When George Clooney’s “The Monuments Men” ducked out of the 2013 Oscar race and opted instead for a quiet February release, it seemed obvious that a Berlin Film Festival date was in the offing. And so it is: the film is being released too early in the US to have its world premiere at the fest, but it will be included in the Official Programme. (I take that to mean it’ll play out of competition.) This makes sense for a film that is, after all, a part-German production. “Over five million cultural assets stolen by the Nazis were returned to their countries of origin in the years following World War II. As the recent discovery in Munich demonstrates, the art theft of that time is as current as ever. ‘The Monuments Men’ finally gives this little-known subject a worldwide audience,” says festival director Dieter Kosslick. [Berlinale]

Ryan Gilbey on the challenges of the “single-actor movie” and how Sandra Bullock faces them in “Gravity.” [New Statesman]

Judi Dench writes a piece waxing lyrical about the “extraordinary woman” she plays in “Philomena.” [Huffington Post]

Meanwhile, Dench’s “M” persona has being employed by the Weinsteins in their campaign to reduce the R rating “Philomena” received from the MPAA. [The Guardian]

Still on “Philomena,” British box office guru Charles Gant reports that it’s now outpacing “Thor: The Dark World” in the UK. True story. [Twitter]

Viola Davis in “Gravity?” Danny Glover in “All is Lost?” Clayton Davis on how minority actors could be better served in Hollywood, even in what’s supposed to be a banner year. [Awards Circuit]

You know what film really deserves a Best Costume Design nod? “Stoker.” Chris Laverty reminds us why. [Clothes on Film]

Agnes Varda is being honored at LACMA and the AFI Fest, and rightly so. [Hollywood Reporter]

Amy Kaufman, meanwhile, discusses the role the AFI Fest plays in the awards season. [LA Times]

Things haven’t exactly gone swimmingly for Paul Haggis since he won that contentious Best Picture Oscar for “Crash” nearly eight years ago. Clint Eastwood’s “Letters from Iwo Jima” nabbed him another writing nod a year later, and a pair of new-model Bond films kept him ticking over, but on the directorial side of things, it’s been a case of diminishing returns. Only a surprise Best Actor nomination for Tommy Lee Jones kept “In the Valley of Elah” from sinking without trace, while the Russell Crowe-starring thriller “The Next Three Days” was pretty unmemorable pulp. Reviews out of Toronto for his latest, “Third Person,” didn’t exactly suggest the slide had been reversed.

“A work of staggering trash,” claimed The Guardian’s Catherine Shoard of the ensemble romantic drama, which intercuts three separate love stories set in Paris, Rome and New York. (It all sounds uncomfortably like “360” to me — a film I keep thinking Haggis actually made.) The Hollywood Reporter’s Deborah Young was a tad more kind, declaring its multi-stranded narrative “vividly dramatized but uninvolving.” It found some fans, but was swiftly buried by buzzier fare at Toronto, despite an all-star cast including James Franco, Liam Neeson, Olivia Wilde, Kim Basinger, Mila Kunis, Adrien Brody and Maria Bello. When a film with that cast and a name director sits unclaimed by a distributor for nearly two months after Toronto, it’s a sign that it’s a challenge of some sort — though Sony Pictures Classics has now come to the rescue.

It was announced today that the specialist outfit has picked up the film for release in the US, plus Germany and Scandinavia — no release date is mentioned, though I assume it’ll be an early 2014 deal. Sony Classics issued this statement: “Paul Haggis is one of our great movie storytellers and ‘Third Person’ is one of his best works featuring an exceptional cast led by Liam Neeson (also at his best). We are excited to bring ‘Third Person’ to American audiences.” 

For his part, Haggis added, “Michael [Barker] and Tom [Bernard] have great instincts and all the right experience releasing smart, challenging films — I’m thrilled Third Person found a home at Sony Pictures Classics.” This is the first time he’s worked with Sony Classics; Lionsgate were the company behind “Crash” and “The Next Three Days.”

Are you optimistic for Paul Haggis’ latest? Perhaps you’ve already seen it? Tell us in the comments.

We’re a little ways off yet from the Academy unveiling its long list of eligible contenders in the Best Original Song Oscar race. But in the meantime, and particularly since we finally started populating the category’s Contenders section with entrants in the last week or so, it doesn’t hurt to put a finger to the wind and see what’s what.

At the top, Disney will only be qualifying one song from its animated musical “Frozen” this year. There are of course plenty of other original tracks that could be submitted, too, but going with the showstopper rather than risking a chance that votes split across various contenders is smart. And Idina Menzel belting out “Let It Go” on Oscar night will be quite a moment. Consider it the frontrunner.

Somewhere along the line it was suggested that Lana Del Rey’s “Young and Beautiful” was partly conceived separate from Baz Luhrmann’s “The Great Gatsby.” If true, then like “Come What May” from Luhrmann’s “Moulin Rouge!” – which had originally been written for “William Shakespeare’s Romeo + Juliet” but was never used in that film – it would have been deemed ineligible. Warner Bros. knows nothing about this, however, and is moving forward with a big campaign for the song. So maybe it’s not even true. I have no idea where that rumor originated. Nevertheless, this is a fantastic song that comes at a key moment in the film. Here’s hoping it is indeed eligible and can get some real traction in the race.

Speaking of Warner Bros., the studio has another contender in Karen O.’s “The Moon Song” from Spike Jonze’s “Her.” It’s another example of a tune that plays within the context of the narrative (you can catch it at the tail end of the trailer, FYI) and it’s a gorgeous, delicate ditty.

If you’re wondering why playing in the context is important, it’s because these songs are now viewed in that context by voters rather than just arriving on a CD separate from the film for consideration. And there are a few tunes this year that are crucial to their films’ narratives and could register, particularly “So You Know What It’s Like,” a rap track performed by Keith Stanfield at an emotional point in Destin Cretton’s “Short Term 12.”

Moving along, there are heavy hitters in the race this year, as always. And a year after Adele won the Oscar for her Bond theme “Skyfall,” those names could draw attention. Taylor Swift contributes “Sweeter Than Fiction” to the Britain’s Got Talent success story “One Chance.” Beyoncé lends her pipes to the “Epic” soundtrack with “Rise Up.” Coldplay is in the mix with “Atlas” from “The Hunger Games: Catching Fire.”

The Weinstein Company has four of these, in fact, two from “Lee Daniels’ The Butler”: “You and I Ain’t Nothin’ No More” from Gladys Knight and Lenny Kravitz and “In the Middle of the Night” from Fantasia Barrino. Other than that, Kings of Leon offered up “Last Mile Home” to the “August: Osage County” soundtrack. And then, of course, there’s U2 with “Ordinary Love” from “Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom.”

Speaking of big stars, this summer was pretty much owned by Pharrell Williams, what with contributions to Robin Thicke’s “Blurred Lines” and Daft Punk’s “Get Lucky” and “Lose Yourself to Dance.” But there was also the release of “Despicable Me 2” and his eclectic contributions to that film’s soundtrack. I’ve always been a big fan of the work he’s offered on this series, and both “Happy” and “Just a Cloudy Day” were recently sent out to press on a spiffy yellow 45 record. So I guess Universal is giving it the old college try.

Elsewhere, there is “I See Fire” from the soundtrack of “The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug” being campaigned. The “Lord of the Rings” films managed two nominations in this category, though last year’s “The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey” got no love from the music branch. And though closing credits songs have difficulty maneuvering in this race ever since the new system of viewing them in the context of the film was implemented, I have to say M83’s “Oblivion” from same and Emily Wells’ “Becomes the Color” from “Stoker” are exemplary entries this season.

Then there’s something that’s a bit out of left field but nevertheless worth considering. Sometimes this branch can embrace tongue-in-cheek stuff and in “Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues,” they have a shot at doing that again with “Doby.” I’m told the song is performed by Will Ferrell in the film and is sort of an homage to Michael Jackson’s “Ben,” which was about Jackson’s love for his pet rat. In the film, “Doby” is the about Ron Burgundy’s love for his pet shark, which is a plot point in the film.

And finally, keep an eye on Diane Warren, power ballad songwriter extraordinaire who has been nominated six times over the years for films like “Mannequin,” “Con Air,” “Armageddon” and “Pearl Harbor,” has a contender in this year’s race: “Unfinished Songs” from “Unfinished Song.” Worth keeping in mind.

I’ll close with one thing of note: “Inside Llewyn Davis” will not have a contender. No, “Please, Mr. Kennedy” is not in the hunt. It’s not a direct cover but it’s a bit of an homage and that won’t play with the branch. But the movie sure is yet another excuse to bring out the old argument that the Academy could use a category for recognizing the work that someone like T Bone Burnett does on movies such as this.

How do you think the original song race will pan out? Have your say in the comments section below, and read more about additional contenders in the on-going discussion there, too.

Gerard will be back on the Tech Support beat next week with a look at the Best Film Editing category.

The Academy has announced this year’s short list of Best Animated Short contenders, and as always, it’s a varied crop of tone, form and style.

The list was whittled down from the 56 pictures that originally qualified for consideration in the category, all of which were viewed by the Academy’s Short Films and Feature Animated Branch Review Committee at screenings held in New York and Los Angeles. From this list, three to five nominees will be chosen and revealed along with the rest of this year’s Oscar crop at the nominations announcement on Jan. 16, 2014.

Looking across the net at materials for a number of the contenders, it seems to me that “Feral,” “Gloria Victoria” and “Hollow Land” could be formidable. And of course, Disney looks to be in the driver’s seat once again with the 3D Mickey Mouse romp “Get a Horse!” But as much of a media blitz as that film (which will play in front of the studio’s feature release “Frozen” in theaters), it doesn’t quite match some of the creativity that appears to be evident in a few of these other players. So maybe it’s not so cut-and-dry after all.

Of the films that I’ve seen, I quite like “Gloria Victoria” and “Requiem for Romance.” Those and a few others are available in full online (and embedded below). Meanwhile, none other than George Takei makes an appearance in the crop as narrator of “The Missing Scarf,” as Simon Pegg, Gillian Anderson and Timothy Spall contributed their voices to “Room on the Broom.” Could that pedigree and recognition give them a boost? Maybe.

Oh, and “Subconscious Password” looks positively zany. It also might be one to watch for as it won the award for Best Short at this year’s Annecy International Animated Film Festival. “Gloria Victoria,” meanwhile, won the FIPRESCI Prize there, while “Feral” picked up a trio of prizes. “Room on the Broom” won an Annecy award, too.

Finally, it’s worth noting that Pixar’s “The Blue Umbrella” was left off the list, which is a rarity for the studio. The short, which played in front of “Monsters University,” was little more than a tech test and pretty groan-inducing on a “story” level for many, so I guess it’s not shocking. But still, a rarity.

Check out the full short list below along. We hunted down trailers for most of them but a handful — “Gloria Victoria,” “Hollow Land,” “Requiem for Romance,” — are available in full. Have a look and tell us what you think will happen in this always unpredictable race.

“Feral,” Daniel Sousa, director, and Dan Golden, music and sound design (Daniel Sousa)

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JI6WgxqQojA&w=640&h=360]

“Get a Horse!” Lauren MacMullan, director, and Dorothy McKim, producer (Walt Disney Feature Animation)

“Gloria Victoria,” Theodore Ushev, director (National Film Board of Canada)

“Hollow Land,” Uri Kranot and Michelle Kranot, directors (Dansk Tegnefilm, Les Films de l”Arlequin and the National Film Board of Canada)

“The Missing Scarf,” Eoin Duffy, director, and Jamie Hogan, producer (Belly Creative Inc.)

“Mr. Hublot,” Laurent Witz, director, and Alexandre Espigares, co-director (Zeilt Productions)

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbHYMGkX6Ro&w=640&h=360]

“Possessions,” Shuhei Morita, director (Sunrise Inc.)

“Requiem for Romance,” Jonathan Ng, director (Kungfu Romance Productions Inc.)

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peIzt2p5OIU&w=640&h=360]

“Room on the Broom,” Max Lang and Jan Lachauer, directors (Magic Light Pictures)

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdGSzvPZV0s&w=640&h=360]

“Subconscious Password,” Chris Landreth, director (National Film Board of Canada with the participation of Seneca College Animation Arts Centre and Copperheart Entertainment)

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPidtoARWNs&w=640&h=360]

The production of the Warner Bros. western “The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford” is a unique entry in the annals of cinema history. The studio had been courting Andrew Dominik for some time, eager to work with the director of 2000’s “Chopper,” and he had a gem of a project for them to consider: a film about the outlaw Jesse James, based on a dense novel he found at a second-hand bookstore in Melbourne, Australia, with Brad Pitt in the iconic role.

Surely the studio saw dollar signs. Brad Pitt as Jesse James? It must have felt a few steps removed from a Batman movie. Batman in the wild west. But what Dominik had in mind wasn’t a Batman movie. It was a deeply ponderous, Malickian thing that would speak to themes of celebrity and a dying age. This would not be Jesse James in his prime. This would be, as the title lays bare, the end of a legend, and all the artistry such an unconventional take on that legend would suggest.

Once the film made its way to the editing room, what would have been a nine-week process stretched to nine months. The studio wanted something palatable to the broadest audience. Dominik wanted something much more enduring than that. So the film’s post-production life became a nightmare. Dueling versions of the movie stretching from 100 to 180 minutes were tested for audiences who themselves were split on the various arrangements, but the film was very specifically shot and just wouldn’t behave under a certain length. Dominik was finally able to achieve something close to his ultimate vision of the project at 160 minutes. That version went to the Venice Film Festival where Pitt won a Best Actor award and soon it hit the marketplace, becoming an instant masterpiece for some, a dead-on-arrival misfire for others.

But the passion of its supporters has won a small victory as the film, seemingly in need of a revival just six years after its initial release, will be resurrected on the big screen for a Museum of the Moving Image event in New York on Dec. 7, programmed by museum member Jamieson McGonigle. From there, the hope is that it will take off on the repertory circuit and finally experience the big screen life so many feel it deserved the first time around.

However, while the 2007 theatrical release of “Jesse James” was halfhearted, with very little spent in the way of marketing a picture Warner Bros. saw as more of a headache than anything by that time, Dominik holds no ill will toward the studio and in fact understands the perspective. He feels fortunate that he was able to make more or less the film he wanted to make; he just had to learn a number of hard lessons along the way.

“Back then I think I was naïve,” Dominik says now. “I thought that if you just make a really good movie, people would go see it. There were those who loved the film and really championed it. Then there are other people who, you know – someone said it was the first book on tape as a movie or something. But ‘Jesse James’ is the thing that I”ve done in my life that I”m most proud of. I think the movie”s really good, and it made me feel like you”ve got to put everything into a movie. I don”t want to do any more movies unless I”m just terrified to do them like I was when I did that film.”

A way with words

Dominik, who will be in attendance at the New York event for a post-screening Q&A, was instantly mesmerized by Ron Hansen’s 1980 novel. The language in particular was something that drew him in. It was a book rich with detail and that was the hook for the director, who also penned the screenplay adaptation. The goal was to tackle the western genre from a unique angle, to tell a Victorian story more elegiac than adventurous.

“The thing about Ron”s book was that it was incredibly dense,” he says. “And it was written in that 19th Century style; I mean, he kind of wrote in that strange sort of King James-type language. I always think that people reveal a lot by how they organize language. It was something that was very important, that the movie captured that, that feeling of destiny and density and predestination.”

That sort of aural signature extended to the decision to use a narrator on the film, reading through passages of Hansen’s novel as if it were a lullaby. But the voice present in the film wasn’t the first choice for that element. In fact, Dominik originally intended the narrator to be a female. He tried a litany of voices, looking for the right touch, including a fair share of famous ones. But he never could settle on what he was after.

During the post-production process, Hugh Ross, an assistant editor on the film, recorded the narration as a scratch track (a rough placeholder to be supplanted later). In fact, part of the reason editor Dylan Tichenor hired Ross as an assistant was because of his voice, knowing that it would be good for the scratch track. In the end, after trying a number of different female versions, nothing was as haunting and perfect for the film as what Ross delivered.

“He just owned that,” Dominik says. “Somehow when he said those words, they really worked. The other thing, too, was that when Nick [Cave] recorded the music, the voice that he kind of set the music to was Hugh’s voice. So it sort of really worked with the score…Warner Bros., of course, were horrified that we were going use an editor as the narrator. They wanted, like, I don”t know, the guy – ‘in a world,’ ‘in a time.’ For the trailer they got somebody like that to re-record Hugh”s voice-over because they hated it so fucking much! But anyway, Hugh eventually got the job and when we took him into a proper recording studio to record the voice-over, he was terrible! We ended up just using the scratch tracks that were recorded on the Avid.”

This love affair with voice was also partly what landed Casey Affleck the role of Robert Ford. “He’s got such a beautiful-sounding voice,” Dominik says, noting that he actually casts actors more for how they sound than how they look. “The voice is the thing that really gets you,” he says. “It”s really important how a movie sounds, I think – almost more important than how a movie looks – if you want it to work on you emotionally. All of those actors sound really good. And Brad [Pitt], obviously, he’s from Missouri, so he can do it.”

Creative sparring

Speaking of Pitt, in the movie star, Dominik not only had an actor but a producer, a creative partner to spar with. “Jesse James” was Pitt’s baby early in the life of his “garage band of a production company,” as he calls his Plan B Entertainment shingle. And as a producer, the star has made it a habit to work with unique talent, from Martin Scorsese (“The Departed”) to Rebecca Miller (“The Private Lives of Pippa Lee”) to Steve McQueen (“12 Years a Slave”).

“Those are the kind of movies Brad always wanted to do,” Dominik says. “He loved the movie as much as I did and he was as passionate about it as I was. And that production company has certainly become one to envy in terms of the movies that they”re making and have made.”

Pitt saw in the project an opportunity to explore a mythology close to his Missouri roots. He was sold on the collaboration with Dominik over two bottles of wine and was eager to work on a project such as this following a string of commercial Hollywood plays like “Troy,” “Mr. & Mrs. Smith” and the “Ocean’s” franchise. He even stipulated in his contract that the studio could not change the lengthy title of the film.

Nevertheless, during post-production, the two certainly butted heads over the direction of the film. They fought quite a bit and “it got very volatile,” Dominik says, “because we both believed in it. It was all kinds of fighting. We’d get shitty and send each other nasty texts and we”d argue. We had our ups and downs.”

By the end of the process, “I think we were all kind of beaten up by the film,” he continues. “We finished that movie like three days or four days before we went to the Venice Film Festival with it and I think by then we were just all so sick of it.”

Indeed, Dominik confides that he was so disgusted by the end of the process that he never bothered to head down to the lab and pick up his answer print of the film.

“But ultimately, you know, I”ve got nothing but respect for Brad,” Dominik says. “Brad and I are friends. He”s a very talented man and he”s an extraordinary person. And I don’t think he’s unhappy with the movie at all. I think he’s got a movie that he”s proud of.”

A resurrection

It’s clear that “Jesse James” is a film that has lingered heavy in Dominik’s portfolio. He has taken a lot from the experience – plenty of memories, good and bad – and certainly been considerably shaped by it. But when a 28-year-old television editor in Queens started the ball rolling on a big revival screening of the film with Dominik in attendance for, of all things, the young man’s bachelor party, Dominik was a bit taken aback.

“It was really strange,” Dominik recalls. “I felt like maybe he should just get some strippers and an eight ball instead of ‘Jesse James,’ you know? And then it turned into something else.”

That “something else” was McGonigle’s desire to see the New York event kick-start a big screen revival of the film on the repertory circuit. And already requests are flying in left and right for him to take the program to Grand Rapids, Tuscon, you name it. A second screening (without Dominik) has already been added in New York for Dec. 8 and a Los Angeles date with Dominik in attendance will be announced in the near future.

“I think ‘Jesse James’ is a movie that really benefits from being on the big screen,” Dominik says. “And I love the idea of it having some sort of a life on the big screen, like it would become the sort of movie that people would program or something like that. It would be fucking great!”

The screenings, however, will be of the Digital Cinema Package (DCP) rather than the actual 35mm print the diligent McGonigle tracked down and purchased through a Chicago seller before getting in touch with Dominik. According to the director, the DCP is much closer to what he and cinematographer Roger Deakins intended.

“What most people see are release prints, which are a generation down from the answer print,” Dominik explains. “They just don”t look nearly as good as the answer print, which doesn’t look as good as the DI [digital intermediate]. I”m assuming they made the DCP from the DI, and if they did, it will be an absolute perfect 100 percent representation. It’ll look stunning.”

And that matters, of course. For all of Dominik’s inclination toward sound, “Jesse James” is a visual marvel. Deakins was Oscar-nominated for his work on the film, having turned out iconic frame after iconic frame throughout its 160-minute running time. One can only imagine the place those images will have once the film stands the test of time, the hazy back-lit image of an outlaw at home alongside Bogart and Bergman on a Moroccan tarmac, Gene Kelly clutching a rain-soaked lamppost or a crop duster giving Cary Grant chase through a desolate cornfield.

No hard feelings

As the New York revival looms, Dominik remains an intensely pragmatic man regarding the fallout of the film’s initial release, and he suffers no exaggeration of the situation. Indeed, he consistently makes it clear that, while he’s thankful for the fan support of his embattled movie, the idea of Warner Bros. as an evil entity trying to suppress the vision of an artist is at best a facile interpretation of things.

“It’s much more complex than that,” he says. “The thing that nobody realizes, really, is the jobs that those guys have. My experience with Warner Bros. was not great, but my experience with Jeff Robinov, who was the boss at the time, was a good one. I found Jeff to be completely straight in all of his dealings with me. His point of view did not seem to me to be an unreasonable one. It was just a bad marriage of material and studio.”

But bad marriage or not, there’s no way “The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford” would have been what it is without the resources the studio brought to the table, he clarifies. The problems that arose had, in Dominik’s opinion, as much to do with his own naiveté as anything on the Warner Bros. side. And he can’t really fault anyone on that level for the decisions they made along the way.

“I think that when things came to the crunch, they behaved well,” he says. “I got to make my movie. And I got to basically release my movie. Now there was a lot of fighting that went on to get to that place, but in the end, you know, they let me have the movie that I wanted and they took a $30 million dollar hit on it, you know? Movie studios aren”t going to stay in business doing things like that. So I have to say I sympathize with their point of view. I really do.”

The Jesse James Revival is set for Dec. 7 at the Museum of the Moving Image in New York.

A little surprise happened at the art house over the past few months. Fox Searchlight’s late addition to the September release schedule, “Enough Said,” has become one of the biggest indie releases of the year.

At this writing, the Nicole Holofcener dramedy has grossed over $15 million domestic and is the eighth-highest grossing limited release (platform) of the year. In fact, over the next few weeks it should surpass “Fruitvale Station” for number seven and it has an excellent chance of hitting the $20 million mark. Throw in some strong reviews (79% on Metacritic, 95% on Rotten Tomatoes) and Searchlight now has potential Best Original Screenplay (Holofcener) and Best Supporting Actor (James Gandolfini) players (plus a Golden Globe favorite in Louis-Dreyfus in the best actress in a comedy or musical mix).

“Enough Said” is also the welcome big screen return of star Julia Louis-Dreyfus, who hadn’t appeared in a live action film in over a decade. On Wednesday, the actress took a break from shooting her critically acclaimed HBO series “Veep” to talk about the surprise commercial success of the film.

“Well, to tell you the truth I’m feeling exceptionally proud of the fact that this happened,” Louis-Dreyfus says. “I mean, who knew this little film would have this staying, crossover power? God, it doesn’t always happen like this. I’m kind of walking on air about the whole thing. I found out this week it’s Nicole’s highest grossing movie, which is great. And, by the way, in this marketplace right now, which is so competitive, that’s the thing [that’s so remarkable].”

In fact, “Enough Said” was a late addition to both the September release schedule and an unexpected addition to the 2013 Toronto International Film Festival. Searchlight took a chance that it would find its way while the film’s audience — moviegoers over 25 — were flocking to rare adult-appealing films such as “Prisoners,” “Captain Phillips” and “Gravity” and benefited from strong word of mouth. Louis-Dreyfus was well aware of what the movie was facing as it expanded nationwide. She admits, “To be honest, I was really scared about going out there with this movie at this time. And the fact we have this staying power has been kind of astounding.”

Louis-Dreyfus has been working on “Veep’s” third season for over a month, but she’s gotten a strong amount of feedback from fans of the film during that time.

“People that have come up to me that I don’t know, usually they are saying things like, ‘I need a movie like this,’ or, ‘This is just the kind of movie I want to see,'” she says. “In other words, I know there is an audience that craves this kind of story, which is thoughtful, funny, a small story about big feelings that has an authenticity. That is the impression I get anyway.”

She then adds, “It’s very gratifying because it was made with a lot of love and a lot of heart. We really did put our hearts and souls into it.”

With a cast that includes the late Gandolfini, Toni Collette and Catherine Keener (as well as a Los Angeles locale) you might have assumed “Enough Said” was more than a typical indie production budget-wise. That was hardly the case; Holofocener only had 24 days to shoot the movie and not a moment was wasted.

“On ‘Veep’ we do a lot of rehearsal. A lot,” Louis-Dreyfus begins. “[On this movie] there wasn’t a lot of rehearsal. Maybe a day and a half. So it was a lot of rehearsal that actors had to do on their own time and in their own minds. (Laughs.) And then sort of bring their work to the set and work it out there. But it never felt that hard because Nicole as a director is extremely relaxed. And then the script was very strong to begin with. It never felt like we were rushed. I mean there is always a feeling, ‘Did we make the day? ‘Are we going to make the day?’ You look at the call sheet it’s 10 pages tomorrow, but I like working fast.”

The four-time Emmy Award winner also admitted that she’s been personally touched by many moviegoers’ reaction to the film.

“It was such a personal thing that you always wondered, ‘Are they with me,'” she says. “‘Do they understand her struggle that I’m trying to convey?’ And I think there are many moments like that in the film. The fact that in the airport scene people tend to do a lot of crying? That’s very gratifying, because I delved deep, so it’s nice to move people like that. It was a very private kind of a performance and I’m glad people are responding, because otherwise I’d just feel embarrassed.” (Laughs.)

“Enough Said” is now playing in limited release.

You’ve got to feel a bit for Naomi Watts. Her 2013 started so promisingly, with a second Oscar nomination for “The Impossible.” She’d waited pretty long, and fought pretty hard, for it — cue a second wind for her career, right? Wrong. Well, not yet, at any rate. Only days after the nomination announcement, Watts’ silly romantic drama “Adore” (yes, the one where she and Robin Wright shag each other’s sons) was laughed out of Sundance. And that wasn’t the worst of it: once talked up as a possibility for Oscar nod #3, “Diana” has been humiliated by critics and ignored by audiences. And there was “Movie 43″… Nathaniel Rogers considers her briefly triumphant nightmare year, and wonders what she can do to put it behind her. [The Film Experience]

Roxane Gay would like to see a few more prestige films about black people in which they don’t suffer or struggle. [Vulture]

Bruce Dern on the long wait for “Nebraska” to get made, and why he thought it would happen without him. [Variety]

Vadim Rizov on the growing cult of “The Counselor,” an example of the Twitter-generation film maudit. [Film.com]

Gregg Kilday is tired of ageist dismissals of Academy members who are supposedly too genteel for “12 Years a Slave.” [Hollywood Reporter]

The Producers’ Guild has decreed that the late Laura Ziskin is one of three producers eligible for Oscar consideration for “The Butler.” [The Wrap]

Why “Thor: The Dark World” is an example to the “New Abnormal” blockbuster. [House Next Door]

Ryan Lattanzio argues that the commercial art film is soon to be a thing of the past. [Thompson on Hollywood]

The LA Times appears to have launched its own pundit-prediction chart. Not much different from the others, but if you feel like cross-referencing them all… [The Envelope]

Alfonso Cuarón returned to Los Angeles this week as “Gravity” completes another awards season orbit. The critically acclaimed phenomenon is battling “12 Years a Slave” for this year’s frontrunner status (not that either of them want it) and Warner Bros. took some time Tuesday night to celebrate the $428 million-plus global box office hit.

Cuarón held court with his co-writer and son Jonas and producer David Heyman as a select group of LA journalists tried to vie for his attention (translation: one major critic for a Hollywood trade had to be pulled away from him so anyone else could even have the chance to say hello). Eventually, this pundit was able to grab a few minutes with the director, but our conversation barely touched on “Gravity.” Instead, it was another film we’re both passionate about: “Under the Skin.”

Flashback almost two months ago and we’re discussing “Gravity” during the film’s press junket in LA. Having not been able to speak with Cuarón while we were both in Telluride I quickly asked him if he’d been able to see any other films while attending the Colorado festival. He said he’d seen Jonathan Glazer’s “Under the Skin,” which he loved. Having written one of the first positive reviews of the picture (the same screening Cuarón was at), we quickly shared our hopes that it would find a distributor in the U.S. (This was before A24 Films came on board to pick it up.)

Present day, I bring up that moment in the hopes that Cuarón might remember our short conversation in the midst of likely 100-plus interviews in the weeks since. He didn’t, obviously, but his eyes lit up at the prospect of discussing Jonathan Glazer’s almost indescribable motion picture. In fact, he recalled how last month he ran into Glazer during the 2013 London Film Festival and told him how much he loved “Skin.” Glazer gave him a warm thank you, but Cuarón laughed realizing the British filmmaker probably just thought he was being nice. Cuarón said he’d thought of “Skin” the night before while reading a novel (the title escapes me) as it had conjured up a key scene on a dark, cold beach in the film. Having no knowledge of any relationship Cuarón might have had with “Skin” star Scarlett Johansson, I asked him if he was surprised (like many critics were) that the “Lost in Translation” star had this sort of performance in her.

And that’s when the surprise came. Cuarón said he always knew Johansson had this in her. In fact, he’d been a fan since he first cast her in “A Little Princess” when she was just 8-years-old.

“What,” you say?  “Johansson wasn’t in ‘Princess.'” True, but Cuarón says he wanted to cast her (we’ll assume for the role of Sara Crewe, played by Liesel Matthews), but she was just too young. He later wanted to cast her for a role in another film, but she was too old. But there was always something about her. He also laughed recalling that Joel Coen told him no actor had intimidated him like Johansson (on “The Man Who Wasn’t There” when she was only 16) and no less than Robert Redford said the same thing about working with her on “The Horse Whisperer.”

(And here you’ve always wondered what filmmakers talk about when they run into each other.)

Cuarón said he did speak to Johansson as well as a number of other actresses about the leading role in “Gravity,” but eventually decided he just wanted someone older for the part. In hindsight, it looks like he did OK with a career turn by Sandra Bullock. That being said, don’t be surprised if the two eventually find a way to collaborate down the road.

Soon, Cuarón, his son and Heyman were gone, off to the airport for a quick flight to San Francisco for a special Q&A with the folks of Industrial Light & Magic. Then back to Los Angeles Thursday night for another Q&A with Ms. Bullock in attendance.

The awards season world still turns and “Gravity’s” orbit is still ascending.

So far, “The Act of Killing” is shaping up to be the most celebrated documentary of this awards season. Joshua Oppenheimer’s sobering one-off about Indonesian genocide has yet to miss a stop on the circuit: it landed a number of top nods last week for the IDA Awards, and has also landed Best Documentary nods at the Gotham Awards and European Film Awards. Today, it extended its streak with five top nods for the Cinema Eye Awards, which stand alongside the IDAs as the most significant documentary-centered ceremony of the season.

With nominations for Best Documentary, Director, Editing, Production and the Audience Award, “Killing” has the most important bases covered. (It remains to be seen whether the Academy can handle its more gutsily avant garde qualities.) The most-nominated film, however, is “Cutie and the Boxer,” a study of married Japanese-American artists preparing an exhibition together as they assert their own creative identities; it netted six nods, including Best Documentary and Debut Feature. Rewarded with the directing prize at Sundance, it also received a special mention at the recent London Film Festival.

Aside from “The Act of Killing,” the only film to appear on both the IDA and Cinema Best Documentary Feature lists is Sarah Polley’s tricky family memoir “Stories We Tell” — another buzz title angling for Oscar consideration this year. The top category is rounded out by abortion study “After Tiller” and the brooding, experimental “Leviathan,” a wordless vision of commercial fishing in the North Atlantic with a near-hypnotic command of sound and image.

Meanwhile, popular favorite “20 Feet from Stardom,” which is possibly a little too sunnily mainstream for these award, made its presence felt with a nomination in the Audience Award, where “Blackfish” and “The Square” also found favor, while “Cutie” and “Killing” each showed up again. In the TV category, meanwhile, Alex Gibney’s Emmy-winning (and, last year, Oscar-shortlisted) “Mea Maxima Culpa” goes up against Sebastian Junger’s moving portrait of the late Tim Hetherington, with whom he collaborated three years ago on “Restrepo.”

Nominations were determined by a range of  expert juries; winners will be announced in New York City on an unconfirmed date in early January.

The full list of nominations is on the next page.

Best Documentary Feature
“The Act of Killing”
“After Tiller”
“Cutie and the Boxer”
“Leviathan”
“Stories We Tell”

Best Director
Joshua Oppenheimer, “The Act of Killing”
Martha Shane and Lana Wilson, “After Tiller”
Lucien Castaing-Taylor and Véréna Paravel, “Leviathan”
Tinatin Gurchiani, “The Machine Which Makes Everything Disappear”
Sarah Polley, “Stories We Tell”

Best Editing
Janus Billeskov Jansen, “The Act of Killing”
Alain Berliner, “First Cousin Once Removed”
Nels Bangerter, “Let the Fire Burn”
Lucien Castaing-Taylor and Véréna Paravel, “Leviathan”
Francisco Bello, “Our Nixon”

Best Achievement in Production
Signe Byrge Sørensen, “The Act of Killing” 
Martha Shane and Lana Wilson, “After Tiller”
Anthony Arnove, Brenda Coughlin and Jeremy Scahill, “Dirty Wars”
Michael Haslund-Christensen, “Expedition to the End of the World” 
Karim Amer, “The Square”

Best Cinematography
Zachary Heinzerling, “Cutie and the Boxer”
Richard Rowley, “Dirty Wars”
Janice D”avila, Will Etchebehere and Miguel Vassy, “Elena”
Martin Much, “Expedition to the End of the World”
Lucien Castaing-Taylor and Véréna Paravel, “Leviathan”
Lotfy Nathan, “12 O”Clock Boys”   

Best Made-for-Television Documentary
“The Crash Reel”
“Gideon”s Army”
“Homegoings”
“Inventing David Geffen”
“Mea Maxima Culpa: Silence in the House of God”
“Which Way Is the Front Line From Here? The Life and Time of Tim Hetherington”

Audience Choice Award
“The Act of Killing”
“Blackfish”
“The Crash Reel”
“Cutie and the Boxer”
“Muscle Shoals”
“Rafea: Solar Mama”
“Sound City”
“The Square”
“Stories We Tell”
“20 Feet From Stardom”

Best Debut Feature
Martha Shane and Lana Wilson, “After Tiller”
Zachary Heinzerling, “Cutie and the Boxer”
Jason Osder, “Let the Fire Burn”
Tinatin Gurchiani, “The Machine Which Makes Everything Disappear”
Ilian Metev, “Sofia’s Last Ambulance”
Lotfy Nathan, “12 O”Clock Boys” 

Best Original Score
Sam Retzer and Tim Boland, “A Band Called Death” 
Jeff Beale, “Blackfish”
Yasuaki Shimizu, “Cutie and the Boxer”
Mads Heldtberg, “Expedition to the End of the World”
Jeremy Turner, “Narco Cultura”
Bradford Cox, “Teenage Score”

Best Achievement in Graphic Design or Animation
Art Jail, “Cutie and the Boxer”
Rick Cikowski and Brandon Dumlao, “Far Out Isn”t Far Enough”
Brandon Blommaert and Fred Casia, “The Fruit Hunters”
Brian Oakes, “Inequality for All”
Margot Tsakiri-Scanatovits and Daniel Chester, “Maidentrip” 
Maryanne Butler and Marc Smith, “We Steal Secrets: The Story of WikiLeaks”

Spotlight Award
“Bending Steel”
“Fuck for Forest”
“Harry Dean Stanton: Partly Fiction”
“The Last Station”
“The Search for Emak Bakia”
“Valentine Road”

Best Documentary Short
“Da Vinci”
“Death of a Prisoner”
“Outlawed in Pakistan”
“Reindeer Director”
“SLOMO”
“A Story for the Modlins”

Yesterday, the news landed that 19 films have been entered for consideration in the Best Animated Feature Oscar race — a small pool that could get smaller once the Academy starts vetting the submissions for eligibility. (Hard to see the significantly live-action “The Smurfs 2” meeting with their approval, for example, but don’t lose heart — there’s always the chance of a history-making Best Actress nod for Katy Perry’s voice performance.) The number all eyes are focused on, however, is 16 — the number of qualifying contenders required for a five-wide nomination field. Fewer than that, and it’s down to four; fewer still, and we’re looking at three.

The politics of the situation at this stage are rather conflicted: studios with a viable shot at a nomination are currently willing as many of the no-hopers as possible to pass muster, before the back-biting can begin. Smurfs, you peers are rooting for you, if not for long.

Of course, even if 16 titles qualify, the animators’ branch doesn’t have to nominate five films if they don’t think the field is up to snuff. Academy rules specify five as a maximum; they can nominate as few as two, if they so wish. Still, the animators have never opted to discriminate in this manner — seemingly undistinguished films that lack critical and/or audience support have been nominated in the past, usually on their technical merits. In the dozen years that the category has been in existence, the voters have nominated the maximum number of films every time, yielding five-wide fields in the 2002, 2009, 2011 and 2012 races. With animated productions more commonplace in our multiplexes than ever before, five is looking to be the new standard.

Even at three, however, the system makes Best Animated Feature by far the least challenging of all Oscar categories in terms of nomination odds. If a minimum field of 16 films yields five berths, that theoretically gives each contender a 31% chance (that’s nearly one in three, for the mathematically flummoxed) of going to the ball — and even those easy odds can be slashed when you discount the makeweight contenders. (It was nice knowing you last year, “Tinker Bell: Secret of the Wings.”)

To put that figure in perspective, there are also five slots available in the Best Foreign Language Film category, with 76 eligible films fighting it out — which makes for less than a 7% chance of a nomination. (And those films have already jumped through the tricky hoop of national selection to compete in the first place.) And even those odds are better than ones qualifying films face in the big ol’ Best Picture derby: it may have double the number of available slots, but 282 films were competing for them last year. (Want a percentage again? Less than 4%, and only if the Academy collectively elects to fill all 10 spaces.)

Hold up, some of you might say — that’s an unfair comparison. The Best Picture longlist is dominated by joke contenders or extreme long slots that won’t come within a sniff of a nomination in any category; the real competition is a fraction the size. That’s true, but it’s not as if the animated contenders are so uniform in quality either: a Best Animated Feature nod for Disney’s wholly unremarkable “Planes” or DreamWorks’ paint-by-numbers flop “Turbo” would be the aesthetic equivalent of, say, “Olympus Has Fallen” landing in the Best Picture category. The former’s an admittedly outside possibility; the latter a patently absurd notion.

Does the Best Animated Feature category really need five nominees? Critical and industry consensus has it that 2013 hasn’t been a banner year for the medium. Some animation institutions (be it Pixar or Studio Ghibli) are inevitably going to land nominations for respectable films that, I and many others would argue, don’t rank with their greatest achievements — and they’ll be among the leading contenders. But even in richer years than this one, is the art form so rich and diverse as to necessitate nominating a third or a quarter of its annual output? Even three-wide years have yielded some pretty unmemorable nominees, from “Jimmy Neutron: Boy Genius” to “Surf’s Up.” Some issue may be taken, as in any Oscar race, with the voters’ taste or conservatism, but even so, the number of slighted contenders each year can be counted on the fingers of a single hand.

The flip side of the argument is that the more accommodating odds allow for the inclusion of quirkier independent contenders, which frequently give the nominee slate refreshing artistic balance: GKIDS, for example, has benefited from the system, nabbing unexpected nods and otherwise impossible exposure for such worthwhile foreign titles as “Chico and Rita” and “The Secret of Kells.” Certainly, the inclusion of one of this year’s GKIDS hopefuls, the exquisite French creature feature “Ernest and Celestine,” would make for a richer, more credible category than one filled out with average studio fodder like “Epic” and “The Croods.”

But as Sylvain Chomet’s “The Illusionist” proved in 2010, as it beat popular favorites “Tangled” and “Despicable Me” to a place on that year’s three-wide ballot, outstanding underdogs don’t need the extra slots to make the cut. It’s harder, yes, but getting an Oscar nomination is supposed to be hard. That 2010 race was exciting because, even if the winner (“Toy Story 3”) was a foregone conclusion, a nomination felt like something worth fighting for, a meaningful achievement in itself. If the nominee maximum were set at three, whatever the number of qualifying contenders, worthy films would certainly miss the cut in some years. Well, show me an Oscar category where that isn’t the case on an annual basis.

Owing to the relative paucity of heavyweight contenders, Best Animated Feature is already the least routinely competitive of all Oscar categories — when “Brave” edged a presumably tight victory over “Wreck-It Ralph” earlier this year, it was the first time in six years that any degree of suspense had surrounded the outcome. (Happily, it looks like we may be in for another of those years, whatever the standard of the competition.)

Some have gone so far as to suggest that the animation pool isn’t deep enough to justify its own category, particularly now that the Academy has shown willingness to nominate crossover successes alongside live-action titles in the Best Picture race — a race they’ll never win as long as toons have their own ghetto category. (They’ll probably never win in any event, mind. Still, what’s the greater achievement: a Best Picture nod, or an Animated Feature win? It’s a valid question.)

One might even advocate a system a bit like the one the Academy had in place for foreign-language features before the Best Foreign Language Film award was introduced in 1956, whereby a committee simply singles out a single, notably worthy film for an Honorary Oscar on a semi-annual basis. I think we’re past that, but it’d still be possible to bring such discernment to a competitive system, and to enliven a category that often feels a little less animated than it should.

Check out my updated predictions here.

Hans Zimmer will very likely receive the tenth Oscar nomination of his career for his robust, striking score to “12 Years a Slave”; he may well even get his second win. (Yes, he’s only won for “The Lion King.”) It’ll be a suitable capper on what’s been a busy year for the German composer: I think he’s equally Oscar-worthy for “The Lone Ranger,” and there’s “Rush” and “Man of Steel” besides. Anyway, the subject of the day’s best online read, as he reflects (and gossips) on a range of films he’s scored in his career, from “My Beautiful Launderette” to “Inception.” On the Oscars, meanwhile, he says, “[They’re] incredibly seductive. You see people who you admire and who you think have incredible artistic integrity make complete fools of themselves on that stage. Me included.” [Vulture]

Emma Thompson will be the subject of a BAFTA: Life in Pictures tribute later this month. [Screen Daily]

Tim Gray on why studios are so reluctant to promote two leading co-stars in the same category. [Variety]

Guild-winning costume designer Trish Summerville discusses her creations for “The Hunger Games: Catching Fire.” [New York Times]

From James Franco to Mads Mikkelsen to Tye Sheridan, Peter Knegt spotlights 10 underdog actors who deserve Oscar consideration. [Indiewire]

Steve McQueen and Michael Fassbender talk about “12 Years a Slave” and their ongoing collaboration. A McQueen/Fassbender musical? It’s mooted. [Film.com]

Leslie Felperin on why the oft-applied Bechdel Test is no reliable indicator of a film’s feminist value. [The Guardian]

Why Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s “Don Jon” potentially points to a new distribution model for studios. [Tribeca Film]

Oscar-nominated writer-director John Sayles on why it’s harder than ever to get by as an independent filmmaker. [Newsday]

It has seemed almost too quiet on the “Jane Got a Gun” front as of late. But beneath the surface, things have been tumultuous for the Natalie Portman western.

You may recall director Lynne Ramsay walked off the movie on day one of shooting, leaving a cast and crew high and dry on the New Mexico set with no clue that she was already on a plane. “Warrior” director Gavin O’Connor replaced her, cleaned house a bit and attempted to forge on, though rumor had it things were in just as much disarray as the day he arrived, if not worse.

Well, things just got uglier. Monday the film’s producers filed a lawsuit against Ramsay in federal court.

The suit alleges that the “We Need to Talk About Kevin” director was paid $500,000 to tweak Brian Duffield’s original screenplay and helm the film, but that she failed to do the work on the script, delaying production. What’s more, the producers allege that Ramsay exhibited dangerous behavior on the set.

Ramsay, the suit claims, “was repeatedly under the influence of alcohol, was abusive to members of the cast and crew and was generally disruptive…[she also] failed to adhere to proper safety protocol for handling weapons on set, when she pointed a prop gun directly at a camera and, in turn, at the camera crew before first taking proper precautions.”

In May it was reported that Ramsay quit the production after a three-day standoff with producer Scott Steindorff over final cut of the film, and that that was the cause of the delays. Whatever the case may be, the suit is asking for Ramsay to pay back her salary in addition to punitive damages over claims of fraud and breach of contract.

Throughout all of this, the film’s male cast had been a bit of a revolving door. Michael Fassbender had originally been set as the film’s co-lead opposite Portman, but he dropped out due to scheduling conflicts before the initial dust-up. Joel Edgerton, who was set to play the film’s villain, moved over to the male lead role and then Jude Law was cast as the villain. But Law left when Ramsay did.

You still with us? After Law exited, the search was on for a new villain. First Bradley Cooper got the part, but he soon enough took his leave as well. It was reported that this was due to delays following the Boston marathon bombing as he was shooting “American Hustle” in the area at the time, but given the fact that filming was only delayed a short time, that line has always been fishy. In any case, soon after, Ewan McGregor ultimately got the part.

Finally in May some good news: it was reported that Relativity Media and The Weinstein Company would team up to acquire “Jane” for distribution.

But if they thought the taint of controversy was gone…think again.

Ye gods, what is this: am I seeing double? Were they separated at birth? Is it an optical illusion, with one of them looking in a mirror? How else to explain the uncanny resemblance betw–okay, okay, I’ll stop now. Suffice to say this shot of Tom Hardy and Elton John from this morning doesn’t exactly highlight the physical likeness between the hulking actor and the legendarily flamboyant pop star, which is why the thought of the former playing the latter in an upcoming film remains so deliciously, intriguingly weird.

Hardy and John were on hand today at a buyers’ event for the film held by sales agent Good Universe. It was confirmed a couple of weeks ago, however, that Hardy would be channeling his inner Elton for “Rocketman,” an authorized biopic set to be released in the US by Focus Features. And I mean authorized: John himself takes an executive producer credit, while his husband David Furnish is one of the project’s three producers. Unsurprisingly, then, it seems the film will be a largely celebratory portrait of John and his work — publicity materials refer to it as “a larger-than-life movie musical spectacle.” 

Screenwriter Lee Hall was Oscar-nominated for his work on “Billy Elliot” — might the film, which stresses the “child prodigy to legend” arc, pursue a similarly cheery tone? First-time feature director Michael Gracey has a background in visual effects, which may be where the “spectacle” comes in. Certainly, transforming Hardy into John is going to be something of a visual effect itself.  

However the film turns out, this could be just the kind of surprising left turn Hardy needs at this point in his career. The 36-year-old is one of the most electrifying actors of his generation — too strange and limber to be cornered into a succession of hard-man roles, however accomplished his Bane or his forthcoming reinterpretation of Mad Max. He thrives on playing damaged masculinity — “Warrior,” “Bronson” or “Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy,” all to very different ends — and positively freezes up when cast as a standard-issue Hollywood hero. (Though, to be fair, “This Means War” gave no one involved a chance.) 

Perhaps with that in mind, he’s beginning to mix it up nicely. Microbudget British indie “Locke,” picked up by A24 for US release next year, affords him his best acting showcase since “Bronson,” playing a weak-willed family man negotiating a series of personal and professional crises, all from the wheel of his car; it’s acting from the shoulders up, and riveting to watch.

It’s that vulnerability, combined with a natural performer’s magnetism, that should serve him well as the piano man. It’ll also be interesting to see John’s famously protracted struggle with his sexuality played by an actor who has spoken with refreshing frankness about his own fluid sexual identity. As for the physical aspect, John’s appearance — particularly as a younger artist — was so reliant on external trappings that Hardy makes as much sense anyone else. I can’t wait to see to see the results, though we’ll be waiting a while: shooting is set to start in autumn next year, meaning Hardy may be one to pencil in for he 2015 Osar slate.

It’s never too early to look at future awards season players. Today, Warner Bros. slotted two potential players with new release dates.

The big screen version of the hit Tony Award-winning musical “Jersey Boys” will arrive in theaters on June 20, 2014. Clint Eastwood is directing the movie, which focuses on the rise and fall of the 1960s singing group “The Four Seasons.” The longtime Oscar player is mostly using Broadway veterans — including members of the original Broadway cast — to play the key roles of Frankie Valli, Bob Guadio, Tommy DeVito and Nick Massi. The only recognizable face right now will be Christopher Walken as mobster Angelo DeCarlo. It’s probably a longshot in the Best Picture race, but Golden Globes 2015? Might want to save a table for Eastwood and his crew.

More intriguing is Ben Affleck’s adaptation of Dennis Lehane’s novel “Live By Night,” which WB has set for a Christmas, 2015 release. Affleck already adapted Lehane’s drama “Gone Baby Gone,” Eastwood had huge success bringing “Mystic River” to the big screen and Martin Scorsese enjoyed one of his biggest hits with “Shutter Island.” “Night” is a period piece set in 1926 introducing outlaw/criminal Joe Coughlin (a role Affleck will play). It finds Lehane leaving his normal comforts of Boston to venture to the hot, humid and dangerous world of Prohibition South Florida. It’s old-school film noir in many ways and it will be interesting to see what direction Affleck takes it in. It will also be a decidedly different Affleck from the Caped Crusader he’ll be playing in “Batman vs. Superman” the summer before. Is it really an awards movie or a holiday blockbuster? Warner Bros. probably won’t have a clue until at least a year from now and this is a safe date to land on in the meantime.

Affleck will next be seen in David Fincher’s “Gone Girl” alongside Rosamund Pike, Neil Patrick Harris and Tyler Perry. That thriller will play the awards season game in the fall of 2014.

As we begin to taper off the weekly category run-downs (we have just one more left, Best Animated Feature Film), we move on to the screenplays. It’s an interesting mix and the two categories, while not loaded with a ton of contenders, are still quite dense with multiple hopefuls sporting a fair shot at recognition from the writers branch.

The screenplay categories have also been a haven for indie films that don’t find much traction elsewhere in the Oscar race. And there are certainly a handful this year that could spark, if not here, then certainly with the WGA (which will pull form, as ever, a thinned-out lot due to guild ineligibilities).

Click through the gallery story below to see what we’re thinking and feel free to offer up your thoughts and/or predictions in the comments section. And speaking of predictions, don’t forget to join up and record your own via HitFix Oscar Picks!

The Academy has announced that 19 films have been submitted for consideration in this year’s Best Animated Feature Film race. Per Academy rules, 16 qualifying films are needed for the category to extend to five nominations. But all 19 may not qualify. For instance, “The Smurfs 2” was submitted by Sony, but as with the first film in that franchise a few years ago, it could be dismissed by the Academy as ineligible due to various factors.

The two films on the list that wasn’t on my radar is Yeon Sang-ho’s “The Fake,” a left field entry from South Korea, and Akiyuki Shinbo’s “Puella Magi Madoka Magica the Movie – Rebellion,” the third in an on-going Japanese franchise. I was aware of the Annecy award-winning “O Apostólo,” which could actually be a potential threat for a nomination, and “Rio: 2096 A Story of Love and Fury,” but wasn’t sure if they had been submitted.

The question with films like these and the expected GKIDS entries, “Ernest & Celestine” and “A Letter to Momo,” etc., is how the new process of sending screeners will impact the race. That will open it up to a much larger group of voters and, therefore, could make for voting blocks to win the day.

Oh, and it looks like The Weinstein Company didn’t bother submitted “Escape from Planet Earth.” It’s probably just as good they didn’t

Check out the full list below. More on the animated feature race next week when we break it down as the final category in our contenders galleries series.

“Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs 2”
“The Croods”
“Despicable Me 2”
“Epic”
“Ernest and Celestine”
“The Fake”
“Free Birds”
“Frozen”
“Khumba”
“The Legend of Sarila”
“A Letter to Momo”
“Monsters University”
“O Apóstolo”
“Planes”
“Puella Magi Madoka Magica the Movie – Rebellion”
“Rio: 2096 A Story of Love and Fury”
“The Smurfs 2”
“Turbo”
“The Wind Rises”

In the years since the 2007 release of Andrew Dominik’s “The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford,” an even longer, deeper-realized cut of the 160-minute western has been a sort of holy grail for the film’s acolytes. Mostly that’s because of how within reach the possibility seems. This isn’t a six-hour “Thin Red Line” that can’t see the light of day by both reason and practicality. It’s something that already has the willingness of the director going for it and could just use a little support from the studio to be realized.

When he was making the press rounds for “Killing Them Softly” last year, Dominik was asked a handful of times about the possibility of seeing a longer cut, and particularly about a “mythical” four-hour version, which was revealed to have never been more than an early internal assembly. He admitted at the time that there were two other versions of the film that he could see distributed commercially. He also indicated that he’d be interested in going back to the film to produce those more complete visions.

That last bit is interesting. Here was a post-production experience with which Dominik was so disgusted once the film had been released that he never bothered to go down to the lab and pick up his personal answer print, the tangible proof of the hard work he had put into an unconventional but masterful piece of art. But Dominik holds no ill will toward Warner Bros. about how “Jesse James” came to be. He understands that when a studio hears “Brad Pitt/Jesse James,” that likely conjures very different images than what he ultimately produced.

Other filmmakers and editors, like Oscar-winner Michael Kahn, supervised alternative versions of the film for the studio that brought the opus down to as short as 100 minutes. But the movie wouldn’t behave at that length. “The studio wanted a version that would appeal to the widest possible audience,” Dominik told me in a recent interview. “They see that as the best movie, and there’s an argument for that.”

The two alternate versions Dominik had in mind are quite different, really. One is five minutes longer than the current cut with edits and slight changes throughout. The other stretches the running time to over 180 minutes. He prefers them “because they”re paced better,” he said, “and they include a couple of scenes that should have been kept, I think…

“[Like] this one scene between Bob and Jesse the night before the assassination. We call it ‘The Garden.’ They sit on the porch and talk and it was Brad”s best moment in the picture. I reckon he would have been nominated for an Oscar if we had that scene in the movie…It doesn’t work in a shorter version of the film, but in the three-hour version, it works great.”

Yet in keeping with the split reaction to the film overall, the first time “Jesse James” was test screened, half of the audience thought the “garden” scene was the best scene of the film, Dominik said, while the other half thought it was the worst. “So you end up in this situation where you’re taking the Pepsi challenge,” he said. “There really was so much material. And then, you know, sculpting it into a shape that really works was difficult. Cutting a film is hard to anyone but cutting that film was very difficult.”

Nevertheless, hope springs eternal that an expanded version of “Jesse James” could see the light of day. “It’s up to Warner Bros.,” Dominik said. “So I think it’s unlikely. But I’d certainly be up for making it. I”ve got all the drives and everything still. I could make those cuts in half a day.”

The 160-minute theatrical cut of “The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford” will be revived at a special screening on Dec. 7 at New York’s Museum of the Moving Image.

(Check back Thursday for an extensive interview with Dominik on the experience of making the film.)

The Santa Barbara International Film Festival has kicked off a wave of tribute announcements today with the revelation that Cate Blanchett will receive this year’s Outstanding Performer of the Year award for her work in Woody Allen’s “Blue Jasmine.”

The Academy Award-winning actress has been a lock for Oscar recognition for her performance as a deeply conflicted and complex woman in the throes of her unraveling upper crust world ever since the film was released by Sony Pictures Classics in July. And she’s in good company with this honor, as previous recipients include Jennifer Lawrence (“Silver Linings Playbook”), Viola Davis (“The Help”), James Franco (“127 Hours”), Colin Firth (“A Single Man”), Penélope Cruz (“Vicky Cristina Barcelona”) and Helen Mirren (“The Queen”).

Blanchett won the Best Supporting Actress Oscar in 2004 for her performance as Katharine Hepburn in Martin Scorsese’s “The Aviator.” She was also Oscar-nominated for 1998’s “Elizabeth,” 2007’s “Notes on a Scandal” and even double dipped in 2008 with “Elizabeth: The Golden Age” and “I’m Not There.” It’s a safe assumption she’s on her way to nomination number six with Allen’s latest.

“In her first collaboration with master director Woody Allen, Blanchett knocks it out of the park in the best performance of her already illustrious career,” SBIFF Executive Director Roger Durling said. “We”re so grateful to be able to celebrate her achievement.”

It’s not the first time a festival has taken the opportunity to salute Blanchett with “Blue Jasmine” in the ether. Just last month the New York Film Festival offered up a Gala tribute to the actress. HitFix’s Guy Lodge used that as a cue to do the same. In praising his favorite of her Oscar nominated performances, “I’m Not There.,” Lodge wrote that the work was “a wickedly funny stunt that reflects the political, social and sexual curiosities of an entire generation, but also a spiny, specific feat of individual characterization, not to mention a damn good [Bob] Dylan impersonation. It’s a performance that could be a cold technical exercise and winds up warmly, playfully alive.”

Blanchett will also be seen this year in “The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug” and next year in George Clooney’s “The Monuments Men.” She will receive the SBIFF honor following a tribute to her career on Saturday, Feb. 1 at the Arlington Theater in Santa Barbara.

Previously announced, Forest Whitaker will receive the festival’s Kirk Douglas Award at its annual fundraising event on Dec. 15.

The 29th annual Santa Barbara International Film Festival runs Jan. 30 – Feb. 9, 2014.