The 24th annual USC Libraries Scripter Awards were held this evening just south of downtown at the Doheny Library on the USC campus. For the first time in a while, I had to miss the show (which is always a classy affair and, as a former USC grad student, always a bit odd, ordering a vodka tonic at the counter where I used to check out books for thesis and term paper purposes).

Anyway, the goal of the honor is to recognize adaptation of the written word. Once upon a time that was limited to literature, but in recent years it has expanded to include former screenplays (allowing for remakes to be recognized) and comic books.

This year, the big winner, unsurprisingly, was “The Descendants.” Screenwriters Alexander Payne, Nat Faxon and Jim Rash were awarded alongside author Kaui Hart Hemmings. The film won the honor just moments after it was announced as this year’s ACE Eddie winner for dramas.

The other nominees were “A Dangerous Method,” “Jane Eyre,” “Moneyball” and “Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy.” I think one of the latter two would have been much more handsome and thoughtful recipients since they don’t particularly (well, at all) represent a cut-and-paste by any sretch. “Moneyball” was a book no one thought could be adapted for the screen, and yet screenwriters Aaron Sorkin and Steven Zaillian (two of the top writers in the business) tackled Stan Chervin’s pre-existing adaptation and it became one of the most dense, thematically rich films of the year.

“Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy,” meanwhile, whittled a vast volume that was barely squeezed into a longer mini-series once upon a time and made it flow beautifully within a two-hour frame. How you can argue against these two adaptations being better works on the page than “The Descendants” is beyond me, yet Payne’s film is nevertheless looking good for an Oscar win (and even better if it takes the WGA prize tomorrow night).

Most of the nominees this year were former finalists. Zaillian is actually a three-time winner for “Awakenings,” “Schindler’s List” and “A Civil Action,” and he also won the inaugural Literary Achievement Award in 2008. Sorkin won last year for “The Social Network,” while “Tinker” author John le Carré was up for the prize for the adaptation of his book “The Constant Gardener” in 2005. Finally, “A Dangerous Method” screenwriter Christopher Hampton was up for “Carrington” in 1996.

This marks Payne’s first Scripter win. In 2003 he was a finalist for “About Schmidt” but lost to “The Hours.” In 2005, he was up for “Sideways” but lost to “Million Dollar Baby.” He won the Oscar that year, though.

Recent recipients of the award have included “Up in the Air,” “Slumdog Millionaire,” “No Country for Old Men,” “Children of Men,” “Capote” and “Million Dollar Baby.” Only eight of the 23 previous Scripter winners went on to win the Oscar for Best Adapted Screenplay, but it’s becoming more common as of late.

Remember to keep track of all the ups and downs of the 2011-2012 film awards season via The Circuit.

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

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!

The 62nd annual ACE Eddie Awards, recognizing achievement in film editing, were held this evening, and the big surprise came in the drama category. Alexander Payne’s “The Descendants” beat out fellow Best Picture nominees “Hugo,” “Moneyball” and “War Horse,” as well as the slickly cut (by last year’s Oscar winners) “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” for the award.

Meanwhile, “The Artist” predictably took the comedy/musical prize, besting “Bridesmaids,” “Midnight in Paris,” “My Week with Marilyn” and “Young Adult.” And “Rango” beat out “The Adventures of Tintin” and “Puss in Boots” for the animated prize. (I might have gone with the former instead, as Michael Kahn’s work there was really a virtue and part of the film’s identity. But I’m happy I’m such a fan of both of those films this year and any success either gets is fine by me.)

But getting back to “The Descendants,” what does it mean for Oscar? Well, it means editors are in love with the work done on the film, but it doesn’t necessarily mean that translates throughout the Academy all that much. I’d still wager the Oscar race is between “Hugo” and “The Artist,” the latter likely taking the prize in the end.

As previously announced, Payne received ACE’s Filmmaker of the Year Award (which was presented by editor Kevin Tent and “Election” star Reese Witherspoon), so it all made for a nice pick-me-up for his film. “The Descendants” has been suffering a bit of an awards hangover following a great night at the Golden Globes last month, coming up empty-handed at all guild awards ceremonies as of late. Perhaps it’ll add to this newfound momentum tomorrow night with a WGA victory in the adapted screenplay category.

In addition to all of that, Clint Eastwood was on hand to present a Career Achievement Award to his frequent collaborator, Joel Cox. Cox has worked with Eastwood ever since 1976’s “The Enforcer” and “The Outlaw Josey Wales” (most recently on “J. Edgar”) and won an Oscar for 1992’s “Unforgiven.” TV editor Douglas Ibold also received a career achievement honor.

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

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!

As I wrote in my most recent Berlin Film Festival dispatch — and will explain further tomorrow, when I review my favorites of the festival — this year’s Competition turned out far stronger than it looked on paper, with a handful of rangy, robust formally exciting films that would have passed muster even in a more high-stakes Cannes lineup.

“Caesar Must Die,” a comeback effort of sorts from veteran Italian auteurs Paolo and Vittorio Taviani, was not, for my money, one of those films. A gimmicky melange of re-enacted documentary and heightened performance piece that feels padded even at 76 minutes, it follows the rehearsal and staging of an amateur production of Shakespeare’s “Julius Caesar” in Rome’s rough Rebibbia prison.

With an array of real-life convicts, most of them Mafia-related, playing themselves, the film rather unsubtly underlines the liberating powers of culture — at one point, by having one of the men helpfully say that he feels liberated by culture. (Another participant, Salvatore Striano, was paroled in 2006 and has since cultivated a career as an actor, popping up in “Gomorrah” a few years back.) The film premiered early in the fest and had its admirers, but swiftly dropped out of the critical conversation — and, indeed, my memory. 

Clearly, however, it stuck more with Mike Leigh’s jury. In a result that has no doubt confounded a lot of bookies, “Caesar Must Die” beat the more hotly fancied likes of “Barbara,” “War Witch” and “Tabu” to win the Golden Bear — a coup that will no doubt boost the Italian curio’s iffy international distribution prospects a little, but I think it’s safe to say we haven’t another “A Separation” on our hands here.

The win comes 35 years after the Tavianis won the Palme d’Or at Cannes for their severe Sardinian shepherd drama “Padre Padrone.” Once relatively revered names on the world cinema circuit — their 1982 film “Night of the Shooting Stars” was an even bigger crossover success, winning Best Picture from the Boston and National Society of Film Critics — their following has since faded somewhat, though I imagine Leigh remembers their heyday.

It’s interesting, meanwhile, that Berlin, Venice and Cannes have all handed their top laurels to veteran filmmakers in the past year (Aleksandr Sokurov and Terrence Malick complete the trio). Clearly, Academy voters aren’t the only ones turning the clock back. Does this mean we’re due another shock-of-the-new festival champ — à la “Pulp Fiction” or “sex, lies and videotape” — this year?

The jury chose a better film for the runner-up prize: Hungarian director Benedek Fliegauf’s “Just the Wind,” a harrowing fact-based portrait of the last day in the lives of a gypsy family murdered by nationalist extremists. Fliegauf’s last film, the Eva Green-starring fantasy “Womb,” was a technically astonishing oddity: here, the same level of craft is applied to far more substantial material, even if the final result is coldly unilluminating.

My three favorites of the festival were all handed a prize of some variety, most notably Christian Petzold’s Best Director gong for “Barbara,” a rivetingly deliberate study of cross-border tensions and yearnings in late-1970s East Germany, anchored by brilliant performance from Nina Hoss. (Following my 2011 Top 20 entry “Sleeping Sickness,” it’s the second year in a row a local director has taken the honor.)

Miguel Gomes’s “Tabu” and Ursula Meier’s “Sister” were damned with fainter praise. The former, an exquisitely enigmatic black-and-white marriage of post-colonial politics and swoonsome silent-movie romance, was arguably the critical favorite of the festival, and duly won the FIPRESCI critics’ award, but had to settle for the lesser Alfred Bauer Prize from the jury — supposedly for works “of particular innovation,” it’s designed for weighty artistic accomplishments that juries nonetheless don’t quite know how to handle. Still, it’s a more established honor than the vague “Special Award” handed to Meier’s lovely character study of an unmoored kid thieving for a living at a moneyed Swiss ski resort.

The invention of an extra award suggests to me that Leigh’s jury — an unusually distinguished one, including Jake Gyllenhaal, Charlotte Gainsbourg, Francois Ozon, Asghar Farhadi and Anton Corbijn — was divided in their support of several Competition films. Further supporting that notion is the fact that only one film took more than one prize — unlike last year, when “A Separation” took the Golden Bear and both acting prizes. That film, incidentally, is the well-regarded Danish costume drama “A Royal Affair,” which took Best Screenplay and Best Actor for Mikkel Følsgaard. I regretfully missed it, but will catch up with it in London next month.  

Finally, the one award I predicted correctly was the Best Actress prize for 15 year-old Congolese newcomer Rachel Mwanza in “War Witch,” a vivid, gripping evocation of the horrors endured by a female child soldier in Africa that was the last film screened in Competition and knocked many critics sideways. Mwanza’s award was easily seen coming — it’s the kind of stunt festival juries routinely like to pull, but the performance merits the attention. In a strong festival for actresses, the aforementioned Nina Hoss and Birgit Minichmayr (superb as a traumatised hit-and-run driver in uneven German entry “Mercy”) might have given Mwanza more of a run for her money if both women hadn’t recent won this very award.

Anyway, more tomorrow. For now here’s the (not quite full, but I had to stop somewhere) list of winners:  

Golden Bear (Best Film): “Caesar Must Die,” Paolo and Vittorio Taviani

Jury Grand Prix: “Just the Wind,” Benedek Fliegauf

Best Director: Christian Petzold, “Barbara”

Best Actor: Mikkel Følsgaard, “A Royal Affair”

Best Actress: Rachel Mwanza, “War Witch”

Best Screenplay: Nikolaj Arcel and Rasmus Heisterberg, “A Royal Affair”

Outstanding Artistic Contribution: Lutz Reitemeier (cinematography), “White Deer Plain”

Alfred Bauer Prize for a work of particular innovation: “Tabu,” Miguel Gomes

Special Award (Silver Bear): “Sister,” Ursula Meier

Other jury prizes:

FIPRESCI Prize (Competition): “Tabu,” Miguel Gomes

FIPRESCI Prize (Panorama): “Atomic Age,” Helena Klotz

FIPRESCI Prize (Forum): “Hemel,” Sacha Polak

Teddy Award (Queer Cinema): “Keep the Lights On,” Ira Sachs

Best First Feature: “Kauwboy,” Boudewijn Koole

Special Mention (First Feature): “Beyond the Hill,” Emin Alper

Ecumenical Jury Prize (Competition): “Caesar Must Die,” Paolo and Vittorio Taviani

Ecumenical Jury Special Mention (Competition): “War Witch,” Kim Nguyen

Ecumenical Jury Prize (Panorama): “The Wall,” Julian Roman Polsler

Ecumenical Jury Special Mention (Panorama): “The Parade,” Srdjan Dragojevic

Ecumenical Jury Prize (Forum): “The Delay,” Rodrigo Pla

Crystal Bear (Generation Kplus): “Arcadia,” Olivia Silver

Crystal Bear (Generation 14plus): “Night of Silence,” Reis Celik

Golden Bear (Short Film): “Rafa,” Joao Salaviza

Prize of the Guild of German Art House Cinemas (Competition): “Coming Home,” Frederic Videau

Panorama Audience Award: “The Parade,” Srdjan Dragojevic

Panorama Audience Award (Documentary): “Marina Abramovic: The Artist is Present,” Matthew Akers

Berliner Morgenpost Jury Award (Competition): “Barbara,” Christian Petzold

Taggespiegel Jury Award (Forum): “The Delay,” Rodrigo Pla

Amnesty International Award: “Just the Wind,” Benedk Fliegauf

Honorary Golden Bear: Meryl Streep   

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

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!

Whitney Houston is being laid to rest today in her hometown of Newark, New Jersey. I’ve been watching people like Alicia Keyes and Kevin Costner (who delivered a knock-out remembrance) pay tribute to the late singer, who was discovered dead last weekend at the Beverly Hilton Hotel today, and I have to say, the more I’ve considered this situation all week, as of course the media has kept turning it over so it’s always there to be considered, the sadder I’ve become.

My first reaction when I was told the news a week ago, the circumstances under which Houston’s body was discovered, was, “Of course.” How callous. How utterly devoid of emotion. How disconnected.

But the truth is, Houston has kind of been a constant in my life, as I’m sure she has for so many others. The 80s success instantly recalls my childhood. Her unbelievable performance of The Star Spangled Banner at Super Bowl XXV was actually played on the intercom of my fourth grade high school every morning in Virginia Beach. The “Bodyguard” soundtrack was massive and unavoidable in 1993, certain tracks becoming staples of middle school dances where I tried to pump myself up to ask this girl or that onto the dance floor.

Then, the fall. The long, slow, painful fall. It seemed the last truly sterling moment came in 1999, when she bubbled up at the Academy Awards with Mariah Carey to perform the soon-to-be-Oscar-winning “When You Believe” from “The Prince of Egypt.”

Houston’s work has been ubiquitous this week. And I’ve realized it’s one of very few voices that can bring a tear to my eye in music. It wasn’t just the quality of the pipes, the high notes, the physical wonder. It was the emotion behind the words. Houston conveyed more than just candy for the ears. She told stories with the flutter of her voice, the pauses, the little moments within tracks that indicated a very thoughtful storyteller behind it all.

There was a “20/20” special on last night that was a pretty good distillation of the singer’s career, which in some ways (I almost hesitate to say this) was beautiful in its ultimate tragedy. As I watched all the various pieces of footage from the past 30 years, I found that I really liked this person. And it’s not just due to the natural affable shine a star can effortlessly put forth, but underneath it all, even as I watched her interrogated about her thinness by Diane Sawyer on a special from 10 years ago, wallowing in denial, I saw someone I wanted to pull for, someone I wanted to succeed even beyond her already towering achievements. I wanted the moon for her.

And I believe that quality was always there, now that I think back.

So with Clive Davis on the screen now offering his thoughts on the immense talent he discovered, I thought I should write a little something, too. Here is Houston and Carey from the Oscarcast 13 years ago:

And here is Kevin Costner’s eulogy for his “Bodyguard” co-star:

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!

Follow @kristapley

!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=”//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js”;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document,”script”,”twitter-wjs”);

“We”re all told at some point in time that we can no longer play the children”s game,” a baseball scout says to a young Billy Beane in a flashback sequence in “Moneyball,” one of this year’s nine Best Picture nominees. “We just don”t know when that”s going to be. Some of us are told at 18, some of us are told at 40. But we”re all told.”

A “sports movie” is designed to follow a now familiar trajectory. There is an underdog (be it a group or an individual), an obstacle, a struggle, a conflict, a sequence where we believe that our hero will be forced to retreat and finally a life-affirming moment of triumph.

What is so fascinating about “Moneyball” is that it simultaneously follows and shatters those standards. It fundamentally disagrees with the overarching messages of the majority of sports films (just as its central character fundamentally challenged the way the financial team-building game of baseball was played). Many traditional sports movies either overtly or inherently deliver the message that our worth can be discovered, confirmed or solidified in one moment of victory and/or within the framework of a shiny, easily identifiable skill — even if that skill is simply strength of will.

“Moneyball” presents an image of the human experience that feels far more reflective of life, one in which we are, as Brad Pitt said in an interview with The Guardian, “a series of successes and failures,” who must make choices based on multiple and nuanced factors.

The other message of many sports films is that our worth ought to be reflected by outside markers to the degree that a loss of the prize in question would be an insurmountable tragedy. “Moneyball” reminds us of the times that we hit a home run and are so focused on the wrong thing that we don”t even know it.

Of course a major thematic core of the film is the idea that change, even when positive, healthy and necessary, is hard, dangerous and threatening to those who are currently benefiting from the status quo, or are simply too complacent to question it. In one of the film”s final sequences, Beane is told that “the first guy through the wall always gets a little bloodied.” Indeed, he must, because you cannot break apart a stagnant and flawed structure without doing a good deal of initial damage. That is true in government, business, cultural trends and embedded ideas.

Billy Beane, in a collaboration with a group of people (represented by Jonah Hill”s Peter Brand in the film), took an unfair system and restructured it using science and math, which is phenomenal in its own right. He also used the even more revolutionary idea that a team”s strength really can be found within the sum of its parts. Beane says “f-you” to the accepted way of viewing the game and its players by taking a motley crew of “misfit toys” whose worth had been missed, perhaps even by themselves for a time, and telling them to drop their egos in order to create something stronger than their individual limitations — stronger, even, than many teams that focus their sights on the spectacle and showmanship of superstars.

A secondary theme in the film is actually posed as two questions: How do we value others? And, perhaps more importantly, how do we value ourselves?

“We want you badly and we think that this amount of money expresses that desire,” Beane is told as a teenager. The film utilizes the flashback sequences of his history as a player as a narrative motivator for his character”s present-day choices, but also as a thematic illustrator. His experience of being recruited as a young man and then failing to live into the theoretical promise of his potential demonstrates the damage that the kind of thinking the scouts were using can do to an individual. The larger tale presents a snapshot of how the game of baseball itself was affected.

The themes that “Moneyball” presents are universally relatable. It”s a film about more than just baseball (though it gives us an impressively easy-to-follow overview of the sport in our modern world). When we are young, we tend to look at people in categorical terms. They are either good or bad, worthy or not, friend or foe. We look for our own sense of self in external accolades and markers of success. If they are there, our egos are appeased. If there are times that they are not, well, we often have trouble reconciling ourselves to our lives. If we have failed to live out the fantasy version of our adult lives that we created, or that was presented to us, we may struggle to reform our identity.

We separate the merits of our fellow human beings by a rigidly defined hierarchical structure that simplifies and limits our real experience of the world. Moneyball (the strategy) takes a sophisticated approach to solving a seemingly insurmountable problem, but it also reevaluates the idea of value. “Moneyball” (the film) asks us to revisit our notion of value with the eyes of an adult who is experienced, perhaps a little worn and conscious that we as a culture have been caught in a cult of personality that limits our perspective to a degree that diminishes the majority of people to our own detriment.

In terms of craft, “Moneyball” is a beautiful, human, emotionally rich rendering of an extremely complex concept. We as the audience do not need to understand the minutiae of the mathematical equations that guided Beane”s ballsy and revolutionary approach, but we are given a sense of the logic. And the filmmakers took a property that was referred to as “un-adaptable” by the large majority of the industry (Michael Lewis”s book about the use of statistics in baseball) and translated it into a film that not only makes sense of an intricate problem-solving technique, but does so in such a way that real day-to-day humanity is not only brought forth but lauded.

I”ve already shared some of my thoughts on Brad Pitt”s performance. But having just watched “Moneyball” again, I am struck by the power of its naturalism. There is no moment where Billy Beane is forced to be other than who he is, to rise beyond his previous resistance and give the locker room version of the Gettysburg address. It is real and hilarious and strangely moving to see him awkwardly attempt to inspire his band of misfits, when the fact is, effusive speechifying is something he is simply incapable of. It over-strains the reaches of his patience for bullshit. He speaks in simple terms. He does what he feels is right. There is no hyperbolic shift for Billy Beane. There is him trying and doing the best he can with his own native and developed strengths and weaknesses.

There is never a moment in “Moneyball” where I am in doubt as to who Beane is or what he is feeling. There is clarity to Pitt”s emotional vulnerability and the commitment he has made to this role that is rare and worthy of recognition. He is not attempting to chew the scenery in a way that would demean the creature he has created. He respects the needs of the story.

As I”ve said previously, Pitt”s merits as an actor are often overlooked, misunderstood and underestimated. As such, he is in so many ways the perfect producer and star for this film. It’s a film that challenges us to consider how we evaluate our own lives, how we calculate our own losses and wins and how we expect our “stats” to translate to a definitive measure of who we are.

“Moneyball” feels like it is dismissed a bit because it’s pleasurable and because it is hard to categorize. It’s not quiet, it’s not really raw, it’s not overly indicated, mannered and large and it’s not forcibly restrained. It just resonates as human in a stunning way. It reminds me of the best parts of the films from the 1970s. It makes room for us to take it in. It does not rely on flash and it paints a portrait of dimensional and grown-up beings.

It is technically as worthy a film as any that are nominated. It demonstrates gorgeous if, again, easily missed craftsmanship, but more than that, there is something profound in the idea of this culture, at this time, taking a moment to celebrate life as something where we find the extraordinary in the ordinary.

“Moneyball” asks us to step beyond limited perspective and the children’s game of spectacle and showmanship in order to honor hidden and untapped potential and depth. What could be a more applicable (and timely) Best Picture winner than that?

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

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!

This has been bugging me. I’d say the two hardest categories to predict this year are, of all things, Best Costume Design and Best Documentary Feature. Guy worked through the former today, while I worked through the latter yesterday.

But Best Cinematography is also something I keep circling back around to. I can’t figure out where the spoils will fall. I have 20 bucks on this with Anne, who is taking the same route just about everyone else is and expects ASC winner “The Tree of Life” to win.

It’s obviously the safe call. And ASC has matched up with the Oscar winner 10 out of the 26 years it has been dishing out kudos. Lately it’s been on a bit of an every-other-year pattern. Last year’s ASC winner, “Inception,” went on to take the Oscar. Not only that, of course, but Emmanuel Lubezki’s work in “The Tree of Life” has nearly run the table with precursor awards and would have turned in a perfect score if BAFTA hadn’t awarded “The Artist” and the North Texas and Utah crowds hadn’t gone their own ways with “War Horse” and “Drive” respectively (and the former tying “The Tree of Life” at the Critics’ Choice Movie Awards). That’s a pretty powerful narrative that screams: This film is all about the visuals.

Then there’s the passion base for the film, which was enough to land it nominations for Best Picture and Best Director. Where else are they going to show their love? That’s a sizable chunk you can pretty much count on.

But I still don’t see it.

Let’s start here. The last time a film won Best Cinematography without being nominated in a single other craft category? “She Wore a Yellow Ribbon” in 1949. That’s over 60 years ago. That’s a long friggin’ time ago. (And Best Cinematography, by the way, was that film’s only nomination, embossing another point about the hindsight of Academy decision-making, but I digress.)

Additionally, in the post-black-and-white/color category split world (the Academy initiated a split in 1939 and merged the two again in 1967), only eight films have won without being nominated for a design category (Best Art Direction or Best Costume Design): “Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid,” “Ryan’s Daughter,” “The Killing Fields,” “Mississippi Burning,” “JFK,” “A River Runs Through It,” “American Beauty” and “Slumdog Millionaire.” Nominees that would benefit from that idea this year are “The Artist,” “Hugo” and “War Horse.” Why do I bring that up? Because I think it speaks to the typical voter mindset: vote for what’s pretty. And if the camera’s pointing at something pretty…

So that kind of stuff starts to give me pause when I find myself drifting over to the “safe” choice (and, in my mind, the deserving one): “The Tree of Life.”

My first instinct when the nominations were announced was “The Artist,” more as a cynical expectation of voters checking the film off in a number of fields and that black and white factor than anything. When I find myself wanting to lean that way, though, I have to remind myself that black and white isn’t the magnet here you might think.

In that post-split world mentioned earlier, black and white nominees have included “In Cold Blood,” “The Last Picture Show,” “Lenny,” “Raging Bull,” “Zelig,” “Schindler’s List,” “The Man Who Wasn’t There,” “Good Night, and Good Luck.” and “The White Ribbon.” Five of those were Best Picture nominees. And only “Schindler’s List” won the award. (Of course, it’s also the only one of those to win Best Picture, too, which “The Artist” is expected to do.)

So that brings me around to my second instinct when the nominees were announced: “War Horse.” The film wasn’t nominated by the ASC and only twice has such a film gone on to win the Oscar (“Glory” in 1989 and “Pan’s Labyrinth” in 2006″). But I nevertheless think it’s in a better position this year than others might expect.

Anyway, with the shots column and Lubezki, etc., this has all just kind of been on my mind. Guy has already covered the cinematography category in full via the field’s Oscar Guide entry a few weeks back. He raised a few of these points, and he settled on “Hugo” early on. As of late, I’ve found myself in that camp as well, but I can’t be sure. At all. As I said in the first post-oscar nods podcast, that’s a film all about detailed interiors. “War Horse” is all about lush exteriors. Guess which kind of film tends to win.

If nothing else, though, I’m pretty sure Jeff Cronenweth can get comfortable on Oscar night. His name being called would be a huge shock.

And hey, don’t shoot the messenger here. There’s nothing I hate more than being this reductive about a category that is so very much at the heart of what cinema is. I’d like nothing more than to be discussing the merits of films like “Drive,” “Moneyball,” “Rampart” and “Shame” in this space, and the nuance involved in why this one or that could get a leg up. And in lieu of that, I’d much rather talk about the nuance of these particular contenders rather than be broad and, frankly, unfair to their various virtues. But that’s just kind of how a large group of voters tends to think: broadly.

Your thoughts?

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

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!

The 43rd annual NAACP Image Awards were held this evening, and “The Help” was the big winner, taking down three prizes for Best Picture, Best Actress and Best Supporting Actress. “Jumping the Broom” also brought in two performances awards. Check out the full list of winners below.

Best Picture: “The Help”

Best Actor: Laz Alonso, “Jumping the Broom”

Best Actress: Viola Davis, “The Help”

Best Supporting Actor: Mike Epps, “Jumping the Broom”

Best Supporting Actress: Octavia Spencer, “The Help”

Best Independent Film: “Pariah”

Best Foreign Film: “In the Land of Blood and Honey”

As always, remember to keep track of the ups and downs of the film awards season via The Circuit.

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

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!

(The Oscar Guide will be your chaperone through the Academy’s 24 categories awarding excellence in film. A new installment will hit every weekday in the run-up to the Oscars on February 26, with the Best Picture finale on Saturday, February 25.)

If there”s one technical branch in the Academy that can be trusted above all others to prioritize the craft ahead of the film, it”s the costume designers: where others often merely check off consensus frontrunners, they routinely single out outstandingly costumed films with little to no buzz in any other race, whether it”s as highbrow as “I Am Love” or as downright dodgy as “Troy.”

They”ve certainly lived up to that reputation this year. Not only are three of the five nominees listed in this category alone, but two of them were widely panned by critics: nominating them seems a subtle assertion of independence on the voters” part, particularly when they had the safer option of nominating less distinctive period garb from Best Picture nominees like “Midnight in Paris” and Costume Designers” Guild nominee “The Help.” As is stands, only four of the Guild”s choices made the cut, as the Academy came to the rescue of arguably the baitiest threads of the bunch.

The nominees are…

“Anonymous” (Lisy Christl)

“The Artist” (Mark Bridges)

“Hugo” (Sandy Powell)

“Jane Eyre” (Michael O”Connor)

“W.E.” (Arianne Phillips)

There”s no denying it”s an attractive lineup, though I do wish it wasn”t all period (well, save for half of “W.E.,” but we know that”s not the reason it”s here). We”re used to the branch”s routine sidelining of contemporary costuming – spare a thought for David Robinson, whose perceptive, character-attuned styling of “Young Adult” and “Shame” deserved at least a Guild nod – but it”s a shame they couldn”t be bothered with fantasy work this year, in particular the late Eiko Ishioka”s dementedly  beautiful creations for “Immortals.” Bring on “Mirror, Mirror.”

While Kris and I both predicted first-time nominee Lisy Christl“s bid for Roland Emmerich”s what-if Shakespeare yarn “Anonymous,” it”s probably the nomination that the fewest pundits saw coming in this category. Though it”s the only nominee here without a Guild nod, that omission is far more surprising than this inclusion: ruffled Elizabethan garb is a regular fixture in this category, and the lavish over-styling of Vanessa Redgrave”s Queen Elizabeth I alone was surely enough to secure its place. Given the Academy”s known predilection for English historical pomp in this race – it”s only four years since the Virgin Queen”s frocks and collars copped an Oscar here for another critically lambasted flop, “Elizabeth: The Golden Age” – it might well be enough to net the win, too. That this is the film”s only nomination isn”t too much cause for concern: “Marie Antoinette” managed the same feat in 2006.

Though his costuming isn”t my favourite in the category, Mark Bridges is nonetheless the name I”m happiest to see here. A master of late-period kitsch, he deserved nominations for “Boogie Nights,” “Blow” and “The Fighter,” but this is the first time the Academy has come calling. No surprise that it took earlier, more elegant period garb to get him here: his crisp evocation of 1920s Hollywood glamour in “The Artist” is restrained by his standards, but still characterized by his playful sense of couture, as opposed to mere dutiful authenticity. The details and complications of designing a tonally rich wardrobe for monochrome shooting should not be underestimated: BAFTA”s costume branch certainly didn”t, handing the film their award, but general voters might respond to more colorful fare. And the film”s overall momentum may not necessarily be a factor: no Best Picture nominee has won this award since 2004.

That Best Picture nominee, of course, was Martin Scorsese”s “The Aviator,” for which Sandy Powell, arguably the most revered designer currently working, won her second of three Oscars to date. The most recent of these came two years ago for “The Young Victoria,” whereupon Powell irked some with an acceptance speech that included a blasé reference to her previous wins, and complained of the category”s resistance to contemporary costuming. The branch clearly didn”t mind, given that this is her third consecutive nomination (and tenth overall), though it”s for yet another period piece: in “Hugo,” her fifth collaboration with Scorsese, Powell clothes the less moneyed classes of 1930s Paris. It”s typically bright, attentive work, and if the leading nominee turns into a technical sweeper, Powell could easily benefit — but aside from decorous touches like Sacha Baron Cohen”s gendarme uniform and recreations of George Melies”s fantastical film costumes, the cast”s bobbled sweaters and drab overcoats may not be ornate enough for voters.

The second of three lone nominees in the category, “Jane Eyre” is comfortably the most acclaimed of them: indeed, the well-regarded, visually lush Charlotte Bronte adaptation probably has its March 2011 release date to blame for not showing up in more categories. If it was going to score anywhere, however, this was the place: Michael O”Connor — who took the Oscar on his only previous nomination, for 2008″s “The Duchess” – has assembled a delicately shaded wardrobe that ticks the Academy”s corsets-and-breeches box while subtly defining differentiations in character and class: lovely as they are, the film”s threads also display more wear and weather than most period pieces usually consider. Perhaps I”m letting myself be led by personal preference, but I believe the combination of fabric-heavy prettiness and the film”s good reputation gives it a potential edge in this category. The question is whether enough voters remember it from the spring.

“Anonymous” isn”t the worst-reviewed film to receive a pardon from the costumers” branch this year: by tapping “W.E.,” the deservedly trashed, fiction-framed biopic of Wallis Simpson and King Edward VII, they ensured that Madonna can forever put “director of an Academy Award nominee” on her CV. Sneering aside, however, it”s a good call. The Material Girl was smart enough to hire previously nominated ace Arianne Phillips (“Walk the Line”) for a sartorial showcase in which Simpson”s noted fashion-icon status is integral to the narrative: snazzily patterned suits, liquid evening gowns and outlandish hats play at least half of Andrea Riseborough”s studied performance, making some sense of Abbie Cornish”s fetishization of Simpson”s look in the film”s sleekly dressed modern-day scenes. Madonna may be fuzzy on the finer points of filmmaking, but the lady knows her clothes. That said, this late Weinstein Company release is as widely unseen as it is unloved, which should scupper its chances.

Will win: “Jane Eyre”

Could win: “Anonymous”

Should win: “Jane Eyre”

Should have been here: “Immortals” 

Keep track of our current rankings in the Best Costume Design category via its Contenders page here.

What do you think should be taking home this gold in this category? Who got robbed? Speak up in the comments section below!

(Read previous installments of the Oscar Guide here.)

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

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!

Earlier this week, Michael Cieply wrote a thorough enough piece at The New York Times explaining what we know, but mostly what we don’t know, about the upcoming Oscar telecast.

Typically by this time, we have things like stage sketches and quotes from the producers expressing various intents with the annual broadcast by this time. This year? Not so much (though it was announced they’d be yanking the original song performances).

In the wake of Ratnergate, perhaps the Academy has felt it better to just keep its head down, push through and get on the other side of things without drawing a lot of attention to the process. But producers Brian Grazer and Don Mischer “have been conspicuously silent on [the show’s] themes, challenges and the presumably fresh approach they will take,” Cieply writes. Nevertheless, some things are now beginning to bubble up.

If you haven’t been put to sleep by the annual roll call of presenters yet, this morning’s announcement that Kermit the Frog and Miss Piggy will be included at least brings with it the promise of some creativity at the podium. Also announced today is a planned performance by Cirque du Soleil, which is really interesting given that the dance troupe’s latest show, “Iris,” includes a send-up of the Oscars.

“The segment…features two of the show’s clowns, who act as the slap-happy hosts of an, ahem, unnamed awards show,” the LA Times reported in September. “The set features two tacky staircases, a microphone that doesn’t work properly, and a huge, gold-painted award (fashioned as a loving cup) that falls apart.”

According to the Academy’s press release announcing the performance at the show, Academy Award-nominated composer Danny Elfman, who scored “Iris,” will be contributing music to the segment. “More than 50 international artists from Cirque du Soleil productions around the world will converge in Los Angeles on Oscar Sunday to bring the dynamic showcase to life,” it reads.

Cirque du Soleil performed once before at the Oscars, in 2002. That appearance yielded discussions that led to the creation of “Iris,” which has been performed at the Kodak for the past five months.

It’s worth noting the subtitle of “Iris,” by the way: “A Journey through the World of Cinema.” The show is indeed an homage to movies, which is wonderfully befitting of this year’s unofficial theme at the multiplex (and certainly dovetails nicely with expected Best Picture winner “The Artist”).

With that in mind, Cieply also mentions one of the few comments Grazer has made about the upcoming show, noting that the Kodak Theatre “will be decorated to resemble ‘a timeless movie theater,’ like the Pantages or other picture palaces of old.”

You can kind of see things clicking into place, the Oscarcast potentially hopping on the coattails of an inherent thematic thread in many of the year’s nominated films, one they can certainly get behind: film appreciation. Maybe we can get a nice reel of clips featuring films that celebrate the same, “Cinema Paradiso,” “Adaptation,” “8 1/2,” “Sullivan’s Travels,” “Contempt,” etc.

We’ll see how the plans come into place. We’re just over a week away from the big show and I just have my fingers crossed for a proper dose of class. As Anne and I discussed in this morning’s podcast, the Academy needs to cling to its identity now more than ever, and that identity is currently in danger of being diluted and transformed into something unbecoming.

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

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!

Welcome to Oscar Talk.

In case you’re new to the site and/or the podcast, Oscar Talk is a weekly kudocast, your one-stop awards chat shop between yours truly and Anne Thompson of Thompson on Hollywood. The podcast is weekly, every Friday throughout the season, charting the ups and downs of contenders along the way. Plenty of things change en route to Oscar’s stage and we’re here to address it all as it unfolds.

The penultimate podcast of the precursor season is here. With just a little over a week to go before the Oscars finally put a definitive bow on 2011, we’re feeling the end upon us. But there are things to address in the final build-up, so let’s see what’s on the docket today…

Sunday night brought this year’s BAFTA Awards, which showed more strength than ever behind Best Picture frontrunner “The Artist.”

One of the BAFTA winners was Meryl Streep, which, after the Globe win, has many wondering if it’s a real horse race between her and Viola Davis. But is it really?

We buckle down and address a few categories in detail today. First off, we analyze the live action shorts, which we agree boil down to two distinct possibilities.

We also look into the documentary shorts, which, boringly enough, we also agree is down to two distinct possibilities.

And finally, reader questions. We address queries regarding a potentially positive residual effect of the expanded Best Picture field and personal favorite Oscar wins over the last decade.

Have a listen to the new podcast below. If the file cuts off for you at any time, try the back-up download link at the bottom of this post. And as always, remember to subscribe to Oscar Talk via iTunes here.

“Queen of the Night” courtesy of Whitney Houston and Arista.
“I Wanna Dance with Somebody (Who Loves Me)” courtesy of Whitney Houston and Arista.

Whether she wins her third Oscar or not, even Meryl Streep’s most impassioned advocates would be hard pressed to say the actress has been underappreciated in a season that has added an eight Golden Globe, a fifth New York critics’ award, a second BAFTA and, this week, an Honorary Golden Bear from the Berlinale to her already groaning mantel. Unfortunately, I didn’t get to attend the Streep presentation at Berlin — it’s indicative of how busy the festival is that I didn’t even hear any reports from it until today. Accepting the award from festival juror Jake Gyllenhaal, it seems she was in typically fun form, declaring herself “overrated” and repeating her gracious Globes trick of singling out other standout female performances from 2012, this time name-checking Anna Paquin and Olivia Colman. As if we needed more reasons to love her. [24 Frames]  

Tom O’Neil wonders why Michelle Williams, who sure looks like a Best Actress frontrunner on paper, is seemingly out of the race. Answer: check out the competition, no? [Gold Derby]

Neil Alcock has a good rant about the BAFTAs’ bizarrely amateurish approach to their telecast. I mean, who tape-delays an awards show in the age of Twitter? [The Incredible Suit]

Nathaniel Rogers talks to Chris Miller, the Oscar-nominated director of “Puss in Boots.” Guess what? He prefers dogs. [The Film Experience]

David Poland went to a screening of “Titanic 3D” — and while he likes the movie more than ever, he’s happy seeing it in two dimensions, thanks. [Hot Blog]

An argument you haven’t heard many journalists making: Henry Barnes on why “War Horse” should win Best Picture. [The Guardian]

Speaking of which, Michael Coleman sits down with the film’s Oscar-nominated sound designer Gary Rydstrom and the no-intro-needed John Williams. [Below the Line]

Christy Grosz on why a passionate core of voters, even a small one, is essential to winning the Best Picture Oscar under the current voting system… [Variety]

And Oscar number-cruncher par excellence, Steve Pond, on why Grosz’s theory is “dead wrong.” [The Odds]

BERLIN – Rarely the first port of call for mainstream prestige fare or the loftiest international auteurs, the Berlinale has, after an indifferent start, started showing off the alternative depths of its programming in the last few days: one week in, I’ve seen a handful of outstanding films from directors whose presence in, say, the Cannes competition would prompt befuddled ‘who-dat?’ questioning from casual arthouse patrons, but whose actual films would pass muster in even the starriest lineup.

The Competition, inevitably spotty given the givens, has nonetheless more than lived up to the standard set last year by the likes of “A Separation” and “The Turin Horse,” even if its highlights can’t necessarily be promised the same level of crossover success. I’ve been particularly wowed by a trio of European titles – Miguel Gomes’s “Tabu,” Ursula Meier’s “Sister” and Christian Petzold’s “Barbara” – for which Thierry Fremaux would be champing at the bit if they happened to be directed instead by Apichatpong Weerasethakul, the Dardenne Brothers and Michael Haneke, respectively. (I’m planning a joint piece on all three, but don’t wish to rush my thoughts on any of them.)

It’d be disingenuous to suggest that Berlin’s focus on rising talents and more specialized names is entirely calculated, or intrinsically more commendable than the big-name favoritism of its more glamorous rival fests – both approaches result in a lot of awful films being given a shot of prestige they don’t really deserve. But there’s something refreshing about a festival that can’t necessarily be read on paper.

Perhaps the best illustration of the Berlinale’s odd sense of democracy came at a screening a couple of days ago, when I took my seat and glanced two rows ahead of me to spot jurors Jake Gyllenhaal and Asghar Farhadi in animated conversation like long-acquainted friends and colleagues, as if their respective industry war stories bear any relation to each other. Or perhaps they were just bitching about jury president Mike Leigh behind his back. We’ll never know, but it was a sweet sight.

It’s perhaps a testament to the loose-limbed weirdness of the lone American title (and one of only two English-language films) in Competition, Billy Bob Thornton’s “Jayne Mansfield’s Car,” that I couldn’t possibly hazard a guess as to whether Farhadi or Gyllenhaal liked it more. Ostensibly a sun-baked, Southern-fried bit of good-natured Americana covering a lot of daddy issues, brotherly bonding, Cadillac-gazing and sanctified masturbation – a Tim McGraw album set to celluloid, in other words – Thornton’s first venture behind the camera since 2001’s “Daddy and Them” is nonetheless so wilfully random in structure and elusive in subtext that it’s easy to project the influence of anyone from Wes Anderson to Wim Wenders onto it. A long time in the making, and seemingly scarred by wildly capricious script cuts, it’s as genuinely inscrutable a curio as any bit of world-cinema esoterica in the Berlin lineup.

With all that said, it’s still not very good. Set in Alabama in 1969, the film haphazardly navigating both the conflicts and unexpected unions that spark when the two husbands – one American, one British – of a deceased Southern belle converge for her homecoming funeral, with variously dysfunctional children and step-children in tow. Robert Duvall’s crustily authoritarian patriarch and John Hurt’s tweedily patrician gentleman are expected to be at each other’s throats from the get-go, but both are surprised to find years of suspicion and bitterness turning to grudging friendship in spite of themselves. Masking still-smarting grief with befuddled social distaste, Hurt wins most of the actors’ shared scenes by a hair, even if it’s Duvall who, due to plot contrivances that scarcely raise an eyebrow in this film’s loopy story world, gets to thrash about in a riverbed while zonked on LSD.

It’s just as well the two old coots get on, since there are more than enough issues to deal with besides: Kevin Bacon is the wilted-hippy Vietnam objector fighting his father’s lifelong disapproval and teenage son’s own urge to enlist; a seemingly out-of-practise Thornton is the mentally damaged war vet pursuing his bubbly English step-sister (Frances O’Connor, a delight throughout, not least when nudely reciting “The Charge of the Light Brigade” atop a sports car) when he isn’t pinning his military medals directly to the skin of his chest; Ray Stevenson is the stiff-upper-lipped good son resisting his married step-sister’s advances.

That’s a mere taster, but it’s hard to track exactly which of these are the most noteworthy, since the script never finds a narrative throughline, much less a thematic one: seemingly dominant characters drop out of the proceedings for half an hour at a time, a seemingly insignificant one gets the closing coda, and the clash between two families and cultures is snuffed out when half the characters are summarily dismissed without a farewell. It’s hard to imagine what consistent tone could be found for such an enterprise, so it skips cheerfully and inelegantly between knockabout comedy, mawkish melodrama and heightened romanticism. It looks like everyone involved had fun – and so, to some extent, did I – but I’m not sure what any of us learned from the experience beyond the fact that Billy Bob Thornton is one very strange dude. 

Not that Melissa Leo is going to let Thornton hog all the crazy for himself. The recently minted Oscar-winner’s latest outing, “Francine,” is a thoughtful, downbeat, sneakily moving micro-indie from the festival’s Forum sidebar that has possibly managed to eclipse the Competition entry as the most talked-about US film at Berlin – partly on its own considerable merits, and partly because it offers audiences the indubitably odd sight of Leo licking kittens from head to foot, when she isn’t rolling about on the floor with an indeterminate number of mutts or moshing to a Pantera-like garage band in broad daylight at a local park.

Brian M. Cassidy and Melanie Shatzky’s humbly-scaled debut – a concentrated and satisfying 74 minutes in length – is perhaps the most compassionate and melancholy film ever made that could also go by the title “Crazy Cat Lady: The Beginning,” and the most generous showcase yet for an actor who is swiftly building her case as one of American cinema’s finest.

Leo plays the weatherbeaten title character, a shy, taciturn ex-con (we’re never told her crime) whose release from prison opens up a world of social obligations she’d rather not handle. A short-lived stint working at a pet store exposes her paralyzed people skills, but she does at least steal a puppy as a parting gift: a seemingly innocuous impulse, it proves the portal to a damaging escape from human contact, as she gradually fills her house with an unending supply of raggedy dogs and cats, an ill-fed, flea-bitten menagerie who come to displace even the few friends and lovers this sexually indiscriminate Francine of Assisi has selectively made since re-entering society. Cassidy and Shatzky’s pace things artfully enough that mileage will vary among viewers as to when the character’s touching if eccentric form of self-therapy tips into frightening dysfunctionality; judgment is kept staunchly at bay.

It’s the kind of scratchy, slope-shouldered miniature that requires a great performance to hold the narrative down and keep it from shuffling away, and it gets one from Leo: not uttering a word for the film’s first 15 minutes or so, her exquisitely storied face, lived-out and much as it is lived-in, has never been charged with quite so much unvarnished feeling. When she does speak, it’s with the wary, unwitting wit of those who see more than they say, while her emotional decline is punctuated with heartbreaking dashes of bliss. The only professional actor in a project that was initially intended to be cast wholly with amateurs, Leo reportedly got the role by answering an unsuspecting ad at some point between her two Oscar nominations: if these two shoestring directors can hardly believe their luck at who came calling, their whisperingly upsetting film repays her in kind.  

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

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!

“I learned that everything I knew, I had to get rid of it,” cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki says when prompted to recall his collaborations with director Terrence Malick and, particularly, the work done five years ago on “The Tree of Life” (which finally hit theaters in May of 2011). The celebrated lenser has nearly run the table on precursor awards this season, most recently adding an ASC win to his list of laurels. An Oscar nomination in tow, he is considered the odds-on favorite to win the Oscar next Sunday.

But the experience of working on a Malick film is drastically different than the goings-on of a typical film set. And a photographer’s work, much like an actor’s, is collaborative at the start, but ultimately an element to be manipulated to the director’s will. Fans of Malick wouldn’t have it any other way, because the end result is often something so unique, at the very least. But while some on a crew or cast might chafe at having their ego squashed like that, Lubezki finds it liberating and educational.

“The movie goes through a metamorphosis,” he says. “There’s a script, but he writes every morning. And then you go through another one in the editing and when the sound comes in. He cuts and cuts again and then as we are color timing the movie, he finds new things and he keeps changing. So you are never 100% sure where the shots that you are shooting are going to end up in the movie. But I think he does know when he is miles ahead of everybody on the set and he’s already planning and thinking and creating all these scenes that are probably not on paper, but in his head.”

On 2005’s “The New World,” Lubezki’s first collaboration with Malick, the lenser says he was, naturally, less at ease with the process. “I was very worried about things that you learn in school,” he says, “like continuity and stuff like that. But as you work with Terry, little by little, you realize that a lot of the stuff that you learn is unimportant.”

On “The Tree of Life,” it was a mission of patience as well. And not just patience but maybe a little luck, too. Added to the abstract manner in which Malick collaborates as an artist, much of the film was about capturing genuine moments with children.

“You shoot and shoot and shoot and you feel you are not getting anything that feels honest,” Lubezki says, “or that you are restricting the kids because of the way they are not in frame or things like that. And Terry just has that instinct. He pushes it to a place where these wonderful accidents start to happen, the good accidents that feel unrehearsed and more honest. They suddenly appear in front of you and you have to be ready to get it.

“When you see in the movie the first step of a kid, it is the first step of this little kid. If you do the same thing for a commercial, you get five kids and they already walk, but you pretend that it”s their first step. But it feels rehearsed or it feels set up. You have to be ready to capture all these things that could just fall away in a second and it”s beautiful.”

One such moment in the film Lubezki calls “probably the best thing [he’s] ever shot.” The scene features actress Jessica Chastain and the child actor playing a very young Jack (later played by Hunter McCracken and Sean Penn at other stages in the character’s life). It comes on the heels of the birth of Jack’s brother, R.L., and as Chastain holds the baby, Jack throws a jealous tantrum. He takes a toy and starts to throw it at Chastain and the baby, then thinks better of it and tosses it aside.

“That is such a true moment,” Lubezki says. “I have kids and I’ve seen it and it”s fleeting. It disappears. You cannot talk to a 3-year-old and say, ‘Hey, man, listen, this is the first time you see your brother.’ It has to happen in front of you and with Terry, these things happen. He allows them to happen and it”s not like he”s waiting, but there is a little of that with shooting and shooting and shooting and suddenly something like that happens. And when it happened, I remember feeling such an emotion. I was about to cry.”

It’s possible Lubezki — “Chivo” to friends and colleagues in the filmmaking community — finally wins an Oscar this year for his work on “The Tree of Life.” It’s possible, too, that he’s leap-frogged for something less-inspired (which would hardly be a first). But it’s clear talking to the somewhat shy craftsman that the award really has been in the work so far, and the excitement of collaborations to come. He says working with Terrence Malick has changed his life. So what impact could a little statue possibly have in the face of something that profound?

“Watching Terry’s movies when I was young, it was one of the reasons I wanted to become a cinematographer,” he says. “So it’s incredibly lucky that I get to not only work with him, but wander and walk with him and listen to him and learn. It’s fascinating.”

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

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!

(The Oscar Guide will be your chaperone through the Academy’s 24 categories awarding excellence in film. A new installment will hit every weekday in the run-up to the Oscars on February 26, with the Best Picture finale on Saturday, February 25.)

I have no idea what’s going to win the Best Documentary Feature category. Zero. Zilch. Nada. I might as well get that out of the way right at the top. And I’ve even seen each film twice. It’s a rare year that sees such solid arguments in favor of each and every nominee of the bunch. That’s not to say that, personally speaking, each nominee is award-worthy, but I could just see the Academy’s doc voters falling for any of them.

It was a typical year where the narrow-down process was concerned. Controversy indeed met the list of finalists that dropped in November, which snubbed critics’ favorites “Senna” and “The Interrupters” (the latest smack in the face of filmmaker Steve James), while yet another Werner Herzog entry was ignored completely. Nevertheless, there is a wide cross-section of issues represented here, and that’s never a bad thing.

The nominees are…

“Hell and Back Again” (Danfung Dennis and Mike Lerner)

“If a Tree Falls: A Story of the Earth Liberation Front” (Marshall Curry and Sam Cullan)

“Paradise Lost 3: Purgatory” (Joe Berlinger and Bruce Sinofsky)

“Pina” (Wim Wenders and Gian-Piero Ringel)

“Undefeated” (T.J. Martin, Dan Lindsay and Rich Middlemas)

The big snub of the remaining films was actually James Marsh’s “Project Nim,” which many even figured was the frontrunner to win (especially after its dominance on the circuit). Alas, chalk it up as another crazy year for the branch. The process will change next year, though. We’ll see how that affects things.

It feels like the impact of “Hell and Back Again,” from director Danfung Dennis and producer Mike Lerner, is diminished just a bit in the wake of Sebastian Junger and the late Tim Hetherington’s brilliant “Restrepo.” Of course, not all war docs are created equal, so don’t misunderstand. The film is a stirring account of Sergeant Nathan Harris’s life in the States after seeing action in Afghanistan, with plenty of footage from the latter on display. Indeed, there are some unflinching images in this film that stick with you. Harris makes for a somewhat compelling anchor. But I don’t know how derivative the enterprise might appear to some. (Side note: The filmmaker calls his own film “cinematically revolutionary” and “a masterpiece” on the film’s IMDb page. I’d say that’s overstating it.)

Sometimes sterling journalism can be a strong contender in this category. Marshall Curry and Sam Cullman‘s “If a Tree Falls: A Story of the Earth Liberation Front” is precisely that. It seemingly starts out as an advocacy piece for the titular group’s mission but soon transitions to a delicately balanced portrait. It’s unique in its deep dissection of the clandestine, scattered enviro-crusader organization that has been accused of domestic terror. It’s a vast piece, edited from a lot of different footage sources, making for, surely, the most complete documentation of the situation to date. I feel like it’s lagging behind a few other nominees, but I could certainly be wrong about that. Just like the rest, it could easily win.

My chips are currently placed on “Paradise Lost 3: Purgatory,” which is the latest and, it would seem, final installment of Joe Berlinger and Bruce Sinofsky‘s 16-year examination of the West Memphis Three case. The film debuted at the Toronto Film Festival in September, one month after Alford Pleas were entered and Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin and Jessie Misskelley finally walked free. You have to imagine these films had something to do with that, and so it goes without saying, this is a ripe opportunity to recognize the impact this series has had on justice. Not only that, it’s a great film and a brilliant distillation of everything that’s happened. Of course, just ask Errol Morris how far exacting change can get you in an Oscar race.

The relative “star power” of the nominees this year is Wim Wenders and his heartfelt ode to modern dancer Pina Bausch: “Pina” (produced by Gian-Piero Ringel). The film has a couple things going for it. It stands out as more of a filmed performance art exhibit than a typical doc. It was filmed in 3D and has been considered (perhaps rightly) the most compelling use of the medium to date. And if there are any modern dance fans among voting members, well it has a leg up there, too. Part of me thinks this is an obvious winner. After all, it also came pretty close to being a nominee for Best Foreign Language Film and is certainly no fringe player. Plus, the other four “typical” docs could split the vote, allowing for this to slide right in. But I can’t be sure.

Late in the game there is a bit of leaning toward T.J Martin and Daniel Lindsay‘s “Undefeated” (nominated alongside producer Ed Cunningham) for some, which, like “Hell and Back Again” and “Pina,” does not have the crutch of pre-existing footage to potentially hold it back. The film is one of the best of the nominees with a very strong subject to follow in football coach Bill Courtney. Voters haven’t often sprung for considerations of inner-city issues, but the emotion of this one could be enough to catapult it past the others. It’s certainly the only one of the nominees that made ME cry twice. There are a number of genuine moments captured throughout the film, which is as much a profile of Courtney as it is a portrait of a milestone high school football season that makes you feel thankful the cameras were there to capture it.

Will win: “Undefeated”

Could win: “Pina”

Should win: “If a Tree Falls: A Story of the Earth Liberation Front”

Should have been here: “Into the Abyss: A Tale of Death, a Tale of Life”

Keep track of our current rankings in the Best Documentary Feature category via its Contenders page here.

What do you think deserves the Oscar for Best Documentary Feature?  Who got robbed?  Have your say in the comments section below!

(Read previous installments of the Oscar Guide here.)

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

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!

Well. This is a first.

Every year when I wrap up the annual shots column, there are inevitably a few images that linger into my mind and make me wish I had considered them a little more, or make me wish they hadn’t hidden from my memory until it was too late. But never has such a shot hit me so hard that I could legitimately say it might have been my top choice.

Yesterday I sat down to watch the documentary “Undefeated” again in preparation for today’s Oscar Guide on the doc feature category. I’ve actually revisited each nominee because, it’s such a close race, I felt I needed to dig through each one a second time. In any case, an image in the film’s final moments stood up and shouted out to me, demanding retribution.

The film, as you likely know, recounts a season of football at the embattled Manassas High School in Memphis, Tennessee, and the shot in question comes at the conclusion of the final game depicted (the outcome of which I won’t spoil). The camera moves in on coach Bill Courtney as he hugs one of his successful players, OC Brown. He buries his face in his pupil’s shoulder as the mic picks up the words he pushes through tears. Starting on OC’s face, we circle around the embrace. However, when the camera comes back around to OC, a single tear has streaked his cheek, the first of many as we push in on his face and capture a very real, very raw moment.

This shot is phenomenal. It certainly brought tears to my eyes (one of a couple of moments in the film that do that, in fact) and is just so expert in its simplistic execution.

I don’t know who is responsible for the shot. I thought about tracking the thing down and getting on the phone with someone applicable, but I actually decided against it. I don’t want to explore it too much because it’s so pure on its own. So whether it was Daniel Lindsay or T.J. Martin (co-directors of the film who also shot it themselves) or some other department hired hand who was behind the camera for that moment, if you’re reading, just let me say this: Bravo.

Unfortunately, the column came and went, but the opportunity to spotlight this achievement simply could not.

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

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!

Most agree that this year’s Best Animated Feature category is a little lacking: ahead of two bland if technically strong DreamWorks kidpics and two interesting but sketchy Euro-curios, “Rango” will and should cruise to victory. But it’s not just this that leads Mark Harris to believe Oscar’s youngest category (only a decade old) should be scrapped: for him, now that the expanded Best Picture category has proven itself animation-friendly, a specialized award is now superfluous. (Admittedly, we have yet to see if the adjusted 5-to-10 field can hatch an animated nominee.) I tend to agree with him, not least because even in its better years, the animation award just isn’t competitive enough: there hasn’t been an actual race for the win since 2006, making it far the Academy’s dullest category. Just a nod for the top prize seems more meaningful. [Grantland]

In a subtle gesture of atonement, Brett “Rehearsing Is For Fags” Ratner will direct a new video campaign for the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation. [Vulture]

In his latest analysis piece, S.T. Vanairsdale thinks Meryl Streep’s inevitable BAFTA win puts her neck-and-neck with Viola Davis. I’m not convinced. [Movieline] 

Meanwhile, we’ve all known this for ages, but it’s officially official now: Streep and Julia Roberts are headling the screen adaptation of “August: Osage County.” If not this year, eh, Meryl fans? [THR]

Seven years after blowing his Oscar-hosting gig, Chris Rock has been invited back to the awards as a presenter. Better in small doses, I say. [The Odds] 

Gold Derby advertises a gallery of “Best Picture Winners Trashed By The Critics,” then just quotes against-consensus reviews for such critically lauded films as “The Hurt Locker” and “Annie Hall.” Uh, okay. [Gold Derby] 

Bill Desowitz talks “Hugo” with a formidable trio of nominees: Dante Ferretti, Sandy Powell and Howard Shore. [Thompson on Hollywood]

In case you were wondering, the date for next year’s PGA Awards has been set. Mark January 19, 2013 in your diaries! Hurry! [Deadline]

In his Berlinale roundup, Tim Robey swoons for Portuguese competition title “Tabu,” declaring it the best of the fest so far. I agree, and will elaborate soon. [The Telegraph]

Alright, you know the drill. Rifle off your need-to-knows and we’ll address a few in the podcast. We’ll already be covering BAFTA, ASC probably, too.

(The Oscar Guide will be your chaperone through the Academy’s 24 categories awarding excellence in film. A new installment will hit every weekday in the run-up to the Oscars on February 26, with the Best Picture finale on Saturday, February 25.)

After gradually reducing finalists from 15 to 10 to five, the visual effects branch made room for four blockbusters this year – three of them from franchises – as well as the nominations leader. This is hardly the sort of lineup that could be considered shocking. Still, another Best Picture contender was left off, while the fourth entries in three other franchises came up short, as did one additional summer blockbuster.

The race for the win is probably between the Best Picture nominee and two of the franchise blockbusters that are going down in the history books for very different reasons. But while this one seems like an easy category to pick, it could be more of a race than you’d expect.

The nominees are…

“Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2” (Tim Burke, David Vickery, Greg Butler and John Richardson)

“Hugo” (Rob Legato, Joss Williams, Ben Grossmann and Alex Henning)

“Real Steel” (Erik Nash, John Rosengrant, Dan Taylor and Swen Gillberg)

“Rise of the Planet of the Apes” (Joe Letteri, Dan Lemmon, R. Chrisopher White and Daniel Barrett)

“Transformers: Dark of the Moon” (Scott Farrar, Scott Benza, Matthew Butler and John Frazier)

The biggest disappointment in my eyes was “The Tree of Life” coming up short, despite nominations. Even though the effects were not as showy as most of the nominees, they served the film the best. I also thought the work in “Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol” and “Captain America: The First Avenger” perfectly complemented those films.

A nomination for “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2” marks the third time the franchise has scored in this category after “The Prisoner of Azkaban” and “The Deathly Hallows: Part 1.” Tim Burke and John Richardson were nominated for those previous two efforts (and are also Oscar winners for “Gladiator” and “Aliens” respectively). Dave Vickery and Greg Butler are first-time nominees. Their work is undeniably impressive and ranks among the better efforts of the series. But I am doubtful AMPAS will find it all that striking compared with its predecessors. That said, this is the last chance to award the series and given that BAFTA bit, it would be unwise to rule out the possibility that AMPAS might do the same.

“Hugo” has a very big mark in its favor: it is a Best Picture nominee. The last time a Best Picture nominee lost this category to a non-Best Picture nominee was 1970, when “Tora! Tora! Tora!” beat “Patton.” Given how beloved “Hugo” is, and how its main contenders have major strikes against them, it would seem hard to beat on the surface. So why do I still have reservations? Principally because the work, though accomplished, is hardly as showy as all the other contenders. Voters pick what stands out to them, so that matters a lot in this category, and it is therefore unsurprising the precursors haven”t given it a major win. But I”m still predicting “Hugo” to triumph here. Rob Legato won this category for “Titanic” in 1997 and he was also nominated for “Apollo 13” in 1995. He is cited here alongside Joss Williams, Ben Grossmann and Alex Henning, three first-time nominees.

While I was disappointed it came at the expense of “The Tree of Life,” I nevertheless found the nomination for “Real Steel” to be a pleasant surprise. It has no chance for the win with other popular films and franchises in the running. Even so, I found the robots to be tremendously realistic and they truly became “characters” in this inspiring movie. Yes, there were moments of intense action, but like “Mission: Impossible” and “Captain America,” I always felt the story was given front billing with the effects in support of that. Erik Nash garners his second nomination (after “I, Robot”), while Swen Gillberg, John Rosengrant and Ben Taylor have all earned their first trip to the Kodak.

“Rise of the Planet of the Apes” is going down in the history books. Boy did those apes look good as the WETA team once more took visual effects to new heights. Joe Letteri has previously won this award for “Avatar,” “King Kong,” “The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers” and “The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King.” This is in addition to a Scientific and Technical Award, as well as a nomination for “I, Robot.” Daniel Barrett, Dan Lemmon and R. Christopher White are all first-time nominees. This team”s work certainly should win, and was awarded by the BFCA and others. However, they have to go up against the sentimentality of “Harry Potter” and the mighty Best Picture contender that is “Hugo.” Will they really give this film the award for its only nomination? (It has been almost 20 years since “Death Becomes Her” managed to do that, the last time it happened.) On sheer merit, it may triumph. But I fear that won”t be enough.

“Transformers: Dark of the Moon” managed a nomination here even though “Revenge of the Fallen” came up short. I cannot say the nomination is undeserved – there is no denying the quality of the visual effects in this series (if I feel at times it is too much), and this film was an improvement (however small) on its predecessor. That having been said, I suspect many Academy members will share my distaste for the films. Moreover, notwithstanding its Visual Effects Society success, it doesn”t have the sort of obvious improvement in quality that led “Spider-Man 2” and “Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man”s Chest” to win even though the previous films in their respective franchises did not. John Frazier and Scott Farrar have 16 nominations between them, though they’ve only won for “Spider-Man 2” and “Cocoon” respectively. Scott Benza earns his second nomination after the original “Transformers,” while Matthew Butler is a first-time nominee.

Will Win: “Hugo”

Could Win: “Rise of the Planet of the Apes”

Should Win: “Rise of the Planet of the Apes”

Should Have Been Here: “The Tree of Life”

Keep track of our current rankings in the Best Visual Effects category via its Contenders page here.

What do you think deserves the Oscar for Best Visual Effects?  Who got robbed?  Have your say in the comments section below!

(Read previous installments of the Oscar Guide here.)

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!