I’ve been out all afternoon, so the sudden news of Adam Yauch — better known as MCA of The Beastie Boys — succumbing to cancer has been all Twitter remembrances and mobile news briefs for me. And all sadness. HitFix’s Katie Hasty has plenty to say about it here, Melinda Newman here. Really and truly, I feel like a piece of me went with him. And I think anyone who has grown up with that music knows what it has meant.

But as many movie sites have dutifully pointed out, Yauch’s creative reach was significant in the film world as well. And his tenure as a driving force behind indie distributor Oscilloscope Laboratories has ushered brave pick-ups and challenging cinematic material to the fore for the last four years or so.

Awards success greeted a few of those titles. Most significant was a Best Supporting Actor nomination for Woody Harrelson as well as a Best Original Screenplay nomination for Alessandro Camon and Oren Moverman for “The Messenger” in 2009, which itself flirted with the first-ever expanded Best Picture line-up during that season.

Documentaries from the distributor have done well, too. Scott Hamilton Kennedy’s “The Garden” was the first to land an Oscar nod, in 2009. Anders Østergaard’s “Burma VJ: Reporting from a Closed Country” scooped one up in 2010, while Marshall Curry and Sam Cullman’s “If a Tree Falls: A Story of the Earth Liberation Front” made it three in a row last season. And that lineage really began with “Dear Zachary: A Letter to a Son About His Father” in 2008, for my money one of the top 10 films of that year.

Like any company headed by such a bold spirit, there have also been brave acquisitions, like “Bellflower” last year and “Wendy and Lucy” in 2008 (sparking audiences to Kelly Reichardt’s work and establishing a relationship that continued recently with “Meek’s Cutoff”). Last season, Lynne Ramsay’s “We Need to Talk About Kevin” was another move the company was willing to make where others weren’t, ensuring the filmmaker’s uncompromising vision would find an audience — and it certainly attracted plenty of goodwill for actress Tilda Swinton along the circuit, even if an Oscar nod wasn’t ultimately in the cards.

THAT lineage continues this year with Andrea Arnold’s singular “Wuthering Heights,” still playing festivals and waiting for its moment, as well as Ron Fricke’s latest, “Samsara,” among others.

Yauch’s Oscilloscope has been a company skirting awards attention for the most part, but in it for all the right reasons. So when that attention has come, it has felt earned, just and legit. Now that he’s gone, I hope the message and the ambition stays the course, because it has felt like an artists’ haven these last few years, a place ready and willing to nurture that which doesn’t necessarily make the most sense in a bookkeeper’s ledger. That kind of nurturing does, however, ensure growth and confidence in filmmakers.

There’s really no award big enough for that. It’s a priceless contribution. And I think a guy like Yauch got that.

“I’m flowing prose to cons and cons to pros/I’m scheming rhyme against reason like it was flow against know/But beyond the concepts and emotions that rise/To the interconnectedness that underlies/The lies upon lies have lost their meaning/The plies upon plies of consciousness that is being/Over and over I fall I learned to walk from a crawl/It’s not sad it’s just the way and the purpose of it all.”

Rest in peace, MCA. Keep the party going until we get there.

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

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!

The director: Ken Loach (British, 75 years old)

The talent: As is often the case with Loach films, the cast is a jumble of fresh faces and old hands from British film and television. Making his screen debut in the lead is 24 year-old Scotsman Paul Brannigan, whom we’ll also see later this year in Jonathan Glazer’s “Under the Skin.” Heading up the support is veteran English comic actor Roger Allam (recently seen in “The Iron Lady” and “Tamara Drewe”), who previously worked with Loach on 2006’s “The Wind That Shakes the Barley.” Other Loach associates on board include bulldog-faced character actor John Henshaw (for many the standout of 2009’s “Looking for Eric”) and young Glaswegian William Ruane (“Sweet Sixteen,” “Tickets,” “Barley”). 

On script duty, of course, is Paul Laverty, who has written all but one of Loach’s narrative films since 1996’s “Carla’s Song,” winning the Best Screenplay award at Cannes in 2002 for “Sweet Sixteen.” Loach’s regular producer Rebecca O’Brien is also on board. Below the line, the presence of Robbie Ryan, whose work for Andrea Arnold (most dazzlingly on “Wuthering Heights”) has made him one of the most exciting cinematographers in the business, adds interest. Still, given that Loach’s two most recent, rather pedestrian-looking features were shot by Barry Ackroyd and Chris Menges, respectively, don’t get your hopes up for a visual feast.

The pitch: While remaining under his umbrella of social realism, Loach’s recent work has shuffled between earnest political tracts and lightweight working-class comedy. “The Angels’ Share” (a title bound to test many subeditors’ apostrophe awareness, so yay for that) falls into the latter bracket, last joined by “Looking for Eric” — and like that film, appears to be something of a male-bonding story. Brannigan plays Robbie, a ne-er-do-well and petty criminal who, after narrowly escaping jail and becoming a father, vows to change his ways. With the help of three friends made while performing community service, he sets about what any young man looking to go on the straight and narrow would do: opening a whisky distillery. Loachian hilarity presumably ensues.

The pedigree: With “The Angels’ Share” marking his eleventh appearance in the Cannes competition, Loach extends his record as the festival’s most-selected filmmaker — he’s also the lone Brit in the lineup. Given that his last few entries didn’t exactly set the Croisette alight (remember “Route Irish” two years ago? No?), you could be forgiven for wondering just what dirt he has on Thierry Fremaux, but it’s only six years since he (finally, after numerous consolatory jury prizes) won the Palme d’Or for “The Wind That Shakes the Barley.” Even that, however, wasn’t a wildly popular choice: Loach has Cannes pedigree to spare, but his routine presence in the lineup has taken on something of a medicinal quality for many festivalgoers.

The buzz: As stated above, a new Ken Loach joint doesn’t tend to arouse much excitement these days, though they tend to be politely received. In this case, the cat’s already out the bag the some extent: the film has already screened for UK critics, and while I haven’t seen it myself, the lukewarm reactions of several trusted colleagues suggest we shouldn’t expect a radical spike in the director’s form.

The odds: Given everything we know of the project, you’d have to put Loach near the back of the pack. His 2006 Palme d’Or was already something of a lifetime achievement award (and came, incidentally, two years after the festival’s Ecumenical Jury gave him an undisguised career honor), so there’d be little reason to give him another unless the new film was something spectacular — which, we have every reason to believe, it isn’t. Still, that’s not to write off the possibility of the film receiving some sort of smaller award, perhaps (again) for Laverty’s screenplay — jury president Nanni Moretti is nothing if not sympathetic to small-scale human comedies. After all, “nice” films are the ones that benefit most from divided juries.

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

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!  

The summer is here at the multiplex as Joss Whedon’s “The Avengers” hits theaters this weekend. Midnight screenings are already letting out so it’s time to hear what the public has to say (the US public, anyway, as it’s already chugging along in 39 other countries). Did Marvel pull off the ambitious team-up? I’d say so. Drew certainly loved it. So what say you? Offer up your thoughts in the comments section below. (Oh, and the music video for Soundgarden’s original song for the film dropped yesterday if you’re interested.)

The director: Abbas Kiarostami (Iranian, 71 years old)

The talent: Kiarostami may have chosen a major international star to headline his foray into non-Iranian cinema two years ago, but for his second, he’s taking the opposite tack. Rin Takanishi, his 23 year-old lead actress, is a relative newcomer, schooled mostly in Japanese television; her older co-star, Tadashi Okuno, may have a screen CV that dates back to the 1960s, but it’s even briefer than Takanishi’s. The most recognizable name here is Ryo Kase, whom you may remember from “Letters from Iwo Jima” and that godawful kamikaze-ghost role in last year’s “Restless.” Kiarostami sought Japanese talent below the line too: cinematographer Katsumi Yanagijima is best-known for his work on Takeshi Kitano’s films, as well as “Battle Royale.” Kiarostami, as is his wont, wrote the original screenplay; he also produced alongside Frenchman Nathanael Karmitz, who also shpherded “Certified Copy” to the screen.

The pitch: Having spent several decades tracing the uneven physical and social landscape of his home country on camera, Kiarostami broke form in several ways with 2010’s “Certified Copy”: his first film set and produced outside Iran, not to mention his first star vehicle of sorts, the Tuscany-set production was also the most romantic and playful film of his career, trading observational sobriety for flirty, reality-fuzzing mind games. His latest film extends his international tour, this time into Japan: though “Like Someone in Love” has reportedly described by the director as a continuation of “Certified Copy,” the connection isn’t a self-evident one. Takanishi plays an attractive young university student in Tokyo who takes up prostitution to finance her studies; she forms an unlikely connection with one of her clients, an elderly academic played by Okuno. Once again, not a typical Kiarostami premise — it’ll be interesting to see how sexually direct and youth-oriented the material is in his hands. (Best possible outcome: “Sleeping Beauty 2: This Time It’s Lyrical.”) The French-Japanese co-production was originally titled “The End.”

The pedigree: Now in the fifth decade of his filmmaking career, Kiarostami is one of the esteemed elder statesmen of the Competition, and one of four previous Palme d’Or victors in this year’s lineup. He shared the big prize in 1997 for “Taste of Cherry,” his second of five attempts; it remains the only award he’s won at Cannes, though Juliette Binoche took Best Actress for “Certified Copy” in 2010.

The buzz: “Certified Copy” revived critical interest in Kiarostami’s career beyond his circle of devotees, just as one too many obtuse gallery-oriented experiments had caused it to flag; thanks to the lush European setting and the luminous charms of La Binoche, it also gave him the biggest arthouse success of his career. Expectations for “Like Someone in Love” have therefore been set rather high: even if it can’t offer comparable star power, the hope is that the new foreign setting will continue what his last film started in broadening his appeal. So far, it seems to be working: an evocative, enigmatic teaser trailer has been greeted with approving online murmurs; if nothing else, we know from this and the production stills to expect some dreamy visuals. 

The odds: The bookies presently have it among the frontrunners for the Palme; critic and more informed odds expert Neil Young, meanwhile, lists it as the favorite to win. There’s a sound theory behind that: Nanni Moretti has previously voiced his admiration for Kiarostami’s work, and jury presidents aren’t averse to playing favorites. (Whether he’s as keen on the director’s new, seemingly more arch direction, however, remains to be seen.) Kiarostami may already have won a Palme, but a shared one, and 15 years ago at that: at 71, his career certainly merits entry into the two-Palme club. If the film isn’t universally embraced — which was the case with “Certified Copy” two years ago — he’d still be a good bet for a consolation prize of the Best Director/Screenplay variety.

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

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention! 

The Sight & Sound poll of filmmakers and critics picking the greatest films of all time is 10 years old. Many in the cinephile community are anxious to see the results of the latest questionaire, which will be revealed some time in August (I think). A few critics have revealed their own lists but that’s just a drop in the bucket of what we’ll get when the big collective is revealed.

Chicago Sun-Times critic Roger Ebert is one such critic. And I was a little surprised to see that Terrence Malick’s “The Tree of Life,” which was a formidable force on the awards circuit last year, managed to find itself among previous mainstays of the his list, which include “Aguirre, the Wrath of God,” “Apocalypse Now,” “Citizen Kane” and “2001: A Space Odyssey” (four films that could register on my own list, which is why I’ve always liked Ebert’s choices quite a bit).

What maestro did Malick unseat? Krzysztof Kieslowski, whose “Dekalog” is a TV mini-series, anyway, so maybe it needed to be pulled. It got the scoot, Ebert explains, because of new rules dictating trilogies and whatnot take up however many places there are entries. “Dekalog” being a 10-“film” series means it would take up all 10 slots. But, again: TV.

Ebert says the choice for a replacement came down to two films: Malick’s recent opus and Charlie Kaufman’s “Synecdoche, New York.” The two films, he says, are “of almost foolhardy ambition,” attempting “no less than to tell the story of an entire life.”

Here’s why he says he settled on the Malick:

“I could choose either film. I will choose ‘The Tree of Life’ because it is more affirmative and hopeful. I realize that isn’t a defensible reasons for choosing one film over the other, but it is my reason, and making this list is essentially impossible, anyway.

“Apart from any other motive for putting a movie title on a list like this, there is always the motive of propaganda: Critics add a title hoping to draw attention to it, and encourage others to see it. For 2012, I suppose this is my propaganda title. I believe it’s an important film, and will only increase in stature over the years.”

Though his prior four-star review of the film didn’t contextualize it as objectively “important” so much as it was, for Ebert, subjectively so. I think that’s fine, mind you, and even admirable, that it connected so personally with him and that his thoughts were so scattered with such touches as:

“The only other film I’ve seen with this boldness of vision is Kubrick’s ‘2001: A Space Odyssey,’ and it lacked Malick’s fierce evocation of human feeling…I don’t know when a film has connected more immediately with my own personal experience. In uncanny ways, the central events of ‘The Tree of Life’ reflect a time and place I lived in, and the boys in it are me.”

This would be a difficult choice even for me, I have to say. “Synecdoche, New York” was certainly high on my list of 2008’s best films (while Kaufman is, for my money, the filmmaker of the decade). And of course, like most, “The Tree of Life” was way up on the top tier for me last year. But ultimately, I’d likely lean the same way Ebert did.

As for the rest of the Sight & Sound poll, I doubt we’ve heard the last of Malick’s latest in that regard. After many critics ushered the film to the top of the magazine’s annual poll in 2011, I imagine many of them were making room for it on the “all time” list as well. We’ll see in a couple of months.

What films from the last 10 years do you think warrant consideration on the “all time” list this time around? I would argue in favor of “The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford,” “Dogville,” “Margaret” and, indeed, “The Tree of Life.” But I don’t think any of them would make the cut. The most recent film that would be on my list would be a Malick film, however: 1998’s “The Thin Red Line.”

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

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!

“The Loneliest Planet” and “17 Girls” kicked off my IndieLisboa viewing on Monday; Tuesday”s less arresting pickings suggest not everything I see here will merit quite as much column space, but look out for another festival postcard or two. For now, however, the rain has stopped and the trams await.

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

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!

The director: John Hillcoat (Australian, 50 years old)

The talent: You want names? You got ’em. Hillcoat’s latest brings together a handful of the industry’s brightest young things, including Tom Hardy, Shia LaBeouf, Mia Wasikowska and newly minted Oscar nominee Jessica Chastain. Burnishing the lineup a bit are older hands like Guy Pearce (who worked with Hillcoat on “The Proposition”) and Gary Oldman, also fresh off his first tip of the hat from the Academy. Meanwhile, between Pearce and Wasikowska, plus fellow Aussies Noah Taylor and Jason Clarke in support, Hollywood immigrant Hillcoat remains committed to keeping his home flag flying. 

Also making a very Australian affair of this all-American bootlegging tale is the fact that the screenplay is by rock icon Nick Cave — his first since penning Hillcoat’s 2005 breakout feature “The Proposition.” Naturally, as has been the case with all Hillcoat’s work, Cave (alongside regular collaborator Warren Ellis) is also responsible for the original score.

Further creating the impression of a “Proposition” reunion is that film’s French cinematographer Benoît Delhomme, whose scattered CV ranges all the way from “The Scent of Green Papaya” to “One Day.” Hillcoat has also remained loyal to his regular production designer Chris Kennedy and costume designer Margot Wilson, both of whom should have plenty of room to shine here. Oscar-nominated editor Dylan Tichenor (“There Will Be Blood,” “Brokeback Mountain”), however, is new to the mix.

The pitch: One of three genre-oriented American literary adaptations in Competition this year, “Lawless” is based on Matt Bondurant’s 2008 historical novel “The Wettest County in the World” (which was the film’s more intriguing, if less commercially viable, original title), itself based on the youthful exploits of the author’s grandfather and great-uncles. The county in question is Prohibition-era Franklin County, Virginia, where three brothers (LaBeouf, Hardy and Clarke) make a living bootlegging moonshine, rural forerunners of bigger-city gangsters. As LaBeouf, keen to impress a local Amish girl (Wasikowska), attempts to take the business out of the sticks and into the big leagues, their legal transgressions grow ever more extreme — and the potential consequences more severe. Billed as a melding of traditional Western and gangster-movie tropes, this evidently handsome period piece sounds an ideal match for Hillcoat’s elegantly hard-edged sensibility — and should allow him and the audience more fun than “The Road” did. 

The pedigree: Hillcoat is one of only four filmmakers in Competition who has never brought a film to any strand of Cannes before, though he’s by no means an unknown property: he made his feature debut in 1988, though most of us only registered his name by the time “The Proposition” (his third feature) rolled around. Still, that film and “The Road” have been enough to establish a clear aesthetic for the director, if not a consistent critical reputation: admired by many, adored by few, his 2009 Cormac McCarthy adaptation was perhaps over-burdened with expectations. It did, however, compete at Venice, thereby getting the director into the lofty Euro-festival club.

The buzz: With a labored production history (shooting was set to start over two years ago, before financial troubles got in the way), a flip-flopping title (it was briefly named “The Promised Land” between two “Wettest County” incarnations, before the Weinsteins finally made the switch to “Lawless” in March) and assorted release-date shuffles (a 2011 bow was rumored, before the film was set for spring 2012 and finally pushed back to an unprepossessing late-August slot), the film, perhaps through no fault of its own, has given industry observers much cause to be nervous. After all, “The Road” had a similarly muddled route to release, and wound up underperforming. Now, however, things seem to have stabilized: the first trailer was unveiled yesterday and has been well-received across the blogosphere. We’re getting excited again.

The odds: Star-studded Hollywood thrillers don’t go to Cannes looking to win the Palme d’Or. The bounty they’re after is critical acclaim, which, combined with the prestige sheen afforded by a Cannes premiere, can be parlayed into upscale box-office and awards-season momentum. That was exactly how it worked for “LA Confidential” and “No Country for Old Men,” neither of which took any prizes on the Croisette but wound up winners in the long run. An equivalent trajectory would represent the ideal outcome for “Lawless” — though the movie, obviously, first has to be up to scratch. 

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

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!

Joss Whedon’s “The Avengers” opens Friday, but it doesn’t merely signal the beginning of the summer movie season. It signals the start of a summer highlighted by comic-based tent pole filmmaking. Still to come are Sony’s reboot, “The Amazing Spider-Man,” and the denouement of Christopher Nolan’s Batman franchise, “The Dark Knight Rises” (the latter having dropped a new trailer last night).

So it makes sense to keep the lists going this week with something pegged to Marvel’s big, inevitable event film. But who wants another “top 10 comic book movies” list, anyway? I couldn’t go there. Narrow it down? Top 10 Marvel movies (stretching back to pre-Marvel Studios, of course)? I just don’t like enough of them.

When I laid out my brief thoughts on “The Avengers” last week, I noted that, for me, what makes the film so special and work so well as a piece of entertainment is how organic the ensemble is. Everyone gels, major actors with major franchises coming together to make something greater. With that in mind, how about focusing on performances in comic book movies?

So that’s what I set out to do. And strangely enough, I ended up with about 25 considerations. Of course, when I say “comic book movie,” I’m not limiting that to superhero stuff. Otherwise it can be a bit of a waste land.

Though maybe not. As I revisited a few things and reconsidered others, I found, for example, that I absolutely love James McAvoy’s work in “X-Men: First Class.” It’s the giddiness he brought to the role, how game he was for it. For me, he sparks brighter than Michael Fassbender’s oft-praised, chilly work. He didn’t make the cut, though. I also gave some serious thought to Christopher Reeve’s iconic portrayal of “Superman,” which needed the right level of self-awareness to pull off Clark Kent as well as the right level of confidence to bring Kal-El to life.

Others I considered peripherally, looking for some diversity, included, say, Vincent D’Onofrio in “Men in Black” as an alien wearing another guy’s skin. Where do you begin to portray that? (And he did a bang-up, underrated job). How about Choi Min-sik from the manga-adapted “Oldboy?” It’s a stirring mix from the actor, raw and fueled. Paul Newman’s Oscar-nominated work in “Road to Perdition” (to say nothing of the undervalued Daniel Craig in same)? Great stuff. No dice, though.

But enough talk. Let’s get to what DID make the list. Check out our new gallery to find out just that. You can rank each selection as you click through the list, by the way. And as always, the obligatory caveat: this isn’t meant to be authoritative. Subjectivity reigns. So if you have a different take, feel free to offer up your thoughts and your own list in the comments section below.

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

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!

After some back and forth with CIM Group, commercial real estate owner of the theare (formerly known as the Kodak) at the Hollywood & Highland complex that has been home to the Oscars for the last decade, a new deal has been struck to keep the annual show there for another 20 years.

According to a press release, another deal was also struck, with Dolby Laboratories, Inc., to name the venue The Dolby Theatre. So it’s goodbye Kodak, hello Dolby. And as Roth so pointedly noted a few weeks ago when these rumblings first began, it’s somehow poetic and sad to see one of the last bastions and earliest creators of celluloid take its exit here as the company that created a digital 3D projection system steps in.

Of course, Dolby’s major imprint has always been trailblazing in the world of audio. Indeed, further into the release it is noted that during the term of the agreement “Dolby will continue to update the theatre with innovative, world-class technologies to ensure that the theatre remains state-of-the-art, beginning with the immediate installation of its recently released Dolby® Atmos™ sound technology.”

Said Dolby CEO Kevin Yeaman in the release, “Our partnership with CIM allows the Dolby Theatre to be the world-stage for the Academy Awards, and for Dolby innovation for decades to come.  Dolby has long been an integral part of Hollywood and the entertainment industry.”

And, in the wake of a season built around reverence for Hollywood and the classic movie era, Tom Sherak added, “The Academy”s Board of Governors believes that the home for our awards is in Hollywood. It is where the Academy and the motion picture industry are rooted.”

The Kodak Theatre is dead. Long live The Dolby Theatre.

A little bit about Dolby from the release:

“Dolby Laboratories (NYSE:DLB) is the global leader in technologies that are essential elements in the best entertainment experiences. Founded in 1965 and best known for high-quality audio and surround sound in environments from the cinema to the living room to mobile devices, Dolby creates innovations that enrich entertainment at the movies, at home, or on the go. For more information about Dolby Laboratories or Dolby technologies, please visit www.dolby.com.”

What are your thoughts on the name change and the implications? Have at it in the comments section below.

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

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!

The director: Michael Haneke (German-Austrian, 70 years old)

The talent: After the low-profile ensemble of “The White Ribbon,” Haneke returns here to the big names. Isabelle Huppert has a history with Haneke and Cannes: she won the festival’s Best Actress award (her second) for “The Piano Teacher” in 2001, and headed the jury that handed him the Palme d’Or three years ago. This marks her third collaboration with him, and her first since 2003’s “The Time of the Wolf,” but she doesn’t appear to be the primary focus this time: that’d be two veterans of the French New Wave, Emmanuelle Riva (“Hiroshima, Mon Amour,”) and Jean-Louis Trintignant (“Three Colors: Red” and “Z,” for which he won Best Actor at Cannes in 1969). (Fun fact: Riva played the lead in Georges Franju’s original film of “Thérèse Desqueyroux,” Claude Miller’s new adaptation of which is closing the festival.) Also on board: British opera baritone William Shimell, who made an impressive film debut opposite Juliette Binoche in 2010’s “Certified Copy.”

Haneke wrote the original screenplay, as per usual. Below the line, it’s exciting to see Darius Khondji, the Oscar-nominated cinematographer of “Se7en,” “Evita” and “Midnight in Paris,” picking up the collaboration he and the director began on 2007’s “Funny Games U.S.” Editors Monika Willi and Nadine Muse (also a sound editor), both of whom have worked on and off with the director since 2000, are back. As usual with Haneke, there is no composer — though the subject matter portends use of existing classical pieces.

The pitch: If you’re familiar with Haneke’s work, you won’t need me to tell you that the narrative revolves around a couple named Anne and George. Those names, transferred from one totally unrelated character the next, are a minor trademark of his work, and this time belong to the characters played by Riva and Trintignant, a married octogenarian pair of former music teachers whose mutual devotion is put to its severest test when Anne suffers a paralyzing stroke. (Huppert plays their daughter, a musician living abroad.)

While this sounds a typically solemn premise from the sternly formalist filmmaker, it also promises more warmth and outward emotion than his recent work has led us to expect. It would appear that the blunt title (which I’m still not sure will be translated for English-speaking markets — it seems unnecessary) hasn’t been casually applied: this ought to be a substantial meditation on how we love, and why. Incidentally, if you hadn’t already guessed, Haneke is back in French-language mode for the first time since “Hidden” in 2005, though the film is a French-German-Austrian co-production.   

The pedigree: Haneke’s been in Competition at Cannes five times before, winning everything from the Ecumenical Jury Prize (“Code Unknown”) to the Grand Prix (“The Piano Teacher” to Best Director (“Hidden”) to, finally and most recently, the Palme d’Or for “The White Ribbon” in 2009. (See, Cannes isn’t entirely unlike the Oscars in that way: persistence pays.) His last film also netted a Golden Globe, two Oscar nods and an armload of European Film Awards, making it his most decorated film to date, though he’d been on the elite list for some time already. Add French acting royalty of Huppert and Trintignant’s caliber and the film could hardly rank higher on the European arthouse hierarchy.

The buzz: Everything I wrote in the above paragraph, plus the pitch’s promise of emotional candor and relative accessibility, ensures people are expecting an arthouse monster. Haneke’s filmography hasn’t been free of missteps, but they’ve generally been more obviously signposted this one. Sony Pictures Classics, of course, already has US distribution rights. 

The odds: With everything going for it on paper, “Amour” would have to be regarded as one of the frontrunners for the Palme d’Or — were it not for the fact that he won the prize on his last time at bat. Only six directors have won the festival’s top honor twice, and while no jury would baulk at letting Haneke join the ranks of Coppola, the Dardennes and, uh, Bille August, it’s rarer still for one to win for consecutive films. (August, amazingly, is the lone precedent.)

Of course, Cannes award runs needn’t end with the Palme, particular when it comes to the festival’s pet filmmakers — the Dardennes, for example, have taken both Best Screenplay and the Grand Prix since their Palme double. But while it’s quite conceivable that Haneke could take a lesser prize, it’s likelier still that its actors will be rewarded: the combination of veteran sentiment and baity-sounding roles could ensure a prize for Trintigant or Riva or, quite plausibly, both. (“The Piano Teacher” pulled off that double in 2001, and the Grand Prix to boot.) Lots of options here: assuming the film delivers emotionally, and with a humanist like Nanni Moretti running the jury, the most surprising outcome would be the film winning 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! 

The director: Matteo Garrone (Italian, 43 years old)

The talent: You’d have to be pretty au fait with contemporary Italian cinema to recognize most of the cast members here: the biggest name on offer is Claudia Gerini, best known for supporting turns in Italian hits “Don’t Move” and “The Other Woman,” as well as minor appearances in “The Passion of the Christ” and “Under the Tuscan Sun.” The young actor Ciro Petrone, who made an impression four years ago in Garrone’s “Gomorrah” (if the image of a gangly youth in his underwear brandishing a gun comes to mind, you’re there), reappears here — as, on the evidence of some other cast members’ CVs, does the director’s partial affinity for inexperienced actors.  

Garrone co-wrote the script with the same three scribes he worked with an “Gomorrah.” Also back on board is major Italian producer Domenico Procacci, whose other recent credits range from “We Have a Pope” to “Barney’s Version.” Garrone’s regular cinematographer Marco Onorato, editor Marco Spoletini and production designer Paolo Bonfini return. New to the group are two rather more well-known craftsmen: two-time Oscar-nominated costume designer Maurizio Millenotti, and a certain ubiquitous composer who’s also scoring Competition entries “Moonrise Kingdom” and “Rust and Bone.” Yes, I erroneously wrote last week that Alexandre Desplat has only two films in the lineup; turns out his reach extends to Italy too. I suspect human cloning.

The pitch: “Gomorrah,” Garrone’s previous (and breakout) feature, was a furious, vérité-influenced study of Neapolitan organized crime syndicates that dazzled international critics and hit a major social nerve in its home country. Four years later, the Italian is clearly still committed to topical, society-based storytelling, but is coming at it from a lighter place: billed as a comedy, “Reality” (previously titled “Big House”) satirizes the country’s fixation with reality television. (I know, I know, that’s a universal disease — but seriously, have you seen Italian TV? It warrants special treatment.) Again set in Naples, the film centers on an Italian family unbalanced by its fishmonger patriarch’s delusional obsession with the local version of “Big Brother.” 

The pedigree: Garrone has several previous features to his name — including titles that competed at Berlin and Venice — but for most international audiences, their acquaintance with his work began with “Gomorrah,” a crossover arthouse sensation that won the Grand Prix at Cannes in 2008 (coming second to “The Class”) and swept the European Film Awards later that year. (We were among its champions: the film cracked both Kris’ and my Top 10 lists in 2008.) As such, he’s not yet a name that inspires mass salivation among the Cannes-bound crowd, but he nonetheless has high expectations to meet.

The buzz: Moderate, at this stage, given the film’s limited name appeal and the lack of detailed information about it — plus the fact that it sounds like such a departure from his breakthrough film that his newer admirers have little idea what to expect. We’ll have some idea ahead of Cannes, though: the film opens in Italy on May 4, so some critical reaction will have trickled out ahead of its Croisette premiere. 

The odds: Paddy Power, perhaps taking note of how close Garrone came to the big prize last time round, have it in the upper tier of Palme hopefuls, with odds of 14-1. That Garrone’s compatriot Nanni Moretti is jury president may factor into that too, though there’s little evidence to suggest that” make a difference. (Overseeing on his home turf at Venice in 2001, Moretti handed top honors to “Monsoon Wedding.”) I’m inclined to be guarded: Italian social satires can often play very inside baseball, given the country’s arcane politics, and unless it taps into a universal sense of media ennui, the subject matter here doesn’t have the immediacy of “Gomorrah.”

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

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!

With apologies for yesterday’s non-delivery.

The director: Andrew Dominik (Australian, 44 years old)

The talent: Ever heard of a guy called Brad Pitt? He’s going places, I tell you. The star has, of course, worked with Dominik before. In 2007, “The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford” won Pitt the Best Actor prize at Venice and effectively started a new, more studious chapter in his career: two leading Oscar nominations and the career peak of 2011 later, it’ll be interesting to see what this reunion brings for him. (As he did on “Jesse James,” Pitt also takes a producer credit here.) The supporting cast, meanwhile, could hardly be tastier, blending trustily weathered character actors like Sam Shepard, Richard Jenkins and James Gandolfini, more ragged, unpredictable talents like Ray Liotta, Garret Dillahunt, a bristly relative newcomer in Scoot McNairy (“Monsters”) and, most excitingly of all, Dominik’s compatriot Ben Mendelsohn, who recently killed in “Animal Kingdom.” Not a lot of room for the ladies here, mind.

As with his previous two features, Dominik wrote the screenplay. The choice of cinematographer is of particular interest here given that, in collaboration with Roger Deakins, Dominik’s last feature was among the most acutely pictorial of the last few years: Deakins isn’t back, but the director’s compatriot Greig Fraser, best known for the bewitching, nature-bound visual poetry he conjured in “Bright Star,” is a suitably exciting substitute.

The pitch: The second American entry in this year’s Competition to be adapted from a modern semi-classic crime novel, the rather generically retitled “Killing Them Softly” was originally named for its source: “Cogan’s Trade,” a 1974 bestseller by lawyer-turned-author George V. Higgins. I’ve not read it myself, but Higgins is known for terse, hardboiled prose in an updated Dashiell Hammett vein, which could perhaps steer Dominik halfway between the rawly funny fury of his 2000 debut “Chopper” and the austere languor of “Jesse James.” Pitt plays Jackie Cogan, a mob enforcer hired to eliminate internal offenders, who is called in to deal with the fallout of a high-stakes poker heist. Much cool staring, double-crossing and gunfire seem to be in order, though I expect Dominik might have more elegiac designs on this pulpy material. Either way, after the success of “Drive,” it’s nice to see the Cannes selectors taking further chances on US genre fare.

The pedigree: One of only four directors in Competition who has never taken a film to Cannes before, Dominik also has only two previous features behind him — making him one of the greener names in this lineup. That said, both “Chopper” and, on a larger scale, “Jesse James” have firm critical followings, while the latter competed at Venice in 2007, so the Australian’s no rube on this circuit.

The buzz: Inevitably high, given its leading man — the red-carpet hordes will congregate thickly for this one, but what of the film itself? Dominik’s last film had a famously difficult time in post-production, with the director and studio (Warner Bros.) at loggerheads over the length and tone of the ultimately defiantly uncommercial movie. With “Killing Me Softly” being handled by prestige merchants The Weinstein Company, never afraid to take a film into their own hands when required, it seems the editing process has been more quietly arduous: The Playlist quotes actor Garret Dillahunt as saying Dominik’s initial 150-minute cut had to be sheared by almost an hour. That’s neither here nor there, as is the film’s rather annoying title change — though if it turns out to disappoint, these will be retroactively flagged as symptoms. Dominik’s an odd, distinctive talent, and Pitt’s in the form of his life — there’s much to be hopeful for here.

The odds: Though perhaps not, to pick up on my last sentence, for the Palme. Jury president Nanni Moretti isn’t known for his predilection for tough American genre filmmaking, and the film would have to handily trounce superficially comparable competitors “Lawless” and “The Paperboy” to make a significant impact on the jury. Pitt’s in a career sweet spot at the moment, which could translate into Best Actor consideration if his performance is up to scratch, but Cannes awards will matter less to the Weinsteins than the sort of reviews on which a US awards campaign could be built. 

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

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!

This weekend the science-fiction meditation on faith, time travel and the human desire to subjugate oneself to something “greater,” Zal Batmanglij’s “Sound of My Voice,” opens in theaters. And the film is in part the result of actress Brit Marling”s (“Another Earth”) desire to create interesting roles for herself.

Marling found that the types of characters she wanted to play simply were not available to her, and so she and Batmanglij, a college friend and long-time creative collaborator, chose to invent one. The film follows a Los Angeles couple, Peter (Christopher Denham) and Lorna (Nicole Vicius) as they attempt to uncover the truth about a cult leader (Marling) who claims to be from the future.

Those are the broad strokes of the plot. But what the film is really looking at is faith, a culture in which a sense of community has become painfully fragmented and the seductive and potentially dangerous power of a person who purports to have the answers so many are seeking.

“When we were writing ‘Sound of My Voice” we were talking about all of the things that are troubling us,” Marling says of the evolution of the script. “The things that are exciting to us, what we feel about relationships and what we feel about cults and exploring the possibility of a human future. And we”re getting to wrap this all into a narrative and share that conversation with other people.”

Said conversation may seem strangely relatable to many dwelling in an urban setting. The Los Angeles setting often gives one the sense that it is fueled by a consistent pulse of equal parts desire and disappointment. It’s a tone that can make inhabitants vulnerable to those who offer an image of authority, particularly those who speak with certainty about the future.

Those who live their lives in a transitory setting, pursuing careers with no guarantees and the odds stacked against them, may crave the belonging and conviction that spiritual groups offer. Many times Los Angelenos are simply looking for a magic elixir that will equal success. So they go seek out yogis and contemporary mystics who sell one more dream to the dreamers: “If you envision it, it can be yours.” But an equally powerful drive is the one to remind oneself (in this often egocentric and self-obsessed environment) that there is more to life than our driving wants and perceived needs.

Indeed, Marling and Batmanglij drew upon their own experience with the new age offerings in Los Angeles when crafting the screenplay. “L.A. is so full of hope and literally the manufacturing dreams,” Marling says. “And then at the same time it”s so filled with nightmare and people”s dreams crumbling and the realization that when the dream comes true you didn”t really understand what you were wishing for.

“I think this town is filled with this strange energy. People come here searching for something and they also come very ready to reinvent themselves and begin again. It”s still the frontier and I think that when I first came out here all of that energy was overwhelming. So I was drawn to all of that transcendental meditation and the yoga and the devotion that can spring up.”

The cult that “Sound of My Voice” depicts exists in the basement of a sparse and simple home in the San Fernando Valley. There is nothing glamorous or sexy about it. Yet the film evokes a palpable sense of longing, a need to belong, to submit oneself and one”s will to something miraculous in the face of an endless urban sprawl. There is also, of course, the appeal of being made “special” in an environment where “special” equates to both worthy and successful.

One gets the sense of the world going on around the inhabitants of the basement sanctum, oblivious to the goings-on in this seemingly normal home, unaware that a group is forming whose members truly believe they are the harbingers of a new era. Equally felt is the sense of isolation the members of the group are experiencing. We watch as they slowly, but very surely, come to believe that the walls that enclose their little basement meeting room equal the limits of what the world has to offer. There is no music, no TV, no connection with exterior life. There is only Maggie, what she has to teach them and their matching personality-less uniforms.

“I think that everybody is looking for meaning and the question is just what in your life is going to be the thing that gives you meaning,” Marling says. “And it can very easily become a meditation, a group, a regiment, dressing this way and following this diet. That can become how your life is filled up. And I think that Zal and I would try out meditations and yoga and on some physiological level it”s just totally working. It”s effective. Whatever it”s doing to your endocrine system and glands in terms of calming you down, just in the science of it, it”s a technology that works.

“But you”re wondering, ‘Okay, first of all, who are the custodians of this technology? Who are these people teaching it? And second of all, is there a spiritual component or not? Are you in communion with the universe or are you just in the deepest recesses of your brain entertaining yourself?” And I think that”s where Peter”s story really comes from. He”s a total skeptic and so are we on some level. And then the idea is that of course you want to believe. You just need proof; you want proof.”

But proof isn”t part of the equation when one is in pursuit of faith. Indeed, Peter, who stands in for the ultimate skeptic in the film, is perhaps the most desperate to find “evidence” that he can believe in Maggie. He is the wounded seeker, the one with the greatest longing for solace despite his brittle shell. For as Marling points out, as strange and controlling and vicious as she can be, there is something about Maggie that inspires a release, a letting go of all the poisonous doubt and self-recrimination and stress that we all inevitably carry around with us.

In some respects it is a leap of faith for a person to be in Los Angeles. It is an act of insanity to commit oneself to a life that is nearly impossible to create, in a city where one lives as the donkey ever chasing that carrot on a string, always surrounded by the images of the privileged few who have caught and devoured said carrot. Is it any wonder that the search for the divine and mythic is prevalent as well? Indeed, is it not possible that the spiritual pursuits are the more worthy, ultimately?

A friend told me the other day that she had read that atheists and vegans have shorter life spans than that of the average person. The latter just made me giggle. But the former gave me pause. It seemed somehow logical that the stress of carrying the full weight of one”s life, without handing some of it over to a greater force (or at least the belief in one), is enough to shave off years.

“Sound of My Voice” opens up some very interesting questions in that regard. Ultimately, I am simply unable to hand my agency over to another, and likely equally flawed, human being. But, I do understand the draw and desire to do so.

“There has to be some belief in magic or the extraordinary or life folds in on itself a bit,” Marling says. “And who said that the pursuit of one”s individual passions is really such a good idea? I mean I really wonder about American ambition and whether or not it”s really a valuable strain of culture. Peter is so that way and it seems to be eating him alive in some respects. And you see him want to surrender and be a part of a group. And some of the stuff Maggie does, while its terrifying, you think, ‘I want that’ or ‘I like what she”s saying, yes.””

That search for community is one with which many are familiar, one that Marling theorizes has given birth to the prevalence of Facebook and Twitter as connection is a fundamental human need.

“I remember doing a yoga thing once where you sat opposite someone for nearly an hour and stared into their eyes,” she says. “And at first I was laughing and I was uncomfortable and annoyed and then I was sort of like, ‘Oh, this is amazing. Where do I end and you begin? Are we really as separate as we perceive? Is there some way in which there is a collective consciousness and we”re all thinking and feeling together?” And isn”t that what”s delightful about cinema? Which is you are with this audience and you”re all feeling at once, even if you’re not talking to one another.”

Indeed, that is one of the wonderful things about the communal experience of watching a film in a theater, that and talking about it post-viewing. “Sound of My Voice” is a film which invites the viewer into a dialogue, into a question that really has no definitive answer other than the one that we each provide for ourselves. Such is the paradox of faith. It is union that many are seeking and it is only through one”s own choice that we can find it.

“Sound of My Voice” opens in theaters today.

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

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!

The director: Lee Daniels (American, 52 years old)

The talent: Thought Robert Pattinson was the unlikeliest name you’d see leading a Competition title at Cannes? Try Zac Efron out for size. The “High School Musical” teen idol takes on his first fully adult dramatic lead in this thriller, with several more experienced star names to back him up: Matthew McConaughey (in the first of his two Competition film appearances this year), Nick Nolte, John Cusack, Scott Glenn and, generating the most pre-premiere chatter about her performance, Nicole Kidman.

Meanwhile, sandpaper-voiced soul singer Macy Gray narrates. If you enjoyed her performance in Daniels’ debut feature “Shadowboxer” and often find yourself wondering how she’d have fared in Mo’Nique’s role in “Precious” — in other words, if you’re me — this is very good news indeed.

Pete Dexter adapted his own bestselling novel for the screen: his short list of screenwriting accomplishments ranges from his excellent, Emmy-nominated adaptation of another of his novels, “Paris Trout,” to Nora Ephron’s wing’ed John Travolta comedy “Michael,” so let’s assume he’s happier on his own turf. Below the line, Roberto Schaefer, best known (if not particularly treasured) as Marc Forster’s favorite cinematographer, is behind the camera; composer Mario Grigorov and Oscar-nominated editor Joe Klotz’s services have been retained from “Precious.”

The pitch: Since its publication in 1995, Pete Dexter’s bestselling, prize-winning crime novel has seemed ripe for screen treatment. For years, Spanish auteur Pedro Almodovar expressed interest in making the film his English-language debut. Sadly enough, that never came to pass — though Almodovar reportedly retains some form of producer credit here. The job has since trickled down into the hands of a vastly different, though similarly unlikely, gay filmmaker, African-American Oscar nominee Lee Daniels. After the earnest, overwrought kitchen-sink melodrama of his breakthrough feature “Precious,” he’s not the first name you’d connect to Dexter’s pithy Southern noir, but his directorial career is young enough — only three films in — to surprise us yet. 

“The Paperboy” stars McConaughey as an investigative journalist hired, together with his idealistic younger brother (Efron), by a bottle-blonde floozy (Kidman) to find evidence to exonerate a convicted murderer (Cusack) on death row — without ever having met the supposed criminal, she has decided she’s in love with him, planning to marry him upon his release. That familiar logline doesn’t do justice to Dexter’s stark, witty, finally unsettling moral tabulations. It’s a cracking read; don’t wait for the movie. 

The pedigree: While there are no outright newcomers in Competition this year, Daniels’ name stands out as one of the more untested in the lineup, with only two previous features to his name — the first of which, the aforementioned 2005 thriller “Shadowboxer,” was an unequivocal disaster. Longer producing career notwithstanding, Daniels’ reputation essentially rests on “Precious,” a divisively directed film that earned him not only a pair of Oscar nods, but his first Cannes berth: it competed in Un Certain Regard in 2009, coming away empty-handed. Whether you were a fan of that film’s confrontational directorial style or not, you might be curious as to whether that film was merely lightning or a bottle or the throat-clearing of a distinctive cinematic voice.  

The buzz: While certainly not an unknown quantity, the film remains hard to read. Given the potential pulpiness of the material and Daniels’ slight outsider status, it’s not an obvious pick for the Cannes selectors at all, which suggests they see something special in it. On the other hand, it’s surprising that a film with that cast, that major source material and a recently Oscar-nominated director hasn’t aligned itself with a loftier distributor than Millennium Films, which frequently trades in trash. Which is it? The film could be as interesting a failure as a success, but we do know that festival director Thierry Fremaux is very high on Nicole Kidman’s performance in it.

The odds: If Fremaux’s enthusiasm is shared by others on the Croisette, Kidman could be a major contender for the Best Actress prize: she’s come close before (many would agree she was robbed blind for “Dogville” at the 2003 festival), and has at least two potential sympathizers on the jury in the form of Ewan McGregor and Jean-Paul Gaultier. (Meanwhile, depending on how good he is in this and Jeff Nichols’ “Mud,” McConaughey could be an outside Best Actor possibility for both films.) That, I’m guessing, is chiefly where the film’s awards hopes lie: Daniels himself lacks seasoning, and there’s a possibility the trio of American thrillers in Competition will split their own support base. The Palme bookies aren’t optimistic (25-1 odds from Paddy Power); nor should they be, whether the film makes good on the novel’s promise or not.

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

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!

The Seattle International Film Festival has announced that it will recognize Oscar-winning actress Sissy Spacek and director William Friedkin as 2012 tribute honorees. Sissy Spacek will receive the festival”s award for Outstanding Achievement in Acting on June 7 and William Friedkin will be presented with a Lifetime Achievement Award on June 9.

“Sissy Spacek and William Friedkin have captivated audiences repeatedly throughout their careers with critically acclaimed works that boast multigenerational appeal,” said SIFF Artistic Director Carl Spence via press release.

Spacek has a particularly special place in my heart. Her first firm step onto the world stage was in “Badlands,” the debut film of one of my favorite director”s, Terrence Malick. But it was her Academy Award-winning turn as country singer Loretta Lynn in “Coal Miner”s Daughter” that really left an indelible mark.

Though I was raised in New York City, I was born in Tennessee to a very Southern mother. As such, I grew up listening to the rough tones of Johnny Cash, the unearthly ballads of Patsy Cline, the salty sweet rhythms of “The Band” and watching (repeatedly) the film based on the deep country girl turned megastar “Coal Miner”s Daughter.”

And the strange truth of it is I never got tired of viewing the film. Witnessing the Texas-born actress transform herself into a painfully naïve young girl and then again into a Nashville icon was always a joy, a secret pleasure that I outwardly grumbled about, lest I confess (in my grumpy adolescence) that this little bit of family time was actually a treasure.

No matter the film or the character there has always been something inherently likable about Sissy Spacek. Whether she is telekinetically dolling out poetic justice in “Carrie” or losing a grip on herself and her marriage in “In the Bedroom,” I find that I am inevitably, at least in some measure, on her side.

Meanwhile, William Friedkin, the craftsman responsible for “The French Connection,” (for which he received a Best Director Oscar) and “The Exorcist” will screen his latest collaboration with playwright Tracy Letts, “Killer Joe,” at SIFF in addition to receiving the Lifetime Achievement Award.

The festival, which runs May 17-June 10, will announce its official selections tomorrow.

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

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!

CinemaCon in Las Vegas is where it’s at this week as movie journos and bloggers have descended on Sin City and turned an exhibitors convention into an exasperated “We saw 10 minutes of ‘X’ movie!” slog. Nevertheless, I kind of wish I was there.

But then I don’t know what I could add when everyone is not just covering the same events but coming away with the exact same talking points. Are they distributing memos or something? Anyway, it’s no different than Comic-Con, I guess, where “Sucker Punch” looks like it could be an awesome movie for all of 600 seconds.

As it pertains to potential awards contenders, they’ve shown some much-anticipated footage from Peter Jackson’s “The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey” in 48 frames-per-second, which yielded responses from mixed to overwhelmingly negative (a few champions of the hyper-real look scattered here and there). Today, though, “Oscar” was on everyone’s lips after a taste of Ang Lee’s “Life of Pi.”

Here’s an adaptation that’s been in the works ever since Yann Martel’s book was released in 2001. Everyone from M. Night Shyamalan to Alfonso Cuarón to Jean-Pierre Jeunet has flirted with the project over the past decade, but Lee ended up finally taking it by the horns. 20th Century Fox is set to distribute on December 21 (you know, when we’re all gonna die). Do they have an Oscar player?

Well, to judge by the overwhelming leap to a conclusion by those in attendance, yes, yes they do. But really, when you see a little bit of impressive footage from an upcoming film, you should be saying, “I want to see more.” Not, “It’s an absolute contender for Best Picture.” It’s one thing to idly make a few sight-unseen calls (we do it all the time). But outright declarations? Well, the heat is on.

The only thing close to an actual assessment of the footage as opposed to the film’s Oscar potential came from the always level-headed Moisés Chiullan, covering for Ain’t It Cool News. “‘Life of Pi’ footage absolutely wrecked me,” he Tweeted. “I cried. Choking up thinking about it. This doesn’t happen to me. The master at work.” Said the LA Times’ Amy Kaufman, “‘Life of Pi’ footage didn’t disappoint. The waves and underwater scenes look amazing in 3-D.”

And then, “Oscar! Oscar! Oscar!” Entertainment Weekly’s Anthony Breznican was the first to hit the big red button, proclaiming that the film “will be getting a best picture Oscar nomination. The footage screened at CinemaCon could claim one for short!” eFilmCritic.com’s Erik Childress was right on his heels telling everyone to “mark [his] word, based on the footage…’Life of Pi’ is going to be a MAJOR player at this year’s Oscars.” I think it’s safe to say everyone’s on the same premature page, Erik, so there’s no need for word marking.

There were countless others, mostly variations on the same. “The Oscar race has begun.” “An absolute Oscar contender.” “I’d be amazed if ‘Life of Pi’ isn’t nominated for Best Picture.” Etc. Mostly from people who are shocked year in and year out when this or that ISN’T nominated by the Academy, I should note.

I wish more people had spent some time reacting to the 3D, which is apparently glorious (as yet another master filmmaker saddles up to the technology). Or something about how the adaptation has been handled, since apparently it was about 20 minutes of footage they screened. I’m sure those pieces are coming, but I guess such considerations just aren’t as grabby as “Oscar!” when it comes to one-offs. (There are, however, reports from yesterday’s CinemaCon panel on 3D with Lee and Martin Scorsese, which sounds like it would have been a delight.)

Anyway, no pressure, Fox (which has only seen Best Picture nominations for “Avatar,” “Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World,” “Moulin Rouge!” and “The Thin Red Line” in the last 14 years, by the way). There’s always been a bit of a blasé attitude toward awards there (which can be refreshing, actually). Can the studio usher such a unique vision that doesn’t seem, on the outside, to be much of an Academy wheelhouse play to a nomination? Perhaps.

But I’ll wait until I’ve seen the whole film (or at least talked to someone who has) before tip-toeing into such declarations.

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

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!

The auteur: David Cronenberg (Canadian, 69 years old)

The talent: At this stage in his career, we don’t expect an undistinguished cast from a Cronenberg film, and true to form, this one is packed to the rafters with interesting names — though not ones you’d necessarily expect on one bill. Juliette Binoche (returning to Cannes for the first time since winning Best Actress two years ago), Samantha Morton, Paul Giamatti, Mathieu Amalric and Jay Baruchel are all on board — as, more improbably, is Somalian rapper K’Naan. (On a side note, this is the director’s first feature in 10 years not to star Viggo Mortensen.)

The big attraction, however, is some guy called Robert Pattinson in the lead. It’s perhaps the poppiest casting coup of Cronenberg’s career, and the best chance yet for the talented British heartthrob to win some admirers beyond the fiercely devoted “Twilight” faithful.

A major point of interest is that this is Cronenberg’s first self-scripted feature since 1999’s “eXistenZ,” which rather increases the possibility of the director letting his freak flag fly. Below the line, meanwhile, it’s business as usual: cinematographer Peter Suschitzky has shot all Cronenberg’s films since “Dead Ringers” in 1998, composer Howard Shore has scored all but one since “The Brood” in 1979, while editor Ronald Sanders and costume designer (and sister) Denise Cronenberg go similarly far back. This sturdy team is just about as integral to the Cronenberg brand as Cronenberg himself. 

The pitch: With over 40 years having passed since the publication of his first novel, Don DeLillo is surely one of the most celebrated contemporary authors never to have been adapted for the screen before, with studios’ attempts at filming both “White Noise” and “End Zone” having ultimately bitten the dust. That’s not an accident: DeLillo’s dense, oblique, thematically braided prose isn’t exactly made for cinema. It makes perfect sense then, that it’s David Cronenberg who has finally broken that duck: having already brought William S. Burroughs, J.G. Ballard and Patrick McGrath to the screen, the Canadian veteran knows a thing or two about filming the unfilmable.

DeLillo’s short 2003 novel “Cosmopolis” wasn’t as fanatically embraced by critics as some of his other works, which probably makes it a smart choice for adaptation, though it’s a tall order all the same. Set in modern-day Manhattan, the surreal narrative covers a day in the life of a young billionaire financier, whose trek across town to get a haircut is beset with complications, obstructions and sexually charged encounters, as he sets about losing vast sums of money — his own and that of his clients. As a potential allegory for our own financial woes as a society, this is one cannily timed project. 

The pedigree: Well, it’s Cronenberg, one of the few filmmakers whose name has spawned its own widely used cinematic adjective, applied not merely to his own films — the pedigree need hardly be explained. This is his fourth go-round in Competition at Cannes, though he only won for his first, when “Crash” was awarded a Special Jury Prize after rocking the Croisette in 1996.”Spider” and “A History of Violence,” though both warmly received at the festival, came away empty-handed. (“Naked Lunch” and “eXistenZ” competed at Berlin, while he made his Venice debut last year with “A Dangerous Method.”) Finally, Cronenberg headed the Cannes jury in 1999 — big winner or not, he’s among the festival elite. 

The buzz: Through. The. Roof. Casting Pattinson in the lead has ensured that, in an unusual occurrence, the arthouse intelligentsia and the screaming teen hordes are going to converge on the same red carpet, making “Cosmopolis” surely the hottest ticket of the festival. What that means for the film itself is harder to gauge. With the festival’s flashbulbs fixed squarely on it, the film’s under pressure to deliver — but it’s likelier to satisfy, or at least stimulate, the Cronenberg acolytes than the mainstream media drawn more by the casting than the challenging match of director and source material. Mixed reviews wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing: it could be one of those strange festival brews for which critical consensus is slow to emerge.

The odds: The bookies like the film’s Palme chances — Paddy Power currently gives it strong odds of 11-2 — but in this case, I don’t think they’re necessarily being deceived by the bright lights. Cronenberg is well overdue for some major festival hardware, and the film’s themes would make it an attractively timely winner. I have my doubts about the Palme going to a big-name North American dreamer two years in a row, but of all the English-language films in Competition, this feels to me like the best bet. R.Pattz for Best Actor, on the other hand? I’m not sure the internet can handle that.

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

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!

What do Hiam Abbass, Andrea Arnold, Emmanuelle Devos, Jean-Paul Gaultier, Diane Kruger, Ewan McGregor, Alexander Payne and Raoul Peck have in common? Okay, no prizes for this one — you’ve already seen the headline.

This year’s Cannes Film Festival competition jury, who will serve under previously announced jury president Nanni Moretti, is a typically motley crew, sufficiently diverse to stump any pundits trying to handicap the Palme d’Or race in terms of what the people voting might be looking for.

It’s hard to imagine what cinematic common ground off-the-wall French fashion designer Gaultier might find with stern Haitian filmmaker and political activist Peck, for example, or where the sensibilities of the jury’s two British members, jaunty Hollywood star McGregor and tough-minded realist director Arnold, may collide. Therein lies the fun.

Meanwhile, so many potential sympathies and affliciations can be identified that they rather cancel each other out. Does the presence of McGregor and Gaultier bode well for Nicole Kidman’s Best Actress chances? Will Emmanuelle Devos rally for her “Read My Lips” director Jacques Audiard? Does having two countrymen on the jury help Ken Loach at all? Jury loyalties can sometimes be pretty transparent in this regard — Isabelle Huppert handing the Palme to Michael Haneke is fresh in our memory — but it’s hard to spot any clear potential inclinations in this group.

Worth noting is that, in contrast to the strong American presence in this year’s Competition lineup, Alexander Payne, fresh from his second Oscar win, is the only Yank on the jury. Meanwhile, as to compensate for the complete absence of any in Competition, two female directors are present. In the case of Hiam Abbass, the Palestian actress-turned-filmmaker best known to US audiences for her turn opposite Richard Jenkins in “The Visitor,” this is an unexpected flip: many Cannes-watchers were surprised when her debut feature as director, “Inheritance,” didn’t show up in Competition last week. Now we know.

Arnold’s selection, meanwhile, seems like a reconciliatory gesture on the festival organisers’ part after her superb “Wuthering Heights” was unwisely turned down for last year’s Competition. (She wound up taking it to Venice instead, where it was well received by critics.) Along with president Moretti, who took the Palme in 2001 for “The Son’s Room,” she’s the only juror to have previously won at the festival: “Red Road” and “Fish Tank” both won the Jury Prize in 2006 and 2009, respectively. Payne and Peck have both been in Competition before (Payne for “About Schmidt,” Peck for “The Man on the Shore”) but came away empty-handed.

Impressively eclectic as it is, however, I’d venture that this year’s group isn’t quite as formidable as the jury formed for the Berlinale earlier this year, which ranged from Mike Leigh to Asghar Farhadi to Charlotte Gainsbourg to Jake Gyllenhaal. Watch your back, Cannes.

The jury isn’t the only major Cannes-related announcement of the week. I didn’t get round to this yesterday, but the list of films in this year’s Directors’ Fortnight sidebar has been unveiled; together with the Critics’ Week selections, announced Monday, it brings this year’s Cannes lineup to completion (though one or two additional stray titles across the sections have yet to be announced by Thierry Fremaux).

The Critics’ Week section is particularly focused on fresh, fringe talent this year — nine of the 10 films chosen are from first-time directors, while none are from the US. That pretty much ensures the media will turn a blind eye, but it’s always worth paying attention to this strand: last year, the big winners there were critical darlings “Take Shelter” and “Snowtown” (or, if you must, “The Snowtown Murders”).

The Directors’ Fortnight, meanwhile, is packing some bigger names this year, chief among them Michel Gondry, whose new film “The We and the I” will open the section. Following the disappointment of his attempted blockbuster “The Green Hornet,” the Frenchman’s latest finds him going emphatically lo-fi again — it’s filmed entirely with New York schoolchildren, apparently.

Other notable Fortnight inclusions are “Sightseers,” a black comedy from British up-and-comer Ben Wheatley (whose off-kilter horror film “Kill List” wowed many critics last year), “Room 237,” a “subjective documentary” about Stanley Kubrick’s “The Shining” that earned a lot of Sundance attention, “Ernest and Celestine,” the latest from the offbeat French animation duo that gave us “A Town Called Panic,” and “La Noche de Enfrente,” the final film by the late Raul Ruiz. Most excitingly for me, as mentioned in yesterday’s Top 10 Most Anticipated list, is Pablo Larrain’s “No,” starring Gael Garcia Bernal.

Here’s the lineup for those two strands in full:

DIRECTORS’ FORTNIGHT

“The We and the I,” Michel Gondry (opening film) “Granny’s Funeral,” Bruno Podalydès

“Alyah,” Elie Wajeman “

“Dangerous Liaisons,” Hur Jin-ho

“Ernest and Célestine,” Stéphane Aubier, Vincent Patar and Benjamin Renner

“Fogo,” Yulene Olaizola

“Gangs of Wasseypur,” Anurag Kashyap

“Hold Back,” Rachid Djaïdani

“Infancia Clandestina,” Benjamin Avila

“The King of Pigs,” Yeun Sang-ho

“No,” Pablo Larraín

“La Noche de Enfrente,” Raul Ruiz 

“Opération Libertad,” Nicolas Wadimoff

“A Respectable Family,” Massoud Bakhshi

“Room 237,” Rodney Ascher 

“Sightseers,” Ben Wheatley

“La Sirga,” William Vega

“Sueño y Silencio,” Jaime Rosales 

“El Taaib (Le Repenti),” Merzak Allouache

“3,” Pablo Stoll Ward 

“Camille Redouble,” Noémie Lvovsky (closing film)

CRITICS’ WEEK

“Broken,” Rufus Norris (opening film)

“Aquí y Allá,” Antonio Méndez Esparza

“Au Galop,” Louis-Do de Lencquesaing

“Augustine,” Alice Winocour

“Beyond the Walls,” David Lambert

“Maddened by His Absence,” Sandrine Bonnaire

“Peddlers,” Vasan Bala

“Los Salvajes,” Alejandro Fadel

“Sofia’s Last Ambulance,” Ilian Metev

“Les Voisins de Dieu,” Meni Yaesh

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

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!