One of the few surprises of last season’s Academy Awards nominations announcement was the fact that the animated feature category made room for not one but two of the fringe indie titles doing battle with big guns like Disney and DreamWorks. Both films — “A Cat in Paris” and “Chico & Rita” — were distributed by little engine that could GKIDS.

The studio has just announced the voice cast for the English language version of the film, which will release in New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco and San Diego on June 1. The stars include Marcia Gay Harden, Anjelica Huston and Matthew Modine (who will be seen in “The Dark Knight Rises” late this year).

Further dates for the film will be set for Chicago, Washington DC, Boston, Seattle, Denver, Atlanta, St. Louis and other major and secondary markets throughout the summer.

The press release breaks the plot down thusly: “Dino is a cat that leads a double life. By day he lives with Zoe, a little girl whose mother is a detective in the Parisian police force. But at night he sneaks out the window to work with Nico, a slinky cat burglar with a big heart, whose fluid movements are poetry in motion as he slips and swishes from rooftop to rooftop across the Paris skyline.

“The cat”s two worlds collide when young Zoe decides to follow Dino on his nocturnal adventures – and falls into the hands of Victor Costa, a blustery gangster planning the theft of a rare statue. Now cat and cat burglar must team up to save Zoe from the bumbling thieves, leading to a thrilling acrobatic finale on top of Notre Dame.”

I had been meaning to watch the film — which I didn’t much care for at first look — a second time in the run-up to last year’s Oscars, but I never could find the time. I was mostly taken with its visual approach, an ode to noir and Pink Panther-esque shenanigans. But I was very happy that a little company like GKIDS could have such an impact on the race.

GKIDS’ previous Oscar nominee, “The Secret of Kells,” also wasn’t my cup of tea. However, that they could nab three nods in three years shows there’s some leeway amongst the heavy hitters, and hope for some dynamic original visions that aren’t drowned in corporate interest to pop up in the animated feature category.

This year’s race already features such titans as Pixar (“Brave), Disney (“Frankenweenie,” “The Secret World of Arriety,” “Wreck-It Ralph”), DreamWorks (“Madagascar 3: Europe’s Most Wanted,” “Rise of the Guardians”) and Sony (“Hotel Transylvania,” “The Pirates! Band of Misfits”). There will be presumably artful players in Laika/Focus’s “ParaNorman” and the above-mentioned “Brave,” but what fringe hopefuls are waiting to make their mark — and waiting on a savvy studio like GKIDS to adopt them and make the most of it?

Time will tell.

The director: Walter Salles (Brazilian, 56 years old)

The talent: As if the long-awaited adaptation of Jack Kerouac’s Beat classic wasn’t going to attract enough eyeballs already on the Croisette, it comes packed to the gills with star names: Viggo Mortensen, Amy Adams, Kirsten Dunst (who, of course, is the festival’s reigning Best Actress), Steve Buscemi, “Mad Men” star Elisabeth Moss, Terrence Howard and, most excitingly to the red-carpet hordes, Kristen Stewart, whose prominent role here should hopefully remind “Twilight” sceptics of the form she’s displayed in such smaller projects as “Adventureland” and “The Runaways.” 

Against all this star-wattage, the film’s co-leads, Sam Riley and Garrett Hedlund, are comparatively low-profile — probably a cunning choice for two roles where decades of casting speculation (and any number of megastars attached over the years) has amped up the pressure on whoever plays them. Both men come with points to prove. “TRON: Legacy” was supposed to do more for American hunk Hedlund’s brand than it eventually did. Meanwhile, the wiry, offbeat Riley made a startling breakthrough five years ago in “Control,” but hasn’t consolidated it since — we’ll put his badly misjudged turn in the badly misjudged “Brighton Rock” behind us.

Also seeking a return to form is screenwriter Jose Rivera, who scored an Oscar nomination for his last collaboration with Salles, the similarly tricky adaptation “The Motorcycle Diaries,” but whose biggest screen credit since then has been, er, “Letters to Juliet.” Another “Diaries” contributor returning to Salles’s team is brilliant French cinematographer Eric Gautier (“Into the Wild, “Summer Hours”), who has another Competition credit this year on Alain Resnais’s “You Ain’t Seen Nothin’ Yet.” Completing the “Diaries” reunion: composer Gustavo Santaolalla, who has won two Oscars since Salles’s 2004 film announced him to the world at large, and production designer Carlos Conti. Editor Francois Gedigier, whose previous credits include “Dancer in the Dark” and “Queen Margot,” is new to the director’s crew, as is Oscar-nominated costume designer Danny Glicker (“Milk”).

Producers Charles Gillibert and Nathaneal Karmitz have an impressive arthouse résumé that includes more foreign-language fare in the vein of “Certified Copy” and “Summer Hours,” while Francis Ford Coppola, who bought the rights to Kerouac’s novel over 40 years ago, retains an executive producer credit.

The pitch: If you’re among the millions who have already read “On the Road” — something of a compulsory text for a particular breed of teens, college students and slackers alike — you hardly need this paragraph. Kerouac’s autobiographical novel, written in 1951 and published six years later, is the definitive portrait of the author’s self-described Beat generation, the post-WWII wave of free-living, intellectually engaged and societally unbound young adults. Taking place between 1947 and 1950, the five-part book recounts a series of road trips undertaken by narrator Sal Paradise (Riley), a divorced, displaced writer, and his feckless on-off friend Dean Moriarty (Hedlund), their travels peppered with conflicts and encounters with revolving-door set of women, and underpinned by their doomed resistance to settle.

A film adaptation of the novel has been mooted since the 1960s: while certainly not “unfilmable,” as some have branded it over the years, with its formless, episodic structure and itchily wordy prose, it’s hardly surprising that it’s taken this long to come to fruition. Salles and Rivera have taken on a beast, but after taming another daunting road-based text in “The Motorcycle Diaries,” they’ll be hoping to repeat the trick. 

The pedigree: This is Salles’s third time in Competition at Cannes, though he has yet to win a prize from the jury: “The Motorcycle Diaries” was rewarded with Ecumenical Jury Prize (and went on to land him a BAFTA, among other year-end honors for the film), while his polite but tepidly received 2008 follow-up, “Linha de Passe” won a surprise Best Actress award for Sandra Corveloni. His biggest European festival coup remains the Golden Bear at Berlin for his Oscar-nominated 1998 breakthrough “Central Station.” “On the Road” is his first English-language work since his 2005 horror remake “Dark Water,” an attempt to crack the mainstream that is better than some would have you believe.  

The buzz: In terms of media attention, buzz is through the roof: the star-spangled cast, combined with the film’s classic, even cult-inspiring, source material and famously protracted journey to the screen, ensures this will be one of the biggest red-carpet draws of the festival. (If nothing else, it’s prompting certain message-board groupies to expand their literary horizons beyond Stephenie Meyer, so hurray for that.) Critically, however, the film has rather a lot of scepticism to overcome: there are many who believe Kerouac’s novel resists successful screen treatment, while others would prefer a more aggressive stylist than Salles, not a name that gets auteurist cinephiles particularly fired up, to have taken it on. A predictably handsome trailer answered few questions, so it’s all to play for. Still, news of the film being acquired by IFC and Sundance Selects promises a healthy arthouse profile even if the critics don’t swoon.

The odds: The bookies can sometimes be distracted by shiny star names, but not this time: with Paddy Power odds of 25-1, the film is at the back of the pack for the Palme d’Or, and will really need to wow the Croisette to turn that around. (That said, if Rivera does even a serviceable job of this daunting adaptation assignment, he could be in line for Best Screenplay honors.) An encouraging critical response, backing up its prestige-season US release, would be a big enough win for the film. 

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

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!

The director: Carlos Reygadas (Mexican, 40 years old)

The talent: As usual with writer-director Reygadas, non-professional actors are the order of the day here — performance doesn’t tend to be a driving factor in his filmmaking, and here, human figures appears more assimilated into the mix than ever before. More important to note is that cinematographer Alexis Zabe, who conjured such astonishing imagery in Reygadas’s previous film “Silent Light,” is back on board here — as is that film’s editor, Natalia Lopez. More so than most auteurs in Competition, however, Reygadas is overwhelmingly the dominant presence in his work.

The pitch: Reygadas’s fourth feature is being talked up as his most non-narrative effort yet — which, considering the fluid structures of his previous works, is saying something. The title is Latin for “light after darkness,” which suggests a certain continuity with “Silent Light” — certainly, to judge from the many luscious stills floating around online, we’re in similarly painterly, ethereal atmospheric territory to his last film.

There are, apparently, autobiographical elements in this one, with Reygadas having shot portions in every country he has, at one point or another, called home: Mexico, England, Spain and Belgium. The cryptic official synopsis claims the film centers on a young family in rural Mexico, “enjoying and suffering a world that understands life in a different way” — more straightforwardly (if not specifically), the director has described the film as being about “feelings, memories, dreams, things I”ve hoped for, fears, facts of my current life.” Between this lofty personal agenda and the dazzling imagery on display, has Reygadas made his own “Tree of Life?”

The pedigree: His career may be young, but Reygadas is already a Cannes regular — all four of his features have premiered on the Croisette, and “Post Tenebras Lux” is his third to play in Competition. “Japon,” his 2002 debut, played Critics’ Week and earned him a runner-up mention for the Camera d’Or prize for debut directors. “Battle in Heaven” marked his first Competition entry in 2005: it earned no prizes, but “Silent Light” shared the Jury Prize in a tight field in 2007, while the fawning reviews it garnered sealed his place on the arthouse A-list.

The buzz: Very strong indeed. Thierry Fremaux didn’t disguise his excitement about the film at the Competition press conference, while emphasising its highly personal and esoteric qualities; secondhand word from a colleague who has seen it concurs that it is “bonkers… but fantastic.” Reygadas’s first two films proved rather polarizing, but “Silent Light” cultivated a solid group of worshippers who are champing at the bit for this one. Given what we know, however, the new film’s crossover potential sounds limited.

The odds: Largely due its lack of name appeal, the bookies don’t rate this one’s chances much, giving it 33-1 odds for the Palme d’Or. I think they could wind up with egg on their faces: for my money (literally so, as I placed £10 on it a few weeks ago), “Post Tenebras Lux” is a formidable contender for top honors, with Reygadas ripe for the prize and the film’s technical and personal scope sounding decidedly Palme-friendly. The risk is that it could prove too remote for the jury — Nanni Moretti isn’t a dedicated formalist, and after recent wins for “Uncle Boonmee” and “The Tree of Life,” it may be the turn of more immediate storytelling to come out on top. Still, an award of some variety — Grand Prix? Best Director? — seems likely.

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

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!

Michael Mann’s 1992 colonial epic “The Last of the Mohicans” will be celebrating its 20th anniversary this year, if you can believe it. The film — an adaptation of James Fenimore Cooper’s novel — has remained a highly regarded effort in the director’s filmography, which mostly consists of modern urban yarns concerned with the law and order imposed by man.

But it’s the law and order of nature — as it gives way to the impositions of occupiers — that largely governs the tone and atmosphere of his fourth feature. The film is unique in Mann’s canon for its period trappings, but of a piece with his penchant for deep emotional currents that announce themselves only in the nuance of performance.

Indeed, it is still the film’s sweeping romance, its epic sadness, its viscous sense of honor that resonates emotionally to this day.

Mann has tinkered over the years with his preferred version of the film. The first cut he assembled for Fox in 1992 was around the three-hour mark and necessitated considerable trimming for commercial purposes. The DVD release was touted as an “expanded director’s cut” but featured only minor additions throughout the film. Finally the Blu-ray release in the fall of 2010 was stamped as “definitive,” the director’s final say. Again the nuance of the assemblage was tweaked.

In honor of the film’s 20th anniversary, the American Cinemateque premiered the DCP of that cut at the Egyptian Theatre in Hollywood Friday night. Mann was on hand for a Q&A session following the screening and he reflected on how his evolution as a filmmaker informed the nips and tucks along the way.

“I understand story better [now],” he told the LA Times’ Geoff Boucher, who moderated the session. “When I was doing the original in 1992, I wanted to jam or insert the audience into the narrative so that things would just happen and you kind of tried to find out where I am in context, kind of inductively. And that wasn’t really serving the story. There’s a hopefully much clearer path in this version. The story is presented in a more deductive way.”

Given the way he talks about it, one might think the alterations have been drastic over the years, but really they’ve been more about the minutiae and essence of things than anything else. Naturally a filmmaker like Mann, obsessive with the details of his productions (going so far as to craft dense backstory for his characters, catnip for actors), would want to peel back such subtle narrative layers.

Mann first saw the most famous previous version of the story, George B. Seitz’s 1936 production, when he was three or four years old. It had a lasting impression on him, he said, because of two fragmented ideas that had bounced around inside his head ever since.

“[There was] something to do with this corollary tragedy, that was very sad, of a suicide, which of course I was recalling Alice and Cora,” he said. “And there was something about the anomaly of Indians who didn’t look like how I recalled Indians looking for movies, because of course they were Northeastern woodlands Indians — they were Iroquois — in conjunction not with cowboys but with red coats. So something just stuck.”

Trying to figure out what production he wanted to mount in 1991, which was five years removed from his last theatrical feature (he had been working in television consistently at this time), he suddenly remembered these remnants of the story. He went to Fox brass and set about carving a new film out of the novel.

The production was a physically grueling one. “Everybody was in the best shape of their lives,” Mann joked. Hiking 45 minutes up the mountains of North Carolina Appalachia, the cast and crew all pitched in to transport equipment and reach the breathtaking locations that are key to the film’s identity. Additionally, a fully functioning, three-sided recreation of Fort William Henry was a gigantic undertaking. The whole production, Mann said, was a “massive operation.”

Nevertheless, he quipped that he probably had a more difficult time adapting what is notorious for being a poor piece of literature.

“It’s not a very good book,” he said. “James Fenimore Cooper had vast real estate holdings in 1825 when he wrote the book. So the novel is almost a justification for a massive land grab…that the Euro-Americans will be a better steward of the riches that God bestowed upon American Indians. And that, of course, was not the perspective of American Indians. So the revision of history was one of the things I didn’t care for in the novel.

“What really saved us was [Louise-Antoine,] Comte de Bougainville — who later goes to Hawaii and discovers Bougainvillea, which we have all over Los Angeles — he wrote a diary of every single day of that whole campaign. And the diary reads — it’s ironic, it’s funny, it’s sarcastic, it’s fantastic. But it literally told us what happened every single day of August 1757.”

Such scholarly asides are typical in a discussion with Michael Mann. A simple question yields a bounty of information, as if unlocking the door to a closet packed with ideas waiting to tumble out. He’s meticulous, and it’s not an affectation. (Mann is, to this day, the only person I’ve ever interviewed who pulled out his own recorder to document the session.)

On one hand he’ll discuss the arrangement of Dougie MacLean’s modern folksong “The Gael” for the score and implementing a “shameless imitation” of Arvo Pärt’s “Perpetuum Mobile” (a piece of music, he educates, that never resolves back into its time), while on the other hand offering that his Cora Munro was listening to Handel’s “Messiah” in her upwardly mobile neighborhood of Portman Square back home in London two years before she made the journey to the new world in 1755 (an entirely manifested level of insight into the character).

That attention to detail also tends to stretch to the physicality of a given production. Mann concocted a regimen to transform actor Will Smith into heavyweight fighter Mohammed Ali for the 2001 film “Ali” that has become the stuff of legend. The blockbuster star hit the weights and the ring but also ran in boots through snow, all in all clocking in six hours of training per day, five days a week.

Daniel Day-Lewis, meanwhile, is an actor famous for his commitment to a role. His preparation and method are a trademark, making him a star more than worthy of the two Oscars for Best Actor he’s acquired over his career. It’s a director-actor match made in heaven.

“Daniel is athletic as a long-distance runner,” Mann recalled of his leading man. “He’ll get up in the morning and do 10, 15, 16 miles. But he had no upper body development, and so he took six, seven months to put on all that weight. And the ambition for Daniel and myself was to have him acquire all the skill sets that Daniel Boone would have had.

“Daniel Boone could leave a populated area and spend two years in the wilderness, eat three meals a day and live. These were all techniques learned from the American Indians. So the idea was, which I firmly believe, if an actor can actually do the things of the person he’s portraying, he truly becomes that person. You do it, you own it…As a director, that’s what you want. I’m interested in actors and actresses who are for real, who are adventurous, who are very ambitious, who see it as an adventure and are ready to kind of commit, not out of discipline or coercion but out of, ‘Why would you want to do it any other way?’ Who wouldn’t want to do it if you could?”

That incessant curiosity and longing for experience is what drives Mann as a person, and it’s what fuels the textual authenticity of his work as a filmmaker. Complexity is what satisfies him, and one need look no further than the shading of the villain at the center of “The Last of the Mohicans” for evidence of that.

“Magua is a wonderfully complex character,” Mann said of the Mohawk-adopted Huron antagonist, amid discussion of the film’s emotional finale. “He happens to be the only one who probably analyzes the politics. The American Indians are in an existential crisis…Magua’s analysis, which he presents to General Montcalm and then again to the tribunal, is astute. He’s not foretelling Indian gaming but he could be foretelling Indian gaming.

“It’s the duality of him as both the antagonist and also as a person we understand because of his own personal tragedy. And also his perspective is more current. So the moment when he softens when Alice is on the ledge, and how and why she arrived at that particular moment and the loss that everybody shares at the end looking into the frontier, the mountain range — the frontier is this moving zone of what’s coming next — that’s some of what’s resonating. That’s what was important to me directing this film. And Wes Studi, by the way, was just marvelous. That moment, it’s all right there in his face.”

Indeed, three names in the opening credits sequence drew applause from the audience Friday night. The first, of course, was Michael Mann. The other two were cinematographer Dante Spinotti and actor Wes Studi, whose performance as Mogwa is easily one of the best Mann has ever directed.

Somehow “The Last of the Mohicans” was all but ignored by the Academy, despite a September release and a favorable reaction. It was only nominated for one Oscar, Best Sound, which it won.

BAFTA was more welcoming, handing Spinotti an award for his lensing and makeup artist Peter Robb-King another for the indigenous detail, as well as nominations for Best Costume Design, Best Original Film Score (which wouldn’t have flown with the Academy given the sampling), Best Production Design, Best Sound and Best Actor (Day-Lewis, who won the London film critics prize for British Actor of the Year and was three years removed from a Best Actor Oscar for “My Left Foot”). Meanwhile, the American Society of Cinematographers saw fit to nominate Spinotti’s work, as did the American Cinema Editors for cutters Dov Hoenig and Arthur Schmidt.

Along with “Heat” and “The Insider,” I find “The Last of the Mohicans” to be in the top tier of Mann’s filmography (his best work, therefore, coming in the 1990s). And it still packs a wallop, refined in its thematic structure, affecting for its deep sense of longing and pent-up passion.

Believe it or not, the above only scratches the surface of the discussion, really. So provided below is the full Q&A session with Boucher, covering other topics such as Mann’s affinity for personal political hero Russell Means, who stars as the titular character of the film, training and categorical details of the vast amount of extras on the production and other historical influences (like the work of artist Benjamin West) that had a hand in his vision of “The Last of the Mohicans.” Give it a listen below, and here’s to a happy 20th for an gem of its time.

Actress Zooey Deschanel is slated to bring the life story of 80-year-old country music icon Loretta Lynn to Broadway in a stage version of “Coal Miner”s Daughter.” Lynn herself made the announcement at a Grand Ole Opry country classics show on Thursday night. In typical sweet-natured, country-girl style, the Hall of Famer announced Deschanel thusly:

“There”s a little girl back stage that”s gonna do the play ‘Coal Miner”s Daughter” on Broadway and I think she can sing herself to death.”

After the announcement the pair did a duet of the play”s title song, a performance which was reminiscent of the introduction Lynn gave to Sissy Spacek when she was tapped to play the role in the 1980 Academy Award-winning film. (Spacek herself took home the Best Actress Oscar for her performance.)

Deschanel, a Los Angeles native born into the Entertainment industry (her father, Caleb Deschanel, is an Oscar-nominated cinematographer and her mother, Mary Jo Deschanel, is an actress perhaps best known for her work on television”s “Twin Peaks”) referred to Lynn as her idol. The actress gained popularity for her portrayals of often quirky and ultimately likable characters in films such as “(500) Days of Summer” and “The Hitchhiker”s Guide To The Galaxy” and has since brought the essentially goofy-hot essence to television”s “New Girl”

Now, I am going to have to own some bias on this bit of casting/production news. I”ve mentioned previously the impact that the cinematic version of “Coal Miner”s Daughter” had on my childhood, as well as the depths of my affection for Sissy Spacek. Spacek is an enduring talent with five Oscar nominations under her belt in addition to her win for “Coal Miner”s Daughter.” As a Texas native who currently lives on a horse ranch in the foothills of Virginia’s Blue Ridge Mountains, she feels like an actress with a more organic connection with Lynn. They have a shared spirit that is, at its core, essentially country.

There”s something to the country flavor (not just Southern, but specifically country) that comes through as earthy and yet ephemeral and difficult to capture. Whether it be Flannery O’connor, Carson McCullers or Loretta Lynn, there is a tonal core which cannot be mimicked. Well, not easily so, in any event.

Having said that, I very much like Zooey Deschanel as an actress. I find her charming and enjoyable to watch. But there is a sense that she, herself, is very much a part and product of her own environment. One can sense the LA clubs she frequents and performs in as well as the Venice beach pathways and Silver Lake bars of her adolescence and adulthood coming through in her facial expressions, body language and certainly her vocal cadence.

While Spacek and Lynn evoke images of rich earth, sunshine and ancient loss, Deschanel inspires thoughts of bohemian art festivals with drum circles and fire pits — both interesting in their own right, but somewhat diametrically opposed. It will be fascinating to witness Deschanel up the ante on her acting chops in order to bring Loretta Lynn”s rise from crushing poverty to country super-stardom to life once more.

In the interim, and because it brings me such pleasure, take a look at Spacek and the recently departed, legendary country musician Levon Helm (who played Lynn”s father in the film) perform “Coal Miner’s Daughter” on “The Midnight Special” in 1980:

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RIAGvFzIxI&w=640&h=360]

For year-round entertainment news and commentary follow @JRothC on Twitter.

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!

The director: Alain Resnais (French, 89 years old)

The talent: No latter-day Resnais film comes without an ensemble of familiar French faces, with a number of regulars now forming the director’s own repertory company of sorts. Mathieu Amalric, Lambert Wilson, Sabine Azema, Anne Consigny and Pierre Arditi have all worked with Resnais before, many of them in his last feature “Wild Grass.” A more delayed reunion is with French veteran Michel Piccoli (acclaimed at last year’s fest for “We Have a Pope”), whose last outing with the director was 1966’s “La guerre est finie.” New to Resnais’s stable (I think, though it’s hard to keep track with such long filmographies) is arthouse stalwart Hippolyte Girardot.

Laurent Herbiet, who co-wrote “Wild Grass” with Resnais (and previously acted as his assistant director), once more shares sceenplay duty with the director — again writing under the nom de plume of Alex Reval. The director also maintains his collaboration with virtuoso cinematographer Eric Gautier (“Into the Wild,” “The Motorcycle Diaries”), who also shot fellow Competition entry “On the Road.” Oscar-nominated editor Herve de Luze (“The Pianist”) is also back on board, as is American composer Mark Snow, who is perhaps best known for his TV work. (He has 15 Emmy nominations, several of them for his very recognizable work on “The X Files.”)

The pitch: Alas, despite the promise of the title, Resnais has not delivered a biopic of Canadian soft-rock outfit Bachman-Turner Overdrive — but the French master’s latest intrigues nonetheless. Resnais began his career as a teenager in the theater — a medium he’s frequently visited in his later films, including adaptations of British playwright Alan Ayckbourn’s work and variations on the country’s traditional musical theater. His 18th feature film — arriving 53 years after his first, “Hirsoshima, Mon Amour,” premiered on the Croisette — continues that exploration, both adapting and paying postmodern tribute to the work of one of France’s leading dramatists, the late Jean Anouilh — specifically, his 1941 play “Eurydice,” itself a riff on the famed Orpheus-and-Eurydice myth set amid a travelling theater company in 1930s.

In Resnais’s film, the late playwright arranges, from beyond the grave, a gathering of every actor ever to have appeared in a production of “Eurydice” — for the purpose of watching a new performance thereof by a young theater troupe, and evaluating its meaning in the modern world. This twist of concentric performances sounds a typically playful yet academic premise for a new Resnais feature — as the appealingly loopy “Wild Grass” demonstrated, Resnais is content to make his audience chase his ideas in his dotage.

The pedigree: As the most senior director in Competition, Resnais’s pedigree should really go without saying: if the name is new to you, along with such iconic works as “Last Year in Marienbad” (which celebrated its golden anniversary last year), his latest probably isn’t the best place to start. This is Resnais’s sixth time in Competition at Cannes. That includes the ill-fated 1968 festival, which was finally cancelled due to the famous wave of countrywide protests and strikes in the spring of that year — unluckily for Resnais, the year his “Je t’aime, je t’aime” was tipped to win the Palme. Indeed, despite his lofty reputation, the Frenchman has never won the top prize: “My American Uncle” took the Grand Prix in 1980, while “Wild Grass” triggered a rare body-of-work prize from the jury three years ago.  

The buzz: At his age, any new film from Resnais is going to be treated as though it could be his last, which only increases the chatter around this one — which is already rather hotly fancied on its own terms. “Wild Grass” showed the director at his friskiest and most intellectually alive, and was warmly received by critics and audiences, and whispers from those in the know are that his latest maintains that form — though its chamber-y egghead premise may narrow its appeal somewhat. Certainly, no director enters this year’s Competition with more sentiment on his side.  

The odds: Could that sentiment be enough to land Resnais his long-awaited first Palme d’Or? Quite possibly, though there’s a risk the film, however strong, might be too esoteric to win over the jury as a whole. (He should have at least one strong sympathizer on the jury in the form of compatriot Emmanuelle Devos, who starred in “Wild Grass.”) The body-of-work award handed to him in 2009 rather dulls the possibility of an equivalent consolation prize this year: my hunch is that he’s either winning the big one or nothing at all.

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

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!

“Oh yeah. ‘The Artist.'” Cheap shot but that crossed my mind the other day. It wasn’t until a press release hit earlier this week announcing a theatrical re-release for the film* that I gave much thought to the season we just concluded in February. It’s interesting, sometimes, to note the quick burn-off takeaway…if there is one.

But with Sacha Baron Cohen’s “The Dictator” (all 75 minutes of it) making its way to theaters next weekend, I can’t help but recall poor Ryan Seacrest on the red carpet — covered in the “ashes” of Kim Jong-il. I might have mentioned it while live-blogging that night (ugh), but I don’t think we ever posted it, so we might as well now.

Meanwhile, Cohen was on Howard Stern earlier this week promoting the film, touting it as one of few out-of-character interviews he’s done. In true Stern fashion it was a fantastic interview and covered a wide range of topics (including the since oft-reported news break that the actor is no longer a part of Quentin Tarantino’s “Django Unchained.”)

Eventually they got around to “Hugo,” the Oscars and awards shows in general, with plenty of discussion about the Seacrest incident. I thought I’d excerpt that section, so have a listen below. They naturally go off on a few tangents (one of them detailing Cohen’s working relationship with Martin Scorsese on “Hugo”), but it’s worth a listen.

“Why we chose him other than somebody else, maybe to, you know, it’s maybe slightly symbolic that it’s all about the fashion and all about the suits and his suit gets a little bit of powder on it,” Cohen said. “It’s not the end of the world…I thought he would have taken it better and then I remember while it was happening I saw his face and I saw he was genuinely shocked and a little bit upset. And then I felt a bit bad, so I went and spoke to him. I sent him a new jacket.”

Seacrest happened to be backstage at “Saturday Night Live” last weekend when Cohen was there to promote “The Dictator” (in character as General Admiral Aladeen for a “Weekend Update” bit). He recently detailed to E! Online the sincere apology Cohen offered for the shenanigans.

“He comes off stage, comes over to me, breaks character and says, ‘Sorry about the Oscars. It wasn’t personal,'” Seacrest said. Cohen was “very, very apologetic and genuine and kind and sweet” the radio and television personality added.

Nevertheless, at a recent New York junket for the film (at which all questions had to be submitted beforehand and pre-approved), Cohen — as Aladeen — kept the barbs coming. “Please, this wasn”t the first time an Asian man poured all over [Seacrest”s] chest,” he said. Yikes.

Have a look at the Oscars incident and Cohen’s SNL appearance below. And finally, the excerpt from the Stern interview, which goes on for about 16 minutes or so.

“The Dictator” opens Friday, May 18.

*The “re-release” is actually more of a re-expansion as “The Artist” been on at least 40 screens since its first big expansion. And by the way, it’s raked in $130 million worldwide on a $15 million budget and whatever Weinstein may have paid for acquisition and P&A.

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhAg0COnqds&w=640&h=360]

Joss Whedon”s “The Avengers” was released in U.S. theaters last weekend and is already breaking records, having usurped the all-time opening weekend crown held by “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2” with $700 million worldwide already in the bank. Many predicted the final culmination of the seeds Marvel has been planting the past four years would be a success, but few foresaw the magnitude of the appeal.

Of course, Whedon has had a loyal cult following for years, but “The Avengers” in particular seems to have tapped into something audiences have been craving in their summer blockbuster fare. If we look at the films of a similar ilk that have enjoyed this level of success, they are often expansive visually and strike at one or two simple but resonant archetypal themes. Joss infuses the film with the addition of an infectious sense of humor.

Actor Clark Gregg described Whedon”s work as contemporary pop mythology at the Los Angeles press conference for the film and that feels like a remarkably apt description. I”d been late to board the Whedonverse shuttle; “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” was in its seventh season when I was introduced to an episode in a cinema criticism class in film school. My brilliant, eccentric professor is one of the few people left to hold a PhD in cinema theory and one of the many who had an unremitted appreciation for the satiric stylings of Whedon”s small-screen creations.

I sat in that musky, darkened classroom as the credits rolled on “Hush” (a genius bit of television) and realized that my impending $80,000 of college dept was worth every penny. I proceeded to devour the remainder of his film and television hours like a demon who has slept for three thousand years only to rise ravenous for the flesh of man and beast. So…

It was strange that it had taken me so long to discover Whedon”s work. I”d grown up watching his father”s seminal children”s television series “The Electric Company,” enjoyed riduculo-horror such as “Slumber Party Massacre” (featuring an Elvis impersonator with a drill on the end of his guitar) in my youth and am a self-professed lover of fantasy, sci-fi and the theatre of the absurd.

The tone and essence of Whedon”s work is uniquely suited to my media palate. Tom Whedon had tested out the bits he penned for “The Electric Company” on his young son and in thinking on it, the influence of that early creative exposure can certainly be seen in the younger Whedon”s work. There was a unique energetic current present in “The Electric Company” that is reminiscent of both Joss Whedon”s adolescent and adult-themed endeavors. It has an edge to it that speaks to immediate cultural trends even as it taps into something universal. It”s hip, zany, colorful, campy and sharp.

Whedon has an ability to capture satire without devolving into nihilism; there is ever, even in the face of an apocalypse (or 20), an undercurrent of optimism in his work, a spark of hope that we can rise above even our seemingly insurmountable limitations and create a better version of ourselves, and in so doing, a better world. And yet he is unafraid to commit to the stakes of given circumstances. As we know, people die in the Whedonverse… they also come back to life, though.

I believe satiric camp is the souffle of cinematic tonality. So gorgeous to behold when done correctly and yet so easily deflated and left as little more than a wilted unappetizing mess. There are very few artists who can truly capture the essence of satire on a repeat basis. I believe I have mentioned previously that one of my favorite satiric films is the heartbreaking and hilarious Oscar-winning war film “No Man’s Land.”

But in terms of Western pop culture there are two men that have, in the body of their respective careers, for me, consistently reflected the times in a fantastical setting filled with deliciously outlandish and yet spot-on wry humor: Paul Verhoeven (Note the “All Out Nuclear War!” Commercials in “Robocop”) and Joss Whedon.

Naturally, I would not classify “The Avengers” as satiric camp, but it does have a self-aware quality that feels in line with Whedon”s catalogue of work. It”s not self-referential in the way that “The Cabin in the Woods” is, but the addition of Agent Coulson as the enthused and utterly likable Captain America fanboy speaks to a meta commentary about the place that the Marvel universe holds in Whedon”s life, and it’s reflective of the directors own standing in the cultural lexicon.

A fanboy-turned-geek-culture-icon, Whedon is, for many, inherently a part of the story of “The Avengers.” He grew up a comic book enthusiast, has written comics himself and has a definitive grasp on the ways in which comics can extend the life of television and films as well as the reverse. He continued the “Buffy,” “Angel,” and “Firefly” storylines within the framework of several comic book series, which then took on a life of their own.

More than that he is “current” in the sense that he understands just how interactive contemporary media is, and he brings that awareness into his construction of “The Avengers.” It”s a conversation as much as it is an offering. He is riffing with his audience, the material and himself. And yet, none of it negates the pure, undiluted, summer action film entertainment value of the piece.

In the letter to his fans that Whedon released on the website devoted to all things Joss: Whedoneque, the tireless creator took a moment to acknowledge his gratitude for those who had been with him for the long haul. In addition to the letter”s grace and humility, it displays a sense of pragmatic priorities that defies the nearly overwhelming tide of flash, celebrity and wealth obsession that permeates the very air space of Los Angeles. There are few who could stay centered in the midst of a hailstorm of such box office blockbustery. Whedon, it seems, is equipped. Myself? I”d be up a tree with the truffles he mentions.

“A lot of stories have come out about my ‘dark years”, and how I’m ‘unrecognized,”” Whedon wrote of the press corps response to the “Avengers” phenomenon. “I love these stories, because they make me seem super-important, but I have never felt the darkness (and I’m ALL about my darkness) that they described. Because I have so much. I have people, in my life, on his site, in places I’ve yet to discover, that always made me feel the truth of success: an artist and an audience communicating. Communicating to the point of collaborating.”

Sam Jackson”s Nick Fury informs us in the film that “the world has changed.” And it has. The world of content creation has also been drastically altered over the past decade or so. We become more and more a part of the design as viewers. The lines have blurred as our feedback and relationship with the puppet masters of our contemporary pop mythology become increasingly intimate and intertwined. “The Cabin in the Woods” is very much concerned with this idea. There are advantages and drawbacks to how things have evolved along these lines, but that is the subject for another article.

What has not changed over the millennia is the human desire to understand itself via fable, allegory and parable – nor the yearning to be entertained. Our campfires now include stadium seating and parking validation but the dialectical nature of the relationship between viewer and creator has, in a sense, brought us that much closer to our roots, and this is something that Whedon – as demonstrated by his letter – has always inherently grasped and utilized in his work.

Loki himself (the jealous, acquisitive and ultimately tragically wounded villain of the “The Avengers”), Tom Hiddleston, wrote a defense of comic book films in The Guardian, which highlighted the role the genre plays as an expression of our collective consciousness:

“In our increasingly secular society, with so many disparate gods and different faiths, superhero films present a unique canvas upon which our shared hopes, dreams and apocalyptic nightmares can be projected and played out. It sounds cliched, but superheroes can be lonely, vain, arrogant and proud. Often they overcome these human frailties for the greater good. The possibility of redemption is right around the corner, but we have to earn it.”

Loki has been one of the more nuanced and fascinating antagonists in recent event film history and a large portion of the success of the character is due to Hiddleston”s performance. Some part of us still hopes that he too may be redeemed, that he may let go of the heartbreak and no longer allow the damage he has experienced to corrode his soul.

The themes in “The Avengers” are simple, perhaps, but they are no less rich for their accessibility. The film looks at the way in which our flaws (Stark and Thor”s hubris, Banner”s rage, Romanoff”s trained penchant for calculation) are also our greatest assets. Ultimately, it proposes balance, equity between one”s strengths and weaknesses, an accord between control and the surrender of it (Hulk), and in the assembling itself is an illustration of the power that true respect for the needs of the individual as harmonized with the strength of community can wield.

I think I respond to Whedon because as an artist he is able to capture what I would so dearly love to: symmetry. Sometimes it feels like he is playing in paradox. He certainly relishes in mucking about in established archetypes. The ditzy cheerleader also being the vamp slaying savior of the world doesn”t feel as groundbreaking today as it truly was when Whedon unleashed his new vision of teenage girldom onto the world with “Buffy.” But what is important to remember is that he does not stop at the gimmick. He may use it as a gateway to unleash something ancient in a new form, but he will always take it in directions that are inspired, unpredictable and ultimately emotionally evocative. His is the blending of the mythic and the mundane; nothing of the human experience is lost.

Grandiose themes need a bit of salt to flavor and ground them. Now, I know some will shirk from the comparison so let me be clear, this is not a direct likening, but Whedon has a great love of Shakespeare. Shakespeare was a writer who mastered elevating the commonplace to the extraordinary realms and giving the sublime the dirt it needs to locate it on Earth. He understood that we need myths as much as we need sex, good wine, laughter and the occasional free expression of our inner, primal animal. As did Stan Lee. As does Joss Whedon.

The final two questions in the Joss Whedon Q&A session from The Guardian encapsulate the thematic undertones of his work in far simpler, clearer terms that I could ever hope to:

Q: Tell us a joke.
A: Your life has meaning.

Q: Tell us a secret.
A: Your life has meaning.

Forgive my foray into the waters of the fangirl rant. When it comes to Whedon”s work I will confess I do earn the title. For those who are of a similar mindset, I invite you to tune in and listen to Drew McWeeny and Scott Weinberg on #thebuffyproject, eight one-hour podcasts that delve into the depths of “Buffy,” and all that that implies.

For year-round entertainment news and commentary follow @JRothC on Twitter.

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!

Tim Burton is back in the multiplex this weekend for the first time since 2010’s “Alice in Wonderland” raked in a billion dollars worldwide. Will “Dark Shadows” be such a hit? Uh…no. But now that the film has moseyed on into theaters, it’s time to hear what you thought. I’ll say it was amusing and harmless enough until a third act that is deplorable. Not that the rest of the script is that much better. It’s actually awful and repetitive, but at least it has great art direction (natch). If/when you get around to seeing it, rifle off your thoughts in the comments section below.

The Cannes Film Festival unveiled its screening schedule today, and I’m both pleased and surprised to see that this year’s edition is playing the long game. While it’s often the case that most of the big-ticket premieres are spilled in the early stages of the fest, this year’s programmers have stored up a number of the lineup’s most eagerly-awaited English-language titles for the closing days: Jeff Nichols’ “Mud” unspools on the last day of Competition, David Cronenberg’s “Cosmopolis” on the penultimate day, and Lee Daniels’ “The Paperboy” one day before that.

It’s a pointed rejoinder to the many American journalists (HitFix’s own Drew McWeeny among them) who have already planned to leave town days before the festival finishes, countering the accepted wisdom that the festival peters out toward the end. As in 2008, when “The Class” was the final Competition film screened and took many off-guard by winning the Palme d’Or, the message appears to be that, at Cannes, every day counts.

Included in this late-festival scheduling spike is Walter Salles’ “On the Road,” which premieres on May 23. It seems oddly appropriate to keep festivalgoers waiting a little while for the eagerly anticipated adaptation of Jack Kerouac’s iconic Beat novel: considering the film has been on the cards since 1968, when a pre-“Godfather” Francis Ford Coppola scooped the rights, waiting has been the name of the game with this project. What’s a few extra days, festival organizers seem to be teasing, added to 44 years? (David Gritten has written a detailed breakdown of the film’s tortuous, one-step-forward-two-steps-back journey to the screen; it’s well worth a read, if only to be reminded of that scary stage when it looked like it was all going to fall to Joel Schumacher.)

I remain nervous about “On the Road.” While I’ve never really subscribed to the notion of certain books being “unfilmable” — it’s about being literate, not literal — Kerouac’s stippled, formless, faintly unwelcoming prose poses some obvious potential pitfalls to any filmmaker nervous of handling it with the requisite aggression, however neatly it lends itself to the road-movie idiom.

Walter Salles is an intelligent, conscientious filmmaker, but also rather a polite one: his handsome, absorbing treatment of “The Motorcycle Diaries” (adapted, to Oscar-nominated effect, by Jose Rivera, who also wrote the “On the Road” script) is, on the surface, an obvious qualification for this assignment, but gives no indication of how the new film might assimilate and reflect the singular language and jazz rhythms of its source. It’s the ballsiest task of Salles’s career, and we won’t know if and/or how he’s pulled it off until we see the film for ourselves.   

Two outfits that obviously believe he’s pulled it off are IFC and Sundance Selects — who, in the biggest nugget of pre-Cannes acquisitions news to date, snapped up the US distribution rights to the film yesterday. This news firmly nails the film’s indie colors to the mast. Where it might have hoped for a home with the boutique arm of a bigger studio outfit — especially considering the name appeal of stars like Viggo Mortensen, Kirsten Dunst and Kristen Stewart, for whom the hordes will be screaming on the Cannes red carpet regardless of the film’s likely profile — the more specialized environs if IFC and Sundance seem a better fit for this challenging proposition.

Either they were savvy to get their offer in there early, before critical reactions could potentially interest bigger buyers, or the film’s  handlers suspected a cushier offer wouldn’t be forthcoming. Either way, it bodes well for an appropriately challenging and uncompromised adaptation of a daunting property. IFC/Sundance president Jonathan Sehring has promised a late-autumn release in the States, claiming they are “putting all [their] resources together to make this theatrical release into a significant cultural event.” It’s the kind of bullish talk that is meant to inspire Oscar speculation, however lean the distributors’ record in this regard. One can’t help thinking, however, that if Salles has really got “On the Road” right, middlebrow awards attention shouldn’t be any kind of given. 

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

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!

The director: Jeff Nichols (American, 33 years old)

The talent: Matthew McConaughey’s career rehabilitation continues apace: not long after popping up in Venice with “Killer Joe,” he’s hitting the Croisette in two Competition films. Unlike “The Paperboy,” “Mud” (in which he plays the title role) is a lead showcase for him, though he’s by no means the only star involved. Reese Witherspoon, another name you wouldn’t immediately associate with Cannes, is also on board, hopefully triggering her own reversal of fortune.

Also present: Sam Shepard, Sarah Paulson (who recently hit peak form in “Martha Marcy May Marlene”) and Michael Shannon, who, of course, excelled in both the director’s previous features, “Take Shelter” and “Shotgun Stories.” Taking a prominent role, too, is teenaged actor Tye Sheridan, who featured as one of the young brothers in last year’s Palme d’Or winner, “The Tree of Life.”

As on his previous films, Nichols wrote the original screenplay. Cinematographer Adam Stone, who shot both “Shotgun Stories” and “Take Shelter” (and previously worked on second unit for David Gordon Green), returns, as does “Take Shelter” composer David Wingo. Wingo, incidentally, is another former David Gordon Green collaborator, as is production designer Richard A. Wright: with Green himself having departed to grubbier multiplex waters, it seems Nichols is keen to fill his shoes. New to Nichols’ team is editor Julie Monroe, a recent favorite of Oliver Stone.

The pitch: The youngest director in this year’s Competition lineup, Nichols broke through last year with his teasing, genre-infused sophomore feature “Take Shelter.” His follow-up, however, sounds closer to the straightforward Americana of his debut, “Shotgun Stories” — and after the Ohio-set “Shelter,” returns the director to his native Southern States. The synopsis also suggests something warmer and more honey-dipped than his previous work. It stars McConaughey as a scuzzy fugitive from the law who is sheltered by two 14 year-old boys who eventually abet his escape from their Mississippi island, and his reunion with his girlfriend (Witherspoon). “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn” is cited as a reference; film-wise, the logline calls both “Stand By Me” and Clint Eastwood’s underrated “A Perfect World” to mind, though it should be stressed that Nichols’ film is not a period piece. 

The pedigree: Nichols is one of six directors who has never been in Competition before, and he’s certainly the greenest of the lot — but that’s not to say he has no Cannes record. “Take Shelter” was one of the non-Competition sensations of last year’s festival, winning both the top Critics’ Week prize and a FIPRESCI award. Both “Shelter” and “Shotgun Stories,” meanwhile, took their share of citations on the US awards and festival trails. If it’s surprising to see the hot young filmmaker promoted to Cannes Competition status so quickly — skipping right past the intermediate grade of Un Certain Regard — it’s gratifying too. 

The buzz: With “Take Shelter” still so fresh in critics’ minds, the buzz for that film feeds right into this one: Nichols may be the new kid in this club, but he arrives with more momentum than most. A pair of released clips for “Mud” project a great deal of confidence (and potential mainstream-arthouse appeal), while the presence of Witherspoon and McConaughey ensures the media’s attention will be fixed on the film when it premieres on the final day of Competition — a slightly unexpected (but not inauspicious) date for one of the festival’s big red-carpet attractions. It may not have the lofty auteur cache of some big guns in the lineup, but it’s eagerly awaited nonetheless.

The odds: For all that, it’d be a brave pundit who bets on this one taking the Palme — Nichols may be a hot new talent, but he’s still an outsider. Steven Soderbergh may have triumphed at the festival with his debut feature — and at the tender age of 26, to boot — but that was for a film far more European in sensibility than the distinctly American-flavored “Mud.” Critical acclaim, laying the foundation for a US awards-season run, is the real target here. Still, Matthew McConaughey for Best Actor? Stranger things have happened.

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

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!

The director: Yousry Nasrallah (Egyptian, 59 years old) 

The talent: I admit defeat. After scouring the internet for details of the cast and crew of this one, all I can tell you is that it stars Nahed El Sebaï (one of the lead actresses from Egyptian feminist drama “678,” which netted a number of prizes on the smaller festival circuit last year), Bassem Samra (a longstanding collaborator of Nasrallah, acclaimed for his turn in his laureled 1999 film “El Medina”) and Menna Shalabi (whose 12-year filmography contains, I confess, no titles I recognize). I can’t even locate a screenplay credit for the film: Nasrallah has written much of his past work, though past collaborators in this regard have included Claire Denis.

The pitch: Though his films have never really crossed over on the international arthouse circuit, Nasrallah has been a quiet contributor to the revival and conscientization of North African cinema since the 1980s, working under Egypt’s leading filmmaker, the late Youssef Chahine, as an assistant director in his earlier years.

His work has been marked by progressive politics and resistance to Islamic conservatism, and his latest appears to be no exception. Topically set in Cairo against the backdrop of the recent Arab Spring protests, “After the Battle” charts the burgeoning romance between Mahmoud — a camel herder recruited by the Egyptian government to carry out armed attacks on Tahir Square protestors, and since ostracized by his community — and Reem, an educated, liberal-minded divorcee working in advertising. Expect the political and class-related chasms in this relationship to form the basis for a larger social essay.

The pedigree: Nasrallah is one of just six first-time Competition entrants in the lineup, but that’s not to say he’s a stranger to the Croisette: his 2004 feature “The Gate of Sun” played out of competition at Cannes, as did last year’s portmanteau film “18 Days,” to which he contributed. He’s also played Venice, giving him a measure of European festival cred, though he’s still less well-known than the filmmakers with whom he’s associated.

The buzz: I’d be lying if I said I’ve heard anyone talking about this one, but the film’s political currency and demographic USP — it’s the only entry from Africa or the Middle East in the lineup — ensure a lot of informed pundits are keeping half an eye on it. The film will have to make a noticeable dent of the festival jury and audience alike, however, to secure widespread international distribution.

The odds: The bookies, for obvious reasons of limited name appeal, aren’t giving Nasrallah much of a prayer for the Palme, but it seems safer to put it mid-table: juries are often persuaded by films with a degree of contemporary political relevance. That the film is a French co-production is a point in its favor, as is Nasrallah’s very public sympathy with embattled Iranian filmmaker Jafar Panahi; “After the Battle” may be a tad specialized for the top prize, but like the last African film in Competition (“A Screaming Man” in 2010), a Jury Prize is quite foreseeable. 

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

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!

Friday brings the second weekend of the summer movie season and Tim Burton’s latest, “Dark Shadows.” The film is…unfortunate. My thoughts line up a bit with Drew McWeeny’s: it almost gets by on laughs but the whole time all I could wonder was, “Why?” It starts with the script, folks. And this film could use one.

Anyway, we’re not talking about scripts today. We’re bringing the focus, as we like to do, back around to the below-the-line talent in the film industry, and a rather specific installment of The Lists this week: production design in Tim Burton films. “Dark Shadows” keeps the filmmaker’s dark and decadent tradition alive, yet another reminder of his penchant for design elements.

This has been his trademark, and across a wide spectrum of collaborators, one ought to add. Burton typically grows his art department heads from within, so there’s a natural consistency at work, but he’s brought Oscars for Best Art Direction to four different production designers in his time. That’s impressive.

So what better way to dedicate a collective to his work than an overview of the best design jobs of his filmography? There are 15 films to pull from (with a 16th in the animated “Frankenweenie” still to come this fall), so narrowing it down might be simple for some. But it’s all in the order, I suppose.

Here’s my order. Feel free to rate the selections throughout and, as always, offer up your thoughts and/or your own list in the comments section below.

I caught “The Avengers” for a second time earlier this week. It’s still a barrel of fun but don’t try to think about that script too much. It shatters under modest consideration. And I felt the length a bit more this time around. Nevertheless, I still love the movie.

Something I was paying particular attention to this time, though, was the sound elements. The only Marvel Studios film to grab a nomination in the sound categories so far was “Iron Man,” which got in for Best Sound Editing in 2008. But with Oscar-winners like Christopher Boyes and Lora Hirschberg on board, I wonder if the team-up actioner can find its way to one or both fields this year.

For a film as busy visually as this one is, it’s a big accomplishment that it’s so delicately balanced aurally, yet so dynamic on the editorial side of things. Boyes, who was interviewed for the SoundWork’s Collection’s latest sound profile on the film, worked on the “Iron Man” films, so he had some things in place for “The Avengers.” And naturally he brought in elements provided by the teams of Richard King (“Thor”) and Stephen Hunter Flick (“Captain America: The First Avenger”) to “honor the original signature sounds, which was Marvel’s desire,” he says.

However, The Incredible Hulk was developed sonically from the ground up, and director Joss Whedon had specific, story-driven notes for what that sound should be.

“Initially for Hulk, I started using all sorts of animal vocals and tried to create this larger-than-life, territorial rage,” Boyes says int he clip below. “And so the feedback coming back from Joss was that it was too much of a monster, too much of a creature. He really wanted to lead with the notion that this is a superhuman, but human in rage.”

The ultimate mixture included a little bit of Mark Ruffalo, a little bit of Boyes and some other scattered human elements, but one of them, intriguingly enough, was Lou Ferrigno. Ferrigno really “got” the Hulk, Boyes says, so it’s fun that he gets to live on in this embodiment of the character.

Check out the profile for yourself below. For film nuts, as always, it’s vital, informative and just plain fascinating. Keep listening.

[vimeo http://www.vimeo.com/41744397 w=640&h=360]

The director: Cristian Mungiu (Romanian, 44 years old)

The talent: A number of first-time actresses pepper the cast list of Mungiu’s latest, including his two leads, Cosmina Stratan and Cristina Flutur. Keen followers of the Romanian New Wave may recognize (if not necessarily be able to name) the odd face in support, including a number of bit players from “4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days.” The biggest name here, relatively speaking? Luminita Gheorghiu, who won an LA Critics’ award a few years back for “The Death of Mr. Lazarescu.” 

Mungiu wrote and produced the film himself. It’s interesting, however, to see Belgian brothers (and two-time Palme d’Or winners) Luc and Jean-Pierre Dardenne on the list of co-producers, just in case its Croisette cred needed any beefing up. “4 Months” cinematographer Oleg Mutu is also, invaluably, back on board — as mentioned yesterday, this is one of two Competition entries this year shot by him. That film’s production designer Mihaela Poenaru returns, joined by Calin Papura, who did some striking work on Francis Ford Coppola’s “Youth Without Youth.” Editor Mircea Olteanu (who also doubles as sound editor) makes his feature debut here.

The pitch: Mungiu’s last feature, the universally celebrated “4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days,” challenged Romania’s social and moral authorities with its harrowing study of illegal abortion in the Ceausescu era. The synopsis for his latest promises no less touchy a drama. Like “4 Months,” the narrative hinges on the strained friendship of two young women: Alina and Voichita have been like sisters since meeting as children in an orphanage, but have been separated for several years following Alina’s move to Germany. They reunite in a remote Romanian convent, where the newly devout Voichita has made a home for herself — to the exasperation of Alina, who wants to take Voichita back to Germany with her. As Alina challenges the church for custody of her friend, the convent residents fear she is possessed, an order an exorcism. It’s heady-sounding stuff, but should afford room for both the director’s keen political insight and grim sense of humor.

The pedigree: On the face of it, Mungiu is still a relative newbie in the lineup: “Beyond the Hills” is only the third feature he’s directed. (The first, 2002’s “Occident,” was generously laurelled on the second-tier European festival circuit.) Still, “4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days” proved one doozy of a Competition calling card: perhaps the most universally well-received Palme d’Or pick of recent times, it went on to become an international arthouse sensation, winning top honors at the European Film Awards and scooping awards from the ‘Big Three’ US critics’ groups. (The Academy, infamously, gave it the boot.) As such, it’s given Mungiu a loftier status than a passing glance at his CV might imply, though he’s maintained his Cannes record with his contribution to a 2009 Un Certain Regard selection, the portmanteau film “Tales of the Golden Age.” 

The buzz: With five years having elapsed since “4 Months,” the pressure on his follow-up feature to deliver is significant: happily, positive advance whispers hint that he’s pulled off something special. The film already secured US distribution with Sundance Selects back in February, which suggests it should easily reach the same international arthouse audience that was wowed by Mungiu’s last feature. The presence of the Dardennes on the credit list only gilds the lily.

The odds: However much the film has going for it, it’s hard to imagine the jury admitting Mungiu to the elite, six-name club on two-time Palme d’Or winners just three features into his career. (Even Bille August had a few more notches on his belt by the time he won his surprising second Palme in 1992.) That said, Cannes juries are less inclined than, say, the Academy to take such figures and precedents into account, not least because the voters change every year: if the film knocks them out, that’s really all there is to it. With jury president Nanni Moretti likely to favor films that pack an emotional wallop, “Beyond the Hills” looks a good bet for a prize of some variety — if they decide Mungiu’s been recently enough rewarded, a joint Best Actress award for the two fledgling leads would be a typical jury move.

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

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!

The AMPAS is set to honor Gene Kelly, the icon of the golden age of the elaborate Hollywood musical, in a two-night celebration hosted by his widow, Patricia Ward Kelly. The event will feature film clips, personal remembrances and a look at the radical impact Kelly had on the way dance was filmed.

Kelly’s on-screen presence as a singer/dancer and behind-the-scenes work as a director and choreographer altered how musical numbers were conceived and executed both in his day and beyond. He is remembered for his indelible self-directed performances in films such as “An American in Paris” and “Singin” in the Rain,” and his innovative use of settings such as rain-soaked sidewalks and props ranging from umbrellas to mops to sheets of newspaper and roller skates invigorated the expansive musicals of the day.

Kelly was buoyant, muscular and full of vibrant charm. He was the quintessential 1950s archetype of what the United States wanted people outside and inside its boundaries to believe Americans were: attractive, confident and good-natured, with a witty sense of play.

That dream was our most essential export at the time, a powerful and effective tool utilized to sell the rest of the world on the grandiosity and promise of democracy and a method to project the idea that the U.S. was the answer to what it is to be human. “Look at how much fun we have,” these films cajoled. “We bring our ingenuity and our talent to every situation,” they boasted exuberantly. Kelly wanted to bring his dancing to the streets and in so doing he extolled the idea that even the most average, most modest of American lives is ultimately filled with wonder.

That was the quality of Kelly”s character in “Singin’ in the Rain,” but it was also his persona as Gene Kelly the celebrated performer. The 1960s came along and that archetype went out of fashion and was usurped by James Dean figures of rebellion.

Now, of course, we export Kim Kardashian and Kanye West…which explains a great deal about the response I typically receive when I inform people that I am from the United States when I”m traveling abroad (I kid). I am aware that the nation”s place in the geopolitical scheme of things is far more complex than reality TV, ultra-pimped rides and men”s fashion Twitter rants. Still, it doesn”t help.

Kelly was presented with an honorary Oscar in 1951 for “his versatility as an actor, singer, director and dancer, and specifically for his brilliant achievements in the art of choreography on film.”

“A Centennial Tribute to Gene Kelly” will take place on Thursday, May 17, at 7:30pm at the Samuel Goldwyn Theater in Beverly Hills with a focus on the dancer”s creative process. “Gene Kelly: Choreography and the Camera” will follow on Friday, May 18, at 7:30pm at the Linwood Dunn Theater with an exploration of the obstacles Kelly faced as a director and choreographer and how he overcame them to change the nature and scope of the cinematic musical.

For more information visit www.oscars.org.

For year-round entertainment news and commentary follow @JRothC on Twitter.

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!

The director: Sergei Loznitsa (Belarusian, 47 years old)

The talent: Amid a sea of unfamiliar actors — some of them Russian workhorses, but many of them first-timers — two names stand out, though both of them are in supporting roles. Romanian actor Vlad Ivanov made a striking impression (and scooped an LA Critics’ award) as the surly abortionist in “4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days”; veteran Russian actress Nadezhda Markina’s stunning turn in the title role of “Elena” earned a European Film Award nod last year, and will hit US screens next week.

As on his last film (and first narrative feature) “My Joy,” Loznitsa wrote the script, while that film’s editor Danielius Kokanauskis, production designer Kirill Shuvalov and cinematographer Oleg Mutu are all on board. Mutu, in particular, is a name to note: he’s been a key figure in the recent Romanian new wave, having shot “The Death of Mr. Lazarescu,” “4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days” (which he also produced) and “Tales From the Golden Age.” This is one of two Competition credits for him this year: he also lensed Cristian Mungiu’s latest, “Beyond the Hills.” 

The pitch: Two years ago, celebrated documentarian Loznitsa’s fiction debut “My Joy” proved one of the delayed critical successes of the lineup: consensus was slow to emerge, and no prizes were forthcoming, but a number of estimable English-speaking eventually latched onto his brooding, free-form vision of human corruption and barbarism in contemporary Russia. International distributors didn’t rush to it (it finally hit US screens last autumn), while the Russian media accused it of Russophobia. His follow-up sounds, on paper, an easier sell. Picking up on the World War II flashbacks of his last film, “In the Fog” is a full-scale WWII drama set in the German-occupied Western frontier of the USSR. After a train is derailed by resistance fighter, innocent rail worker Sushenya is arrested by German officers, only to be set free — prompting suspicions of treason among his compatriots. Sounds robustly classical enough, with arthouse-crossover potential — but perhaps Loznitsa has a more radical treatment up his sleeve.  

The pedigree: Loznitsa is evidently a new pet of Thierry Fremaux: “My Joy” was an unexpected Competition inclusion two years ago, and despite that film not quite setting the Croisette alight, he’s been welcomed straight back in with his second narrative feature. “My Joy” was treated as a debut in some quarters, though Loznitsa had already built a substantial reputation among documentary buffs, having won numerous European festival awards for his non-fiction work. However, thanks to “My Joy”‘s limited exposure (it’s still awaiting a UK release, for example), he remains one of the lesser-known names in the lineup.

The buzz: Minimal, obviously — though the film isn’t as much of a mystery package as “My Joy” was two years ago. Loznitsa will have a few more admirers approaching his work this time, though he’ll also have to win over a number of sceptics wondering why the festival is backing him so keenly. International distributors will be hoping the film fits the mold of recent WWII dramas that won over middlebrow audiences (and even Oscar voters) alike, though the director’s record doesn’t promise such an outcome. 

The odds: Could be a smart bet for those willing to look beyond the obvious names. Paddy Power currently rank Loznitsa stone last in their Palme predictions, with odds of 33-1 — surely, given the director’s growing profile and the new film’s perennially awards-friendly subject matter (another WWII drama, “The Pianist,” took top honors 10 years ago), there are several less likely candidates. Loznitsa may not yet be ready for prime time, but a Jury Prize would not be at all surprising. 

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

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!

The Directors Guild of America (DGA) has announced today that it will be reversing a long-standing policy outlawing the issuance of “for your consideration” screeners to its membership. The change will go into effect this awards season.

Said DGA president Taylor Hackford via press release, “There’s nothing better than watching a movie on the big screen, exactly as the director intended. But it’s not always possible for our members to get to the theater to see every film in awards contention.”

The guild’s former policy was in place because it believed films sent out on DVD “could have an advantage over films that are not able to be sent out due to limited marketing budgets or other financial constraints of studios and distributors.” Noble, but out-dated. And given the down-the-middle voting habits of the membership as of late, it doesn’t seem to have done much for the little guys anyway.

It’s a move that’s well overdue, it goes without saying. What will it mean to the awards season? Well, first and foremost it means budgets go up. It’s one thing to send out a bunch of screeners to the 90-odd-member HFPA or a couple thousand to the SAG nominating committee, but the DGA is 15,000 members strong. Add in watermarking of DVDs for anti-piracy concerns and you start to tack on a few extra hundred thousand dollars per contender, assuming there will even be enough time to generate that many DVDs for films wrapping up post-production late in the game for the December voting deadline. There might not be.

And by the way, a new bag of money isn’t just going to show up. That added budget will have to be siphoned from other places.

It also means access to voting blocks within the DGA that can sometimes represent younger demographics — television personnel, ADs, UPMs, etc. — and often don’t have access to screeners via peripheral membership in bodies like the Academy.

No, studios don’t HAVE to send the screeners now, just because they can. But as one awards strategist I spoke to said, “I would never not send screeners to the DGA.” It’s too much of a cornerstone of the precursor circuit, too important a designation (in the eyes of studios gunning for major awards consideration at the Oscars) to ignore. And indeed, some actually aren’t too thrilled about this added obligation.

The DGA might have underestimated the view of its awards season importance a few years ago when it decided, halfway through the season, to suddenly rescind its ban on screeners and apparently didn’t expect anyone to bat an eye. The guild gave Paramount Pictures permission to send screeners of “Dreamgirls” to the guild during the 2006 season and the reasoning given at the time was basically, “Hey, they asked. No one ever asked before.” The guild asserted then that its policy actually did allow for screeners to be sent following notification of competing campaigns.

Naturally, the DGA’s phones blew up, everyone screamed bloody murder and the guild went with a strict no screeners policy, citing the need for a “level playing field.” Bill Condon got his DGA nomination for “Dreamgirls,” but as it turned out, both he and the film were snubbed by the Academy.

It goes to show you never can tell. But everyone’s grabbing for a more secure foothold in this game and this move will allow campaigns more direct access to a significant group with their product…whether they wanted the extra footwork or not.

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

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!