(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.)

As Guy intimated in his Oscar Guide to Best Sound Mixing, the sound categories really were interesting and all over the place this year. In the sound editing field, we have just two of the nine Best Picture nominees represented, one surprise show (for some) for a Cannes hit that was expected to pop up elsewhere, a franchise entry that deserves more love than it’ll get and a tip of the hat to a Best Picture snubee that actually showed up in both sound fields.

Typically, voters pick their “favorite” movie of the nominees in these areas. That is, unless a palatable secondary option is available that makes its case for recognition of its aural qualities. I expect this year’s situation to be more reflective of the latter.

The nominees are…

“Drive” (Lon Bender and Victor Ray Ennis)

“The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” (Ren Klyce)

“Hugo” (Philip Stockton and Eugene Gearty)

“Transformers: Dark of the Moon” (Ethan Van der Ryn and Erik Aadahl)

“War Horse” (Richard Hymns and Gary Rydstrom)

It’s interesting that none of the animated films showed up here for the first time in four years. Somehow, though, Pixar has had a stranglehold on that slot, but there were worthy animated entries that WEREN’T Pixar films that ought to have been given a fair shake this year, I think.

After seeing how well the film did in the Motion Picture Sound Editors nominations and after having it come up in conversation a number of times with sound technicians, I ended up predicting the mostly dismissed “Drive” for a nod here. And indeed, three-time nominee Lon Bender and fellow sound editor Victor Ray Ennis showed up after all. It was the film’s only nomination, which means it’s probably the least likely to win here, but it’s an inspired pick for the way music and effects are integrated into the aural experience of the film. And it’s nothing if not that: an aural experience. Bender won here 17 years ago for “Braveheart.”

Ren Klyce has managed a pretty great track record with David Fincher movies at the Oscars, having been nominated here in 1999 for “Fight Club” and for mixing duties on “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” and “The Social Network.” This year he’s nominated for both the mixing and sound editing of “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo,” which was a bit of a surprise double nominee in these categories. I think the integration of a unique score helped a lot here, but as always, Fincher’s films sound crisp and use sound and silence to great effect. One of these days, I imagine Klyce will finally walk away with a statue.

Most seem to think that Martin Scorsese’s nomination hog “Hugo” is the frontrunner here. Sound editor Philip Stockton landed his first nomination to date for the film after working with Scorsese since 1988’s “The Last Temptation of Christ” (and really, since 1987’s music video for Michael Jackson’s “Bad”). Eugene Gearty, meanwhile, scooped up his second nod to date after being recognized on the mixing side of things for 2002’s “Gangs of New York.” But I don’t quite think “Hugo” stands out for its sound work, particularly on the editing side. It’s possible voters sleepwalk through the below-the-line elements and tick off the box, but I think they might look elsewhere.

It would be great if “elsewhere” was “Transformers: Dark of the Moon,” which involved, again, a lot of dynamic, detailed sound work in both the mixing and the editing of the material. The franchise took a hiatus from this category in 2009, but it’s back this year with Ethan Van der Ryn and Erik Aadahl chalking up their fourth and first nods to date. (Van der Ryn won the Oscar here for Peter Jackson’s “The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers” and “King Kong.”) But the unfortunate fact is voters tend to disavow films they don’t like throughout the crafts fields, even if the work is exemplary, as it certainly is here. It gets a leg up for being the only blockbuster of the field (and those tend to stick out), but I wouldn’t bet on it.

Instead, I’m actually expecting Steven Spielberg’s “War Horse” to triumph in both sound categories. The film is a war movie, whether the filmmakers want to shy away from the genre classification or not, and has all the elements that voters like for these fields. So I’ll swing my bet that way and see how things fall. It wasn’t a groundbreaking sound job or anything, but it has memorable moments scattered throughout that could force voters’ pencils. And let’s be perfectly honest. Not that their names will be on the ballots (they won’t), but Richard Hymns and Gary Rydstrom are titans of the field, 23 nominations and 10 wins between them. So their winning here would hardly be a crime.

Will win: “War Horse”

Could win: “Hugo”

Should win: “Drive”

Should have been here: “Rango”

Keep track of our current rankings in the Best Sound Editing 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 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.

We’re getting close. Oh so close. The Oscars, if you can believe it, are just over two weeks away. We have a few more ceremonies on the horizon, but with ballots in hand for another week, it’s a few more times into the breach. So, let’s see what’s on the docket today…

The Nominees Luncheon went down on Monday afternoon (which I view as a dubious press moment but Anne had a good time). So, we talk about that.

We start mining a few of the peripheral categories, touching a bit on doc shorts and live action shorts before fully discussing the animated short nominees. We both agree that Pixar could end up continuing its losing streak in the category.

The BAFTA Awards are Sunday night (which — FYI — Guy will be live-blogging). We do a mini-preview of sorts, though not real thorough. We both agree that a strong showing for “The Artist” over “Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy,” particularly in the Best Actor category, would be telling.

Then there’s this and that, moving from the Gurus o’ Gold calls to some below the line elements, etc.

And finally, reader questions. We address queries regarding Shailene Woodley’s ultimate fate this season, the pros and cons of moving the Oscars earlier and the seemingly unsettled Best Actor category.

Have a listen to the new podcast below, with John Williams (Happy Birthday) leading the way. 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.

“Duel of the Fates” courtesy of John Williams and Sony Classical.
“Lady Don’t Tek No” courtesy of Latyrx and Quannum Projects.

I’d like to humbly make a (self-serving) request of the International Film Music Critics Association. Bump your announcement up by a couple of weeks. Granted, you don’t speak for composers, so your annual announcement of the best in film music doesn’t necessarily indicate anything. But in a category with precious little in the way of precursor suggestion, every little bit helps.

This year’s list of nominees was predictably dominated, however, by John Williams, who landed seven nominations across the various categories for his two Oscar-nominated scores: “The Adventures of Tintin” and “War Horse.” Not too far back with five nods was “The Artist” composer Ludovic Bource.

Third was Michael Giacchino, who landed a nomination each for “Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol” and “Super 8” and was singled out in the Film Composer of the Year category as well. And Howard Shore had a decent showing for “Hugo,” popping up twice.

Interestingly, though he was spotlighted in the Composer of the Year field, Alexandre Desplat’s work only showed up once, as “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2” was nominated in one of the genre fields. Nothing for “Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close,” “A Better Life,” “Carnage” or “The Ides of March.” What gives?

Winners will be announced on February 23. Recent champions in the Film Score of the Year category include “How to Train Your Dragon,” “Up,” “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button,” “Atonement,” “Lady in the Water,” “Memoirs of a Geisha” and “The Incredibles.”

Check out the full list of nominees below, and as always, remember to keep track of the ups and downs of the 2011-2012 film awards season via The Circuit.

Film Score of the Year
“The Adventures of Tintin” (John Williams)
“The Artist” (Ludovic Bource)
“The Greatest Miracle” (Mark McKenzie)
“Hugo” (Howard Shore)
“War Horse” (John Williams)

Film Composer of the Year
Ludovic Bource
Alexandre Desplat
Michael Giacchino
Albert Iglesias
John Williams

Breakout Composer of the Year
Ludovic Bource
Brian Byrne
The Chemical Brothers
Michael Richard Plowman
Lucas Vidal

Best Original Score for a Drama Film
“The Artist” (Ludovic Bource)
“Jane Eyre” (Dario Marianelli)
“Soul Surfer” (Marco Beltrami)
“W.E.” (Abel Korzeniowsi)
“War Horse” (John Williams)

Best Original Score for a Comedy Film
“Paul” (David Arnold)
“The Rum Diary” (Christopher Young)
“Torrente 4: Letal Crisis” (Roque Baños)
“A Very Harold and Kumar 3D Christmas” (William Ross)
“Your Highness” (Steve Jablonsky)

Best Original Score for an Action/Adventure/Thriller Film
“Captain America: The First Avenger” (Alan Silvestri)
“Drive” (Cliff Martinez)
“Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol” (Michael Giacchino)
“Real Steel” (Danny Elfman)
“Rise of the Planet of the Apes” (Patrick Doyle)

Best Original Score for a Fantasy/Science Fiction/Horror Film
“Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark” (Marco Beltrami, Buck Sanders)
“Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2” (Alexandre Desplat)
“Hugo” (Howard Shore)
“Priest” (Christopher Young)
“Super 8” (Michael Giacchino)

Best Original Score for an Animated Feature
“The Adventures of Tintin” (John Williams)
“The Greatest Miracle” (Mark McKenzie)
“Kung Fu Panda 2” (John Powell, Hans Zimmer)
“Puss in Boots” (Henry Jackman)
“Rango” (Hans Zimmer)

Best Original Score for a Documentary Feature
“Frozen Planet” (George Fenton)
“Hold at All Costs: The Story of the Battle of Outpost Harry” (Larry Groupé)
“Jig” (Patrick Doyle)
“Russland – Im Reich Der Tiger Bären Und Vulkane” (Kolja Erdmann)
“The Wind Gods” (Pinar Toprak)

Film Music Composition of the Year
“The Adventure Continues” from “The Adventures of Tintin” (John Williams)
“George Valentin” from “The Artist” (Ludovic Bource)
“Captain America March” from “Captain America: The First Avenger” (Alan Silvestri)
“Final Round” from “Real Steel” (Danny Elfman)
“The Homecoming” from “War Horse” (John Williams)

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

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!

When I’m asked, I’m honest. And I’ve been asked about “The Descendants” plenty in the last few weeks, whether the Jean Dujardin SAG win is a harbinger, whether the film still has any gas left in the Best Picture tank after that post-Globes feeling of ecstasy, etc. And my line is this: Forget Best Picture. Stick with Best Actor and Best Adapted Screenplay before you lose those, too. In a recent piece, Brooks Barnes gets it wrong vis a vis what makes an Oscar underdog (both “Crash” and “Million Dollar Baby” were less that than alternatives at a time when the Academy really did want to go a different way), but he nevertheless props Fox Searchlight’s big “underdog” push up. Look (and I really do believe this): it was never going to win Best Picture. Focus. [New York Times]

Steve Pond reports that the Academy expects to take a “hard look” at the Best Original Song process after outcry over this year’s paltry two nominees. [The Odds]

Jeff Goldsmith talks to a number of the Oscar-nominated screenwriters in his annual podcast discussion. [iTunes]

Jose Antonio Vargas calls Demián Bichir’s “A Better Life” performance “an act of salvation.” [Entertainment Weekly]

That Kodak Theatre situation is gettin’ ugly. [The Wrap]

Oscar-nominated actors step “Out of Character” for Academy portrait exhibition. [Oscars.org]

Jacob Combs talks to animated short Oscar nominee Patrick Doyon (“Dimanche”) [Thompson on Hollywood]

Sasha Stone on the year’s adapted screenplay nominees. [Awards Daily]

Oscars by the numbers. [Los Angeles Times Magazine]

David Poland writes up what it takes to win…and lose. [Movie City News]

BERLIN – Just one full day into the 2012 Berlinale, I”m struck by how many faces I recognize as I traipse across the snow-dusted triangle of the festival center at Potsdamer Platz: crimson-blazered festival stewards who all seem to man exactly the same stations they did last year; international critics in the press room whom I identify instantly by their hair, glasses or oddly colored overcoat, but couldn”t possibly name; even the slickly sullen barista at the one decent coffee source over the road.

Nothing and nobody appears to have moved in the space of a year in this city, making today feel less like the opening day of a major international film festival than a comfily unfazed resumption of business. “You”ve been here before,” the politely unenthused assistant said to me as she handed me my shiny new pass and no-nonsense black lanyard. “You know where to go.”

I felt pre-acquainted with the two films I saw today, too. Not dispiritingly so, mind – just in the way one might unwrap a birthday present you”ve already been told you”re getting. They fit the occasion, they followed their respective festival templates, they were as good as I”d hoped they”d be, if not an awful lot better. Both, it has to be said, were the kind of eminently worthy festival films you can”t imagine making great strides to see outside a festival environment, if indeed you were even offered the option; perhaps more so than the name-driven Cannes and Venice programmes, Berlin thrives on these.

The film selected as the curtain-raiser, the predictably plush Gallic costume drama “Farewell, My Queen,” has all the external hallmarks of the kind of over-starched Europudding spectacle that is routinely tapped to open major European festivals, so as to bring out some attractive crossover stars to cut the proverbial ribbon while still ensuring that nobody will remember it by closing night: untaxingly familiar history, rolling hectares of berry-hued silk, a puffily grave title, Diane Kruger with an indeterminate accent, that sort of thing. All these elements are present and correct in this tart, tastefully sexed upstairs/downstairs riff on the done-to-death Marie Antoinette legend – the kind of enjoyably lulling period piece in which bodices are invitingly rustled rather than ripped – with the pointed exception of a flabby journeyman director.

Who we have instead, crucially and rather rewardingly, is Benoît Jacquot, a higher-brow French veteran who, while not the most aggressively distinct stylist, has cultivated a recognizable stamp of terse elegance across contemporary and historical fare alike. He”s as reassuringly calm a visual and narrative disciplinarian as you could want overseeing the shrill discord of Versailles in 1789, and it”s actually his most prosaic instincts that guide the most striking stretches of this portrait of the cake-eating Queen”s fall from grace – seen through the eyes of her ladies-in-waiting – until its over-egged political parallels and dippy Sapphic undertones spill over.

Measured and largely music-free, early scenes map out the daily routine of the Queen”s official reader, Sidonie (the affectingly quivery Lea Seydoux, looking more than ever like a foie gras-fed Kate Moss), with an engagingly practical interest in her actual profession, keeping the gauzy, covetous panning shots of palace treasures to a minimum and instead zeroing in on the miniature everyday power plays between the variously worshipful female underlings of Diane Kruger”s fulsome, flighty, faux-patrician Marie A. First lady among the servants is Gabrielle (Virginie Ledoyen), whose duties seem limited to wanly enduring her Queen”s giggly, groping infatuation. Seydoux”s peachily impassive face makes it hard to discern whether she”s as uncomfortable with these open displays of girl-girl desire as she is out of her mind with jealousy; either way, her slyly ambitious marking of Gabrielle”s status has a cruel payoff as revolution brews, lending the whole the tight causality of a doom-laden fable. No heads roll in this petite fillet of history; none need to.

Aided by the effectively sulky, absorbent quality of Seydoux”s performance, Jacquot negotiates Sidonie”s gaze with such sad, chilly control that you wish he was half as interested in the film”s more airily defined women – though I”d rather spend more time with Noemie Lvovsky”s evasively tetchy aide than Kruger”s dully glowing monarch, who aims for, but can”t quite project, the dreamy, unmannered immaturity of Kirsten Dunst in the same role. Indeed, “Farewell, My Queen” operates as the moderate, less excitingly intuitive flipside to Sofia Coppola”s freeform imagining of the same tangy period in history. It”s both the handsomely lensed and designed corset-opera and the brittle Benoit Jacquot drama different parties might arrived expecting – but as pastel-toned, festival-opening macaroons go, its soured cream filling is an asset.

If “Farewell, My Queen” is a film of at least tempered fulsomeness, there”s no such luxury to be found in Uruguayan director Rodrigo Pla”s “The Delay,” an inescapably glum but quietly urgent miniature following destitute single mother-of-three Maria (Roxana Blanco) as she searches for an alternative to caring for her troublesomely senile father Agustin (Carlos Vallarino) – eventually taking the simplest and least thinkable route. Forbidding at first blush, this Forum entry”s seemingly stock miserablist trappings gradually part to reveal both subtly provocative dramatization and some stunningly confident craft. Among other virtues, it”s a textbook entry in the benefits of crisply creative sound design to budget-challenged filmmakers: Pla uses continuous shifts between diegetic and symbolic sound to score Maria”s own oscillating mental state, with recurrent shrieks of water, whether in a shower or a rainstorm, as a kind of punishing chorus.

Arguably a short film narrative just about carried to feature length by the sheer brute authenticity of its characters” desperation, it bundles a collection of faintly topical concerns – social welfare, dementia, generational responsibility, the decline of the nuclear family – into a markedly tight, tract-free conversation on human charity and ethics. There”s something of Kelly Reichardt”s nervy observation of personal sacrifice and exchange here, even if the story turns on a rough moral decision that many will find alienatingly inscrutable, however quickly the offending character”s remorse sets in. If it”s a mite too clean in its resolution, “The Delay” at least leaves a sufficiently panicky mess of universal fears to compensate.

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

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!

It”s a rare thing for Martin Scorsese to use a score as expansive and elaborate as Howard Shore”s Oscar-nominated one for “Hugo.” Indeed, Philip Glass’s booming and full composition for “Kundun” 14 years ago represents the last score from one of Scorsese”s films to be nominated for an Academy Award.

“We worked very differently on this film than we had previously,” Shore says, calling from his studio in New Zealand where he is currently writing the “brand new and shiny” compositions for Peter Jackson’s “The Hobbit.”

Shore won two Academy Awards for his scores on Jackson”s “The Lord of the Rings” franchise, as well as Best Original Song for the series’ final installment. His work on the trilogy was an immense undertaking which was eventually adapted into “‘The Lord of the Rings’ Symphony: Six Movements for Orchestra and Chorus.”

“Hugo,” though, marks his sixth collaboration with Scorsese. Their previous efforts, however, have traditionally been more measured affairs, selective in their original music considerations. The director, notably, makes powerful use of pre-existing music throughout his films. The scores often act as a bridge or as punctuation marks, whereas “Hugo” has a very thematic score, with nine themes that are developed through the piece, seven of which are stated in the first reel.

“”Hugo” is made in the classical style of the 1940s,” Shore says. “We’re all big fans of Michael Powell”s work and we wanted to make a film that would stand the test of time. There were certain techniques that we went back to, more classic techniques, of how music was used in films in past to create something that was very balanced with the score, the cinematography, the production design and all of the other elements in an attempt to try something that we had not really done before.”

That sense of harmony has been reflected back with 11 Academy Awards nominations for the film, which acknowledge the wide spectrum of craft contributions. Shore”s compositions in particular have the ability to act as storytellers in their own right, so a portion of his task is to ensure that he is in an effective and concordant part of that balance. In order to do so, he works in a detailed step-by-step process with both Scorsese and the director”s long-time editor, Thelma Schoonmaker.

“We like to look at the movie quite a lot,” Shore says. “We tend to screen every 10 days or so. We do little mini-productions and recordings of little bits and pieces of the score and then we keep looking at the film.”

One of the key choices he says he made was to utilize two ensembles, one nested in the midst of the other, in order to accentuate the sense of immersion that was created by Robert Richardson”s cinematography. The orchestra, therefore, contributes to the feeling of depth that the film evokes, while the small group that sits inside the symphony creates the sense of familiarity with the characters.

“It”s a sort of French dance band that includes the ondes Martenot (a French electronic instrument that was designed in the late-20s), tack piano, gypsy guitar, upright bass, a 1930s trap-kit and alto,” Shore says of the mini-orchestra. “The little group had the intimacy of the café orchestras in the streets of Paris and the train stations and the symphony orchestra adds the depth of field of the 3D.”

Shore says he loves the historical period that “Hugo” takes place in, but that while it’s a fictional story, it’s steeped in fact. “It”s a great director (Martin Scorsese) making a film about another great director (Georges Méliès),” he says. “So you are dealing with the exhilaration of early filmmaking. It”s this period from 1895 with the Lumiere brothers to 1931 where music is set and covers what we call the silent era, which was never silent. All of the silent films had live music accompaniment, so it”s actually a very rich period in music.”

Scorsese”s passion for cinema is well-documented. “Hugo” in some ways acts as his opportunity to (with a sense of exuberance that is rare for him) express that devotion. His sense of reverential enthusiasm certainly comes through, particularly in the third act, where the visuals and the score shift from young Hugo Cabret”s point-of-view to reflect Méliès”s journey.

Early on, the film presents a portrait of the world as Hugo views it from his hidden passageways in the station that is his strange and lonely home. Later, the visual design becomes more fantastical as we enter the universe of Méliès’ stagecraft as a magician and extraordinary effects work as a filmmaker. Accordingly, the score takes on Papa Georges”s perspective.

“The conclusion involves both of their music and both of their thematic ideals and pieces,” Shore says. “And of course there are certain things they share — the love of fixing things, the love of clocks and trains and mechanical things — so those thematic elements that are in the score work with both characters. The Hugo character is like a young Méliès.”

Just as he moves between the character”s perspectives, Shore dances between an objective and subjective frame of reference in order to assure that he maintains the harmony of the collaboration. “I detail each scene to the colors I want to use and the sounds of the small group and the orchestra,” he says. “It”s kind of an intimate relationship that I try to develop between how I feel as the composer watching the scene and writing something form my heart, and how I feel as the audience watching the scene.”

Ultimately, of course, Shore, like the majority of craftsman, must be willing and able to adjust to the needs of an individual film and director. His career has spanned from his time as the band leader on the original “Saturday Night Live” through horror films, romantic comedies and late night television to the grandiosity of offerings such as “Hugo” and “The Lord of the Rings.”

“They all work so differently at that level,” Shore reflects. “David Cronenberg is an example of somebody that I”ve done a lot of films with [including this year’s ‘A Dangerous Method’]. And David likes to challenge the viewer a bit in what movies are and can be, and he doesn”t want to imply too much, really, to the viewer as to what they should be feeling in certain parts of the film. He likes to play with ambiguity. That”s very different from Peter (Jackson) and how I worked with Scorsese on ‘Hugo.””

Ultimately, though, it will be interesting to see whether the singular experience that “Hugo” represents in terms of Shore”s creative relationship with Scorsese will mark a new era in how the director approaches the use of music in his films.

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

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!

Okay, full disclosure. An invested publicist forwarded this to me. But, well, it got me. And I had to post.

The running, cynical logic on Jean Dujardin for quite a while has been that we’ll likely see him and the rest of the crew from “The Artist” fade away after this lightning-capturing season, and that if we don’t, well, maybe Dujardin will play a Bond villain or something. Just look at Christoph Waltz, who has languished in bad-guy parts in “The Green Hornet” and “Water for Elephants” after winning his Oscar two years ago.

Funny or Die is always quick to get out ahead of a joke like that, and Dujardin is wise to be on board for something like their latest video, which spoofs the actor being tapped to audition for every Hollywood villain role available at the moment. He runs the gamut from “Mission: Impossible” and “Die Hard” sequels to hilariously dubious possibilities like follow-ups to “We Bought a Zoo” and “Judy Moody and the Not Bummer Summer.”

I’m officially pulling for this guy to hit it big. Seriously, the “Bridesmaids,” “Spy Kids” and aforementioned “We Bought a Zoo” bits got a big laugh out of me. And it’s a really smart way to further endear a wider audience to Dujardin, who, let’s face it, will be an unknown to most even after the Academy Awards. The next role will not only be key, but crucial.

Guy has been consistently saying that comparisons of Dujardin to Robert Benigni this year are “casually xenophobic,” and while I think that’s overstating quite a bit, I do think that kind of talk is obviously reductive. I get the need to boil it down to something we understand, and I do understand the perceived similarities in situations. But he (Guy) and I were chatting recently and he noted that, through all of this need to boil it down, people might be missing the emergence of a Marion Cotillard-like star.

And I’m with him on that. Say what I might about “The Artist,” Dujardin is a funny, talented guy. And he was before this year, by the way, via films like the “OSS 117” series. He’s slowly won me over (and was great on Leno last week, by the way). I think he’s likely to win the Oscar for Best Actor, but whether he does or doesn’t, here’s hoping he makes some wise decisions after this season.

Have a look at the Funny or Die sketch below. Which bit is your favorite?

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

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!

A well-known filmmaker friend and I were chatting about the dearth of quality films in the annual Oscar race at an awards show recently. He said to me, “When I was young, films like ‘Network’ and ‘All the President’s Men’ were nominated. I feel sorry for you that nothing nominated touches those films these days.”

Well, I’d argue few things MADE these days touch those films, and I almost wanted to say something like, “You’re a filmmaker in today’s environment. What does that say about you?” But nevertheless, point taken. Even still, I marvel at the fact that a film like, say, “A Clockwork Orange” was nominated in 1971. I couldn’t fathom that kind of thing happening today. Of course, few films have the earth-shattering impact that Stanley Kubrick’s masterpiece did, and when the earth moves, I guess you kind of have to take note.

The film was released in the US 40 years ago this week. Naturally, then, it’s been getting plenty of coverage in the press, but I’ve been relishing Mike Kaplan’s pieces at Moviefone. Kaplan was Kubrick’s marketing man and spent a lot of time overseeing the publicity particulars of the filmmaker’s works. And truly, the marketing imagery of some of these films has become as iconic as the films themselves.

In a January 10 piece, Kaplan recalled the lessons of “2001: A Space Odyssey” being applied to the marketing of “A Clockwork Orange” four years later. “Nothing was left to chance,” he writes, “including the crucial selection of cinemas, which were usually decided by a studio’s sales executives. ‘2001’ was a special roadshow film, meaning it was presented with higher prices, reserved seating, and usually 10 performances a week. Only one to three roadshow cinemas existed per city and were easily identified. ‘Clockwork’ would be shown in standard cinemas as a quality platform release, which meant there were many options per city.”

He then goes on to detail how he and Kubrick devised a way to track which theaters sold “the most tickets to the most interesting pictures” at a time when detailed box office figures of competitive films was a closely guarded secret. They built a spreadsheet full of info from back-issues of Variety, which tracked weekly figures (but not cumulative ones) from major markets and theaters. “This hand-crafted database would be our bible, guiding our directives to Warner Bros. concerning which cinemas should show ‘A Clockwork Orange,'” he writes.

It’s an absolutely fascinating nugget about Kubrick that you might not have known: he changed that side of the business forever and virtually invented the modern box office report.

In another piece, from January 30, Kaplan recounts a second marketing milestone the film set: taking promotional images directly from the film, rather than from second unit photography that, according to Kubrick, “weren’t an accurate representation of what was on screen,” as Kaplan puts it. “So each day, for three to five hours, I would sit in front of a Moviola — the hand-fed editing machine through which all the printed film passed — watching every scene from every angle as assistant editor Gary Shepherd loaded the takes, removing the frames I marked with a chalk pencil and placing them in slide holders to be culled later.”

Kubrick, though, insisted that Kaplan view the film without sound, responding to the visuals only. And it wasn’t until he heard the sounds of Malcolm McDowell belting out “Singin’ in the Rain” echoing in the halls of editorial that he broke down, far too curious, and finally forced the editors to play him the scene with audio. Still, seeing a Kubrick film (in its entirety) for the first time with no sound had to be a trippy experience, particularly THIS Kubrick film.

Which brings me to Kaplan’s third Moviefone piece, published yesterday. It explains the scenario of the director shooting his own photo for “Newsweek”‘s exclusive cover story on the film. Kubrick, of course, was a brilliant photographer who started his career as such at “Look” magazine. Notoriously meticulous and controlling on all elements of the process — it wasn’t just imagery but quotes he’d obsess over, having the right to edit them into what it was he really wanted to say — Kubrick told the magazine he’d set up the shot and shoot it himself. This was unheard of.

“There would be no budging,” Kaplan writes of the inevitable push-back Kubrick got from the magazine. “Stanley…intended to set a precedent by shooting his own cover portrait, controlling the image he wanted to project.” Eventually the magazine buckled and, as Kaplan notes, the credit on the magazine read: “Cover Photograph: Stanley Kubrick.”

It’s been a fascinating series so far and I hope there are more to come. Check them out for yourself for some great first-hand stories.

But on the film at hand, I actually happened to take some time out while at the Santa Barbara International Film Festival to check out a screening of “A Clockwork Orange,” which has recently been digitally restored by Warner Archives. It was beautiful as ever. No one captured a shot like Stanley Kubrick, and no one ever will. Shadows strike across the screen in such compelling ways, depth of field is fussed over for instantly iconic images, so many frames look like gorgeous paintings, etc. It was a true delight to see that on the big screen. The Academy actually held a special screening of the restoration back in September. Malcolm McDowell was on hand for a Q&A.

Finally, one more bit of Kubrick news. I missed the documentary “Room 237” at Sundance because its first screening was the afternoon of my flight home, which was a bummer, because I expected that it might have been my only opportunity. From the film’s official site, “Room 237” is “a subjective documentary feature which explores numerous theories about Stanley Kubrick”s ‘The Shining’ and its hidden meanings. This guided tour through the most compelling attempts to decode this endlessly fascinating film will draw the audience into a new maze, one with endless detours and dead ends, many ways in, but no way out.” The extensive use of footage from the film led me to believe it would be a rights issue.

Thankfully, though, fair use privileges have made it possible for the film to indeed see a public release, as IFC Films picked it up for theatrical and VOD. So the first chance I get, you can bet I’ll be taking that one in.

As for other upcoming Kubrick occasions, “Paths of Glory” (which was recently released on Criterion Blu-ray) celebrates its 55th anniversary this year. “Lolita” will celebrate its 50th, while “Full Metal Jacket” turns 25. 2013 marks 45 years of “2001: A Space Odyssey,” while “Dr. Strangelove” will ring in its own 50th in early 2014.

And next year, the 60th anniversary of Kubrick’s first feature (which aired recently on Turner Classic Movies for the first time): “Fear and Desire.”

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

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!

This may come as a shock to readers accustomed to my usual tone of weary despair when it comes to the category, but I”m about to write in defense of the Best Foreign Language Film Oscar.

Reluctant defense, mind you – I”m not going to get either impassioned or affectionate for the award that recognized “Departures” over “The Class,” “Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow” over “The Umbrellas of Cherbourg” and “Woman in the Dunes” and never even shortlisted “Persona,” “The 400 Blows” or anything by Kieslowski. For reasons both within and beyond their control, it”s a troubled category and always has been. But unlike most of the Academy”s many problem areas, it”s a highly self-aware and self-medicating one, forever adjusting its voting process to address blind spots.

The adjustments sometimes cause blind spots of their own, like a game of cinematic and bureaucratic whack-a-mole, but you can hardly accuse them of shrugging their shoulders. When arcane eligibility bylaws about the required language of national submissions took Michael Haneke”s “Hidden” out of the running, rules were promptly changed the next year; when voters failed to place critics” darling “4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days” into the nine-film shortlist in 2007, branch leaders were sufficiently embarrassed to devise the executive-committee safety net that stands today.

The system has been tweaked sufficiently that, as I wrote in my Oscar Guide piece on the category last week, this year”s field of nominees feels like the least controversial or fussed-over in many a year: the nominees range from major world cinema stories (“A Separation”) to bold, slow-burning festival discoveries (“Bullhead”) to the kind of lesser-known, soft-lob Oscar bait that traditionally dominates the race (“Monsieur Lazhar”), but there”s comparatively little kvetching about this omission or that inclusion. If “A Separation” actually pulls off the win, as is likely, it”ll be the category”s most universally approved champ in well over a decade. Coming on the heels of last year”s ballsy nomination for “Dogtooth” – the kind of cooler-than-thou critics” pet for whom an Oscar nod piques as many fans as it pleases – has the Academy finally cracked the code?

Well, no. The five films assembled this year may make for a respectable list, but hardly one that reflects the year in international cinema from the perspective of either critics (in which case aggressively auteurist submissions like “The Turin Horse” or “Once Upon a Time in Anatolia” would take precedence over sweet nothings like “Lazhar”) or audiences (in which case crossover art house hits like “The Skin I Live In” or “Troll Hunter,” both BAFTA-nominated, would have been submitted by their countries of origin in the first place). The foreign-language Oscar remains the only reason films like “In a Better World” or “The Secret in Their Eyes” even momentarily enter the critical conversation; it”s a false distinction that can”t help but look random to any filmgoer who sees more than five foreign films a year.

The Hollywood Reporter recently featured a conversation between features editor Stephen Galloway and the Academy”s foreign language branch chairman Mark Johnson, in which Galloway takes Johnson constructively to task over the numerous flaws and inequalities in their voting system. It also highlighted the damned if they do, damned if they don”t nature of the process. Many of the core problems, of course, exist at the very opening stage: handing national committees the responsibility of selecting one film to represent their country in the race is, as Johnson fairly points out, fairer on smaller industries that might otherwise be drowned out by world cinema powerhouses like France, but puts an undue amount of artistic trust in panels that may have political motives, questionable taste, or both. (See Italy”s selection last year of the syrupy melodrama “The First Beautiful Thing” over international art house phenomenon “I Am Love.”)

The counter-argument, of course, is that these committees can also pick more exciting, lower-profile entries from their national cinema than Academy voters would. Sweden took flak in many quarters two years ago for failing to submit “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” for the Oscar, but the little-seen film they chose instead, “Involuntary,” was infinitely more unusual and accomplished. Critics wailed last year when Belgium ignored the Dardenne brothers” umpteenth Cannes winner, “The Kid with a Bike,” in favor of eventual nominee “Bullhead” – but the country chose arguably the more challenging film.

One of Galloway”s suggested fixes is a best-of-both-worlds compromise, in which major festival prizewinners are automatically added to the longlist of national submissions, but even that seems randomly selective, given the eccentric whims of even the loftiest Cannes juries. It would be simply another case of the Academy deflecting blame and diluting authenticity by relying on other people”s judgment.

Perhaps the fairest and most radical overhaul would be to instigate a change similar to that recently made in the documentary category: scrap the external submission process and instead pick the five nominees from the list of foreign language features theatrically released in the US over the calendar year, similar to any major category. It would cure the category of some of its blinkered exclusivity – how can you expect regular viewers to invest in a category where many nominees won”t yet be released for months? – and doctored sense of self-apology, though it wouldn”t necessarily make for better nominee fields.

General voters picking from a year”s worth of releases would be as likely to pick a “Dogtooth” over a “Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” as they would to vote for “Drive” over “The Descendants” in the Best Picture field, after all. Is it worth potentially increasing the category”s blandness in order to make it a fairer reflection of the Academy”s taste, and equally, the public”s awareness of world cinema? The special treatment currently given the Best Foreign Language Film Oscar may be starting to pay off with some necessary and unexpected choices, but it”s not making an already ghettoized category seem any more democratic.

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

For the second year in a row the documentary short nominees will be included in Shorts International/Magnolia Pictures’ theatrical program of Oscar-nominated shorts. The films release as a package in 200 theaters nationwide on tomorrow, February 10.

The docs this year were an interesting and diverse assortment. At least two of them are top-notch works of cinema. Another is a gripping if somewhat clinical dissection of an unfortunate wartime event, while one will likely land well for its old Hollywood connections. The least-compelling of the lot is a new spin on familiar Civil Rights movement territory. Meanwhile, there are three former nominees in the line-up, two of them having been chalked up for feature work in the past.

The nominees are…

“The Barber of Birmingham: Foot Soldier of the Civil Rights Movement” (Robin Fryday and Gail Dolgin)

“God is the Bigger Elvis” (Rebecca Cammisa and Julie Anderson)

“Incident in New Baghdad” (James Spione)

“Saving Face” (Daniel Junge and Sharmeen Obaid-Chinoy)

“The Tusnami and the Cherry Blossom” (Lucy Walker and Kira Carstensen)

The thing to watch for with these films, typically, is that golden combination of craft expertise and emotional impact. Only members who show up, sign in and screen the films can vote, so there is no auto-pilot to be considered. Each film has to speak for itself.

Every couple of years it seems we’re due a Civil Rights movement entry in this category, and no disrespect to “The Barber of Birmingham: Foot Soldier of the Civil Rights Movement,” but so rarely is anything unique added to the conversation or revealed in the filmmaking. Of course, this film, from directors Robin Fryday and Gail Dolgin, does have the events of the 2008 presidential election as a novel element to explore their impact on aging Civil Rights activists in the South, but it feels like the heat around the subject has passed so the impact isn’t that significant. The film is centered on barber James Armstrong, but somewhat arbitrarily so. Though he is a charismatic focus in and of himself, I was nevertheless left feeling as though I had seen it all before.

“God is the Bigger Elivs,” from director Rebecca Cammisa and producer Julie Anderson, tells the story of actress Dolores Hart, who in 1963 left a successful film career (including being an Elvis Presley leading lady) to become a Benedictine monk. Cammisa was nominated once in the feature doc category for 2009’s “Which Way Home” (a film that made a nice companion piece to foreign feature “Sin Nombre” the same year), so she’s quickly becoming a stand-out filmmaker in the field. Here she does a nice job of packing a lot into the film’s 40 minute running time, and the familiar, industry-specific story could resonate for the branch. But I found it a little bit dull. It could be formidable, but it doesn’t have the impact that some other contenders do.

James Spione‘s “Incident in New Baghdad” is a rather disturbing dissection of one of the most unfortunate events of the Iraq War: the accidental murder of two journalists and a group of mostly unarmed men on the streets of Baghdad by US Black Hawk helicopters in 2007. The film hinges on veteran Ethan McCord, who was on the ground that day and gives a stirring account that, when juxtaposed with the WikiLeaks-leaked aerial footage of the incident, makes for a gripping cinematic experience. It could be a sleeper to watch, though it’s a bit clinical, which made the inevitable emotions it dug up feel a bit disconnected to me. Still, it’s a must-see in the field, and sometimes that’s powerful enough to win.

Other times, a film just stands out from the pack for being powerful and vital, raising awareness, shedding light, thoroughly exploring its subject, the whole package. “Saving Face,” from former nominee Daniel Junge (“The Last Campaign of Governor Booth Gardener”) and producer Sharmeen Obaid Chinoy, is just that. A revelatory piece of work about the persistence of acid attacks on women in Pakistan, the film boasts one of the meatier running times of the lot, profiling a handful of victims, the London-based, native Pakistani doctor who sees treatment of the victims as his life’s work and the nail-biting legal sequence that will lead to either justice or further tragedy in a region clearly victimized by its religious tenets. This one feels like a stone-cold winner to me.

But it could face some competition. Former Oscar nominee for features, Lucy Walker (“Waste Land”), is back a year later with an entry in the short field, “The Tsunami and the Cherry Blossom,” produced by Kira Carstensen. The film packs an emotional punch to say the least, opening on four solid minutes of some of the most harrowing video I’ve seen of the tsunami that wreaked havoc on the Tohoku region of Japan on March 11, 2011. The film then depicts the gut-wrenching toll of the tragedy as survivors recount seeing loved ones perish and struggle to make a new life on the erased ruins of their old one. It’s the most artful entry of the bunch, with beautiful original music from Moby, and I could see it taking the win easily.

Will win: “Saving Face”

Could win: “The Tsunami and the Cherry Blossom”

Should win: “Saving Face”

Should have been here: (abstain)

(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!

I’ve kind of been going nuts lately at the amount of people reporting from the Oscar Nominees Luncheon leaning on the amount of applause Max von Sydow received as if it’s, in and of itself, an indication of anything. If you’re a film industry professional and you have a chance to applaud for a guy like that, you’re going to do it. Annette Bening got a lot of applause at last year’s event. It just means respect. Plus, Christopher Plummer wasn’t even there, so you can’t gauge one response versus the other. This week, Dave Karger uses the burst of applause as a reason to move von Sydow up to #2 in his Best Supporting Actor rankings, but that’s really where he should have been since day one. I’ll say it again: von Sydow’s mere presence in the category makes things interesting. [Entertainment Weekly]

With the BAFTA ceremony right around the corner, citizens of the UK vote “The King’s Speech” their favorite winner in the organization’s 65 year history. [Telegraph]

Apparently Demián Bichir leads Best Actor Tweet mentions, I’m guessing because so many are unfamiliar with him and his work. Welcome to the spotlight! [24 Frames]

Nigel M. Smith sees that “Halftime in America” Clint Eastwood Super Bowl spot as “the second coming of David Gordon Green.” Um, okay. [indieWIRE]

Steve Pond talks “Hugo” with Oscar-nominated sound mixer Tom Fleischman. [The Odds]

Todd McCarthy critiques the year in movie music. [Hollywood Reporter]

Greg Ellwood on the brave new world of electronic billboards for Oscar ad purposes. [Awards Campaign]

Sasha Stone on the race for Best Director. [Awards Daily]

Roger Ebert takes a crack at guessing Oscar’s major categories. I think he’s gonna bat 1.000. [Chicago Sun-Times]

Finally, it’s really heartening to see The New York Times step up its crafts coverage via its Below-the-Line series and pieces like this. [New York Times]

Whatever your take on Lucasfilm”s output over the last 13-years may be, there are very few of us who can listen to more than just a few notes of the “Star Wars” score without feeling a rushing sense of possibility, excitement and remembered pleasure, or if it is the “Imperial March” a delicious impression of impending evil.

John Williams is responsible for some of the most beloved and iconic scores of our time. He”s been nominated for 47 Oscars (including two this year, for “The Adventures of Tintin” and “War Horse”), making him the second-most nominated person after Walt Disney (and the most-nominated composer, passing Alfred Newman this year). He won four original score Oscars, for the haunting and evocative “Schindler”s List” (1993), the bitter-sweet optimism of “E.T.:The Extra-Terrestrial” (1983), the indelible and enduring “Star Wars” (1977), and what has become the universal sound symbol for “danger in the water,” “Jaws” (1975). He also won Best Scoring Adaptation and Original Song Score for “Fiddler on the Roof” in 1971, kicking off his love affair with the Academy.

A couple of years ago I found myself lying in the grass in the midst of the gorgeous LA Arboretum. The California Philharmonic treated all of us present to an evening that traveled through Williams”s most beloved scores, beginning, of course, with “Star Wars” and moving through to the “Harry Potter” symphonic suite.

When you hear his music detached from the films (as many of us have undoubtedly done over the years), the genius of his work is accentuated. As I lay with my eyes closed to the setting summer sun, the films were right there against my lids. The images were almost more vivid and visceral in my imagination than if they were playing live.

Williams’ scores support and serve the stories, but the depth of his connection to the tales he is a part of crafting crystallizes when you realize how inexorably married each score is to its film. One does not exist without the other. It is a rare individual that is both master crafstman and masterful collaborator.

Williams turns 80 today, and it must be a good one, what with another double-dipping night at the Academy Awards on the way. He’s done that 14 times now, two of them being triple nominee occasions. The Boston Pops Orchestra, meanwhile, has put together a “What’s your John Williams theme?” page for the legendary composer’s birthday. Check it out here.

To remind yourself of what both preeminent and prolific look like, take a glance at the first video below, which presents an overview of Williams”s truly staggering body of work. And after that, for “Harry Potter” fans, there’s a second video of a performance of the aforementioned suite.

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

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!

Alright, you know the drill. Rifle off your need-to-knows and we’ll address as many as we can on Friday’s podcast. I believe we’re going to try and discuss the live action and animated shorts, perhaps the doc features. Anyway, a few categories will be covered in detail. Have at it!

Gary Oldman is back in town and hitting the press rounds hard on behalf of his first-ever Oscar nomination for “Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy.” And though I’m fairly resigned to Jean Dujardin turning the trick with Oscar as he did with SAG, I can’t help but wonder — or perhaps merely hope — if things are in such a state of flux within the Best Actor category that a guy like Oldman has a decent shot.

Roth’s piece on Brad Pitt’s press rounds and a window of opportunity in the field was fair enough as it pertains to his chances. After all, Pitt’s a big-time celebrity who doesn’t rest on his laurels and is heavily involved, constructively, on the production side of things. And he turned out one of his best performances to date in “Moneyball.”

But what about a guy like Oldman, who has worked with just about everyone in town and has been at the grind for decades? Not only is he a solid worker, but he offers up stunning portrayal after stunning portrayal, even in the most dubious of projects (many of which he’s been forced to take on over the last 10 years or so).

The BAFTA Awards on Sunday will be an interesting test for Oldman. (Guy will be live-blogging, FYI.) It’s the only pre-Oscar awards show, I believe, that will see him pitted against Dujardin and George Clooney, the perceived frontrunners of the category. Given the showing “Tinker” had in the nominations, I expect him to win, but if Dujardin triumphs, well, it’s not even worth discussing in hypotheticals anymore at that point.

Greg Ellwood sat down with the freshly minted nominee recently to get his take on finally hitting that echelon he probably should have been on multiple times over by now. And like many, leading into the morning of January 24, he wasn’t feeling particularly hopeful. “If you were to take the temperature with the Golden Globes and SAG, I wasn’t banking on it,” he says in the interview. Thankfully he’s in there and he has a fighting chance.

Meanwhile, Oldman is turning up in a few key spots during phase two. He was on “Jimmy Kimmel Live” last week and will pop up on “The Today Show” tomorrow morning. He also has a Charlie Rose appearance coming up (which will be delightful). He did plenty of poolside interviews at the Nominees Luncheon on Monday, as well, which is a good way to hit a few outlets at once this time of year.

I spoke to Oldman back around the occasion of the film’s US release back in December and it remains one of my favorite interviews of the season. He’s such a nice guy, really thoughtful in his answers and with a refreshing sense of humor. That kind of charm can go a long way this time of year. I particularly loved his perspective on finally settling into a rather inwardly-performed character after making a career on more colorful portrayals:

“When you”re asked to come in and you’ve got to burn from the first bar, it”s like rock and roll,” he said at the time. “You’ve got to hit a frequency in a performance. And it may be violent, it may be emotional, it may be both. It may be tears. It could be many things. I always felt that as exciting as it was, there was a bit of a black cloud over me. You”d get there in the morning and it was like standing at the foot of a mountain looking at the peak and thinking, ‘Oh God, I”ve got to get there today, and when I call on it, will I have the resource? Is the well going to be dry or am I going to climb the mountain?’

“With Smiley, a lot of that sort of emotional work, in a way, was done in the privacy of my own home. It”s sort of done in my kitchen, me in a communion with the novel. And so it was a relief to know that it was other people that were bouncing off the wall and that I could come in and put my suit on and sit in a chair and listen. It was a great relief to be able to do that. There’s a continuity to it. And it”s those other guys that have to kind of come in and win the race, you know? Like I said, it”s like jazz. You just find that you ease into the solo and these other guys can start to come in and rock and roll.”

I’d love to think that now that Oscar voters finally have an opportunity to check off his name on a ballot, they finally will. But it’s tough to overcome the trajectory of the season when it’s been somewhat set.

Still, I’m pulling for him. It really was my favorite nomination of the year.

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.)

This year, the sound category nominations were the ones I found hardest to predict — I went a paltry 1-for-5 in the Best Sound Mixing category — and even with the field narrowed to five, I’m not finding the picture any clearer. Part of the reason for that is the unusual disparity between the Academy’s picks and those of the Cinema Audio Society. For the first time since 1999, they agreed on only two nominees, both Best Picture contenders that aren’t brash sonic showcases: “Hugo” and “Moneyball.”

For the other slots, the Academy’s sound branch set about rectifying some of the more surprising CAS omissions: the guild did well to recognize the sleekly pulsating “Hanna,” but the Academy stuck with more typically large-scale fare for the category in the shape of “War Horse” and “Transformers: Dark of the Moon.” The final field is an eminently mainstream one, but pleasingly balanced between bombast and subtler notes.

The nominees are…

“The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” (David Parker, Michael Semanick, Ren Klyce and Bo Persson)

“Hugo” (Tom Fleischman and John Midgley)

“Moneyball” (Deb Adair, Ron Bochar, Dave Giammarco and Ed Novick)

“Transformers: Dark of the Moon” (Greg P. Russell, Gary Summers, Jeffrey J. Haboush and Peter J. Devlin)

“War Horse” (Gary Rydstrom, Andy Nelson, Tom Johnson and Stuart Wilson)

In addition to the aforementioned “Hanna,” the other CAS nominee slighted by the Academy were “Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides” and “Super 8.” I’m particularly surprised that the latter summer blockbuster missed in both sound categories — I’d have thought the spectacular train crash alone would seal the deal there — and I wish there had been more time for the crisp, frisky action work in late December release “Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol” to take hold. Finally, I wish more people would acknowledge that great sound mixing exists in the arthouse too: the sprinkler system from “We Need to Talk About Kevin” hasn’t left my head since May. 

For “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo,” mixers David Parker, Michael Semanick and Ren Klyce have received their third nomination for a David Fincher film in four years. (Parker previously won for “The Bourne Ultimatum” and “The English Patient,” Semanick for “King Kong” and “The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King.”) Given the lack of a guild nod at the time when the film was racking them up, it’s a slight surprise that the Academy rescued the chilly Nordic thriller here, but a pleasant one: it’s a subtly eerie, glassy mix, working in close partnership with the disquieting reverberations of Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross’s sadly unnominated score. As with the last two Fincher films in the race, it’s likely too muted for the win, but it’s nice to see it recognized. Parker, Semanick and Klyce are nominated alongside Bo Persson.

Being one of only two nominees also mentioned by the CAS — and far the flashier of those two, to boot — at least gives “Hugo” the appearance of an advantage in this race, as does the fact that the Best Picture nominee, with its field-leading 11 nominations, is in a position to dominate the technical categories. If voters who can’t tell the difference between mixing sound and cement are feeling lazy, there’s a good chance they’ll simply check off the most highly regarded title on the list — but while “Hugo,” with all its whirring machinery, bustling crowds and vengeful trains, has plenty to occupy the ear, I wonder if people remember it for its aural qualities as much as its visual ones. Mixers Tom Fleischman and John Midgley have eight previous nods between them (the former was also nominated for “Gangs of New York” and “The Aviator”), but this would be the first win for both.

The nomination for the comparatively quiet drama of “Moneyball” wasn’t as surprising as it would have been without that CAS nod, but it’s still the kind of low-key work in a well-loved film that often goes only as far as a guild mention. I’m glad the Academy followed through on this one: this is selflessly film-serving but sharply defined sound work that pays careful attention to conveying and shifting character perspective, as attuned to the crowd roar of the ball game scenes as the silent hum of a lonely office. One of the film’s four mixers, Ed Novick, won an Oscar last year for more bells-and-whistles work on “Inception”; it’d be a surprise to see him take a second straight statuette for work this unassumingly layered, however broadly liked the film. A guild win, strangely enough, seems a far likelier prospect. The other nominees are Deb Adair, Ron Bochar and Dave Giammarco.

Forget Meryl Streep’s third Oscar — you want to talk due? Greg P. Russell clocked his 15th nomination this year for “Transformers: Dark of the Moon” (his third nod for Michael Bay’s ongoing scrap-metal saga, which apparently can’t miss in this category, even without guild support), and has yet to win. He’s part of a sonic dream team here — his three colleagues have 17 nominations and four Oscars between them — but I sense this still isn’t Russell’s year. However crystalline every juddering clank is in this gleefully cacophonous blockbuster, Academy voters tend only to vote here for outright popcorn fare if it’s as critically approved as “The Bourne Ultimatum” or “Speed.” Chances are they’d feel dirty voting for “Transformers,” even if Paramount is, unusually enough, campaigning hard for a win in this category. Russell’s fellow nominees are Gary Summers (no stranger to the dance with 10 nominations and four wins), Jeffrey J. Haboush and Peter J. Devlin.

Finally, we come to the film that would seem the can’t-miss frontrunner in this category. It’s a Best Picture nominee, it’s a sweeping war epic with all the tastefully booming sound that entails, it’s a pro team of mixers (Gary Rydstrom, Andy Nelson, Tom Johnson and Stuart Wilson) with 10 Oscars between them and it’s from a director whose films have often scored here in the past — but for the fact that the CAS rather unaccountably left it off their list. As it stands, lack of guild recognition shouldn’t be a deal-breaker for “War Horse”: I’d say most Academy members neither know nor care whether the film was nominated by the CAS, and if lack of guild support couldn’t be reversed, we wouldn’t be talking about it in six categories to begin with. Still, it would be a first for the sound mixing Oscar to go to a film not nominated by the Society, and while Steven Spielberg’s film has its fans, I wonder if the blind (or deaf?) vote for “Hugo” might be stronger. 

Will win: “Hugo”

Could win: “War Horse”

Should win: “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”

Should have been here: “We Need to Talk About Kevin”  

Keep track of our current rankings in the Best Sound Mixing 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!

Oh, it wouldn’t be the final stretch  of Oscar voting without a minor kerfuffle over some or other campaign strategy. The people ruffling feathers this time, you’ll be shocked to hear, are The Weinstein Company, whose latest campaign effort for Meryl Streep comes close to breaking a selection of finicky rules and regulations, but naturally has a secure loophole in place. The ad, emailed to Hollywood Reporter subscribers (and therefore not directly to the Academy, cleverly enough), makes a big deal of the two-time winner’s 29-year Oscar drought, stepping on the toes of an Academy rule forbidding ads to mention past awards, and to “extol the merits of a film… or an individual.” (Really? Don’t all ads do that?) Several AMPAS voters have felt moved to complain, but I don’t see how this harmless stunt affects Streep’s chances either way. [The Odds]

No matter. Daniel Montgomery offers five reasons why Viola Davis will win Best Actress. They’re all sound, but shouldn’t her performance be one of them? [Gold Derby]

“Why is ‘Hugo’ nominated [for Best Picture] and we’re not?” asks “Harry Potter” star Daniel Radcliffe, who puts it down to snobbery. [The Guardian]

It was a good night for Industrial Light & Magic at the 10th annual Visual Effects Society Awards, which were presented this evening. The company’s work in films like “Rango” and “Transformers: Dark of the Moon” dominated the proceedings, the former surprisingly sweeping the animated categories.

Why is it surprising? Well, you might recall that “The Adventures of Tintin” led the way with nominations from the Society, including three nods in the category of Outstanding Created Environment in an Animated Feature Motion Picture. I thought that was fantastic, as it’s a hybrid media film with stellar effects from Weta Digital that should have been in the mix at the Oscars, too. Alas, the film didn’t even make the Academy’s bake-off list. It didn’t even make the longlist of 15 titles. And tonight, “Rango” pretty much ate its lunch, winning four awards. Steven Spielberg’s film turned out zero wins off of six nominations. Ouch.

The other big ILM winner of the evening was the Oscar-nominated “Transformers: Dark of the Moon,” which took home two awards, as did “Rise of the Planet of the Apes,” Weta Digital’s other big production. Among the two “Apes” wins was the Society’s top honor, Outstanding Visual Effects in a Visual Effects-Driven Feature. It remains the odds-on favorite to win the Oscar.

“Hugo” also won two trophies, for supporting visual effects and virtual cinematography in a live action feature. It’s pretty much head-to-head with those two at the Oscars.

Elsewhere, despite being surprisingly snubbed by the Academy for a Best Visual Effects nomination, “Captain America: The First Avenger” did manage to win one award tonight, for compositing in a feature motion picture. The “Skinny Steve” work really was an achievement on that film. I still don’t know how it (and “The Tree of Life,” for that matter, which was shut out during the nominations process by the VES) missed the cut.

The only Oscar-nominated film that received no nominations from the VES was “Real Steel.” That just goes to show the power of a good bake-off reel and presentation. Fellow Oscar nominee “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2” was shut out tonight after receiving five nominations.

Previously announced special honors went to Douglas Trumbull and Stan Lee in the form of the Georges Méliès Award and the Lifetime Achievement Award, respectively. The former reportedly got a huge boom of applause (naturally) for suggesting profit sharing for crew members.

Check out the full list of Visual Effects Society winners below, and as always, remember to keep track of the ups and downs of the 2011-2012 film awards season via The Circuit.

Outstanding Visual Effects in a Visual Effects-Driven Feature: “Rise of the Planet of the Apes”

Outstanding Supporting Visual Effects in a Feature Motion Picture: “Hugo”

Outstanding Visual Effects in an Animated Feature Motion Picture: “Rango”

Outstanding Animated Character in a Live Action Feature Motion Picture: “Rise of the Planet of the Apes” (Caesar)

Outstanding Animated Character in an Animated Feature Motion Picture: “Rango” (Rango)

Outstanding Created Environment in a Live Action Feature Motion Picture: “Transformers: Dark of the Moon” (155 Wacker Drive)

Outstanding Created Environment in an Animated Feature Motion Picture: “Rango” (Main Street Dirt)

Outstanding Virtual Cinematography in a Live Action Feature Motion Picture: “Hugo”

Outstanding Virtual Cinematography in an Animated Feature Motion Picture: “Rango”

Outstanding Models in a Feature Motion Picture: “Transformers: Dark of the Moon” (Driller)

Outstanding Compositing in a Feature Motion Picture: “Captain America: The First Avenger”

Georges Méliès Award: Douglas Trumbull

Lifetime Achievement Award: Stan Lee

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

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!

The winners of the 27th Annual Santa Barbara International Film Festival were announced yesterday, celebrating unique short-form, international, documentary and narrative film.

Kris participated in the jury alongside actor/comedian Dave Koechner, actor/director Brad Hall, actor/writer W. Earl Brown, actor Anthony Zerbe and his wife Arnette Zerbe, SBIFF originator Phyllis de Picciotto, director Glenn Jordan, actor Tim Matheson and writer/ director Perry Lang.

“Each year, SBIFF strives to feature film from all ranges of the ‘cine-spectrum,'” SBIFF executive Roger Durling said in the press release. “Successfully building upon this tradition of excellence, the lineup for the 27th edition of the festival showcased a particularly captivating yet challenging collection of works.”

Of the hundreds screened, the following were the offerings that were collectively deemed outstanding in their given category…

The Panavision Spirit Award for Independent Cinema: “Up There”

(Given to a unique independent feature that has been made outside mainstream Hollywood)

Martin, who is stuck in a dead-end job, welcoming the newly departed into the afterlife. All he dreams of is going “up there,” and he attempts to cope with his death by keeping his nose clean and minding his own business. But all this is thrown into disarray when, in order to track down an errant lost soul.

Directed by Zam Salim, received a Panavision camera package worth $60,000.

Jury Prize for Artistic Distinction: “Barrymore”

Directed by Erik Canuel and starring Christopher Plummer.

The Best International Film Award: “Free Men”

Directed by Ismael Ferroukhi about an Algerian Muslim immigrant who joins the French Resistance to save Algerian Jews.

The Nueva Vision Award: “Found Memories”

(For the best Spanish/Latin American)

Julia Murat directs a film about young photographer finds a forgotten ghost town where only a handful of old people live, and changes their lives forever.

Honorable Mention to “The Rumble of the Stones” (“El Rumor de las Piedras”)

Alejandro Bellame Palacios directs Venezuela”s official submission for the Academy Awards, about a heartfelt and compelling portrait of the enduring power of a mother”s love against the backdrop of the social problems of modern-day Venezuela.

Best Documentary Film Award: “Pretty Old”

Walter Matteson directs a film that follows four diverse women, ages 67 to 94, competing in the 30th year Anniversary of the Ms. Senior Sweetheart Beauty Pageant in Fall River, Massachusetts, exploring what it truly means to “age beautifully.”

The Cinema Nouveau Award: “Heat Wave” (“Apres Le Sud”)

Jean-Jacques Jauffret directs a film based on a true story told from intersecting points of view where different destinies cross paths and are reunited by a tragic event.

Bruce Corwin Award for Best Live Action Short Film Under 30 Minutes: “L Train”

Directed by Anna Musso and executive produced by Alexander Payne, “L Train” is the story of Sunny, a teenaged African American girl commuting through an inner city winter – an existence that injects a negativity into her long days.

Bruce Corwin Award for Best Animation Short Film: “The Missing Key”

Jonathan Nix directs a richly re-imagined Venice of the early 1920s, young composer Hero Wasabi must compete against the unscrupulous Count Telefino in the prestigious Abacus Scroll musical competition.

The Fund for Santa Barbara Social Justice Award Sponsored by The Fund for Santa Barbara: “Dirty Energy”

(For a documentary film that addresses social justice issues)

Director Bryan Hopkins received $2500.

The Audience Choice: “Starbuck”

Ken Scott directs a film about a former sperm donor who discovers he’s the father of 533 children, 142 of whom have filed a class action lawsuit to determine the identity of their biological father, known only by the pseudonym Starbuck.

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

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!