”

I was lucky enough to attend my film school at a time when it had a considerable film print collection (which has largely been parsed out since). Part of that collection was an impressive set of 70mm prints and I was able to bask in the big (BIG) screen glory of films like “Aliens,” “Baraka” and “2001: A Space Odyssey.”

The latter film will be part of the Academy’s series, screening on August 6. Others include “Sleeping Beauty,” “Grand Prix,” “The Sound of Music” and a new print of another Stanley Kubrick epic, “Spartacus.”

If you are or will be in and around the Los Angeles area, I’d certainly encourage you to give these two series a shot, particularly the 70mm program. Tickets for “Oscars Outdoors” are $5 for general admission and $3 for students and Academy members. Series passes for “The Last 70mm Film Festival,” meanwhile, are $20 for general public and $15 for students and Academy members. Tickets for individual 70mm screenings will go on sale Friday, June 29, if any are available.

For year-round entertainment news and awards season commentary follow @kristapley on Twitter.

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!