Tomorrow afternoon, I head off to a below-freezing Germany to cover the Berlin International Film Festival — or the Berlinale, as you prefer — for the third year running. As with Sundance, critics will be counting on the movies to provide a little heat against the February chill, even if they don’t yet know which ones. Berlin is among the hardest of major festivals to second-guess in terms of highlights: though it ostensibly forms an elevated triad of European festivals with Cannes and Venice, it can no longer compete with its sunnier counterparts for major arthouse blockbusters. As Cannes hogs the holiest auteurs and Venice claims some of the fall awards hopefuls, the Berlinale programmers have to dig a little deeper — and in turn, the critics there have to look a little harder.

After a slight slump at the start of the decade, the fest’s quieter approach is beginning to reap rewards. Not that many people were anticipating Asghar Farhadi’s “A Separation” before it premiered in last year’s Berlin Competition; even during the first press screening, however, the electric ripple of surprise and excitement in the audience was palpable, as it was clear a major arthouse story was being born.

Ditto Wim Wenders’s “Pina”: hopes weren’t stratospheric for a specialized dance film from a director whose best days were seemingly far behind him, but from the film’s first gliding 3D steps, it was clear something special was in store — even if one couldn’t necessarily have predicted that either of these films would be in line for Oscars a year later.

Some of my favorite discoveries of the last two Berlin fests weren’t easily seen coming: two years ago, “The Illusionist,” my eventual #1 of 2010, was buried so deep in one of the sidebars that only a handful of critics even knew to pitch up at the press screening. One of my 2011 Top 20, “Sleeping Sickness,” I caught on a whim at a late-night screening; it turned out to be my top film of the fest, but only because I hadn’t even spotted “Tomboy” in a separate sidebar, and wouldn’t see it until months later. Meanwhile, some of the festival’s most heavily advertised films often come to nothing. US indie “Yelling to the Sky” landed in last year’s Competition with much advance fanfare; a year later, the interesting but ungainly coming-of-age drama is still unreleased.   

All of which is to say that, while I’ve called this post a Berlinale preview, actively previewing the festival is something of a fool’s game: far better to arrive, rifle through the telephone directory-sized programme, and go where the wind (or at least the promise of heating and coffee) takes you.

With that in mind, there are a few familiar names in this year’s Competition — and not just in the jury, which will be presided over by the august Mike Leigh. Billy Bob Thornton isn’t a name we’ve thought much about in recent years, but he’s back with his first narrative feature in 11 years, “Jayne Mansfield’s Car,” a 1960s-set ensemble piece in which he stars alongside Kevin Bacon, Robert Duvall and John Hurt. On the world cinema front, the Competition also offers new works from Christian Petzold (“Barbara,” which reunited him with “Yella” star Nina Hoss), Ursula Meier (whose “Sister” features the odd combination of Lea Seydoux, Martin Compston and Gillian Anderson) and the veteran, Palme d’Or-winning Taviani brothers (“Caesar Must Die”).

Meanwhile, my most anticipated film of the Competition — and indeed the whole festival — is “Captured,” which promises the firebrand pairing of Filipino director Brilliante Mendoza and reliably fearless French star Isabelle Huppert. Mendoza’s “Kinatay” outraged many at Cannes in 2009, where Huppert’s own jury controversially handed him a prize, but I remain one of its, and his, comparatively scarce admirers.

Elsewhere, the confusingly classified bracket of Competition films that are nonetheless out of competition includes “Bel Ami,” an evidently lush Guy de Maupassant adaptation starring Robert Pattinson, Uma Thurman and Kristin Scott Thomas — it emanates a worrying aroma of “Cheri,” which was also unveiled in Berlin three years ago, but we shall hope for the best. Also in this limbo prestige category is “Flying Swords of Dragon Gate,” a 3D historical epic from Tsui Hark, and James Marsh’s “Shadow Dancer,” which earned strong notices out of Sundance for star Andrea Riseborough.

As usual, a couple of Sundance highlights are having their European premiere in Berlin: Ira Sach’s acclaimed gay drama “Keep the Lights On” shows up in the Panorama sidebar. In the same section, we find “Cherry,” a debut feature from US director Stephen Elliott set in the San Francisco porn industry, starring James Franco, Heather Graham and Dev Patel; “Dollhouse,” the latest from Oscar-nominated writer Kirsten Sheridan (daughter of Jim) and “Elles,” starring Juliette Binoche — as well as “The Woman Who Brushed Off Her Tears,” which I know nothing about, but has to take the “Milk of Sorrow” Memorial Award for most self-parodically artsy title.

The Berlin sidebars are many, varied and yet not always distinct from each other, though this year’s Berlinale Special section is perhaps the tastiest  of them on paper. Among the potential high points are Werner Herzog’s three-hour “Death Row” documentary, something of a companion piece to his recently acclaimed “Into the Abyss”; Guy Maddin’s “Keyhole,” which reunites him with Isabella Rossellini and promises all manner of gorgeous weirdness; British director Barnaby Southcombe’s “I, Anna,” which advertises itself as a tribute to 60s and 70s noir and stars Charlotte Rampling and Eddie Marsan; and Kevin Macdonald’s eagerly anticipated music doc “Marley.”

Plenty else besides — I’ve barely glanced through the Forum, Generation, Retrospective and other chapters of the programme — but that seems more than enough to be going on. So alongside the regular seasonal business, look out for daily festival dispatches (plus the occasional tweet) on what I’ve seen and, hopefully, liked. (For the first time, I’ll also be contributing festival reviews to Variety.) Things kick off on Thursday with the curtain-raiser, French director Benoit Jacquot’s costume drama “Farewell My Queen,” starring Diane Kruger and, busy woman that she is, Lea Seydoux. Berlinale openers haven’t the greatest reputation, but we have to start somewhere.

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

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention! 

When the nominations for this year’s Academy Awards were announced two weeks ago, there was one Best Picture nominee that yielded a great sigh of relief from me. It was less that I felt it was deserving (it unquestionably is, but to quote “Unforgiven,” deserve’s got nothing to do with it when it comes to the Oscars) than the fact that I was actually going to have something to passionately champion.

The line-up that was settling into place until that time, I have to say, was lackluster. I mean, I think “Midnight in Paris” is delightful. I’m incredibly happy for Martin Scorsese and his personal ode in “Hugo.” “The Help” really did affect me emotionally when I saw it in August. “The Artist” is charming. But none of it is really enough for me. Elsewhere, “War Horse,” well, I don’t really have any strong feelings on it. And “Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close” fit like a square peg in a round hole for me. “Moneyball” was really the closest I could have come to having a rally cry, but it still wasn’t on the proper echelon for me.

So to hear not just Terrence Malick’s name called as Best Director, but “The Tree of Life” for Best Picture, as well — let’s just say I was so pleased to have “my” horse in the race (because we all know “Margaret” wasn’t going to come close).

With that in mind, I watched the film for a third time Sunday night as preparation for the upcoming fifth-annual “top 10 shots of the year” column. (Yes! It’s coming! OMG!) And I settled into its rhythms easily and naturally, finding every level of added nuance I expected to discover on repeat viewings, the surround sound cranked up, the visual and aural experience of the film as glorious as ever.

I’ve written about “The Tree of Life” twice now, both times at In Contention’s former space. The first was a day-after consideration during a jury duty lunch break that noted a desire to revisit and further consider. But I wanted to get some thoughts out as the film had just played Cannes and was very much the talk of the cinephile world for a few days. (And all these months later, I’m so happy Fox Searchlight had that handful of screenings in New York and Los Angeles immediately following the Cannes bow, fearlessly opening all the flood gates.)

The second piece came 10 days later, after a second viewing and with the particulars of the film firmly in my head, its imperfections fully considered and noted, its lovely thematic strokes coming across appropriately soft yet not maddeningly nebulous. I left the film then and knew it would rank rather high on whatever my year-end collective of 2011’s best films might be. And I watched it take on its own life, first in the marketplace, then on home video and finally, on the awards circuit as one of the most laureled films of the year.

On that score, it’s worth pointing out that “The Tree of Life” is second only to Best Picture-frontrunner “The Artist” when it comes to critics’ Best Film prizes. Just looking at the ones we’ve curated over the last several months (and I’m sure we’ve missed a few), “The Artist” has a whopping 15 wins. “The Tree of Life” has eight, while “The Descendants” has seven. “Hugo” and “Drive” each have two. It doesn’t mean anything because critics don’t vote for Oscars, but it’s indicative, as always, of a more thoughtful place in which the Oscar race should probably be.

Of course, the critics were always going to be the most likely champions of the film, but I was nevertheless surprised it stood out that much along the circuit. And perhaps revelatory of the faith I have, I still expected both the film and Malick to come up short on January 24.

I recognize that “The Tree of Life” has fierce detractors. Some want to tell the “it’s a screen saver” joke for the hundredth time or act like the 15-minute effects sequence at the tail end of its first act is superfluous when it’s THE ENTIRE POINT OF THE MOVIE, but that’s okay. Malick and his work (for which, I should note, I’m not full-blown in the tank) have weathered that kind of criticism for years.

Others still will take umbrage with Judeo-Christian imagery and considerations that run like a current through the film. I get how that kind of thing will chafe, but it misses the point. This film deals in micro/macro, and those elements are important to that construct. A religious family’s story is bound to be told in these kinds of strokes, but the film itself is ultimately much more universal, even in its purposefully vague “afterlife” interpretation at film’s end.

But “The Tree of Life” is mainly important for one reason, and it’s been my line on the movie since day one, so I’ll reiterate it now: It makes us feel small. Art can be about countless things. It can be emotional celebration, it can be personal expression and it can paint a portrait of a time and place. At its best, though, it contextualizes. And when you boil everything down, “The Tree of Life” is the ultimate contextualization.

So say what you will about it, but no other film in this year’s Best Picture line-up sports a density such as this. Often films working on this kind of rhythm don’t even make it to the big dance, and indeed, if not for the allowance of more than five Best Picture nominees, I’m betting Terrence Malick would have been our lone director nominee this year. (We can’t be sure of this, of course.)

But that’s all beside the point. It did make the cut. It’s there to be championed. There’s an opportunity present in phase two of the Oscar season that is all too rare: A true landmark is in the running for Best Picture. And not to push the issue on AMPAS members too much, but if you’re even thinking about voting for it, you probably should. You’ll feel really good about yourself in the morning.

I promise.

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

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!

At this point, one has to say to Oscar: if you’re that embarrassed by the Best Original Song category, just get rid of it. Yes, it’s recognized some great movie moments — and given us some great Oscarcast moments — over the last 77 years, involving everyone from Rodgers and Hammerstein to Springsteen to Sondheim to Eminem. But it’s clear the Academy feels the award has had its day, as evinced this year by the embarrassing all-time low of a two-nominee field, and now, the decision to drop performances of the nominated songs from the ceremony — for the second time in three years.   

I wrote just yesterday that The Muppets had already been somewhat edged out of the show: with almost everyone predicting two song nominations for their latest screen outing, with the infectious group number “Life’s a Happy Song” favored to win, the Academy’s music branch wound up nominating only the lower-key ballad “Man or Muppet,” a showcase for new Muppet recruit Walter and his non-felt screen partner Jason Segel.

It’s not the lavish production opportunity for Kermit and the gang that the telecast producers were probably hoping for, but with the song in the film featuring a cameo from TV comic Jim Parsons, it still offers a number of fun staging options — as, indeed, does the second nominee, the upbeat, Sergio Mendes-penned Latin trifle “Real in Rio” from animated hit “Rio.” While the line two years ago was that the nominated songs — the best of which, Ryan Bingham’s alt-country weeper “The Weary Kind” from “Crazy Heart” won the Oscar — weren’t dynamic enough for the show, that’s hardly the case this year, even if they’re not exactly songs for the ages.

These days, the music branch and the telecast producers seem to be at loggerheads year after year. Where the latter want to court viewers with big pop names, the voters now steadfastly, even perversely, refuse to nominate the frontrunning songs that would allow them to do so: Bruce Springsteen in 2008, Cher last year, The Muppets and Mary J. Blige this year. If it means whittling the field down to two nominees through negative voting to keep the category defiantly anti-populist, it seems, that’s what they’ll do. 

It is, of course, a dramatic change from the 1980s, when Billboard #1 hits ruled the category — an era the telecast producers must look back on with fond longing. As Joe Reid wrote recently, that speaks as much to a shift in cinema’s relationship to popular music as to anything specifically Academy-related, but the fact remains that the category, while still capable of honoring wonderful songs (recent winners “Falling Slowly” and “The Weary Kind” do the award proud), just isn’t working. The Academy decision to reduce its presence on the telecast this year seems a tacit acknowledgement of that sad truth.

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.)

While the music branch”s choices (or lack thereof) in Best Original Song could be considered shocking, the opposite was true about their final five in Best Original Score. Three of the titles are Best Picture nominees, the branch”s favorite composer of all time is double-nominated yet again and all but one of the finalists have been nominated previously. Moreover, that newcomer worked on the Best Picture frontrunner. These are hardly surprising statistics.

The only film that could reasonably be considered “snubbed” was “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo,” as last year”s winners Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross were unable to return despite BFCA, Golden Globe and BAFTA nominations. Even so, they produce the sort of music the branch normally does not go for, so even that is not shocking. Ten of the last 11 winners in this category, meanwhile, have been Best Picture nominees, including the last eight. I fully expect that trend to continue this year and I am reasonably confident in which of the three will triumph, though the other two cannot be completely discounted.

The nominees are…

“The Adventures of Tintin” (John Williams)

“The Artist” (Ludovic Bource)

“Hugo” (Howard Shore)

“Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy” (Alberto Iglesias)

“War Horse” (John Williams)

I was sorry to see Reznor and Ross come up short this year – the scores they produce are quite refreshing. I also felt Dario Marianelli”s luscious compositions for “Jane Eyre” were exactly what the film needed: mood-capturing, elegant and never overwhelming. Abel Korzeniowski”s music for “W.E.” could not save the images Madonna gave him to work with. That said, I doubt any composer could have salvaged that effort and it sure was beautiful to listen to on its own. Lastly, even though he removed himself from the Oscar race, Hans Zimmer”s score for “Rango” was among the best aspects of that film.

It should not be surprising that the Academy managed to find a home for John Williams twice this year. After a six-year absence, he managed his 46th and 47th career nominations, the most ever for a composer (breaking a tie with Alfred Newman) and the second most overall (behind Walt Disney). His nomination for “The Adventures of Tintin” was the only place the film found a home, with the sound branch passing it over and the animators continuing to show prejudice against performance capture. I feel this is the better of Williams”s two scores this year – lively, joyous and suspenseful – but it has no chance to win when he”s also in the running for a Best Picture nominee where the music is even more prominent.

Ludovic Bource was the sole newcomer cited by this most insular of all Academy branches. Given that the score is present in virtually every scene of Best Picture frontrunner “The Artist,” the branch had little choice but to nominate him. I did not think the score was *that* accomplished or memorable, but still found it effective and appropriate for the film, fitting the mood and paying homage to the scores of silent films. Considering the omnipresent nature of the music, its BFCA and Golden Globe victories and the film”s likely wins in the major categories, including Best Picture, I would say Bource is looking good for the win here.

Howard Shore finally managed to be nominated for a non-“Lord of the Rings” effort with his vibrant score for “Hugo.” Virtually everyone remembers the music fondly. I suppose a win is not out of the question, given how much the film is liked, to say nothing of the memorable nature of the work. Plus, Shore has a 100% win-per-nomination record to date, winning Best Original Score for “The Fellowship of the Ring” and Best Original Score and Best Original Song for “The Return of the King!”  However, I still feel “The Artist,” being more liked as a film and more reliant on its score, has a significant edge.

The only nominee I failed to predict in this category (though he was my first alternate) was Alberto Iglesias for “Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy.” However, I was absolutely delighted to be wrong. Iglesias”s third career nomination (after “The Constant Gardener” and “The Kite Runner”) combined musical cultures in a tremendously refreshing way, while also being pitch-perfect for the mood of the film. If I had a ballot, there is no doubt that I”d being voting for him. He also did fine work this year on “The Skin I Live In.” Alas, he seems well behind the Best Picture nominees in the race for the win.

In his Best Original Screenplay analysis, Guy already made an apt comparison between the records of Meryl Streep and Woody Allen. Like Streep and Allen, John Williams has received the most nominations of all time from his branch, and over a dozen music nominations since his last win (16, to be exact). And like Streep and Allen, he is in the running again this year and might just be able to triumph. While I believe the score for “War Horse” was too overbearing, there is no doubt it was memorable. It has earned nominations even where the film disappointed. The film is also obviously liked enough, having garnered several Oscar nods in the face of guild snubs. Plus, some people surely must want to see Williams win again. Even so, I feel that he’ll need something more memorable, on a more respected film, to actually earn Oscar #6. In any event, I do wish Williams a very happy 80th birthday, which he will be celebrating tomorrow. (And not to go there, but his nomination next season for “Lincoln” is, in my view, the surest thing in any category from this vantage point.)

Will Win: “The Artist”

Could Win: “War Horse”

Should Win: “Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy”

Should Have Been Here: “Jane Eyre”

Keep track of our current rankings in the Best Original Score 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.)

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!

I have to say, if I ran the Academy, I’d bar press from the Oscar Nominees Luncheon. Established as a relaxed event to foster a spirit of mutual appreciation and camaraderie among the nominees, away from the tedium of the campaign trail, the lunch has grown into just another PR pit-stop: the nominees remain switched on, while journalists monitor applause levels like hawks to gauge which contenders are more popular than others. The latter seems both a distasteful and unreliable practice: some pundits are getting excited that Best Supporting Actor dark horse Max von Sydow was the only nominee to receive a standing ovation, but then, frontrunner Christopher Plummer wasn’t even in attendance. Anyway, Steve Pond, whose approach is to proceedings is more healthily sceptical than most, paints the clearest picture of the event. [The Odds]   

“Hugo” producer Graham King admits to Patrick Goldstein that the film’s financial failings have taken their toll on him. [24 Frames]

Amid all the grousing from the blogger contingent, critic Peter Bradshaw stands firm on why “The Artist” deserves to win Best Picture. [The Guardian] 

Poor Uggie is suffering from a neurological disorder. Don’t you all feel bad now for complaining about his red-carpet tricks? [Vulture]

I had heard that Jean Dujardin was a knockout on Leno. I was not misinformed. His John Wayne impression is something to see. [Hot Blog]

Viola Davis gets the haute couture treatment in this shoot, and looks amazing. Nice interview, too. [LA Times Magazine]

BAFTA are expecting their full slate of acting nominees to be in attendance at Sunday’s awards. But that’s not all: Cuba Gooding, Jr. will be there too! [The Race]

Nathaniel Rogers wraps up his readers’ countdown of their all-time favorite Meryl Streep performances. (No surprise that their #1 matches mine.) [The Film Experience]

David Haglund proposes that the acting Oscars should be made unisex. It’s a fair argument, though I fear women would draw the short straw. [Slate]

Hey, remember when Eddie Murphy stepped down as Oscar host and some clever folks suggested hiring The Muppets for the gig? And remember how pretty much everyone with a beating heart loved that idea? And remember how #MuppetOscars trended on Twitter for a while? Remember how it inevitably didn’t happen? And remember how we didn’t mind too much, because we’d at least get a great Muppets performance on one of the Best Original Song nominees? And remember how the fun-free music branch quashed that idea by nominating the one song from “The Muppets” not performed by The Muppets? Remember? Oh, what a time.

Well, our fuzzy friends may have been short-changed by the Academy, but Miss Piggy, at the very least,  is getting due recompense across the pond from BAFTA: the porcine prima donna has been hired to host the official red carpet coverage for the British Academy’s ceremony on Sunday evening, interviewing the nominees and assorted celebrities as they arrive and presumably showing off her fashion expertise.

And I have to say: good move, BAFTA. I’d obviously prefer Miss Piggy, along with heir cohorts, to take on full ceremony hosting duties — though in that regard, the show’s organizers have at least taken a step in the right direction by replacing the excruciating Jonathan Ross with the far wittier and more affable Stephen Fry, who successfully emceed the show from 2001 to 2006. But I can’t think of a better way to brighten up the eternally dreary who-are-you-wearing routine of red carpet coverage than giving it the Muppet treatment.

Couldn’t US networks follow this example? The dim, featureless automatons who host red carpet events on E! and the like seem to be a universally unloved scourge of the season. (I particularly relished the hapless pair at the SAG Awards who, on facing Malcolm McDowell and a selection of other cameo players from “The Artist,” proceeded to ask him what it’s like working with Woody Allen. McDowell’s pricelessly polite response: “I imagine it’s very nice.”)

Seriously, Giuliana Rancic or Miss Piggy? Ryan Seacrest or Kermit the Frog? Is this even a question? Until #MuppetOscars can become a reality, someone should at least make this happen.

Excerpted press release: 

Ceremony sponsors Orange today announced that, in her own words, “international star, role model and diva,” – the fabulous Miss Piggy – is set to put her unique questions to the great and the good of the international movie scene at this weekend”s Orange British Academy Film Awards ceremony as the host of its Orange BAFTA red carpet show with Miss Piggy.

Miss Piggy needs no introduction; star of film, TV and the upcoming Disney movie ‘The Muppets” released nationwide on February 10th, she has been a pop culture icon known for her wit, charm and for having a certain frog on her arm. In a UK first she will be anchoring the Orange BAFTA red carpet show with Miss Piggy” from the ceremony, conducting interviews and analysis with the leading lights of the movie industry; from the huge array of home-grown talent as well as many famous faces flying in from around the globe, in her own inimitable style.

The glittering awards ceremony will take place on Sunday 12 February at the Royal Opera House in Covent Garden, London just two days after ‘The Muppets” goes on general release across the UK.

Miss Piggy commented on her role: “Imagine the likes of Clooney, Dujardin, Fassbender, Oldman and Pitt achieving the very pinnacle of their careers by getting a chance to speak with the one and only moi-Miss Piggy! Naturally, I will be asking questions that only moi would dare to ask. So live your dreams vicariously through me and tune in Monday 13th February to see lots of MOI on the red carpet with my fellow A-List actors. I can hardly wait…and neither can they!”

Spencer McHugh, Director of Brand at Orange, said: “We couldn”t be more delighted that an icon of Miss Piggy”s stature has agreed to host our red carpet show from this year”s BAFTA”s. Having her there is very exciting for us and we can”t wait to see what great interviews she gets on the night.” 

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

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!

Unfortunately, after attending the Evening Standard Film Awards ceremony last year, I wasn’t able to repeat this year — a disappointment for me, since it’s probably the chattiest and most unbuttoned stop on the UK precursor awards circuit.

I have happy memories of last year’s event at London’s tucked-away Cinema Museum, where Peter Mullan’s sobering (and largely unawarded) youth drama “Neds” won top honors and I had a nice talk with director Asif Kapadia, who had a baby strapped to his stomach and was rather excited about a little film he had just premiered in Sundance called “Senna.” One year later, he turns out to be a winner at tonight’s event — funny how these things work out.

The Evening Standard Awards, limited to British talent and determined by a jury of top London print critics including The Times’s Kate Muir, The Telegraph’s Tim Robey and, of course, The Standard’s Derek Malcolm, pride themselves on their independent-mindedness — last year, in addition to Mullan’s unexpected triumph, they were also the only ceremony to reward Kristin Scott Thomas for the French drama “Leaving.” This year, they still sit thoroughly left of BAFTA in their British film tastes, but have had their thunder slightly stolen by last month’s London Critics’ Circle Awards, which coincidentally pre-empted many of the Standard jury’s choices (which are made in December, though kept secret until the ceremony).

After winning Best British Film from the London critics, Lynne Ramsay’s “We Need to Talk About Kevin” pleasingly followed up with the Best Film award here. Similarly, the London critics’ Best British Actor and Actress winners, Michael Fassbender and Olivia Colman, also repeated here — though alongside his BAFTA-nominated turn in “Shame,” it’s nice to see Fassbender additionally cited by the Standard jury for his fine work in “Jane Eyre.”

Colman, meanwhile, adds another British trophy to her mantel for her stunning breakout performance in “Tyrannosaur”: with this, the British Independent Film Award and the London Critics’ prize essentially amounting to the major pre-BAFTA trinity, the lack of a nomination from the British Academy is all the more glaring. Shame on them.

The list of winners is very much after my own heart, with Andrew Haigh’s “Weekend” — my #1 film of 2011, in case I’ve forgotten to mention that before — taking a well-deserved prize for Best Screenplay. It’s the first time, as far as I’m aware, that the exquisite gay romance has been specifically recognized for the perceptive everyday poetry of its writing.

I’m also delighted to see yet another of my Top 10 films from last year, “Wuthering Heights,” rewarded for Robbie Ryan’s staggering cinematography — over a formidable field of technical nominees that also included “Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy” production designer Maria Djurkovic and the remarkable sound design of “Kevin.” (Also nominated in the top race, “Tinker, Tailor” left empty-handed — though I’m sure it’ll receive its due at the BAFTAs this weekend.)

“Senna,” of course, racked up another documentary win, previewing an inevitable BAFTA victory, while John Martin McDonagh’s “The Guard” received the jury’s award for comic achievement. All in all, a good spread of winners — kudos, once more, to the Standard panel.

The full list of winners is below; remind yourselves of the nominees here.

Best Film: “We Need to Talk About Kevin”

Best Actor: Michael Fassbender, “Jane Eyre” and “Shame”

Best Actress: Olivia Colman, “Tyrannosaur”

Best Screenplay: Andrew Haigh, “Weekend”

Best Documentary: “Senna”

Technical Achievement Award: Robbie Ryan, “Wuthering Heights”

Peter Sellers Award for Comedy: “The Guard”

Most Promising Newcomer: Tom Kingsley and Will Sharpe, “Black Pond” 

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

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

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!

Considering his film isn’t much of a crafts showcase, the editors’ contingent has really showed up for Alexander Payne and “The Descendants” in the past month. When it looked like the modestly scaled domestic dramedy was in danger of receiving no below-the-line recognition at the Oscars, Fox Searchlight — doubtless mindful of the fact that no film has won Best Picture without any since 1980 — stepped up their game with a targeted campaign highlighting the film’s technical properties, highlighting in particular the work of editor Kevin Tent.

Editing, of course, is routinely the easiest craft category for unflashy Best Picture nominees to find a home in, and the studio’s strategy worked a treat — Tent landed a nomination from the American Cinema Editors, followed in due course by the Academy’s editors’ branch, beefing up the film’s contender profile at the expense of more artfully edited fare like “The Tree of Life” or “Drive.” 

Now, as if to demonstrate how fully on board they are with “The Descendants,” the ACE has also announced that Payne will receive the Golden Eddie for Filmmaker of the Year at their awards ceremony next week. It an honor that used to be something of an old-guard lifetime achievement deal — going to such veterans as Richard Donner and Norman Jewison in recent years — though with Payne following last year’s selection of Christopher Nolan, it’s clearly switched tack to recognising a year’s work. (Don’t assume this has any kind of bearing on the group’s main award: “Inception” lost the Eddie to eventual Oscar champ “The Social Network” last year, and we can safely assume that the nomination shall remain Kevin Tent’s reward.)

Anyway, it’s not the biggest deal, but still a welcome show of industry support for the film — heading into the final stretch of voting, the film seems at risk of cooling off (George Clooney’s surprise loss at the SAGs wasn’t an encouraging omen), so will be glad of the recognition. Moreover, given that the ACE has nominated Tent for all of Payne’s last four film, it comes from as fitting a quarter as any. Excerpted press release below:

Universal City, CA, February 6, 2012 –Award winning filmmaker Alexander Payne has been selected by the Board of Directors of the American Cinema Editors (ACE) to be honored with the organization”s prestigious ACE Golden Eddie Filmmaker of the Year Award. The award will be presented at the 62nd Annual ACE Eddie Awards ceremony on Saturday, February 18, 2012 in the International Ballroom of the Beverly Hilton Hotel, it was announced today by the ACE Board of Directors. Payne”s most recent film The Descendants recently won the Golden Globe Award for Best Motion Picture (Drama) and was nominated for five Academy Awards® including Best Director and Best Film Editing for Payne”s long-time editor Kevin Tent, A.C.E.

“Alexander Payne is a consistently fresh, exciting voice in film,” stated the ACE Board of Directors. “From the socially conscious and satirical Citizen Ruth to the rich and poignant comedies of Sideways, About Schmidt and most recently The Descendants, he is a filmmaker with unique vision and the ability to illuminate the humanity in every story he tells. We are delighted to recognize him with our most distinguished honor.”

Payne worked in various capacities in film and television before directing and writing his first feature film, Citizen Ruth, which launched him on to the scene in 1996 as a promising new voice in American film. He followed up with the critically acclaimed Election for which he received his first Oscar® nomination for Best Adapted Screenplay. That same year he was also lauded by the Los Angeles Film Critics with their New Generation Award, was nominated for five Independent Spirit Awards (winning three for Screenplay, Best Independent Feature and Best Director), along with several other industry honors. Payne”s long time editor, Kevin Tent, A.C.E., received his first ACE Eddie nomination that year for his work on the film. Payne”s next feature film earned Oscar® nominations for his two stars, Jack Nicholson and Kathy Bates and a Golden Globe® for Payne and his long-time writing partner, Jim Taylor, for Best Screenplay. With the arrival of Payne”s next project Sideways, he had already established himself as one of the most accomplished voices in American film. A hit with critics and audiences, Sideways was honored with five Academy Awards® including Best Picture and Best Director, and provided Payne with his first Oscar® win for Best Adapted Screenplay, shared with Taylor. He and Taylor also won the BAFTA Award for Best Adapted Screenplay and five Critics Choice Movie Awards including Best Adapted Screenplay and Best Picture of the Year. Payne was also nominated for his first Directors Guild of America honor for Sideways and won two Golden Globe Awards for Best Screenplay and Best Motion Picture (Comedy or Musical). Sideways also earned six Independent Spirit Awards and won all categories in which it competed, including Best Picture, Best Director and Best Adapted Screenplay. The film was also recognized as the Best Picture of the Year by over fifty critics organizations including the National Board of Review, Los Angeles Film Critics and New York Film Critics. His most current feature film, The Descendants, has already won several industry honors including the National Board of Review (Best Adapted Screenplay). Payne recently produced the acclaimed comedy from Miguel Arteta, Cedar Rapids and serves as Executive Producer of the HBO series Hung starring Thomas Jane.

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.)

This year’s Best Supporting Actor race seemed to settle in rather early on. The eventual five nominees were all considered formidable as far back as September and nothing really came along to significantly alter the landscape. The one “surprise” came in the form of a contender popping up who had been expected to fall the way of his film.

Well, ultimately he did, though it was a different way than anticipated. And he took the place of an apparent dominant force int he field who was nevertheless snubbed by SAG before getting snubbed here, so perhaps that should have been writing on the wall.

The nominees are…

Kenneth Branagh (“My Week with Marilyn”)

Jonah Hill (“Moneyball”)

Nick Nolte (“Warrior”)

Christopher Plummer (“Beginners”)

Max von Sydow (“Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close”)

It’s an interesting cross-section featuring four different eras of Hollywood screen acting. But the exclusion of Albert Brooks must have stung for a guy who had to have felt like he was in there. One can only imagine, if the “Drive” campaign had been handled a bit differently (screeners out ahead of the pack, for instance), could things have gone different for the film on the whole?

Actor Kenneth Branagh has called being tapped to play Sir Laurence Olivier in “My Week with Marilyn” a “dangerously obvious” bit of casting. But in the film, which on the whole doesn’t measure up to its promise despite having glimmers of thematic virtue throughout, he plays a legendary artist struggling to be a movie star, locking horns with a movie star struggling to be an artist. It’s an interesting back and forth and Branagh wears the role, not surprisingly, like a glove — so much so that, after first seeing the film, I thought maybe he didn’t stand out enough to get recognition. He took home the London critics’ prize for his efforts, but he’s probably not much more than a dark horse contender here. (This is his second nomination for acting and his fifth nomination on the whole to date.)

Jonah Hill has had a friend in “Moneyball” co-star Brad Pitt since the beginning of the circuit, the dashing celebrity saying off Hill’s work in the film that it’s “a study in reserve,” among other things. That’s some handy firepower. Hill makes an interesting foil for Pitt in the film, but this nomination remains highly questionable to me. He gets a few funny awkward beats to play through and his final scene is heartfelt and thematically rich, but I’m still surprised he lasted as long as he did in the season. Nevertheless, here he is, among legends. It must be quite the trip, but surely even he knows his Oscar season ended with the nomination. Sit tight and enjoy the show (as well as that freshly opened door to a new stage in your career).

Director Gavin O’Connor’s “Warrior” was a film that seemed like it could have a lengthy stay in the season as it was being championed by the right demographic out of late-summer screenings. Then it got demolished at the box office and began to quickly fade away. But Nick Nolte and his performance as an on-the-mend former alcoholic father to two grown men on an MMA collision course with each other was always the most likely component to have legs. After nailing down a SAG nomination, he made good with an Academy bid as well. Had the film been more of a season fixture, he might have even made a case for the win. And had Eddie Murphy stuck around as Oscar host, we might have been treated to a nifty “48 Hours” reunion.

It appears Christopher Plummer is not walking but running away with the trophy this year, and after a lengthy career that didn’t even see a nomination from the Academy until 2009 (for “The Last Station”), it seems like it’s about time. In “Beginners,” Plummer truly does give one of his finest performances to date as a freshly out gay man finally free and happy in the twilight of his life. Plummer is a raconteur and easy to like, so most voters will certainly have no problem checking off his box. And, at 82 years old, he would be the oldest acting Oscar winner of all time. He’s built up so much steam that it feels like the easiest call of the night. But…

…also at 82 years old, “Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close” star Max von Sydow would also be the oldest winner to date. He also only has two nominations to show for his lengthy career, and no wins, as well. The difference between him and Plummer is that he’s in a film nominated for Best Picture, and that overall love shouldn’t be underestimated. Von Sydow gives a silent performance in the film and plays the emotion beautifully, particularly a key moment toward the end that surely left plenty of viewers in tears. It feels a bit fleeting as a performance, but it’s memorable for how unique the character is. It’s tough to catch up with a burst of momentum, but do not be surprised if this classic fixture of the cinema steals a bit of thunder and makes for the first big surprise of Oscar night. It could happen.

Will win: Christopher Plummer (“Beginners”)

Could win: Max von Sydow (“Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close”)

Should win: Christopher Plummer (“Beginners”)

Should have been here: Brad Pitt (“The Tree of Life”)

Keep track of our current rankings in the Best Supporting Actor 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!

“The Artist” is indeed a runaway train. Here is lightning, here is a bottle, and that’s the 2011 Oscar season. Really, that’s the Oscar season in general, capturing a feeling, an emotion, a vibe, and riding it as hard and as definitively as you can.

Last year, The Weinstein Company turned on the gas at just the right moment with its “Find Your Voice” campaign for “The King’s Speech” in the wake of critics’ circuit dominance by “The Social Network.” This year, with no real uncertainty about it, they’re cranking up the heat again with ads featuring the phrase, “You don’t have to say anything to feel everything.”

“Find Your Voice” was great, because it worked organically with the season. In addition to tying in with the speech impediment thing, it also said, succinctly, “Don’t let the critics tell you what to think.” And the subsequent “Some Movies You Feel” sealed the deal in phase two. This one (and the one I’ve seen on TV spots: “Speak With Your Heart”) feels a bit more forced, though no less brilliant because it again aims squarely at what guides most voters this time of year: the heart.

Elsewhere, the most important talking point on “The Artist” has been let loose at just the right moment, as articles are being written about the fact that it is the only Best Picture nominee shot entirely in Los Angeles. That ought to stifle some of the “Frenchness” of everything, which some may have seen as a liability. And on that score, there’s Michel Hazanavicius’s nomination acceptance speech at the DGA Awards last week, during which he noted, “I’m not an American. I’m not French. I’m a filmmaker.”

Harvey Weinstein and his team are playing this thing like a harp. And I have to say, I tip my hat off to them. No, I’m not saying they’re marketing their way to an Oscar. It’s incredibly difficult if not outright impossible to do that. You have to, at the very least, have inherent and genuine love and affection for the product if you’re going to usher it to those heights. A stellar Oscar campaign, though, plays to the product’s strengths and makes the choice an easier one, if not an obvious one. And this has been a clinic.

In 2005, when Weinstein was forced to abandon the sterling company of his creation, Miramax Films (itself a saga unto itself), he dipped his toes into the awards waters that brought him his initial glory as he and brother Bob embarked upon a new venture: The Weinstein Company. A Best Actor campaign for Johnny Depp in “The Libertine” found no traction, while a Best Actress push for Felicity Huffman in “Transamerica” did. There was even more love to be found for Stephen Frears’s “Mrs. Henderson Presents” along the circuit, for lead actress Judi Dench and supporting actor Bob Hoskins. It was a modest but promising start.

The next year wasn’t quite as fruitful, though. Emilio Estevez’s “Bobby” was a film reviled by many, though I actually quite liked it and thought it had a shot in the season. It ended up with a SAG ensemble nomination, as well as a Best Picture (Drama) Golden Globe bid from the always Harvey-faithful HFPA. Nothing doing for Oscar, however. But the company started expanding its reach, finding unique venues, playing to old strategies, like ferreting out foreign films worth hawking on the circuit (such as “Days of Glory”).

2007 saw another expansion of considerations, with pushes for quality films like Anton Corbijn’s “Control” added to college tries for dubious contenders like “The Great Debators” (which, again, the HFPA backed) and “Grace is Gone.” Weinstein even went back into business with Woody Allen (“Cassandra’s Dream”) and Michael Moore (“Sicko”), looking for that old spark. Oscar nominations came for Moore (Best Documentary Feature) and Cate Blanchett (Best Supporting Actress in “I’m Not There”), but the glory days were still elusive.

Then everything changed with “The Reader” in 2008. It was a battle of wills that spilled into the press. Producer Scott Rudin and director Stephen Daldry wanted to hold the film’s release until it was in better shape, while Weinstein was adamant that it land by the end of the year (an insistence that has been reportedly owed as much to craven awards season appetites as to fiscal necessities.)

In an e-mail to Weinstein from Daldry that was leaked to the press, the director stated, “I cannot be party to a process that strips me of my ability to make my work good.” Rudin accused Weinstein of riding “the coattails of the deaths of two beloved guys” when it was revealed that Weinstein had supposedly invoked the names of the film’s late producers, Sydney Pollack and Anthony Minghella, claiming that a 2008 release is what they would have wanted.

It was ugly. But obviously, Harvey wanted back in the game. And boy did he get there.

Despite category confusion over the film’s central performance, and despite impressive guild dominance by Christopher Nolan’s “The Dark Knight,” it was “The Reader” that was nominated for Best Picture that year over Warners’ money-magnet superhero installment, and Kate Winslet indeed found her way to the Kodak’s stage as the Best Actress Oscar winner of the year. Additionally, the continued partnership with Woody Allen found a lot of love on the circuit for “Vicky Cristina Barcelona,” including a Best Supporting Actress Oscar for Penélope Cruz.

Harvey was back. And he wasn’t about to let off the gas.

The next year was all about Quentin Tarantino’s “Inglourious Basterds,” which initially appeared to be a questionable Best Picture contender after its Cannes bow, but quickly asserted itself as one of the top-tier awards films of 2009 (one that obviously would have been one of five Best Picture nominees had the Academy not decided to expand the field to 10 that year). But there was also Tom Ford’s “A Single Man,” which yielded plenty of kudos for Colin Firth (laying the foundation for 2010), as well as “Nine,” which, despite being an absolute dog, managed four Oscar nominations (including a second-straight supporting bid for Cruz).

“The Road” and “Nowhere Boy” were very much in the conversation, too, but most of the focus was on Tarantino, reliving the “Pulp Fiction” days (and bringing about a new perspective on the awards season, which the director discussed with me that year). And while the golden boy missed out on a statue for Best Original Screenplay, Christoph Waltz burst onto the scene in a big way and lapped up a Best Supporting Actor win, marking three performance Oscars in two years for Weinstein films.

A year later: “The King’s Speech.” And how ironic, the film was pitted against Scott Rudin, as craven as ever on behalf of, certainly, a better film in “The Social Network.” But Weinstein was chugging along now, well-oiled once again. Twelve nominations for the film and four wins, for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor and Best Original Screenplay, made a statement.

It was a homecoming for Colin Firth, who noted numerous times along the circuit how happy he was to receive these laurels under a Weinstein banner, after all those years working on Miramax productions and really seeing his career bloom alongside Harvey. There was also a nomination in store for Michelle Williams in “Blue Valentine,” but it was all about getting the top prize off a smart acquisition and using that hallmark to push box office: the old Miramax way.

And now, “The Artist,” yet another acquisition looking to do the same. The film netted 10 nominations and is pulling in for a likely second-straight Best Picture win for Weinstein and his team. Feeble attempts to take it down, whether it be Kim Novak’s shrieking about the use of the “Vertigo” score in the film or, most recently, nonsense concerning supposedly racy posters of Jean Dujardin’s latest film causing a stir in France, have failed utterly. (And really, if you’re going to try, try harder than that.) “The Iron Lady,” “My Week with Marilyn,” “W.E.”  and the documentary “Undefeated” add some golden sheen to the year, but yet again, it’s all about “the film.” Bring out the dog, turn up the charm and walk away with it.

2012 will bring Paul Thomas Anderson’s “The Master” (should it release this year), another excursion with Tarantino (the western “Django Unchained”), the already acquired (and dreadful) “Lay the Favorite” — staying in business with Stephen Frears, as well as films from Andrew Dominik (“Cogan’s Trade”), David O. Russell (“The Silver Linings Playbook”) and John Hillcoat (“Wettest County”). And who knows what idle acquisition is lurking on the festival circuit, waiting to be primped into a thoroughbred? But there are certainly no signs of Weinstein easing up on circuit dominance if the sight-unseen expectations of that role call of filmmakers are any indication.

You really have to hand it to the guy. Despite my well-documented irritation over “The Artist” and its consistent charming of awards-giving bodies this season, I can’t help but admire Weinstein for tapping what he knows works and rebuilding something from the ashes of former glory. To date for the company: 57 Oscar nominations and seven statues (with a few more on the way). That’s the real takeaway for me this year.

So with a little less than three weeks to go this season, I just have one thing left to say on all this: Bravo, sir.

The Contenders section has been tweaked throughout.

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

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!

The Super Bowl is an event that passes me and most of my over-the-Atlantic brethren by, but I’ve been doing my best to mop up the buzz this morning. (Among other things, I’ve been amused to learn people still find flipping the bird a subversive gesture — I’m sure if M.I.A. had wanted to shock America, she could have done better than that.) Anyway, many seem excited by the blockbuster trailers that were unveiled during the proceedings — normally, I avoid trailers of heavily anticipated films, but since I’m not personally anticipating any of these, I watched them all in the name of journalistic thoroughness. Well, enough to register my disappointment that “Battleship” doesn’t look at all like the board game, and that “John Carter” still doesn’t star Noah Wyle. Here’s a better rundown.  [Television Without Pity]

Richard Brody offers the most concisely evocative appreciation I’ve read of the unassuming genius of Ben Gazzara, who passed away on Friday. [New Yorker]

Academy Award nominee Gary Oldman (still feels good saying that out loud) gets the David Poland video interview treatment. [Hot Blog]

Nathaniel Rogers and friends wrap up their annual Oscar Symposium with thoughts on everything from their favourite crafts nominees to Viola Davis’s post-Oscar future. [The Film Experience]

If you think this year’s Best Supporting Actor Oscar lineup is on the thin side, Nick Davis reminds us how rich it could/should be. Yay, Chris O’Dowd! [Nick’s Flick Picks]

Paul Sheehan rounds up the weekend box-office figures or this year’s Oscar players, as “The Artist” passes the $20 million mark. [Gold Derby]

Susan King previews a big week of career honours for visual effects master Douglas Trumbull, which will culminate with the Academy’s Gordon E. Sawyer Award on Saturday. [LA Times]

Not everyone in Iran is happy about the international success of Oscar frontrunner “A Separation.” [The Guardian]

Justin Lowe reports from the Santa Barbara fest’s Vanguard Awards, where “The Artist” stars Jean Dujardin and Bérénice Bejo were honored. [Thompson on Hollywood]

An excellent piece on David Cronenberg and his commendable taste for tricky adaptations. [Moving Image Source]

As you might expect, “Melancholia” did rather well in the Robert Awards, Denmark’s answer to the Oscars. [Screen Daily]

This evening, honors for the 16th annual Art Directors Guild Awards were handed out. But before we get to those, a brief history lesson on Oscar/guild correlations.

Last year “Alice in Wonderland” won the Academy Award but lost in the ADG’s fantasy category to “Inception” (which, I have to say, should have walked away with the Oscar). Then there were two years of matching up with “Avatar” and “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” winning in their respective categories.

In 2007, “There Will Be Blood” beat out eventual Oscar winner “Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street” in the ADG’s period category, while in 2006, “Pan’s Labyrinth” won the ADG fantasy award as a precursor to its Oscar. Prior to that, the guild actually combined period and fantasy productions in one category.

All things considered, 10 of the last 16 Oscar winners for Best Art Direction won with the guild as well. But does that matter all that much? Not particularly. Keep in mind, you have art directors picking winners at the guild. The full membership of the Academy will be voting on the winners at the Oscars.

In the period category, Dante Ferretti took top honors for “Hugo.” Believe it or not, this was Ferretti’s first win from the guild to date. He’s won two Oscars, however, for “The Aviator” and “Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street.”

For fantasy films, the winner was “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2.” It’s worth noting that the franchise itself was honored by the guild with the Cinematic Imagery Award this year. It could actually be something to watch for as a spoiler at the Oscars, and a win wouldn’t be a bad call, I think. The production design of the series has been outstanding and consistent throughout. No surprise, then, that Stuart Craig and Stephenie McMillan have been there since day one.

Finally, “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” took home the contemporary prize. Fair enough. Though I might have gone with “Drive,” personally.

I’m still banking on “Hugo” to win the Oscar. And by the way, not that it matters a whole lot, but the last time a Best Picture winner won Best Art Direction was 2003’s “The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King.” (Ditto Best Costume Design, actually.)

The other nominees for the Oscar are Best Picture frontrunner “The Artist,” the aforementioned “Harry Potter,” surprise contender “Midnight in Paris” (not nominated by the guild) and the Academy-resurrected “War Horse” (also not nominated by the guild).

One final note: the 83rd annual Academy Awards won the award for awards, music, or game show design. One of the other nominees was last year’s Golden Globes ceremony. So, go Oscar, I suppose.

Once again, check out the winners of the 16th annual Art Directors Guild Awards below. And as always, remember to keep track of the ups and downs of the 2011-2012 film awards season via The Circuit.

Excellence in Production Design in a Period Film: “Hugo”

Excellence in Production Design in a Fantasy Film: “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2”

Excellence in Production Design in a Contemporary Film: “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”

Excellence in Production Design in Awards, Music, or Game Shows: “The 83rd annual Academy Awards”

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

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!

The 39th annual Annie Awards were held this evening at UCLA’s Royce Hall in West Los Angeles. You’ll recall “Kung Fu Panda 2” and “Puss in Boots” led the nominations and both were nominated for the Academy Award for Best Animated Feature Film.

It was “Rango,” though, that had the big night (and will surely take the Oscar later this month). The film won four awards, including Best Animated Feature. It did, however, lose Best Director to “Kung Fu Panda 2” helmer Jennifer Yuh Nelson (whose film won one other award, for production design).

It’s interesting to note an upset in the animated short category as the indie “Adam and Dog” beat out contenders from Pixar, Disney and the National Film Board of Canada (the latter having two nominees in the Oscar short category, both of which were in contention here).

Other nominees in the top field, by the way, included “A Cat in Paris” and “Chico & Rita,” both of which surprised by showing up on the Oscar slate (despite not being nominated in any other Annie category). “The Adventures of Tintin,” which did not make the Oscar cut, won two awards, for John Williams’s score and for animated effects in an animated production. The other DreamWorks entry, “Puss in Boots,” went home with a goose egg.

Finally, in the live action realm, “Transformers: Dark of the Moon” and “Rise of the Planet of the Apes” were chalked up for animated effects and character animation, respectively.

By the way, I don’t know if anyone watched the live stream of the ceremony, but it was a total train wreck. Like a comedy of errors. When Bill Nighy won the award for voice acting in a feature production, he stood up, he walked toward the stage, or wherever you go to get to the stage, and he promptly disappeared. Frank Marshall and Kathleen Kennedy stood awkward on stage as the music played, waiting for Nighy to walk out. He never did. Where did he go? Is he in some UCLA classroom right now looking for the stage?

Then there was this. Presenters end up presenting two or three awards before leaving the stage. But rather than hand them one envelope at a time, they have each of the categories they’ll be presenting in hand. You can see what’s coming, right? Yes, someone opened the wrong envelope, spoiling the winner of the NEXT category.

It was total anarchy. Patton Oswalt took it in stride but even he could barely contain his shock at all this. Hey, at least it spiced the show up a bit. Still, get a producer, guys.

(Line of the night, though, goes to Verbinski, regarding the animation community: “The Freemasons have nothing on you f***ers.”)

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

Best Animated Feature: “Rango”

Best Animated Special Production: “Kung Fu Panda: Secrets of the Masters”

Best Animated Short Subject: “Adam and Dog”

Animated Effects in an Animated Production: “The Adventures of Tintin”

Animated Effects in a Live Action Production: “Transformers: Dark of the Moon”

Character Animation in a Feature Production: “Rio”

Character Animation in a Live Action Production: “Rise of the Planet of the Apes”

Character Design in a Feature Production: “Rango”

Directing in a Feature Production: Jennifer Yuh Nelson, “Kung Fu Panda 2”

Music in a Feature Production: John Williams, “The Adventures of Tintin”

Production Design in a Feature Production: “Kung Fu Panda 2”

Storyboarding in a Feature Production: “Winnie the Pooh”

Voice Acting in a Feature Production: Bill Nighy, “Arthur Christmas”

Writing in a Feature Production: “Rango”

Editing in a Feature Production: “Rango”

Winsor McCay Award: Walt Peregoy, Borge Ring, Robert Searle

June Foray Award: Art Leonardi

Special Achievement Award: Depth Analysis

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

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!

Yesterday I sat down with “Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close” star and Oscar nominee Max Von Sydow for about a half hour to talk about this and that but mostly his and his film’s surprising Academy goodwill. Warner Bros. has him in town for a few days for some TV here, some radio there, plenty of interview opportunities and a fair share of post-screening Q&As. Perhaps they smell a window of opportunity.

As I’ve noted here and elsewhere, Christopher Plummer may be lighting up the circuit as of late, but having his old “Dreamscape” and “Emotional Arithmetic” co-star in the category makes things a lot more interesting. Given the number of parallels between the two and equal arguments for being due a statue, I wouldn’t call this race sewn up. Then again, it’s tough to build momentum this late in the game and Plummer has been a full-steam locomotive for a number of months now.

With all this in mind, the studio has pushed out a new featurette focused on Von Sydow’s performance in the film. When I spoke with him yesterday (and briefly in December prior to the film’s first big screening in Los Angeles), I loved how much of a heartfelt yet straight-shooting person he was. He doesn’t linger on things too much and won’t layer on unnecessary or, to be sure, hyperbolic verbiage.

Director Stephen Daldry, on the other hand, has a penchant for playing things up, and he certainly does so in the featurette below. “He has the most extraordinary, expressive face in the world,” he says of Von Sydow. Okay, there are some interesting physical quirks to the man, but slow down. “It’s one of the singularly great performances of his extraordinary career,” he adds later.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. I’d be willing to agree if the actor was in the film more than he is. It didn’t feel as fleeting a portrayal the second time I saw it as it did the first, and that quivering-lip moment when he hears certain telephone messages toward the end is beautiful and touching, but I don’t think what Von Sydow was giving was really served by the material enough to put it up in that echelon. We have at least Antonius Block, Töre, Johan Borg, Father Merrin and Lassefar to get to before we even start to consider The Renter, but that’s my two cents.

I’m nevertheless happy for Von Sydow, who has been pitched as a potential spoiler in the race around these parts since way back in September. It’s great to have the likes of him and Plummer in the hunt, making it a very diverse race.

Check out that new WB featurette on the actor below.

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

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!

Several months ago it seemed as though this may be Brad Pitt”s year. For some, he’s a movie star who happens to know how to act. To others he is a talented character actor who happens to be a remarkably good-looking movie star. Pitt himself will often say that he has learned his craft over the course of a 20-year career peppered with hits and misses, but he has become known for his humility as well as his willingness to take chances and go against the grain of what could have been a one- or two-note body of work.

For a time in the precursor season, it appeared as though he may be nominated for “The Tree of Life” as well as “Moneyball.” Each would offer particular PR challenges. Neither necessarily represents a no-brainer Oscar win (great historical figure, person facing life-altering trauma or, as Ricky Gervais taught us in “Extras,” a Nazi or a nun). But “Moneyball” is also a film that is notably devoid of the bells and whistles of the traditional “sports movie.” There is no great triumph, no moment of cathartic victory in a neatly wrapped package of money and accolades. What the film does offer is a look at how and why we define ourselves and others as we do, as well as an exploration of a thinking man”s way through a system that is inherently inequitable.

Though I love “Moneyball” and count it as my number one or two of this year”s Best Picture nominees, I was hoping for a “Tree of Life” nomination for Pitt. I found it to be the most complex and nuanced performance of his career. It allowed him to explore and express a dark undercurrent of the human psyche without the veil of grandiose insanity. His Mr. O’Brien was, in his own deeply flawed way, loving and well-intentioned. At the very least it was his intention to be loving. He was simply unable to keep the demons at bay. It made for what were, for me, the finest moments in the film: young Jack”s upbringing in Texas.

Alas, it was not meant to be. Pitt has instead been nominated as both “Moneyball””s producer and lead actor. His good friend George Clooney, nominated for “The Descendants,” became the frontrunner after the critics’ awards circuit, but now he seems poised for a potential upset by Jean Dujardin after “The Artist” star’s SAG win. Pitt began to fade into the background (as much as an internationally famous mega-star can fade). But could that air of sudden uncertainty be a window of opportunity?

The actor’s “Moneyball” stumping this week has reminded me of what that portrayal had to offer. It is also striking that, as Kris has pointed out, a campaign for Oscar can be likened to the story of the Oakland A”s’ struggle in “Moneyball” in terms of the influx of cash it takes to win. As far as the film’s themes are concerned, as Pitt said in a recent interview with The Guardian, this is a film about a man finding his value, which may or may not be (solely) via the traditional markers of success.

“We’re so defined by the last success or the last failure that we even start to see ourselves that way,” Pitt said of Hollywood. “You’ve got these awards and there’s going to be one winner and four losers, but the four losers made great films. A subtle point of ‘Moneyball” is that we’re a string of successes and failures. Odds are I won’t have another year like this one.”

With that in mind, Pitt has been engaging in a surge of media rounds with an appearance on the Daily Show, another on the Today Show (alongside co-nominee Jonah Hill) and a cover story on The Hollywood Reporter, among others. In the segment with Jon Stewart he joked that the race is similar to that of the Republican primary and that he”s “gonna be hanging out with Ron Paul” if he”s not careful. “I gotta get in there and mix it up a bit,” he enthused. And so he is.

As Greg Ellwood mentioned in his piece on The Daily Show appearance, Sandra Bullock took a similar track in 2009 to ultimate success. Though, like his character, Pitt appears to be a man who is seeking a path of deeper value. When asked what winning would mean to him, he responded, “I really don”t believe in that.” And oddly enough, I think he is sincere.

“There are so many good performances, so many good performances that aren”t being acknowledged,” he said. “What it does for a movie is that it makes it easier for a film like this to get made in the future.”

To that end, Pitt is likely using his considerable star power to give “Moneyball” (a passion project that it took him half a decade to make) a boost. He is also lending his support to co-star Jonah Hill”s unlikely campaign for Best Supporting Actor for a portrayal that Pitt describes as “a study in reserve.” The somewhat counter-intuitive result may be that Pitt”s own bid for Oscar will receive some momentum. He has the goodwill as well as a strong performance.

I wouldn”t call “Moneyball” as a whole a study in reserve. But it does not possess the pomp and circumstance that is so often associated with Oscar darlings. It”s a pleasure to watch, and yet it maintains an adult tone in the sense that it captures the sacrifice and compromise that comes with a grown-up life. It understands how our vision of ourselves shifts as we age. (And for a look at what happens when it doesn”t, see “Young Adult.”) “Moneyball” maintains an undercurrent of emotional depth even in the moments of levity, which Pitt says in his interview with The Guardian is somewhat reminiscent of a different era in filmmaking.

“He reminded me of the characters I loved from 70s films,” Pitt said of his character, Billy Beane. “When I started in film I was taught that you had to have a character arc and there had to be an epiphany. As years go by I have found that to be utter bullshit. We don’t really change; we evolve in degrees and what I love about these characters from the 70s like Popeye Doyle is they were the same beast at the end of the film as they were at the beginning. I do love obsessive characters. I get off on watching that.”

Perhaps we will discover that voters do as well. I know I do.

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

It may be the most dependably unsatisfying and upset-prone of all Oscar categories, but this year’s Best Foreign Language Film race has thus far proceeded without stirring up too much of a fuss: there were few surprising inclusions or omissions in either the shortlist or the eventual nominee field. The arcane selection procedures in this category will never please everyone, but the Academy has wound up with a credible and well-balanced — if not world-beating — list of five films.

Given, however, that most observers would list the nominees as “‘A Separation’ and, uh, four other movies,” people might just be saving their howls of protest for Oscar night, in the event that the critically revered, award-guzzling Iranian entry doesn’t win. And however much people toss around the word “lock,” the fact that voters are required to see all five nominees before making their decision means there are never any sure things in this ever-frustrating category.

The nominees are…

“Bullhead” (Belgium)

“Footnote” (Israel)

“In Darkness” (Poland)

“Monsieur Lazhar” (Canada)

“A Separation” (Iran)

What films missed out? Well, we could be here all day. The shortlist inclusions that didn’t make the final cut were Denmark’s “SuperClasico,” Morocco’s “Omar Killed Me,” Taiwan’s “Warriors of the Rainbow” and Germany’s “Pina” — though that at least received its due in the documentary category. For my part, I’d have loved to Mexico’s “Miss Bala,” South Africa’s “Beauty” and Greece’s “Attenberg” in the mix, and that’s before we get to the films that weren’t even submitted or eligible. “Tomboy,” “Poetry,” “Le Quattro Volte”… take your pick. It’s a big world out there.

The nominee predicted by the fewest pundits — though forgive me at this point for mentioning that my predictions were 5/5 in this category — is also, unsurprisingly, the most outwardly challenging. Belgium’s “Bullhead” is an impressively lowering character study masquerading as an inscrutable agricultural thriller: it’s not hard to believe the whispers that this was one of the three films “saved” by the executive committee, and it’s to the branch’s credit that filmmaking this muscular and aggressive made the cut. (Several critics protested when the Belgians submitted this over the Dardenne brothers’ “The kid With a Bike,” but it’s the bolder choice.) Ostensibly unpicking illegal activity in the cattle-farming mafia, the film really centers on Jacky (a superb Matthias Schoenaerts), a hulking, Channing Tatum-alike farmer physically and emotionally stunted by childhood violence. The film’s genre elements are more an obfuscation than a hook, and its grimness feels a little overworked — certainly too much so to land Belgium a first win in the category — but this is a bracing, bruising debut for director Michael Roskam.   

Israel has become something of a fixture in this category of late: “Footnote” is the country’s fourth nominee in five years, though they have yet to triumph in this category. (Director Joseph Cedar was also behind 2007 nominee “Beaufort.”) This literary comedy of scruples, detailing the power struggle between father-and-son Talmud professors wrestling for the Israeli equivalent of the Pulitzer Prize — feels a little too dry and inconsequential to go the distance, though I hear it played well at its initial Academy screening. The film split critics at Cannes last year, where it eventually took home the Best Screenplay prize, and I was firmly in the unpersuaded camp: I thought it shrill, unfunny and distinguished by a truly horrendous score, hampered by its own convincing proof of the adage that academic politics being so vicious because the stakes are so small.

Let’s be honest here: given the history of this category, a harrowing true-life Holocaust drama, directed by Agnieszka Holland, was always going to practically nominate itself. On paper, “In Darkness” — a survival story of a group of Jews hidden in the sewers of Lvov by a local charlatan — checks all the boxes required to be an upset victor in this category, yet after actually having watched it, I’m undecided: the film is handsome, high-minded and openly emotive in all the ways that Academy members should respond to, yet its unashamed arduousness and ensemble of closed-off characters make it rather a tough sell. It’s certainly not as open-hearted or engaging as Holland’s “Europa Europa,” for which she received a writing nod in 1991 after being cheated out of the foreign race by national selectors. It’s doubtful enough voters will remember that to feel obligated to her, so the film will have to stand on its extraordinary narrative alone to land Poland its first ever win in the category.

There’s always at least one “nice little film” in the category, an arthouse crowdpleaser that pushes gentle emotional buttons without reaching too high cinematically. Canada’s “Monsieur Lazhar” fits that bill this year, though it’s a commendably restrained and thoughtful effort, characterized by swift, clean, slightly unsettling editing rhythms and confirming director Philippe Falardeau’s (“It’s Not Me, I Swear!”) sensitive knack with child performers. Telling the story of an Algerian asylum-seeker who lands a job teaching a class of Montreal pre-teens variously traumatized by the suicide of their former teacher, it’s nowhere near as emotionally opportunistic or manipulative as that precis makes it sound: Falardeau is clearly a fan of Laurent Cantet’s “The Class,” and while his film can’t match that 2008 nominee for moral complexity or thematic breadth, it has enough of its own quiet, ears-open compassion to mark it as a potential spoiler in the race.  

While the previous four films have virtues and adherents, it’s hard to step back after viewing all five and make a reasonable case for why anything but Iran’s “A Separation” should win: Asghar Farhadi’s precursor beast is so many streets ahead of the competition in terms of emotional depth, structural poise and verbal dazzle that a victory for anything could only be regarded as another forehead-clutching moment in the category’s history. I’ve been a fan of Farhadi’s knotty, morally see-sawing marital drama since it took the Golden Bear at Berlin nearly a year ago, though I wouldn’t necessarily have guessed that the Academy would respond to its disquietingly thorny, mostly unresolved ethical inquiries. Happily, the film’s secularity and domestic universality has caught enough viewers off-guard to turn it into a crossover hit, even landing an extra Oscar nod for writing. Voters have delighted in going off-script in this category in recent years, but there’s rarely been quite such compelling precursor consensus.

Will win: “A Separation”

Could win: “In Darkness”

Should win: “A Separation”

Should have been here: “Miss Bala” 

Keep track of our current rankings in the Best Foreign Language Film 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!

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.

It’s been about a week and a half since we assessed the season immediately post-nominations. Today Anne and I are both back in LA after trips to Sundance and Santa Barbara and there have been some awards announcements in the interim. So let’s see what’s on the docket today…

First up this week is discussion of the two big guilds of the last two weekends: the PGA and DGA, which both went to “The Artist.” It’s obviously a runaway train at this point, and I try not to beat up on it too much. I do.

The SAG Awards also happened recently, including a big surprise win for Jean Dujardin. We springboard off of that to discuss the Best Actor category, which seems to be more fluid now than it was a week ago, surely.

The Santa Barbara Film Festival is still on-going, though Anne and I have wrapped up what coverage we’ll do from there. Tributes were held for Viola Davis, Christopher Plummer and Martin Scorsese. We discuss.

“The Grey” opened this week, and with it, talk of both what its Oscar chances might have been in 2011 and whether it might hold on until the end of this year as a hopeful.

And finally, reader questions. We address queries regarding that phantom #10 film on the Best Picture list, the impact of Oscar season festivals and tributes and what to make of the electronic voting system the Academy is planning.

Have a listen to the new podcast below with the lovely Jennifer Lawrence 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.

“The Beginning of the End [Ladytron Remix]” courtesy of Nine Inch Nails and Interscope
“George Smiley” courtesy of Alberto Iglesias and Silva Screen Records.

It’s not often you see a studio pushing hard for Oscar wins in the less-prized technical categories, but that’s exactly what Paramount is doing for “Transformers: Dark of the Moon.” Despite the film being pointedly snubbed in the Best Picture category, its handlers are spending money on hefty TV promotion for the film’s nominations in the Sound Mixing, Sound Editing and Visual Effects races. What’s interesting, of course, is that Paramount’s prestige baby “Hugo” is competing in the same categories, but according to Pete Hammond, the Michael Bay blockbuster’s ongoing franchise status and super-producer connections, make it a priority. The sound awards, in particular, seem up for grabs — though the Academy tends to favor more critically approved action fare for those. [Deadline] 

Could next year’s switch to online balloting make the Oscar race vulnerable to foul cyber-play? [The Guardian]

Ric Robertson interviews AMPAS president Tom Sherak about the online vote, potentially moving the Oscar date forward, and why the hell this year’s Best Picture nominees were announced in random order. [The Odds]

“The Hunger Games” director Gary Ross thinks Jennifer Lawrence deserves an Oscar nomination for her work in the film. Well, he would, wouldn’t he? [Entertainment Weekly]

Patrick Goldstein asks: do Oscar pundits know too much? No, but we certainly think too much about the Oscars. [Los Angeles Times]

Anthony Bourdain on who should triumph at the Oscars this year. Because, well, why not? [New York Times]

Mike Goodridge on the potential ramifications and positive outcomes of Lionsgate having bought Summit Entertainment. [Screen Daily]

The Academy might have passed them over, but Chris Laverty is impressed by the era-hopping costume designs in “Midnight in Paris.” [Clothes on Film]

Finally, Nathaniel Rogers would like to remind us that he spotted Viola Davis first. Or at least gave her an award before anyone else did. [The Film Experience]