We’re all pretty much on the same page here at HitFix when it comes to Steve McQueen’s “12 Years a Slave.” Greg was impressed at its Telluride premiere, and Kris immediately followed suit. Last week, Drew McWeeny added his approval with an “A+”-grade review. With the film still smoldering in my mind from this morning’s London Film Festival screening, I wouldn’t go quite as far as that, but it’s an imposing, impassioned work from a truly vital filmmaker — like McQueen’s first two films, “Hunger” and “Shame,” it’s a sensually vivid exploration of physical extremities and endurance, here married to more expansive, even universal, story material. Performances are as every bit strong as you’ve heard they are: not just from the Oscar-buzzed principals, but such striking cameo players as Alfre Woodard and Adepero Oduye.

Anyway, with the film now on limited release — yes, we realize not all of you have access to it — it’s time to turn the conversation over to you. Muse on the validity of its Oscar-frontrunner status if you wish, but it’s also a film that offers up plenty for discussion and debate away from the awards race. Vote in the poll below, and have share your thoughts in the comments.

After bowing at the Cannes Film Festival in May and selectively navigating the early fall festival circuit, J.C. Chandor’s “Margin Call” follow-up “All is Lost” is finally floating into theaters this weekend. Here is Drew McQeeny’s A- review. It’s a brilliant film, which I wrote about in tandem with “Gravity” at Telluride. Reviews are stellar and it looks like it could figure into the Best Picture race in addition to a sure-bet Best Actor nomination for Robert Redford. At Telluride, Chandor told me of Redford, “Everyone has such a history with the guy that it’s really hard to get a role where he can kind of play a blank slate.” It’s true, but it’s a hurdle cleared by the actor’s work here. As it moves out into limited release, more of you will have a chance to see it. So when and if you get around to the film, please tell us what you thought in the comments section and feel free to vote in the poll below.

Steve McQueen’s “12 Years a Slave” hits theaters this weekend as part of an overall theme this Oscar season, or a theme the media has made sure is pronounced, in any case. But while films like “Fruitvale Station,” “Lee Daniels’ The Butler” and, indeed, “12 Years a Slave” do plenty to stoke a conversation about race in America, McQueen feels there’s something much bigger at stake, at least with his film.

“This is not a story about African-Americans, this is a story about America,” he says. “So race, of course, has something to do with it, but it’s also about respect for people. It’s all about learning from the past in order to move on into the future. This isn’t a petty conversation about, sort of, ‘you did this’ and ‘you did that.’ That becomes too negative. This is a story about how some have survived through a horrible ordeal. Solomon Northup survived because of love.”

Of course, it’s rare for a film to tackle slavery on this level with such definitive strokes (last year’s “Django Unchained” was much more in the realm of hyper-reality), and McQueen concedes that the topic of race relations has to be a part of the conversation; it is not something that has been dealt with and put in the rearview mirror, after all. But Northup’s story spoke to him in a myriad of ways. “For me, on any level, this was an extraordinary story,” he says. “It could have been an adventure story. It could have been a sci-fi movie. It could have been whatever kind of movie. It’s just an extraordinary story that one person was kidnapped into this thing called slavery and he had a glimpse of it for 12 years.”

Most people are unaware of the book on which the film was based, an autobiography that may have taken liberties with the facts of the specific instance but nevertheless in no way embellished what was a horrific status quo in the mid-19th Century in this country. McQueen had been eager to do a film about slavery but couldn’t find the right context, until his wife brought Northup’s story to his attention. “As soon as it was in my hand, I couldn’t put it down,” McQueen said of the book at the Telluride Film Festival in August. “It was just riveting. Every page I turned, I just couldn’t believe what I was reading.”

The book felt to McQueen, an Amsterdam resident, like he was reading Anne Frank’s diary for the first time. And it had a spirit to it that the director found tangible, enlightening, even.

“I’m not from America, but one thing I love about this country is the Constitution,” he says. “And there’s one bit in the Constitution when it says, ‘and the right to pursue happiness’ [though that line is actually from the Declaration of Independence]. That’s extraordinarily moving. And I think that’s all Solomon wanted to do. Like he said, ‘I don’t want to survive. I want to live.'”

Not long after McQueen’s debut film, “Hunger,” movie star and producer Brad Pitt decided he wanted to be in business with the director. Through his Plan B production company, Pitt, who has a small role in “12 Years a Slave,” has sought out the chance to work with artists with unique voices, like Martin Scorsese or Ryan Murphy or Andrew Dominik. And making movies like “12 Years a Slave,” he told an audience at Telluride, is why he wanted to get into film in the first place.

For McQueen, Pitt’s involvement meant having not just a movie star but a cinephile in his corner, one who would back him every step of the way. The two met in London while Pitt was making “World War Z,” finished off two bottles of wine and just talked.

“What was so interesting about that, for me at least, is as a producer, he’s an actor, so it’s an advantage for me that he wants to sort of work with the director,” McQueen says. “And therefore, it’s such a wonderful relationship to have when you’ve got an artist who wants to support you in making the work. He’s very, very encouraging and very just, you know, he trusts the filmmaker. And he asks the questions many people are afraid to ask; he just comes out with it. Without Brad Pitt, this movie could have never have been made.”

For the role of Northup, McQueen needed something specific. There’s a grace to the man that was present in the book and that the director wanted to carry across in the translation to the screen, so he sought out longtime character actor and budding leading man Chiwetel Ejiofor for the part.

“There’s a certain kind of class and stature to Chiwetel, which I needed for the character, a certain sense of dignity and humanity,” he says. “And the reason why I needed that from him was because he had to go through a journey, which was full of inhumane situations, and he had to keep his humanity through that journey. I thought he was the only one to do that.”

The film was shot in Louisiana in the peak of summer, July and August of 2012. The first day on set was well over 100 degrees and, McQueen assures, any time you see a character covered in sweat in the film, that’s real sweat, not the result of someone spritzing the actors’ faces with water. He’d go back to his hotel room in the early days of shooting and wonder, “God, how am I going to survive this?” But that setting was nevertheless crucial to the film in the end.

“It was another character,” he says. “I mean, when you’re walking around in that heat and those flies, mosquitoes, Spanish moss, the oppressive heat, it just brings another dimension to the proceedings. And it really affected the performances…It was just one of those amazing things that added to the piece.”

And now, after coming out big with the Telluride and Toronto film festivals, “12 Years a Slave” is ready for its close-up in cineplexes. Ahead of McQueen is a sure-to-be dense and whirlwind Oscar season, but all he can manage for now is relief that people will see the fruits of his and his cast and crew’s labor.

“I’m just happy that the film is being released on Friday,” he says with an exhale. “That’s the most important thing to me, that we actually got the film made and people, hopefully, are going to go and see it, or have a chance to, at least…This film is about the truth.”

“12 Years a Slave” is now playing in limited release.

Any longtime reader of this blog ought to know full well my affinity for Andrew Dominik’s “The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford.” The film instantly won me over the moment I saw it on the heels of its Venice Film Festival world premiere and Toronto Film Festival North American premiere in 2007, and it definitively held the top spot on my list of the decade’s best films. (It also, by the way, took the top spot on another list: the inaugural Top 10 Shots of the Year column). It is a masterpiece, and any chance to soak it up on the big screen should be welcomed.

Well, one such chance has arisen, and full disclosure up front, I had a small hand in putting this program together. The Museum of the Moving Image in New York is presenting, along with upstart programmer, museum member (and In Contention reader) Jamieson McGonigle, a screening of the film in December. “No Eulogies: A Revival of ‘The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford'” will take place at the Sumner M. Redstone Theater on Saturday, Dec. 7. Dominik will be on hand to participate in a Q&A after the screening, and who knows what the candid artist will have to say with six years removed from what was a troubling post-production process and a release that, quite frankly, could have been more delicately handled by the studio?

“The first time I walked out of ‘Jesse James’ on opening night here in New York at the Angelika Theater, I felt really strongly that it was something classic and timeless,” McGonigle said. And how. This is a film that instantly won a dedicated following. Those who know, know. And indeed, said MOMI Chief Curator David Schwartz (who will moderate the Q&A), “It seemed to be a cult movie almost from the beginning and it clearly struck a chord with people.”

The idea here, McGonigle and the rest of us are hoping, is that other repertory theaters and venues will be keen to program the revival themselves. He’s very passionate and eager for “Jesse James” to receive the on-going spotlight it deserves. McGonigle’s story here is pretty interesting, to be honest: this all started with the guy pulling the strings available to him to launch a revival screening of a film he loved for, get this, his bachelor party. He’ll be married on the stage of the Redstone Theater in January. He tracked down and bought a print of the film from a Chicago collector (nearly all of them have been destroyed), though it turns out Dominik strongly prefers the DCP, which is what will be screened at the event. In any case, McGonigle is committed, and movies like this tend to drive that sort of commitment, I think.

“‘Jesse James’ is the thing that I’ve done in my life that I’m most proud of,” Dominik said. “I think it’s a movie that really benefits from being on the big screen, and I love the idea of it having some further life on the big screen.” You and me both, Andrew.

“Jesse James,” you’ll recall, was nominated for just two Oscars: Best Supporting Actor (Casey Affleck) and Best Cinematography. Both were obviously deserved, but it should have run the table. It remains an instant classic regardless, the rare recent gem already worthy of revitalization.

Stay tuned in the coming weeks for much more about this event, including a long chat with Dominik about his work on the film, the troubled post-production process and what the experience means to him six years later. But for now, mark your calendars.

Tickets are available for the event now to MOMI members for $12. If you’re not a member and would like to be, visit the Museum website for further details. Otherwise, tickets will be available to the general public on Sunday for $20.

Join the “Jesse James” Revival on Twitter (@JesseJamesRev), Facebook (facebook.com/jessejamesrevival) and online at www.JesseJamesRevival.com.

Scarlett Johansson says she feels “disconnected” from the awards talk for “Her,” which started at last week’s NYFF premiere and seems to be gaining in volume. That’s appropriate enough, given that she’s a disembodied presence in the film — with critics heaping praise upon her vocal performance as a seductive operating system, a conversation is starting over whether she can be the first actor to get nominated without appearing on screen. Johansson, however, is bemused by it all: “I feel very disconnected from the awards process. I don”t even know how it works. And I”m an Academy member! It seems like a political thing. It just seems like such an abstract thing. Probably as abstract as trying to fit my performance into any particular category … If people want to translate it into an awards conversation, it”s fine. More exciting for me is that the performance works, because it was such a big challenge.” [LA Times]

“12 Years a Slave” is featured in the New York Times’ Anatomy of a Scene feature, as Steve McQueen talks us through a chosen extract. [New York Times]

Steve Pond talks to “All is Lost” director J.C Chandor about how he pulled off one of the riskier gambles in this year’s awards race. [The Wrap]

Canada’s Oscar submission “Gabrielle” has been picked up for US distribution by eOne. [Deadline]

Matthew Eng examines what’s at stake for the principals involved in “American Hustle,” and what they have to prove. [The Film Experience]

Nico Hines demands that Judi Dench receive the Best Actress Oscar for “Philomena.” Won’t another BAFTA do? [Daily Beast]

Anthony Kaufman notes the explosion of documentaries in theaters recently — but wonders if it’s an entirely good thing. [Sundance Now]

Tim Gray on how the Oscar race has shifted even in the month since Toronto. (Fine, but surely nobody ever labelled “Prisoners” a surefire nominee.) [Variety] 

Octavia Spencer on why the original director’s cut of Bong Joon-ho’s “Snowpiercer” needs to be seen. [Vulture]

LONDON – It”s not hard to see why Anthony Chen won the Camera d”Or for best debut feature at Cannes this year, beating such higher-profile candidates as “Fruitvale Station.” Assured, humane delicacy is always an attractive quality to festival juries wary of more swaggering talent, and it”s one his warmly melancholy domestic drama “Ilo Ilo” (unsurprisingly selected as Singapore’s entry for the Best Foreign Language Film Oscar) has in spades. Light on story and heavy on curdled sentiment, this study of a communication-challenged middle-class Singaporean family weathering the country”s 1997 financial crisis – and numerous finer household fractures besides – has immodest formal reach behind its softly-softly approach.

“Has watched a lot of Edward Yang,” I scrawled at one point in my notes, regarding Chen”s still, patiently gazing direction: his canvas may be smaller than those of the prematurely late Taiwanese auteur, but it”s similarly lit and textured, similarly dedicated to the gracious in the everyday. But then, all humanism is appropriated to some extent: sometimes from other artists, more often from unsuspecting ordinary people. “Observational” is a blanket critical term for nice, character-driven films about little in particular, and much in general – though such films don”t always seem to be looking all that intently at their subjects. In its best, hardest moments, “Ilo Ilo” does.

It”s principally a Tamagotchi – tossed rashly from a car window in one of the film”s many instances of casual parental ineptitude – that tips us off to the film”s Nineties setting, since its portrayal of spirit-fraying economic strain should be familiar to more than a few present-day viewers. Mischief-prone pre-teen lad Jiale (Koh Jia Ler) and his parents are scarcely keeping their heads above water: Dad (Chen Tian Wen) has lost his sales job, and daren”t tell his brisk-tempered, heavily pregnant wife (Yeo Yann Yann), whose stressful secretarial position is the family”s chief source of income.

Jiale may not comprehend the specifics of the situation, but he can pick up on his parents” edgy nerves, which only makes him act out even more brazenly than usual. The family”s barely affordable solution is to hire an au pair from the Philippines – standard practice in Singapore – to keep him in line. Initially, he can scarcely be civil to Terry (the excellent Angeli Bayani), a permissive but proud young woman with parental experience of her own – particularly as the two are rather cruelly forced to share sleeping quarters.  

When the thaw comes, Chen”s spare but porous script is careful not to attribute it to any significant event or realization; rather, this is a love story of getting used to people, then fond, then dependent. The audience scarcely clocks how familial Jaile and Terry”s relationship has grown – she’s part guardian to him, part sister – before his ever-more-distant parents, with tacit dismay, do the same.

That”s in large part because Jiale himself is so difficult to read: those accustomed to winsomely precocious child protagonists in such films will be effectively disconcerted by this prickly, inarticulate but encouragingly curious kid. That characterization is one of Chen”s smartest, most surprising moves, raising the stakes of this defiantly small drama: winning Jiale”s affection, and returning it in kind, seems an achievement rather than a narrative requirement. (Much credit must go, of course, to Koh”s exuberant but affectation-free performance.) I only wish Chen had been equally fair in sketching Jaile”s alternately testy and clueless parents; his work-weary, perma-scolding mother, in particular, often takes the brunt of the film”s skepticism about Singaporean middle-class values, but is granted few surges – flickers, even – of unguarded feeling.

“Ilo Ilo” craves such human color: it takes place largely in a plasticine-colored landscape of urban conformity, its drab prefab apartments only occasionally cast in hopeful, pastel-accented daylight by cinematographer Benoit Soler. Chen”s sour-sweet resolution doesn”t do much to mend or brighten the lives of his fragile family: their financial straits are pitted against Terry”s, with Jaile”s newfound sense of security just one potential casualty. Still, there”s a guarded optimism to this hushed, thoughtful miniature, even with our knowledge of the yo-yo economy to come: with lines of conversation splintered open and a baby on the way, things should at least get better before they get worse.

It may turn out to be the most competitive Best Picture race in years, but the showdown between co-frontrunners “Gravity” and “12 Years a Slave” to win it all may soon turn into a three-way race. Walt Disney Studios’ “Saving Mr. Banks” will debut at the London Film Festival on Sunday as the Brits will be the first to chime in on the long-buzzed awards player. And, at this point, “Banks” may be the only remaining unseen contender who can make a real mark on the long marathon for the top prize.

In case you haven’t seen a trailer or read the numerous posts on it here at In Contention and any other movie outlet in the continental United States, “Banks” tells the story of author P.L. Travers’ contentious dealings with Walt Disney (the Walt Disney) when the studio adapted her novel “Mary Poppins” into a feature film. What Disney hasn’t shown you, however, is that a good portion of the film is a series of flashbacks to Travers’ childhood and focuses on her relationship with her father (Colin Farrell). It’s somewhat deeper stuff than the trailer indicates.

Of course, it’s almost becoming an open secret in Hollywood about how good “Banks” is at this point anyway. This pundit has talked to a number of people who’ve seen it (cough, long lead my eye) and it’s continually described as a tearjerker with praise not only for Thompson’s performance, but supporting players Hanks (long assumed), Farrell and even Paul Giamatti, who plays Travers’ Hollywood driver (we love Giamatti, who’s also fantastic in “12 Years a Slave” as well). Disney is seemingly trying to stagger media screenings until the film has its Los Angeles debut at AFI Fest on Nov. 7. And that pseudo premiere reaction may matter more than the London one. Will director John Lee Hancock’s studio style fly with the English critics? We’ll know more on Sunday, but keep that in mind when the reports come in. The bigger takeaway, of course, is that “Banks” will be a player. Could it split the votes between “Gravity” and “12 Years” and sneak through for the win? That would certainly be a nice spoonful of sugar in Disney’s cap if it did.

On to the contender rankings…

1. “Gravity”
Is the quote unquote backlash over? Yeah, that didn’t last long.

2. “12 Years a Slave”
Fox Searchlight is looking for a huge per-screen this weekend to quiet those saying it’s too disturbing for some viewers. They may get it.

3. “Saving Mr. Banks”
Where there’s smoke there’s fire. And we’re not talking chimneys either.

4. “Captain Phillips”
Excellent box office debut against a true phenomenon and opening day reviews were right on target. Now? Make sure the guilds and AMPAS don’t forget it in December.

5. “Lee Daniels’ The Butler”
Look for Oprah to (smartly) hit the circuit over the next few months. Still, The Weinstein Company’s best shot for a nod, but not a lock.

6. “Inside Llewyn Davis”
Looking to wow Los Angeles (finally) at AFI FIlm Fest. Time to get the West Coast music branch on board.

7. “Dallas Buyers Club”
Playing fantastically in guild screenings. Predicting SAG ensemble nomination. Can you bet on that in Vegas?

8. “Her”
Is there an Academy hipster vote? Probably not (yet), but Spike Jonze’s romantic drama will absolutely have a passionate fan base within the Academy. Also, don’t be surprised if it steals a LAFCA or NYFCC win from “Gravity” or “12 Years.”

9. “Nebraska”
Yikes. It’s gotten much more competitive

10. “The Monuments Men”
Betting on this Sony release over “American Hustle” or “Blue Jasmine.” For now. Assuming there are even 10 nominees, of course.

What are your 10 picks? Share your thoughts below or make your own predictions here.

Best Visual Effects has long been one of the most “mainstream” of the Oscar categories. It”s always filled with blockbusters and films which have made lots of money. This year, though, beyond the race for the win (it would appear), the race for nominations is fairly wide open.

In recent years, the category has moved more and more toward 3D, which is not surprising given that that is where spectacle tends to be most on display, and it is also where money tends to be invested. When top-tier talents such as James Cameron, Martin Scorsese and Ang Lee were jumping aboard 3D, it hardly seemed surprising that Oscar followed. The work, like the names involved, was that much better.

Another recent trend I have observed is the Academy picking a film that many may have thought forgotten and certainly not on its way to being an Oscar nominee. Examples in recent years would be “Snow White and the Huntsman,” “Real Steel” and “Hereafter.” I don”t mean to suggest that these nominations were undeserved – just unexpected.

Being a Best Picture contender doesn”t hurt, especially in the race for the win, but the vast majority of nominees in this category tend not to be contenders – or anywhere close to them – in the top category.

So, to say that a race is over in October may seem absurd. But I don”t really see how Alfonso Cuarón”s “Gravity” can lose this race. And indeed, many expected competitors are already squaring themselves with that fact. Anchored by Oscar winner Neil Corbould and Oscar nominee Tim Webber, this visual effects crew crafted a space odyssey that has mesmerized everyone from the highbrow film critics to mainstream audiences. Cuarón seems poised to join Cameron, Scorsese and Lee in having directed a 3D film to a win here.

The only other film that seems reasonably assured of a spot is Peter Jackson”s “The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug.” Though this series is nowhere near the peak it reached in days of “The Lord of the Rings,” Joe Letteri”s crew seems too respected to miss out for this series and they continues to push the limits. That is particularly true for this film, with the new arrival of the (second) title character. Though nothing is a lock before it’s seen.

Beyond that, things become more difficult. In the realm of summer blockbusters, there were few outright failures but there were several titles that were at least mildly disappointing.

“Man of Steel” tried to reboot the Superman franchise to mixed success. The film’s reception was respectable, as was the box office, but it didn’t exactly set the world on fire. However, the effects were omnipresent, in a good way. If it finds a home anywhere, it”s here. The creation of Krypton was particularly remarkable. Allen Hall, Joe Letteri and Guillaume Rocheron have seven Oscars between them.

“Star Trek Into Darkness” tried to build upon the success of a particularly clever reboot, as J.J. Abrams reunited the cast and much of the crew behind 2009’s “Star Trek.” Most observers viewed this as a step down from the fantastic 2009 film. However, the reviews and box office remained quite respectable. So I’d reckon that this visual effects team, which includes Oscar winners Burt Dalton, Alex Henning and Ben Grossmann, and nominees Roger Guyett and Paul Kavanagh, is very much in the running.

“Iron Man 3” was considered a relatively disappointing entry into the world of Tony Stark. But “relatively” is the applicable word here. Both of the predecessors in this category scored a Best Visual Effects nomination and this film was still liked. Oscar nominees Daniel Sudick and Erik Nash may well find themselves going to Oscar night again.

Neill Blomkamp’s “Elysium” was considered a step back from his fantastic debut “District 9.” Even so, in an open category, I do not want to rule anything out. The effects were impressive. Peter Muyzers, Oscar nominee from “District 9,” is back on board, and the film has an aura of importance that other titles do not necessarily share.

“World War Z” got pretty good reviews for a zombie film, and was clearly a personal effort for Brad Pitt. But it still is a zombie movie and that leads me to doubt its chances even if it does have a fan base. Neil Corbould is on board this film as well, as is John Nelson, a staple in the visual effects industry.

Ultimately, I”d say Guillermo Del Toro”s “Pacific Rim” is the best bet of the summer blockbusters. The sheer scope of the work strikes me as difficult to ignore. Oscar winners Clay Pinney and John Knoll being on board cannot hurt matters.

I must say, however, that I would love it if “This is the End” could score in this category. Seth Rogan and Evan Goldberg crafted a wonderfully engaging satire in which the effects were properly supporting but still integral and superbly done. Given the politics involved vis a vis effects houses, it could be a pipe dream, but stranger things have happened.

Ben Stiller’s “The Secret Life of Walter Mitty” recently unveiled to somewhat underwhelming response. But the film still features visual and special effects which are integral to the plot. Guillaume Rocheron won this category on his first nomination last year for “Life of Pi.” Perhaps he can score a second consecutive nomination, if not for “Iron Man 3,” then for this?

“Rush,” despite its top-notch reviews and rousing storyline, has not caught on to the extent that one may have thought. Even so, those top-notch reviews and rousing storyline still, to some extent, speak for themselves. The bigger problem is Oscar’s tendency to avoid box office failure, and the crew has yet to experience Oscar glory. But the effects were incredibly realistic and effective.

Perhaps it’s better to look way back earlier in the year for contenders? Sam Raimi’s “Oz the Great and Powerful” was divisive but it was an effects extravaganza (at least with respect to quantity – quality is another matter). John Frazier and Scott Stokdyk won this category for Raimi”s highly regarded “Spider-Man 2,” so they could well return to the race. Also, “Oblivion” may seem forgotten as the latest Tom Cruise flop. And perhaps deservedly so. But it invested a lot in its effects. Eric Barba deservedly won this category for “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button.” Perhaps he can return?

Finally, “The Great Gatsby” was, in typical Baz Lurhmann tradition, a grand spectacle. I totally expect its production design and costume design to feature prominently in the Oscar race. But what about the omnipresent visual effects? Color me skeptical — the film is not the sort that usually gets nominated here. But at the same time, surely a Lurhmann film will have to score here eventually?

So we”ll see. As I said, this strikes me as an extremely open category beyond “Gravity” and, to a much lesser extent, “The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug.” Who do you see in contention?

AFI Fest sure has done a great job of securing itself some nice buzz titles this year. In addition to “Out of the Furnace” it has been announced today that Peter Berg’s “Lone Survivor” will also see its world premiere at the Hollywood festival.

You’ll recall that “Foxcatcher” was all set to premiere, but the fest didn’t miss a beat with that film’s move to 2014. “Saving Mr. Banks” will have already landed at the London Film Festival’s closing night but it’ll nevertheless make a big splash at AFI as the opening night presentation.

Also part of today’s announcement is “August: Osage County” as part of the centerpiece gala slate. Special screenings of “Her,” “Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom” and “The Past,” among others, joining previously announced titles such as “Inside Llewyn Davis,” “Nebraska” (featuring a tribute to actor Bruce Dern) and “The Secret Life of Walter Mitty” as special screenings. Sony Classics has filled in an number of spots with “The Invisible Woman,” “Jodorowsky’s Dune,” “The Past” and “The Unknown Known.”

Also added is the 3D presentation of Bernardo Bertolucci’s “The Last Emperor,” which played Cannes back in May.

The 2013 AFI Fest runs Nov. 7 – 14.

When it comes to documentaries, the Academy has missed the boat on landmark films as often as they have with narrative features — and one need only look at Cinema Eye’s new list of the 25 most influential documentaries of all time to be reminded of that.

As you’d expect from the discerning group behind the Cinema Eye Honors, an annual awards for non-fiction filmmaking voted on by a collective of documentary filmmakers, experts and programmers, the list is an intelligent primer for the art form, highlighting a number of essential names and movements from the silent era to the present. Many of the usual suspects are present — Barbara Kopple, D.A. Pennebaker, Claude Lanzmann, Werner Herzog and so on — as well as a couple of curveballs. Orson Welles, for example, makes the cut for “F for Fake,” a playful 1973 portrait of art forger Elmyr de Hory that is far from a documentary in the classical sense.

However, only five of the 25 selections have won the Oscar for Best Documentary Feature: Peter Davis’ “Hearts and Minds,” Kopple’s “Harlan County, USA,” Leon Gast’s “When We Were Kings,” Michael Moore’s “Bowling for Columbine” and Errol Morris’ “The Fog of War.” Morris (who is also included for his history-changing but Oscar-snubbed 1988 doc “The Thin Blue Line” is listed alongside one of the films he beat in the 2003 race, Andrew Jarecki’s “Capturing the Friedmans.” The seventh Oscar nominee on the list is 1993’s “The War Room” (co-directed by Pennebaker, another director with two mentions here).

I’m slightly surprised to see Moore included only for “Columbine,” rather than his breakout film “Roger & Me,” but such is the nature of list-making. It’s no surprise, of course, to see Steve James’ “Hoop Dreams” on the list: the failure of that 1994 classic to make the Oscar nominee list  remains arguably the documentary branch’s most controversial hour. Werner Herzog’s 2005 “Grizzly Man” is the newest title on the list; Dziga Vertov’s 1929 silent “Man With a Movie Camera” (named one of the 10 greatest films of all time in last year’s Sight & Sound critics’ poll) is the oldest.

Speaking to The Wrap, Cinema Eye founder A. J. Schnack explains how the list came about: “For the last few years we”ve been asking eligible directors to tell us what films inspire them, to help guide us to the films we should consider for our Legacy Award. The list is always interesting, and it changes a little bit each year – so as we were thinking about this year, we thought, why don”t we actually release the list to show what films are foremost in filmmakers” minds from one year to the next?”

Check out the results below:

“American Movie,” Chris Smith (1999)
“Bowling for Columbine,” Michael Moore (2002)
“Brother”s Keeper,” Joe Berlinger and Bruce Sinofsky (1992)
“Burden of Dreams,” Les Blank (1982)
“Capturing the Friedmans,” Andrew Jarecki (2003)
“Crumb,” Terry Zwigoff (1994)
“Don”t Look Back,” D.A. Pennebaker (1967)
“F for Fake,” Orson Welles (1973)
“The Fog of War,” Errol Morris (2003)
“Gimme Shelter,” Albert Maysles, David Maysles and Charlotte Zwerin (1970)
“Grey Gardens,” Albert Maysles, David Maysles, Ellen Hovde and Muffie Meyer (1975)
“Grizzly Man,” Werner Herzog (2005)
“Harlan County, USA,” Barbara Kopple (1976)
“Hearts and Minds,” Peter Davis (1974)
“Hoop Dreams,” Steve James (1994)
“Man WIth a Movie Camera,” Dziga Vertov (1929)
“Night and Fog,” Alain Resnais (1955)
“Salesman,” Albert Maysles, David Maysles and Charlotte Zwerin (1968)
“Sans Soleil,” Chris Marker (1983)
“Sherman”s March,” Ross McElwee (1985)
“Shoah,” Claude Lanzmann (1985)
“The Thin Blue Line,” Errol Morris (1988)
“Titicut Follies,” Frederick Wiseman (1967)
“The War Room,” Chris Hegedus and D.A. Pennebaker (1993)
“When We Were Kings,” Leon Gast (1996)

Steve Pond wonders if Oscar voters in the Best Foreign Language Film category will see the “wrong” version of “The Grandmaster.” At this point, I no longer know which version I’ve seen. [The Wrap]  

Katey Rich on the prevalence of survival stories in the acting Oscar races. [Cinema Blend]

R. Kurt Osenlund profiles Lupita Nyong’o, the film debutante turned Oscar frontrunner for “12 Years a Slave.” [The House Next Door]

Brenda Chapman, the jilted co-director of “Brave,” has strong words for the “boys’ club” of studio animation. [The Dissolve]

Scott Feinberg breaks down seven films he sees as strong contenders for the Best Documentary Feature Oscar. [The Race]

Oliver Stone reflects on his critical relationship with Roger Ebert. [Roger Ebert]

 Quite aside from discounting the potentially balance-shifting individual contributions of writers, producers, actors and craftsmen to a finished film, that equation also underestimates the combined alchemy of collaboration, the spark that makes some great films more than the sum of their parts. For most critics, the best and best-directed films of the year tend to overlap, but they needn”t always: some directorial statements are stronger than others, even when the films are similarly effective.

It”d be nice to believe that the Academy believes this too, that last year”s Oscars judiciously split the difference between the humming Hollywood craftsmanship of “Argo” and Ang Lee”s more unusual, advanced creative vision in “Life of Pi.” But we know it was an accidental outcome more than anything else: Affleck would likely have won Best Director in a walk, had the select directors” branch collectively nominated him in the first place. The Academy”s general reluctance to separate their two top prizes suggests they, too, are auteurists of a sort – albeit ones with occasionally bland taste in stylists. (Hey, even BAFTA balked at rewarding Tom Hooper.)

On the rare occasions that Best Picture and Best Director do part ways, it”s usually because the helmer of the voting collective”s favourite film lacks either industry or aesthetic presence relative to a more seasoned or distinctive rival: think Paul Haggis, Hugh Hudson, John Madden or Rob Marshall. There are exceptions, of course: think Ridley Scott or Francis Ford Coppola, both of whom lost Best Director to heavily styled directors” pieces, even as their films triumphed. Still, considering how reputation-reliant the Oscars can be in other areas, it”s less common than you might think for the race to come down to a photo-finish between two filmmakers of comparably high critical and industry repute.

Which is why it”s exciting, this year, that the two leading contenders so far for the gold come not only from formidable filmmakers with identifiably singular visions, but filmmakers who have previously been a little outside the Academy”s comfort zone.

Alfonso Cuarón, the longer-serving of the two, has come closer, netting writing and editing nominations for “Children of Men” and “Y tu Mama Tambien,” though he”s never made something that hit both the highbrow and mainstream demographics quite as squarely as “Gravity.” (Not every director does, after all.) Steve McQueen may be only three features into his filmmaking career, but his muscular, sense-led style – bearing all the hallmarks of his celebrated career in visual arts – has seemed auspiciously established since his 2008 debut “Hunger” – an elemental history of human-rights abuse to which “12 Years a Slave” seems a natural, if enlarged, extension.

It”d be a thrill to have either director in the race in any given year. The prospect of them going to head-to-head is both tantalizing and a little saddening. It”d be painful to see either man (or, who knows, both men) lose for a landmark project that may or may not prove to be a unique awards opportunity; I”m also not looking forward to seeing two great artists subjected to the snippy side-taking and empty, backlash-laden discourse that comes with awards season, though it”s hard to see either one getting too fazed about it.

They won”t be alone, either: 2013 is shaping up to be the most robustly director-powered Oscar race in many a year, even more so than 2009″s memorable faceoff between contrasting genre experts and former partners Kathryn Bigelow and James Cameron. Gutsy action realist Paul Greengrass, a former nominee for “United 93,” may well be in the mix for “Captain Phillips”; new Oscar regulars the Coens, following the mainstream allowances of “True Grit,” are back on cool, pristine auteur form with “Inside Llewyn Davis”; “Blue Jasmine” is Woody Allen”s most formally disciplined, tonally daring film since the early Nineties; the reliably playful Spike Jonze is said to be back on the awards radar for the tender exploration of “Her.” If David O. Russell nabs a third nomination in four years for “American Hustle,” he”ll be among the spikiest contemporary filmmakers to have attained the position of an Academy mainstay.

People will disagree over how many of these directors can be reasonably termed “auteurs” – a word that means different things to different cinephiles – but they”re certainly not journeymen. We have yet to see what more respectably workmanlike talents like John Lee Hancock (“Saving Mr. Banks”) and George Clooney (“The Monuments Men”) have to bring to the table, but they”ll need to be at the very peak of their proficient powers to compete.

Or so one would like to think – though past experience has told us that when a sizable portion of the Academy really falls for a film, any director can benefit. It”s a crucial distinction that the Oscar category in question is technically named “Best Directing” rather than “Best Director.” Those who checked off Tom Hooper”s name three years ago over Russell, the Coens, David Fincher and Darren Aronofsky – to the chagrin of film critics and movie geeks alike – may not have thought he was a superior director to his competitors, but they dug his steering of one particular film that little bit more than the rest.

The Academy”s roster of Best Director winners runs the gamut from major (Polanski, Scorsese, Wilder, Allen, Bertolucci) to, well, less major (Delbert Mann, Kevin Costner, John G. Avildsen). Not all names in the former column have won deservedly, or for their signature work; not all in the latter are a blight on the award”s reputation. Still, the odds this year are in favor of the Oscars landing upon a heavyweight filmmaker for an equally heavyweight film – or perhaps even dividing the spoils between two. It”s not a possibility to take for granted.

Check out my updated Oscar predictions here.

Harvey Weinstein didn’t acquire that “Scissorhands” nickname casually — no producer in the modern era has exerted quite such fierce artistic control over the films he decides needs it. But is he an enabling or obstructive influence? Karina Longworth breaks down the pros and cons in this excellent long-form piece, which goes from his recent editing input on such films as “August: Osage County” and “Snowpiercer” back through the likes of “Gangs of New York” and Billy Bob Thornton’s “Sling Blade.” (The quoted exchange between Weinstein and Thornton is priceless.) Finally, Longworth wonders if a villainous reputation is exactly what Weinstein has been deliberately cultivating all along. [Grantland]

Tim Grierson attended an Academy screening of “Captain Phillips,” and noted a disconcerting “bloodlust” in certain sectors of the audience. [The Dissolve]

Glenn Whipp, meanwhile, attended an Aademy screening of “12 Years a Slave,” and noted both solemn admiration and weariness in certain sectors of the audience. [LA Times]

Tim Gray, meanwhile, says that any voters concerned about the film’s brutality need to bite the bullet and see it. [Variety]

Grierson again, with a lovely appreciation of Robert Redford’s distinguished but imperfect career. [Paste]

Alfonso Cuarón and sound mixer Skip Lievsay talk about  the complex soundscape of “Gravity.” [Soundworks Collection]

An essential one for cinematography geeks: Oscar-winner Anthony Dod Mantle discusses the logistical and aesthetic challenges of shooting “Rush.” [American Cinematographer]

Why “Enough Said” star Julia Louis-Dreyfus in a national treasure. [Vulture]

With “alternative content” (theater and concert broadcasts, and so on) increasingly popular in cinemas, it was inevitable it’d eventually get its own award ceremony. [Screen Daily]

Finally, I like this personal video essay made by a reader, Jorge Gonzlez Diaz, on the career of Alfonso Cuarón, and what it means to him:

[vimeo 77015765 w=640 h=281]

Let’s just say that Julia Roberts and Meryl Streep aren’t exactly seeing eye to eye.

The Oscar-winning actresses engage in a good old-fashioned girl fight in the brand-new one-sheet for “August: Osage County,” the forthcoming adaptation of Tracy Letts’ Pulitzer Prize-winning play that centers on the dysfunctional Weston family as they come together to deal with a family crisis. The latest poster, featuring the telling tagline “Misery Loves Family,” is clearly hoping to draw in audiences with the promise of a Streep-Roberts brawl, and in that it may well succeed.

Also starring Ewan McGregor, Chris Cooper, Abigail Breslin, Benedict Cumberbatch, Juliette Lewis, Margo Martindale and Dermot Mulroney, “August: Osage County” is slated for release on December 25.

Much has been made the last couple of days about the “tough medicine” of Steve McQueen’s slavery drama “12 Years a Slave.” Two stories, one at the LA Times and another at The Wrap, played up modest attendance at the film’s Academy screening* this weekend as evidence that its “brutal” depictions are keeping the squeamish at bay.

In reality, though, this is just another step the media has taken in doing another disservice to a film that is hardly something you have to take a deep breath and suffer through. (The first disservice, of course, being breathless proclamations that it was the Best Picture Oscar contender to beat.) The film’s account of slavery is unflinching, yes, but some reports, ever since it was first unveiled for audiences at the Telluride Film Festival, would have you believe it was shackles by way of Gaspar Nöe or Eli Roth rather than the thoughtful Brit at the helm.

All of this was on my mind this morning when I talked to McQueen about the movie, so I led in with it. Is his film so brutal, I asked.

“It’s the truth,” McQueen said. “But it’s not like you’re seeing a horror film. This is about the truth and it should be respected as such because this is how I’m able speak to you; part of my family had to go through that and over 25 million African Americans had to go through that, too. So to turn one’s back on it is to turn your back on how people came to exist in America. We don’t turn our backs on Holocaust survivors and it would be indecent to do so. This is about the truth, that’s all. Plain and simple.”

And for those people, Academy members or otherwise, taking the media’s lead on this and forming some view of “12 Years a Slave” as something more akin to a “Saw” movie, take heart: it’s really not that bad. I’d even wager you’ve seen much worse. Don’t take my word for it, take Tim Gray’s at Variety. But even if it were such a difficult sit, as McQueen says, one should respect it for what it is, the truth of our nation’s history.

Oh, by the way, to that AMPAS member quoted in the LA Times piece who said he or she had read all about the Civil War and slavery and didn’t need to see a movie repeating what he or she already knew, I’d like to see you try and be consistent with that facile reasoning from film to film. I imagine it will inevitably cave on you at some point. Have a little respect for art? You are, after all, a member of an organization that annually tips its hat to such a thing.

Stay tuned for more with McQueen and others on the film in the coming days.

“12 Years a Slave” arrives in theaters this Friday.

*It’s worth noting, respect my fellow awards beat analysts as I do, that it is increasingly pointless to report on Academy screenings that seat 1,000 people — be it attendance or reception — as if they are an indication of what the 6,000-member organization will collectively think of a film.

I’m keeping my expectations tempered for Woody Allen’s 2014 project, “Magic in the Moonlight” — which officially revealed its title today, along with a couple of first-look images. It’s been a while since Allen strung together two successful films in a row, so after the justly acclaimed (and unexpectedly popular) “Blue Jasmine,” recent form dictates that his follow-up will be more of a “To Rome With Love.”

But patterns, like rules, are there to be broken, so here’s hoping that “Moonlight” is at least a charming diversion. As usual with Allen’s films at this stage — the film is currently in post-production — we have no details of the script to go on.

This much we do know: it’s set in the south of France, so it’ll be picturesque. The new images, meanwhile, suggest it might be a period piece, unless the cars and cloche hats are a mere affectation. The time-travelling “Midnight in Paris” not withstanding, Allen hasn’t done a complete period piece since “The Curse of the Jade Scorpion” in 2001.

The cast is starry — but when isn’t it with Woody? As we learned in July, Colin Firth, Emma Stone, Marcia Gay Harden, Jacki Weaver and Eileen Atkins are on board; the principal cast (those, in other words, that get alphabetically listed in those trademark credits) also includes Hamish Linklater (“The Future,” “Battleship”) and Simon McBurney (“Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy”). Catherine McCormack, Erica Leehrsen, Paul Ritter and Jeremy Shamos co-star. Lots of Woody first-timers in there: it should be fun to see Stone, in particular, sparking to Allen’s dialogue with her own zesty comic timing. Harden and Weaver, meanwhile, seem like a natural fit for the director; it still surprises me that Harden hasn’t done an Allen film before.

So, is Woody going all “Downton Abbey” on us, with a Continental twist? Are you confident that he can deliver on the renewed promise of “Blue Jasmine?” And what do make of “Magic in the Moonlight” as a title? Sounds a mite precious to me, but that didn’t hurt “Midnight in Paris” any. Tell us in the comments.

Yes, ladies and gentlemen. Our long national nightmare is over. No, the government is still shut down and Congress is still driving us toward a default, but one of the greatest unanswered questions of the 2014 awards season has been answered: Tina Fey and Amy Poehler are hosting the Golden Globes again.

(Yes, everyone can breathe now. Do you need a tissue? Moment to collect your thoughts?

The most surprising news, of course, is that Fey and Poehler have agreed to come back for two straight years. Clearly they have gotten a significant payout for the gigs and it’s a smart deal for NBC. Locking the duo up provides the network with a long-term franchise to sell and grow with advertisers. The continuity may actually allow NBC to grow the Globes ratings-wise as audiences actually know they are getting something worth watching this time around. (HitFix’s own ratings expert Dan Fienberg may have his own thoughts.) Remember, the Globes had their highest ratings in six years under Tina and Amy’s watch. NBC is itching to get back to the record 26.8 million viewers it earned in 2004 when even Oscar had to say, “They got what rating again?”  Poehler and Fey’s return may certainly assist in that regard.

While the HFPA, NBC and Dick Clark Productions are now basically set for the next two years, Poehler and Fey’s commitment is actually an interesting development for big brother, aka the Academy Awards. Last year, host Seth MacFarlane joked during his controversial telecast that he knew everyone preferred the two former “SNL” stars emcee the Oscars instead of him (it got a big laugh because it was true). Many critics and fans verbalized their preference for Poehler and Fey to host next March’s telecast after MacFarlane’s not-so pretty night. Having the ladies jump to the Dolby Theater probably would have been too good to be true, and considering Fey has turned the gig down herself numerous times, it was highly unlikely. Moreover, the Academy basically hired the anti-MacFarlane instead: Ellen DeGeneres. That has its pros and cons (yawn), but makes the future even more intriguing. With Fey and Poehler unavailable for two seasons and DeGeneres unlikely to host back-to-back years (she famously did not want to return after the first time around), the Academy is already on the clock to see who will host in 2015. And trust, it’s never to early.

As for this year’s Globes, it will be interesting to see if Poehler and Fey are given more say in the proceedings. Fey hinted the producers didn’t listen to all their suggestions last time around and, typical of the Globes, they disappeared at times during the second half of the show. The Globe telecast always has a ton of awards to hand out and has made its name on the star-filled tables of increasingly tipsy celebrities and their usually emotional and/or funny speeches. Might we see some filmed segments this year to mix things up? Some interesting themed bits during the show?

Hey, it’s something to look forward to.

The Golden Globe Awards will be broadcast on Sunday, Jan. 12 on NBC.

Wes Anderson’s “The Grand Budapest Hotel” is finally taking reservations.

The director’s follow-up to “Moonrise Kingdom” boasts perhaps his biggest cast yet in a 1920s-set tale about a concierge (Ralph Fiennes) at a fancy hotel taking a younger employee (Saoirse Ronan) under his wing.

It won’t hit screens until sometime next year, but Fox Searchlight has started rolling out the marketing campaign today by unveiling a very Anderson-esque poster.

The poster features the titular building itself, which looks as if it were constructed from pink marshmallow, accompanied by the film’s dizzying cast list, which also includes Bill Murray, Edward Norton, Owen Wilson, Tilda Swinton, Jude Law, Adrien Brody, Harvey Keitel, Jason Schwartzman, Willem Dafoe, Jeff Goldblum, Mathieu Amalric, F. Murray Abraham, Bob Balaban, and Lea Seydoux.

Check out the poster here:

The initial trailer will debut Oct. 17.

“Grand Budapest Hotel” will be released in 2014, although no specific date has been set.