Indiewire reports that documentary filmmaker Josh Fox was arrested on Wednesday morning at 10:30am in Washington D.C. for unlawful entry after he attempted to record a House Science Committee hearing on fracking.

“Fracking,” you ask? No, not the inspired alternate universe cussword from the rebooted “Battlestar Galactica” series (though I would like to see that hearing). Fracking is actually a far more serious matter.

Otherwise known as hydraulic fracturing, or hydrofracking, fracking is a process stimulation procedure that “creates fractures in rocks and rock formations by injecting fluid into cracks to force them further open. The larger fissures allow more oil and gas to flow out of the formation and into the wellbore, from where it can be extracted.” Oil companies use the process to breach otherwise impenetrable rock.

In his 2011 Oscar-nominated documentary “Gasland,” Fox investigated the environmental fallout of the procedure, which his film attests has contaminated the drinking water in several rural communities. An iconic shot of town members setting fire to their tap water demonstrated the severity of the taint.

The filmmaker is currently in production on a sequel to the film and was bodily removed from the hearing in handcuffs yelling, “I’m within my First Amendment rights, and I’m being taken out.” A credentialed ABC news correspondent was also ejected from the proceedings.

“On the one side is a very powerful industry and their political and media allies,” Fox says of the continued efforts to halt the practice and protect those affected by it. “But there are small groups of extremely dedicated activists fighting fracking in every state where it”s a threat. It”s incredibly inspiring to see these mini-labs in democracy in action.” Fox released the following statement about the incident:

I was arrested today for exercising my First Amendment rights to freedom of the press on Capitol Hill. I was not expecting to be arrested for practicing journalism. Today’s hearing in the House Energy and Environment subcommittee was called to examine EPAs findings that hydraulic fracturing fluids had contaminated groundwater in the town of Pavillion, Wyoming. I have a long history with the town of Pavillion and its residents who have maintained since 2008 that fracking has contaminated their water supply. I featured the stories of residents John Fenton, Louis Meeks and Jeff Locker in GASLAND and I have continued to document the catastrophic water contamination in Pavillion for the upcoming sequel GASLAND 2. It would seem that the Republican leadership was using this hearing to attack the three year Region 8 EPA investigation involving hundreds of samples and extensive water testing which ruled that Pavillion’s groundwater was a health hazard, contaminated by benzene at 50x the safe level and numerous other contaminants associated with gas drilling. Most importantly, EPA stated in this case that fracking was the likely cause.

As a filmmaker and journalist I have covered hundreds of public hearings, including Congressional hearings. It is my understanding that public speech is allowed to be filmed. Congress should be no exception. No one on Capitol Hill should regard themselves exempt from the Constitution. The First Amendment to the Constitution states explicitly “Congress shall make no law…that infringes on the Freedom of the Press”. Which means that no subcommittee rule or regulation should prohibit a respectful journalist or citizen from recording a public hearing. This was an act of civil disobedience, yes done in an impromptu fashion, but at the moment when they told me to turn off the cameras, I could not. I know my rights and I felt it was imperative to exercise them.

When I was led out of the hearing room in handcuffs, John Boehner’s pledge of transparency in congress was taken out with me.

The people of Pavillion deserve better. The thousands across the US who have documented cases of water contamination in fracking areas deserve their own hearing on Capitol hill. They deserve the chance to testify in before Congress. The truth that fracking contaminates groundwater is out, and no amount of intimidation tactics — either outright challenges to science or the arrest of journalists — will put the genie back in the bottle. Such a brazen attempt to discredit and silence the EPA, the citizens of Pavillion and documentary filmmaking will ultimately fail and it is an affront to the health and integrity of Americans.

Lastly, in defense of my profession, I will state that many, many Americans get their news from independent documentaries. The hill should immediately move to make hearings and meetings accessible to independent journalists and not further obstruct the truth from being reported in the vivid and in depth manner that is only achievable through long form documentary filmmaking.

I will be thinking on this event further and will post further thoughts and developments.

I have been charged with “unlawful entry” and my court date is February 15.

Josh Fox

Washington D.C.

2/1/12

The Internet has given birth to a new age in journalism. People seek and receive their news from a variety of sources which may or may not be officially accredited. As Washington continues to come to terms with this new era in media, it will be interesting and revealing to see how Fox”s case is handled and if he is able to gain access to public hearings in the future.

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

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!

The International 3D Society announced its list of award winners today, and, well, I guess they pretty much did a good job of pointing out all the NON-crappy 3D in theaters this year. Martin Scorsese’s “Hugo” won three awards. Check out the full list of winners below.

Live Action 3D Feature: “Hugo”

Animated 3D Feature: “The Adventures of Tintin”

Short 3D Motion Picture (Narrative): “The Foundling”

3D Documentary: “Cave of Forgotten Dreams”

Outstanding Use of 3D to 3D Conversion: “The Lion King 3D”

3D Moment of the Year: Opening Scene, “Hugo”

Stereography (Live Action): “Hugo”

Stereography (Animation): “Puss in Boots”

Special Jury Prize for Excellence: “Pina”

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

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

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!

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

If we needed any confirmation that the writers’ branch is the most creative and open-minded in the Academy, we received it in the form of this year’s Best Original Screenplay: in no other category would you find the year’s saltiest mainstream comedy nominated alongside a marital drama from Iran. With just two Best Picture nominees in the mix, the writers also found room to nominate a little-seen, little-hyped Sundance baby ignored by the other branches.

This diverse lineup reflects a congested race for the lower slots on the ballot, with the surfeit of WGA ineligibilities doing little to clarify matters. The race remained volatile right up until nomination day, with a plethora of American indies — “50/50,” “Win Win,” “Beginners,” “Take Shelter” and so on — all in the conversation at one point or another. The first two were nominated by the Guild, along with former Oscar winner Diablo Cody for “Young Adult,” but they were a little too young, too modest and too sour, respectively, for Academy attention. 

The nominees are…

“The Artist” (Screenplay by Michel Hazanavicius)

“Bridesmaids” (Screenplay by Annie Mumolo and Kristen Wiig)

“Margin Call” (Screenplay by J.C. Chandor)

“Midnight in Paris” (Screenplay by Woody Allen)

“A Separation” (Screenplay by Asghar Farhadi)

It’s a pleasingly varied, independent and international selection, pitting five first-time nominees against the most-nominated screenwriter of all time, while the second stage of the race looks to be a competitive one between the two Best Picture nominees in the field. Whether it’s the strongest showcase of screenwriting craft the voters could have assembled, I’m less sure: with more campaign momentum, a duo of brilliantly splintered Fox Searchlight titles, “Margaret” and “Martha Marcy May Marlene,” could and should have scored here. (In a parallel universe, meanwhile, Andrew Haigh would be a contender for his exquisitely articulated “Weekend.”) 

Michel Hazanavicius scored one of three individual nominations here for “The Artist” — his other bids are for directing and editing — and there’s a reasonable chance he could pull off that particular hat-trick on Oscar night, which would be a first. A writing award for the playful silent film would be a neat way for the Academy to correct the widespread misconception that “screenwriting” equals “dialogue,” though there could be enough voters laboring under that very misconception to make things difficult for the Frenchman. Still, even if voters can’t quite identify the deftness and wit of the film’s writing, they might be pulled along by the general momentum of the Best Picture frontrunner: it’s been seven years since a film took the big prize without a writing Oscar to go with it. Don’t look to the WGA for clues: Hazanavicius is ineligible for their award.

It’s been 28 years since a female writing duo received an Oscar nomination: Nora Ephron and Alice Arlen couldn’t land the win for “Silkwood,” and few are expecting Kristen Wiig and Annie Mumolo to go one better for “Bridesmaids,” even if it’s welcome recognition for one of America’s most admired and inspired comediennes. The nomination itself is a pretty big deal, considering the Academy’s routine distrust of mainstream comedy: Wiig and Mumolo have broken through where their producer Judd Apatow couldn’t in years past, despite WGA nominations for his work. For my money, the writers’ branch chose the right film to relent on: “Bridesmaids” has inventively hilarious set pieces aplenty, but it’s the textured female characterization that sticks. The script has a bit too much first-draft flab to warrant more than a nod, but it’s a refreshing presence on the list. 

Debut writer-director J.C. Chandor‘s nomination for the studiously talky financial crisis drama “Margin Call” was more surprising than it would have been two months ago, when it was confounding pundits by taking the various Best First Film awards that had been earmarked for more generously hyped Sundance grads “Martha Marcy May Marlene” and “Like Crazy.” The buzz cooled and most of us forgot about the starry $5 million grosser, but we should have known its timely themes and slightly self-admiring Mamet-lite patter would stick with the writers’ branch. I found the film airlessly structured and abruptly curtailed, but Chandor’s confidence and intelligence as a writer are much in evidence. With no other nominations, the film hasn’t enough support or visibility to be a threat for the win, but it’s done well to leapfrog its fellow Amerindies to the nomination.  

One might say the bookies’ favorite for the award, Woody Allen, is the Meryl Streep of the Original Screenplay category: the most recent of his two writing Oscars came way back in the 1980s, yet he’s racked up the nominations to record-breaking effect ever since. “Midnight in Paris” marks his 15th appearance in the category, but only the third with a Best Picture nomination to back it up — perhaps significantly, he won this very award for the other two, “Annie Hall” and “Hannah and Her Sisters.” His latest looks a mere trifle beside those two classics, but that might not bother voters keen to rubber-stamp his latest comeback: moreover, the film’s jaunty era-hopping conceit and scattering of literary allusions announce it as the most obviously writerly of the five nominees. Already rewarded with the Golden Globe and BFCA awards, Woody should win the WGA with ease; his Oscar chances hinge on just how besotted voters are with the Best Picture frontrunner. Not that he cares, of course.

If voters really put the writing first in this category, Asghar Farhadi would emerge the winner for Best Foreign Language Film nominee “A Separation,” an impressively searching drama that applies seemingly Hitchcock-inspired structural gymnastics to a fierce dramaturgical curiosity, demanding tough ethical reasoning of its characters and audience alike. Alas, voters don’t — even if the London, Los Angeles and National Society of Film Critics did — and Farhadi’s best hope is for this smart hat-tip from the writers to boost its chances in the foreign-language category. Non-English films have triumphed in this race before, but the last three times this happened (“Talk to Her” in 2002, “A Man and a Woman” in 1966 and “Divorce Italian Style” in 1962) the film also had a Best Director nod under its belt. Still, Farhadi can take pride in being the first Middle Eastern filmmaker nominated outside the ghetto category. 

Will win: “The Artist”

Could win: “Midnight in Paris”

Should win: “A Separation”

Should have been here: “Margaret”

Keep track of our current rankings in the Best Original Screenplay 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!

In a year replete with films that enthusiastically celebrate the birth and development of cinema, it is more than a little bit disheartening to see one of its strongholds fading. As part of its filing for federal bankruptcy, the Eastman Kodak company is asking to have its name removed from the theater in the Hollywood & Highland complex where the Academy Awards have been held since 2002.

Kodak signed a contract worth $75 million over 20 years with CIM group (the company that owns the Hollywood & Highland mall) for the naming rights to the theater in 2000. Kodak has since suffered a financial crisis that has made the $4 million-a-year payment unfeasible and created a need for a complete reorganization.

The Wrap reports the filing states:

“The Debtors have evaluated the Contract in consultation with their professional advisors and determined that any benefit related to these rights likely does not exceed or equal the costs associated with the Contract.”

The chapter 11 fallout will affect companies across the entertainment industry. Kodak owes millions to nearly all the major studios.

In the case of the Hollywood and Highland center, if Kodak is released from the deal, CIM group will have the option to seek a new sponsor, but the Academy may, or may not, approve. AMPAS has already told CIM that they will not opt to renew their contract for the 2013 show. The withdrawal threat is likely a negotiating tactic, though. If Kodak is able to break the contract and forgo this year”s payment, then CIM group will need the Oscarcast in order to attract a substantial sponsor.

According to The Hollywood Reporter, the Nokia Theater L.A. LIVE in downtown Los Angeles plans to bid for the show, but official negotiations have not begun.

The two Best Picture frontrunners, “Hugo” and “The Artist,” each act as loving tributes to the silent film era and the evolution of moviemaking as we know it. There are few companies that have been as directly connected with cinema”s upbringing as Eastman Kodak has. All things must change, of course, but it is aching to see this giant stumble, and possible fall.

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

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!

Alright, you know the drill. It’s been a week and a half since last Anne and I spoke, so it’s time to dive back into the post-nominations discussion. Rifle off your need-to-knows and we’ll try to address a few in this week’s podcast.

Transforming a well-known actor into a well-known political figure on the screen is tricky business. The visual familiarity with both can be a huge challenge, leaving viewers scrutinizing the work more than they might otherwise.

In the case if “The Iron Lady,” one of the most recognizable actresses in the world, Meryl Streep, had to undergo such a transformation as prosthetics designer Mark Coulier and hair designer Marese Langan were tasked with turning her into former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. But beyond just the physical transformation of one visage into another, “The Iron Lady” is a decades-spanning effort that sees a gradual shift in appearance for the character throughout the movie.

And even then, it wasn’t just a single actor undergoing this kind of work. “We had a cast of 70 playing mostly historical characters,” says Langan. “Therefore we had to give a nod towards the physical appearance of these real-life figures, and in many cases, this required the use of wigs and hair pieces.”

Langan, who trained for hair and makeup (which are seen as one department in the UK) at the Delmar Academy, says she owes her inspiration in the field to Tom Smith, a former teacher who developed techniques for such films as “Gandhi” and the Indiana Jones franchise. She says one of the biggest challenges on this film was bringing together the look of Streep’s character seamlessly over a large span of time.

“Without the use of wigs and hair pieces, it would have been impossible to accurately define a period,” she says. “It is also an invaluable way to show changes in age and character. On this particular project, we used a large amount of hair pieces and hair wefts rather than full wigs on the politicians. These worked really well in creating a natural look and eliminated some of the problems that can be associated with wigs. It was great to see how well the prosthetics worked; the different techniques and products are ever-changing in this field.”

Those prosthetics were tasked to Coulier and his team. He says with a film like “The Iron Lady,” his work is in pretty much every single shot of the film, meaning it is under a lot of consistent scrutiny. But he’s proud of the aging work in particular, which he notes is always a challenge to do realistically.

“It’s difficult to have it move well and very easy to get wrong,” he says of the applications. “Although the fact that people have not realized quite what prosthetics some of the other characters are wearing is also quite rewarding. If our work goes unnoticed, I take that as a compliment.”

Another nominee in the field, “Albert Nobbs,” has also been championed by fellow makeup artists for its invisible nature. The third nominee, however, “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2,” is an example of more severe, fantasy makeup work, indicating the range of quality the branch scrutinizes during the awards season each year.

Getting back to “The Iron Lady,” Coulier also notes of the consistency of his work on screen how hard it can be to maintain during a lengthy work day. “It is very difficult to maintain makeups like this during a 14-hour shooting day on very hot sets when characters are involved in lots of close-ups with intimate detail,” he says.

Streep herself had very strong ideas about what she would like to see and what strength of character the makeup team should bring out of Thatcher, Coulier says. It was a process of boiling down what they could enhance of the actress’s features and what they needed to change. “We really did see eye-to-eye during this process,” Coulier says of the collaboration, “never wanting to go too far with prosthetics and have them be too much of a talking point.”

On that note, one of the contenders in the field this year, another film built on transforming a famous actor into a famous politician — Clint Eastwood’s “J. Edgar” — suffered from that kind of scrutiny and ultimately failed to even make the bake-off list of seven finalists.

The job of a makeup artist is incredibly collaborative, not just with the actor and director, but with the cinematographer. Indeed, the design elements of a film can be the most beautifully and carefully rendered, but it’s all for naught if they aren’t properly captured on film.

“Elliot Davies, the Director of Photography, did a beautiful job of lighting the makeups,” Coulier says. “It is especially tricky to correctly light prosthetics so that it enhances their qualities and makes them look as real as possible and Elliot did an amazing job.”

The film is also nominated for Best Actress this year for Meryl Streep. It could turn up a surprise winner there, but it’s looking like the frontrunner here. Curiously, though, while Langan was the only nominee listed at the BAFTA awards (which include hair in the category), only prosthetics designers Coulier and J. Roy Helland are included for the Oscar. Go figure.

“The Iron Lady” is currently playing in theaters nationwide.

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

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!

It’s a regrettable sign of awards-season distractedness that I didn’t learn until yesterday that Damien Bona, patron saint of Oscar geeks, passed away last week. If his name isn’t familiar to you, his book “Inside Oscar” — co-authored with Mason Wiley — should be: the most comprehensive and entertaining history of the Academy Awards yet written, it’s an essential tome to which the entire curious sport of awards analysis owes its existence. As a kid, I checked out the local library’s copy so many times they practically kept it aside for me. Upon eventually discovering a copy in a secondhand bookshop (ah, pre-internet life!), I wore it down until the spine cracked; Scotch-taped back into place, it still sits on my shelf. Sasha Stone knew Bona, and her heartfelt farewell, with input from Mark Harris and Susan Wloszczyna, is a lovely read. [Awards Daily]

Christy Grosz observes an air of melancholy as the Academy mails out paper ballots — for the last time ever. [Variety]

Nathaniel Rogers’ annual Oscar Symposium is always a fun read: this year’s ace panel includes Nick Davis and (again) Mark Harris. [The Film Experience]

Bernhard Schlink, original author of “The Reader,” is suing The Weinstein Company, claiming he’s got nothing out of the Oscar-winning film. That makes two of us. [The Guardian] 

WGA nominee Kristen Wiig will present Judd Apatow with the Herb Sargent Award for Comedy Excellence at the Guild’s East Coast awards ceremony. [The Odds]

“Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy” director Tomas Alfredson and Oscar-nominated writer Peter Straughan on the contemporary relevance of John le Carré’s novel. [The Telegraph] 

Steven Zeitchik checks in on the progress of the film adaptation of “August: Osage County,” still going ahead with Meryl Streep and Julia Roberts. [LA Times]

With the Kodak Theater, home to the Oscars, up for renaming after sponsorship withdrawal, Mark Lisanti has a few suggestions. [Grantland]

Assorted associates of “The Tree of Life” — minus camera-shy Terrence Malick — celebrate cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki’s work on the film. [Thompson on Hollywood]

Finally, some innocuously raunchy posters for Jean Dujardin’s new film are getting a few Frenchmen hot under the collar. Will it affect his Oscar chances? Uh, no. [The Telegraph]

Five Oscar nominations (for cinematography, editing, sound editing, sound mixing and Best Actress Rooney Mara) will likely serve to provide David Fincher”s “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” with a nice little publicity boost as it heads into the final stages of its international roll out. The citizens of India, however, will not have the opportunity to see the film in theaters.

The Guardian reports that Sony Pictures has cancelled the scheduled February 10 release date after India’s Central Board of Film Certification insisted that 5 scenes be pulled from Fincher”s cut. Both the director and the studio refused to make the adjustments, opting to abandon the open altogether.

A statement from Sony”s Mumbai office explained the studio”s position thusly:

“While we are committed to maintaining and protecting the vision of the director, we will, as always, respect the guidelines set by the Board.”

Both the sex and sexual violence depicted in the film were considered unsuitable for public viewing by the censor. The five sequences in question included two of the sexual interludes between Daniel Craig”s Mikael Blomkvist and Mara”s Lisbeth Salander, as well as Nils Bjurman”s violent rape of Salander. I am left wondering about the remaining two scenes, but would imagine that they include her retribution.

Each of the sequences under discussion are legitimately essential to the story arc. To lose them would alter the dynamics in the relationships and confuse the motivations present in the remaining interactions. Though The Hindustan Times included a statement from the Board indicating that image blur would have sufficed as it was the nudity, rather than the sex or the violence, which was at issue.

“We wanted several scenes in ‘The Girl with The Dragon Tattoo” to be blurred,” said JP Singh, regional officer (West), CBFC. “Bare bottom and bare-breast scenes are not allowed in India.”

Yet The Hollywood Reporter was present at the film’s debut in Japan, where limited “mosaic-blurring” was utilized to cover offending bits. So we imagine that the restrictions in India did indeed extend beyond the request for a subtle blurring of the nude images.

It is always interesting to see how various cultures respond to content. It becomes so deeply revealing. The Vatican and China were both opposed to James Cameron”s “Avatar,” the former due to what were deemed to be paganistic messages and the later for fear that farmers who had been forced off their lands in favor of developers would relate with the Na”vi causing civil unrest.

In terms of current cinema, there is something intrinsically interesting in “Shame””s NC-17 rating versus “Dragon Tattoo””s R here. There”s not much to be said that hasn”t been said in terms of the befuddling nature of our sexual mores (a naked penis is deemed somehow more disturbing than the depiction of two violent anal rapes), but it still continues to fascinate me.

Each incident is indicative of a specific socio-political condition unique to the area. The link, however, always seems to be an undercurrent of fear. I am not of the belief that there should be a content free-for-all, but there is something liberating in really examining the motivations for censorship and/or restrictions.

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

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!

This is rather old news, so forgive the tardiness — but since the Evening Standard Film Awards released both a longlist and a shortlist last year, when this year’s nominees appeared, I assumed they were still going to be whittled down before Monday’s ceremony. As it turns out, that was the final nomination list — and that’s just as well, because it’s a good crop.

The Evening Standard Awards are limited to British films and talent (British actors in international films are eligible, though it’s been a sufficiently strong year for local film that only one nominee falls into that bracket). Determined by a jury of eight leading UK critics (not all of them from paper that gives the ceremony its name), they are one of the more established fixtures on what’s becoming a sizeable list of British precursor events.

Indeed, you’ll recognize a lot of the nominees from the lists of the British Independent Film Awards and London Film Critics Circle. The level of agreement between these groups only points out how disconnected BAFTA is from its own national cinema: “Shame” and BIFA champ “Tyrannosaur” may lead the pack here, but they boast just three BAFTA nods between them. Meanwhile, the Standard jury went out slightly on a limb to acknowledge two films ignored in all these aforementioned awards: the smash sitcom spinoff “The Inbetweeners Movie” and Joanna Hogg’s superb domestic drama “Archipelago” — which, funnily enough, took the titular metaphor for fractured families a full year before “The Descendants” did. Some enterprising US distributor really ought to pick it up.

I’ll hopefully be attending the awards on Monday — last year’s event, where Peter Mullan’s “Neds” triumphed, was a rather jolly evening. The nominees are:

Best Film
“Archipelago”
“Shame”
“Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy”
“Tyrannosaur”
“We Need to Talk About Kevin”

Best Actor
Kenneth Branagh, “My Week With Marilyn”
Michael Fassbender, “Shame” and “Jane Eyre”
Brendan Gleeson, “The Guard”
Tom Hiddleston, “Archipelago”
Peter Mullan, “Tyrannosaur”
Gary Oldman, “Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy”

Best Actress
Olivia Colman, “Tyrannosaur”
Samantha Morton, “The Messenger”
Carey Mulligan, “Shame”
Vanessa Redgrave, “Coriolanus”
Tilda Swinton, “We Need to Talk About Kevin”
Rachel Weisz, “The Deep Blue Sea”

Most Promising Newcomer
Richard Ayoade (writer-director), “Submarine”
John Boyega (actor), “Attack the Block”
Jessica Brown Findlay (actor), “Albatross”
Tom Kingsley and Will Sharpe (writer-directors), “Black Pond”

Peter Sellers Award for Comedy
“Black Pond”
“The Inbetweeners Movie”
“The Guard”

Best Documentary
“Dreams of a Life”
“Fire in Babylon”
“Life in a Day”
“Project Nim”
“Senna”

Best Screenplay
Joanna Hogg, “Archipelago” 
John Michael McDonagh, “The Guard” 
Ben Wheatley and Amy Jump, “Kill List” 
Paddy Considine, “Tyrannosaur”
Andrew Haigh, “Weekend”

Technical Achievement Award
Sean Bobbitt (cinematographer), “Shame”
Paul Davies (sound designer), “We Need to Talk About Kevin”
Maria Djurkovic (production designer), “Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy”
Michael O”Connor (costume designer), “Jane Eyre”
Robbie Ryan (cinematographer), “Wuthering Heights”

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!

(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.)

A script is a film”s blueprint, making it unsurprising that most of the nominees in this category have historically also been nominated for Best Picture. This year was no exception, with three of the final five adapted screenplay contenders also chalked up as the year’s best films. Room was also made for a particularly challenging adaptation of a classic novel and a star-studded film with no other nominations.

Notwithstanding the Best Picture correlation, Tate Taylor failed to be nominated here for writing “The Help” after landing BFCA, WGA and BAFTA nominations. “The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo” also appeared solid after a WGA nomination, but, like another Best Picture contender, “War Horse,” it is likely to not be remembered for its words so much as its images. “Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close” also managed to miss despite a surprising Best Picture berth. While three of the titles will have to be content with the nomination, the other two are in a horserace to win that I expect to remain close until the envelope is opened.

The nominees are…

“The Descendants” (Screenplay by Alexander Payne and Nat Faxon & Jim Rash)

“Hugo” (Screenplay by John Logan)

“The Ides of March” (Screenplay by George Clooney & Grant Heslov and Beau Willimon)

“Moneyball” (Screenplay by Aaron Sorkin and Steven Zaillian; Story by Stan Chervin)

“Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy” (Screenplay by Bridget O”Connor & Peter Straughan)

Of the plausible nominees, this is a very respectable lot. I was nonetheless disappointed that Moira Buffini’s adaptation of “Jane Eyre” never got more traction. I also found Jason Segel and Nicholas Stoller”s joyous take on “The Muppets” to be wonderfully fresh and funny. Though it would have been stunning if AMPAS had made room for it here.

Alexander Payne has seen an up-and-down career with Oscar, but most of it has been up. A nomination for “Election” was followed by a surprising snub for “About Schmidt.” A win here for “Sideways” (in addition to a directing nomination) made up for that. This year, he adapted, with Nat Faxon and Jim Rash, Kaui Hart Hemmings”s novel “The Descendants.” This NBR-winning script is the Academy”s best chance to award Payne, who is also nominated for directing and producing (a co-producer is Jim Taylor, with whom Payne shared his previous writing nominations). “The Descendants” is widely liked – it is the only title in this category to also be nominated for directing and acting – and giving Payne another Oscar before his main rivals makes a degree of sense. Even so, I wonder if the film has peaked, much like another Clooney effort, “Up in the Air,” two years ago. So a win is possible, if far from assured.

John Logan“s nomination for “Hugo” marks the third of his career. And like the previous two – “Gladiator” and “The Aviator” – it seems fair to conclude that overall respect for the film helped bring him to the final five. This is not meant to be a slight on his writing. On the contrary, the script was a clever adaptation of a graphic novel that defied genres, giving us a film that was a true tribute to cinema (even if I think it took too long to get going). However, like “Gladiator” and “The Aviator,” “Hug” will likely not be remembered for its words when compared to its extraordinary visuals. Logan will probably have to be content with the nomination, but the film did lead the field with 11 nominations and is the clear competition to the frontrunner, so don’t count it out.

What can I say? George Clooney is popular these days. In addition to starring in “The Descendants” this year, he co-produced, directed, co-wrote and starred in “The Ides of March.” This is his second writing nomination, and seventh overall, since 2005. That he earned these from three different branches and for six different films is even more impressive. I felt this film”s characters could have been better developed, but it is still a fine effort. It was gripping and its message was not as simplistic as some viewers have asserted. Clooney adapted Beau Willimon“s play “Faragut North” with Willimon himself, as well as producing partner Grant Heslov (also earning his second writing nomination after “Good Night, and Good Luck.”), into a modern morality tale. Alas, being the film”s only nomination, their odds of winning are about zilch.

For years, it seemed as though Aaron Sorkin simply could not earn an Oscar nomination. After snubs for “A Few Good Men,” “The American President” and “Charlie Wilson”s War,” he took home the gold last year for “The Social Network.” This year, he and Steven Zaillian (Oscar winner for “Schindler”s List” and nominee for “Awakenings” and “Gangs of New York”) worked separately on “Moneyball,” a script originally penned by Stan Chervin. They turned Michael Lewis”s book “Moneyball: The Art of Winning an Unfair Game” into a film that was funny, engaging and poignant, despite potentially dry subject matter. They have already won the BFCA and NYFCC awards. Will Sorkin and Zaillian win their second Oscar before Payne? The film is broadly liked (see, for example, the sound mixing nomination). Moreover, the razor sharp dialogue and tight story are what most people seem to remember, while Clooney”s performance usually gets top praise from “The Descendants.” It could go either way between the two.

Filling out the category, we have “Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy.”  The husband/wife duo of the late Bridget O”Connor and Peter Straughan edited John Le Carré”s massive Cold War espionage novel into this two hour thriller. While I followed the plot well enough, I have some sympathy for those who felt it was confusing at times. Even so, I found it entirely engaging, capturing the feel of British intelligence in the Cold War. Much of that was due to the screenplay. Sadly, O”Connor died of cancer in September 2010, making this nomination posthumous. While a BAFTA win is possible, I feel the film hasn”t caught on in Hollywood enough to rival the two Best Picture nominees that have split the precursors.

Will Win: “The Descendants”

Could Win: “Moneyball”

Should Win: “Moneyball”

Should have been here: “Jane Eyre”

Keep track of our current rankings in the Best Adapted Screenplay 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 always look forward to Vanity Fair’s annual Hollywood Issue, an unofficial but essential ritual of the Oscar season — mostly because I’m a sucker for pretty pictures of movie stars, but partly because they’re an interesting, not wholly reliable, time capsule of where the magazine editors think the industry is at, and where it’s going. This year’s newly unveiled cover is adorned by four of the brightest young actresses of the moment — three of them already Oscar-nominated, while the fourth surely will be soon — and it’s a typically beautiful effort, but my eyebrows rose slightly at the headline: “Introducing the fresh young stars of 2012.” Is Vanity Fair really introducing us to 2010 Best Actress nominee Jennifer Lawrence? Or Mia Wasikowska, whom I believe was featured on the Hollywood cover two years ago? Give us some credit, VF. [Vanity Fair]

In one of the most sensible pieces anyone has yet written this Oscar season, Scott Tobias regrets how awards hype has turned mere agnostics on “The Artist” to full-blown detractors. [The AV Club] 

One of those detractors, Mark Harris, makes a case for three films to beat “The Artist,” but concludes with near-certainty that none of them will. [Grantland]

Still with “The Artist,” it may be the supposed foreign invader, but Richard Verrier points out that it’s the only Best Picture nominee filmed entirely in Los Angeles. [LA Times]

The first official still from the latest James Bond flick “Skyfall” has been unveiled and ZOMG HE HAS A BIT OF STUBBLE. Calm yourselves. [The Telegraph]

You’ll never believe this, but Tom Hanks is presenting at the Oscars. What next? Billy Crystal hosting? [The Odds]

With Christopher Plummer’s Oscar all but engraved already, Tom O’Neil rehashes that old theory about playing a gay man who dies being an easy route to an Oscar. Tell that to Jake Gyllenhaal. [Gold Derby]

Matt Zoller Seitz and other contributors discuss their favorites among this year’s Oscar nominees. [Press Play]

Mark London Williams talks to Matthew Butler, a first-time Visual Effects nominee for “Transformers: Dark of the Moon.” [Below the Line]

After watching the Screen Actors’ Guild Awards on Sunday night, something struck me about the quartet of film performances that SAG had awarded — something unusual, yet pleasing, that I couldn’t quite put my finger on. It had nothing to do with their collective quality, though I think that’s higher than it is most years. And it had nothing to do with demographics, even if the sight of two non-white actresses winning in one evening is a notable and encouraging first. No, it had something to do with the actual characters played by these four actors, and as I thought back on their three largely disparate films, it hit me.

There’s not a true-life character in the lot.

That may not seem an especially remarkable stat, but it is when you look at recent awards history, in which biopic performances have racked up more wins in Oscar’s acting races than at any other point in Academy history. Indeed, should SAG’s four choices all triumph on the big night next month — and there’s little reason to think they won’t — it’ll be the first time since 1997 that all four acting Oscars have gone to actors playing fictitious characters.

Yes, 13 Academy Award ceremonies have passed since Jack Nicholson, Helen Hunt, Robin Williams and Kim Basinger (coincidentally, also the last all-American quartet of winners) all had their turn at the podium, and in every one of them, at least one acting category has fallen prey to Academy voters’ chronic biopic addiction. In the last decade, over half the lead acting Oscars have gone to stars interpreting real-life figures — some of them unfamiliar to the average viewer, but most of them high on the recognizability scale, with voters thrilling to the technical challenges of replicating famous voices and mannerisms. 

Of course, I shouldn’t count my chickens just yet. It won’t affect the record if either Jean Dujardin or George Clooney take Best Actor, but an upset win for Brad Pitt, playing real-life baseball manager Billy Beane in “Moneyball,” would keep the biopic fires burning — even if Pitt’s relaxed, unfussy performance seems to riff more on his own screen persona than on Beane himself.

A more likely biopic winner could come in Best Actress, where Meryl Streep’s Margaret Thatcher and Michelle Williams’s Marilyn Monroe both represent the kind of technique-driven celebrity impression that has recently been Academy catnip for actors. Both women have been lavishly praised by peers and critics alike for the courage and expertise in taking on these baggage-laden roles. Both, however, seem likely to lose on Oscar night to finely-shaded work in an ostensibly more modest role: Viola Davis’s stoically mistreated domestic worker Aibileen in “The Help,” a character written (rather glibly, some might say) to represent legions of real-life women with her history, but not a real-life woman herself. (Ditto her supporting co-star Octavia Spencer, assured of a win in the one acting race populated entirely with imagined characters.) 

On paper, Streep’s brief in playing Thatcher — with all the complex, cosmetically-assisted physical and vocal transmutation that entails — would be a more conventionally Academy-friendly one than Davis’s, who has less screen time and fewer illustrative moments of capital-A Acting in which to flex her craft, but whose piercing emotional accuracy in an eminently elevatable role seems to be doing the job. The vast popularity of her vehicle helps Davis, of course; arguably, so does the presence of Williams, who might be cutting into Streep’s votes from the AMPAS contingent who view biopics as the ne plus ultra of screen acting. 

Nonetheless, it’s tempting to speculate that this might be a year where the Academy wises up to the significant challenges of building characters from scratch, rather than working from a historical template, and to the truth that fictional characters can be as breathtakingly recognizable as historical ones. All the performances rewarded by SAG are to some extent rooted in reality, after all. As George Valentin, Dujardin is channelling a variety of screen actor typified by Douglas Fairbanks without actively impersonating him — though the performances hinges on at least as much intricately researched physical technique as Michelle Williams’s more targeted Monroe.

As late-blooming gay widower Hal in “Beginners,” meanwhile, Christopher Plummer treads closest to biopic territory by inheriting the creative ghost of his character from writer-director Mike Mills’s own late-blooming gay father: semi-autobiographical the film may be, but the veil of fiction affords room for the whims and rhythms and vocal inflections of the actor’s own personality.

Plummer’s category, too, features competition in more stiffly defined biopic form — Kenneth Branagh’s amusing if scarcely meticulous Laurence Olivier in “My Week With Marilyn” isn’t a threat for the win, but his all-but-automatic nomination proves that old habits die hard in the acting branch. (That said, the performance’s scant resemblance to the real Olivier is the most rewarding thing about it: would that more actors cast in such strait-jacketed roles felt as loosely interpretive as Branagh does.)

Should my projection of a biopic-free slate of acting winners hold true next month, it may be nothing more than a fluke, but it’d be a welcome respite nonetheless. Away from concerns of fiction versus non-fiction, it’s heartening to see this year’s acting races stacked with several performances that don’t feel overly calculated as bait, ostentatiously advertising their “degree of difficulty.” The Best Actor race is headed by three movie-star performances that make a virtue of the actors’ trademark charms, rather than burying them under makeup; the two stragglers in the field rely on subtler dramatics.

It’s interesting — and, with due respect to a hard-working actor, encouraging — that Leonardo DiCaprio couldn’t crack this unusually low-key field for his effortfully transformative, latex-swaddled biopic turn in Clint Eastwood’s catatonic “J. Edgar,” a performance that in most years would slot neatly onto the ballot even if nobody liked the film. (Just two years ago, after all, “Invictus” managed two acting nods before limping off to the prestige graveyard.) Every race has its own quirks and obstacles, making unwise to draw any conclusions about voting trends going forward. But while people frequently talk admiringly of actors “losing themselves” in roles — the stock response to expert biopic work — it’s nice to see some appropriate respect this year for actors finding themselves in roles instead. 

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.)

Early on in the season it was decided that a full slate of five nominees in the Best Animated Feature Film category would be allowed, as there were at least 16 qualifying titles. However, that didn’t necessary mean there WOULD be five, as the scoring system within the branch might still have yielded less that were deemed worthy.

In the end, five managed to surface, and a number of surprises bubbled up along with it. One formidable hybrid contender that was doing well on the precursor circuit failed to overcome inherent bias against it, while two fringe contenders from the indie world (and the same studio, no less) found their way in over other laureled studio efforts.

The nominees are…

“A Cat in Paris” (Alain Gagnol and Jean-Loup Felicioli)

“Chico & Rita” (Fernando Trueba and Javier Mariscal)

“Kung Fu Panda 2” (Jennifer Yuh Nelson)

“Puss in Boots” (Chris Miller)

“Rango” (Gore Verbinski)

And so it was that the animation branch said, “Sorry, Mr. Spielberg. We don’t need no stinkin’ ‘Tintin.'” It’s interesting because had “The Adventures of Tintin” been in the mix, it would have had a great shot at winning. That just goes to show the difference between branch voting and Academy-at-large voting. Also of note (though strangely it feels like an afterthought): this year marked Pixar’s first snub in the 10-year history of the category as “Cars 2” failed to register.

The biggest surprise of the field, for me, was “A Cat in Paris” from directors Alain Gagnol and Jean-Loup Felicioli sliding in. Many figured one of the indie titles might find some room, and while the OTHER one that made it sounded about right, I just never gave this one much of a fair shake. It’s animated in simple sketch designs and vibrant colors. But it’s also barely a feature, clocking in at a swift 65 minutes. The story isn’t really all that compelling, either, being a mystery yarn that doesn’t really stand out, but the consistency of the craft likely went a long way here as it is indeed unique amid the fray.

“Chico & Rita” was the second film called on nomination morning for the category, and it left my jaw open because that meant two of the indie titles made it — and neither of them the one I expected (Annie-nominee “Arrugas (Wrinkles)”). When I first saw Fernando Trueba and Javier Mariscal‘s film at the 2010 Telluride Film Festival, it felt to me like a film that could easily contend for a nomination. GKIDS finally picked it up but I had a feeling the film might get lost. Well, fortunately that wasn’t the case, as this colorful Cuban foray found some branch love and gets a big pop of exposure for its nomination.

On to more expected titles, DreamWorks’ “Kung Fu Panda 2” has delighted in the spotlight on female filmmakers this year as Jennifer Yuh even graced the cover of The Hollywood Reporter at some point during the season. The summer sequel is gorgeously animated, more so than the studio’s other nominee, in my opinion, and tells a rich story. Focus within began to tilt toward a certain feline, but never enough to split consideration away from this one. Sequels are by no means anathema here, but nevertheless, this one might just be battling it out behind the scenes on ballots for runner-up.

DreamWorks seemed to be gunning all the more for Chris Miller‘s “Puss in Boots” to land in this field. The “Shrek” spin-off was hand-in-hand with the studio’s other effort at the Annie Awards, nearly leading the field there. I personally liked the film well enough, particularly the craft of the animation, but felt like it lost steam maybe half-way in. At this point I can’t even recall much of it, but it’s here nonetheless and there is sure to be a healthy push behind it. But with the absence of what might have been its only competition, one film and one film only looks to be the winner here.

That film is “Rango,” from live action feature director Gore Verbinski. The in-house Paramount production will likely make a bold statement for the new animation division by lapping up this award, and how deserving it would be. The film is one of the year’s best in any medium, a reverential ode to cinema as much as any other film that has gobbled up that talking point this season. It landed in theaters nearly a year ago and still stands out as the dominant force in the field, so the smart bet remains on Johnny Depp’s lovable chameleon.

Will win: “Rango”

Could win: “Puss in Boots”

Should win: “Rango”

Should have been here: “Winnie the Pooh”

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

What do you think deserves the Oscar for Best Animated Feature Film? Have your say in the comments section below.

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

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!

After a strong showing for “The Help” at Sunday night”s Screen Actors Guild Awards, the film is set to receive another boon on its way to Oscar night. The Writers Guild of America (WGA) announced that it will honor writer/director Tate Taylor with the 2012 Paul Selvin Award, which recognizes “written work that embodies the spirit of constitutional rights and civil liberties,” according to the press release.

“Tate Taylor”s adapted screenplay for ‘The Help’ artfully distills the empowering essence and core emotional truths of Kathryn Stockett”s novel, translating it into a film that forcefully illustrates how ordinary people can impact positive social change,” said WGAw president Christopher Keyser. “Tate”s honor is well deserved and his script does Paul Selvin”s legacy proud by conveying the continuing power of the written word.”

Said Taylor of the project, “In adapting ‘The Help,’ I was keenly aware of the many heroes from such a tumultuous time in American history, as well as the heroes that continue to fight for human rights today. But to me, ordinary heroes such as Aibileen and Minny are often the ones we find most relatable and empowered by. After all, the ordinary hero hiding in each of us is often the most powerful catalyst for change.”

Taylor did receive a WGA nomination for Best Adapted Screenplay, but despite its four Academy Award nominations (including Best Picture and three acting notices), he has been largely kept outside the awards conversation for the film.

It”s always struck me as somewhat understandable (given that “The Help” represents his feature film debut) but too bad that Taylor has not received more attention this season. He was the film’s champion before the manuscript for the book was complete, after all.

The connection between Taylor and Stockett makes for a good story and speaks to his intimate connection with the material. The director convinced his childhood friend to allow him to option the rights to her book by communicating his passion and insisting that no one else would serve her work, or their hometown of Jackson, Mississippi, as well as he would.

They shared experiences growing up together in the South that were reminiscent of the tales she weaved in her novel. The author modeled one of her main characters, Minny, after Taylor”s then roommate Octavia Spencer who, as we know, went on to play her in the film. This truly was a family affair with Taylor at the center of bringing all the pieces together. As such, it”s nice to see him get a little bit of his own due.

The 2012 WGA Awards will take place on Sunday, February 19 at the Hollywood Palladium.

Previous Selvin Award recipients include Eric Roth, Michael Mann, Jason Horwitch, Don Payne, Robert Eisele & Jeffrey Porro, Dustin Lance Black, Anthony Peckham, and, most recently, Jez Butterworth & John-Henry Butterworth.

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

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!

SANTA BARBARA – Last night the big tributes wrapped up here at the Santa Barbara fest with the presentation of the American Riviera Award to “Hugo” director Martin Scorsese. Leonard Maltin conducted the on-stage interview, which got started nearly a half hour late and still blew past the usual two-hour time frame as a captivated, capacity audience at the Arlington Theatre never budged and delighted in hearing the director’s tales of 50 years at work in the film industry.

Scorsese reflected first on the severity of awards season these days, which he said is “very arduous, in a way. But it’s a very high class problem to have.” Even the process of opening a film is much different, he noted, thinking back on his work in the early 1970s. “When the film opened, there was really no red carpet unless it was ‘Cleopatra’ or ‘Ben-Hur,'” he said. “We’d go in on a Sunday to see if anyone was in line to see the movie, then we’d go get Chinese food or whatever and that was it.”

Maltin asked the obvious genesis query, wondering about that seminal moment when Scorsese not only knew that he wanted to be a fillmmaker, but that doing so was even possible. And it was seeing John Cassavetes’ “Shadows” that did it. “It had raw emotion, but was also Bohemian,” Scorsese said. “There were no more excuses. It became a different style and quality.”

The early 1960s saw a number of short films from the director that brought some attention and really invigorated his spirit for the form. “There was something fascinating about an image that moved,” he said, “and the impulse to tell a story and reach out to an audience.”

Then it was on to the specific moments we all remember, of which there are many. Beginning with 1973’s “Mean Streets,” Scorsese revealed that most of the movie was shot in Los Angeles, which is stunning for such a centerpiece of New York cinema. After working with Roger Corman for a while, he had connections to make the film for roughly $650,000 if he could fake a lot of it in LA, and so he did. “When he shoots a gun at the Empire State Building it hits a window in Los Angeles,” Scorsese said. But, Maltin returned, that’s the illusion of movie making. The audience will believe what you show them.

The clip presented was the iconic introduction of Robert De Niro’s Johnny Boy to the tune of The Rolling Stones’ “Jumping Jack Flash.” The song choice, the slow motion, the dark red contrast of the scenery, it was all scripted that way. And in the following sequence, a banter back and forth between De Niro and Harvey Keitel about Johnny Boy’s debts, was largely improved by De Niro. The actor came up with a number of stories the character could tell in order to weasel around his responsibilities. Keitel then reacted to those and acted off of them. That was also the last day of shooting on the film. Scorsese summed it all up thusly: “It was a wonderful experience because I didn’t get fired.”

The “greatest hits” stuff was unavoidable, as things moved along with stuff from “Taxi Driver” and “Goodfellas.” On the former, Scorsese noted that a clash of cultural considerations made it all the more interesting. “Paul Schrader was a Calvinist,” he said of the “Taxi Driver” screenwriter. “He saw his first movie when he was 18 because they were forbidden. And my culture was Roman Catholic, so there was a lot of tension in the interpretation of this very lean script. There were flourishes he probably didn’t like that were more Baroque.” But that was the style that Scorsese gravitated toward, Fellinian grandiosity as opposed to Bressonian reserve.

On the choice of Bernard Herrmann to compose the original score for the film, Scorsese said he knew he needed it because the main character, Travis Bickle, didn’t listen to music. And the only person he thought could do it was Herrmann, who had left Hollywood and wasn’t really working much anymore. This, of course, was lost on naive New York-based filmmakers out of that loop, but Scorsese sought him out and offered a number of humorous impressions of a grumpy fixture of the Golden Age.

“I don’t do movies about cabbies,” Herrmann original grumbled to the young director. Scorsese also told a funny story about Steven Spielberg being giddy about meeting the famed composer, and that when he did, after offering the obligatory “I’m a huge fan of your work,” Herrmann shot back with, “Why do you always work with Johnny Williams, then?”

As fate would have it, on the final day of recording the “Taxi Driver” score, Herrmann went home and passed away. But Scorsese is forever grateful for his invaluable contribution to the film.

Regarding “Raging Bull,” Scorsese said the choice to shoot on black and white was almost one of practicality (and very much of a piece with his knowledge of the technology of film), due to a bit of an in-between period for color stock. By that point, every film had to be made in color (once considered a choice for “less-serious” films). But Scorsese was realizing that the color printing stock wasn’t as strong in the wake of Technicolor discontinuing its prints. “The color has to mean something,” he said. “It’s a very important element. And it was on a stock that, within five years, would go pink or magenta.”

For “Goodfellas,” the steadicam shot of Ray Liotta and Lorraine Bracco entering the Copacabana through the kitchen was shown, which Maltin marveled over as a particularly impressive shot of its time. “I knew it had to be one shot,” Scorsese said. “This is the height of his life. You start in the streets and enter all these back alleys before going into Valhalla. It’s like being royalty. It had to unfold, in a way, into the palace.” Interestingly enough, the same steadicam operator who executed that shot did the steadicam work on “Hugo,” too.

There were just so many stories. Like the time Thelma Schoonmaker visited a Times Square theater playing “Raging Bull” to discover that the sound was dialed down incredibly low because the theater owner didn’t like its interpretation of Italian Americans. Or another instance from the same movie when she visited another theater and saw a pile of film on the floor, about which the projectionist said, “Boy, you’re lucky, someone had spliced all this color film in there” (regarding the handful of willful stylistic color sequences in the film). It was like a campfire chat about the specifics of some of America’s most enduring cinematic works and it could fill a lot of column inches.

The clips were all curated by Scorsese, and there was a current of image alteration going on, it seemed. Indeed, I hear he originally felt the opening reel of the evening showcased too much violence. And he chose a number of scenes from his work as a documentary filmmaker for the program, including a hilarious bit featuring his parents in “Italianamerican.”

There was the full Muddy Waters segment of the concert film “The Last Waltz,” which we’re lucky to have as the filmmakers were told not to record him. Thankfully cameraman Laszlo Kovacs didn’t know. The film, which featued the final performance of The Band, was originally meant to be something for posterity, as Scorsese thought there would be value to it archivally. It wasn’t until they saw the results of the 35mm shoot that it was clear there was a movie there.

He also talked about how “No Direction Home: Bob Dylan” was ultimately about the musician being attacked over the years, whether by the folk generation or politically or being forced to be the voice of a generation, and it all boiled down to a single question for the filmmaker: “Do you have to do what people expect of you in art?”

One was reminded of the evolution of Scorsese throughout the evening, though, all of it building to talk about this year’s “Hugo.” The film was meant to be something his young daughter could finally see, but it was also very much about getting back to the child inside, that energized artist who still loves the feeling of pencil to paper when he’s drawing out storyboards to visualize his films. “You get back to the original impulse,” he said. “You have to have that spark.”

His perceptions on films started to shift around this time, as well, largely because he’s been able to view them through the very different prism of a child’s wonder. Frank Capra, for instance, is a big hit with his young daughter (he has two older children from a previous relationship). He himself never thought much of “It Happened One Night,” he said, admitting that it might be a bit sacrilegious to say. But when he viewed it on a 35mm print with his daughter recently, he found it to be a masterpiece.

And so “Hugo” was about reconciling that inner child with the way he communicates his stories to an audience, and it’s very clear the experience has been a cathartic one.

Sir Ben Kingsley was on hand to present the American Riviera Award, and his speech was of course highly quotable. “My dear Marty,” he said, “we happy few hundred will never be in the same room with you again, all of us. This is a very special night.” He then closed by noting, “The very greatest of my peers owe some of their most indelible moments on screen to you.”

If it isn’t obvious from all of that attempted distillation, it was a full and hearty evening, and a nice send-off for my coverage of the 27th annual Santa Barbara International Film Festival. Next weekend will bring a few other events, including the Virtuosos panel, but I’m back to Los Angeles this afternoon. It’s been another successful program, though, with a great many Oscar nominees included, all of them aiming to push toward that most coveted of film awards as phase two of the season forges ahead.

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

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!

I have a special place in my heart for Academy members who spill the beans on who they’re voting for — who isn’t curious to know what their favorite director or actor’s ballot looks like? Every year, there are always a few voters who anonymously share their choices with certain outlets, but since when has anonymity ever suited Madonna? Yep, the auteur, actress and sometime singer is an Academy member, and her Best Picture vote is going to “The Tree of Life” — a noble choice, though I’m disappointed she’s not even trying a write-in for “W.E.” Where’s her fighting spirit? This proves why we shouldn’t be so quick to pass judgement on who is admitted to the Academy: for all we know, the Madonnas and Beyoncés and Brands are voting more adventurously than the establishment. [24 Frames]

Speaking of Madonna, historian Alex von Tunzelmann is on punishing form in her dissection of “W.E.” and its misguided politics. [The Guardian]

A lovely piece by Nathaniel Rogers on why Viola Davis is winning the Best Actress Oscar, and why that’s a very good thing. [The Film Experience]

As “The Artist” cruises to a Best Picture win, Owen Gleiberman fears the Academy has removed the audience from the equation. Fine by me. [EW]

The superb “Snowtown” won six awards at the Australian Oscars, including Best Director, Screenplay, Actor, Supporting Actress, Editing… but lost Best Film? Uh, okay. [Screen Daily] 

Jennifer Lopez — wasn’t she an actress once? — is the latest name added to the list of Oscar presenters. She should totally present Best Original Song. I don’t think that’s been done before. [The Race]

You didn’t think this year’s Oscar ceremony was going to pass on the opportunity to do an Uggie skit, did you? Hey, is Debbie Allen busy? [Vulture]

Unsettled by the mo-cap in “The Adventures of Tintin,” Uncas Blythe likens his disorientation to that of 19th-century audiences seeing a film for the first time. [Mubi]

Bill Wyman — not, I presume, the ex-bassist of The Stones — takes on Steven Spielberg’s filmography, exasperated by the director’s “thin” worldview and lack of humor. [Slate]

Finally, if you think we’re getting a lot of Jean Dujardin, Catherine Bray reports all-out media saturation in Paris. Hey, wanna see him without pants? [Twitter]

I’m occasionally struck by the word-economizing way some people refer to the Best Costume Design Oscar as, simply, Best Costume: a minor, grammatically sound abbreviation that nonetheless skimps on a rather telling word. Almost any film, from studiously researched period pieces to Target-clothed contemporary works, is costumed — but not every film is designed, its every shred of fabric selected and shaped to serve interdependent demands of character, atmosphere and directorial sensibility, while affording the designer a visible creative identity too.

Though chameleonic flexibility is prized, indeed required, of those who dress films across any number of genres, periods and guiding aesthetics, cinema’s greatest costume designers are those whose artistic signature — no less than that of a revered fashion designer — is present in idiosyncratic stylistic details that connect otherwise vastly disparate projects. Eiko Ishioka, the gleefully cracked design genius who passed away last week at the age of 73, was one such artist: whether applied to a lavish Gothic period nightmare or a sleekly futuristic psycho-fantasy, her film costume work is bound by common forms, features and fetishes that build up to their own kind of auteur watermark.

Little but Ishioka connects, say, two films as visually opposed as “Bram Stoker’s Dracula” and “Immortals,” yet her presence is enough to form an intangible kinship between them: their shared sense of color-led carnality, their deranged use of pattern as anti-reality portal, their witty insertion of incongruously modern haute couture flirtations into otherwise airtight historical story worlds.

If her garments often seem to be making wider, wilder thematic readings of the films wearing them than is usually the remit of costume designers, that’s because Ishioka herself was an all-purpose artist: as a revered graphic designer and art director, as generously showcased in gallery and theater environments as on screen, her relationship to broader mise-en-scène can only have been a mutually permeable one.

Indeed, with a CV that includes everything from Miles Davis album covers to Bjork music videos to the Beijing Olympic Games, Ishioka’s infrequent adventures in film costume represent but one chapter of her career — though it’s a richly illustrated one. You might be surprised to learn she boasts just eight feature film credits. Four of them, of course, are with another treasurably demented stylist, Tarsem Singh, at the helm — a quartet of collaborations that rivals any recently celebrated director-DP pairing for allied focus and oeuvre-defining singularity.

Perhaps she worked just little enough to remain inspired. Perhaps her medium-hopping versatility was costume design’s loss (oh, if only she’d found time to hook up with Almodovar!). Either way, what she gave us — the bloodied swathes of silk in “Dracula,” the dreamily skewed globalism of “The Fall,” the Gaga god armor of “Immortals,” the malefic masks and collars of, well, the lot — is all gold.

Ishioka’s 1992 Academy Award for “Dracula” was perhaps the first technical Oscar win I ever got truly invested in and excited about — the first time I was conscious of individual craft being evaluated, divorced from the surrounding film (which is pretty damn fantastic as well, mind). It remains, alas, her only nomination to date. Always more easily impressed by dutifully accurate period service than less easily explicable, more intuitive visions, the costume branch and Guild alike have shied away from the exquisite insanity of her work with Tarsem; last week, “Immortals” was the latest casualty of this conservatism. (Hey, we tried.)

Happily, Ishioka has left us with one gift still unwrapped: Tarsem’s fairytale riff “Mirror Mirror,” which opens in March and promises, if nothing else, to showcase the late designer in all her beautiful, bonkers glory. If the production still below is to be believed, this unwitting swansong will be most appropriately attired.  

Finally, since pictures really do say an awful lot of words in this context, a quick pictorial stroll through Eiko Ishioka’s screen work: her production design of Paul Schrader’s “Mishima: A Life in Four Chapters” (for which she shared a Cannes award), and her costume designs for “Bram Stoker’s Dracula,” “The Cell,” “Immortals” and “Mirror Mirror.” 

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

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention! 

Two weekends back I was told that a famous director at the Golden Globes observed the parading of “The Artist,” uh, “star” Uggie on the stage yet again to get the easy laughs and “awws” from the audience as the film won the Best Picture – Comedy/Musical award. “Why does Harvey keep dragging this f***ing dog around,” he quipped. “There’s a dog in our movie, too. Our dog could EAT that dog.”

With a recent tongue-in-cheek op-ed in the pages of the Los Angeles Times bearing his name, I suppose it’s okay to reveal now that, indeed, the director in question was Martin Scorsese. The article is meant as a cute stumping call for Blackie, the Doberman “star” of Scorsese’s Best Picture nominee “Hugo” in the wake of the canine being snubbed in the nominations for the first annual Golden Collar Awards, but it’s absolutely brilliant for the way it takes the piss out of Oscar season oh so succinctly.

Here’s a taste:

OK, let’s lay all our cards on the table. Jack Russell terriers are small and cute. Dobermans are enormous and – handsome. More tellingly, Uggie plays a nice little mascot who does tricks and saves his master’s life in one of the films, while Blackie gives an uncompromising performance as a ferocious guard dog who terrorizes children. I’m sure you can see what I’m driving at…

I’m proud of Blackie, who laid it on the line and dared to risk the sympathy of her audience. Let’s just say that on the set, she had a fitting nickname: Citizen Canine. The bath scene alone is a masterpiece of underplaying, with Blackie’s wonderfully aquiline face accentuated by the 3-D.

And then there’s this playful but nevertheless shrewd dissection:

I detect another, more deep-seated prejudice at work. Jack Russell terriers were bred in the 19th century for the purposes of fox hunting by an Englishman, the Rev. John Russell. Dobermans were bred by a German tax collector who was afraid of being bludgeoned to death by the citizenry. But does that mean we must condemn the entire breed? Must we forget the magnificent physical achievements of such legendary Dobermans as Bingo von Ellendonk (who achieved a perfect score in the storied Schutzhund competition), Borong the Warlock, Baracuda Liborium or Caravelle Drillbit?

It’s a hoot. You should read the whole thing at the Los Angeles Times and join Marty’s rally cry. More love for Blackie!

Scorsese, by the way, will be on hand here in Santa Barbara tonight to receive the American Riviera Award. I can’t wait to settle in and take a trip down Marty memory lane.

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

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!