http://players.brightcove.net/4838167533001/BkZprOmV_default/index.html?videoId=4912077536001

The cast of Steve McQueen’s acclaimed new drama “12 Years a Slave” is something of a wonder. Whether it’s the remarkable work of Chiwetel Ejiofor as kidnapped freeman Solomon Northup or Michael Fassbender as the shockingly inhumane plantation owner Edwin Epps or Best Supporting Actress contender Lupita Nyong’o, the film features some of the most riveting performances of the year. What has gone slightly unheralded, however, are the fantastic smaller turns by the likes of Benedict Cumberbatch, Paul Giamatti, Paul Dano and Alfre Woodard. And, the always wonderful Ms. Sarah Paulson.

Best known for her roles on the first three seasons of “American Horror Story,” Paulson has steadily become one of prestige cinema’s most underrated gems. In the past three year’s she has delivered superb work in “Martha Marcy May Marlene,” the HBO TV movie “Game Change,” “Mud” and now “12 Years.” (And yes, all after a showcase role on Aaron Sorkin’s “Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip” back in the day). In McQueen’s new film, Paulson gets a chance to play a woman with smoldering jealously brewing below her icy demeanor. As the wife of Epps, she has seen her husband openly flirt with one of his slaves (Nyong’o) and she can barely contain her anger at a life she can no longer control. It’s not as prominent a role as Ejiofor or Fassbender have, but it’s a very important piece of the puzzle (especially in the film’s most harrowing scene).

Fox Searchlight has provided HitFix with an exclusive clip of “12 Years a Slave,” which finds Paulson’s character questioning her new slave hand Platt (Northup’s slave name) on his background. You can watch it embedded at the top of this post. It demonstrates the deep bench of acting talent McQueen was able to assemble and why the film shouldn’t be overlooked in the best ensemble race at the upcoming 2013 SAG Awards, where a nomination is a given.

For more on “12 Years A Slave,” read my review out of the Telluride Film Festival here.

To find out Michael Fassebnder’s thoughts on the picture, click here.

“12 Years a Slave” opens in limited release on Oct. 18.

We’ve been teasing a new feature here at In Contention for a few months now and I’m happy that we can finally lift the veil on HitFix Oscar Picks!

Some of you may have already given this a test drive as we’ve worked out a few kinks in the technology, but in a nutshell, this is your chance to go on the record yourself. Many of our readers have expressed interest over the years in things like message boards, etc., largely for the purposes of recording Oscar predictions. We all like to make our picks and share them with like-minded Oscar-obsessives, so now you have an opportunity to do just that.

First thing is first, though. In order to participate, you’ll need to register with HitFix. This is an extremely painless process so knock that out first and catch up with us.

Alright, next, you’ll want to click the HitFix Oscar Picks logo located in the right sidebar just above In Contention’s official Oscar predictions. That will take you to a page where things should be fairly self-explanatory, using our drag-and-drop system to sort and rank your picks throughout the various categories. (Note: Best Original Song, Best Foreign Language Film and Best Documentary Feature will be available at a later date.) If you encounter any snags along the way, do let us know.

Once you’ve got your picks set, remember you can access and change them throughout our contenders section. Each category (which you can reach by clicking on corresponding category photos all the way down the sidebar) now features a link inviting you to pick your own contenders.

So what are you waiting for? Get started and make your HitFix Oscar Picks today!

Two British (or part-British) films came out on top at the Toronto Film Festival this year — and they haven’t much more in common than what’s already in this sentence. Unless you’ve just returned from an extended meditation retreat in the Hindu Kush, you’re probably aware that Steve McQueen’s biographical slavery drama “12 Years a Slave” emerged most triumphant all from the fall fests, bearing bushels of critical praise, the much-coveted TIFF Audience Award and a position as Oscar frontrunner that only “Gravity” has seen fit to challenge so far. We have yet to see how it fares in the real world, but it’s an impressive run for a film that, by consensus, takes a brutal, unyielding approach to an eternally tough historical subject.

Finishing second to “12 Years a Slave” in the Audience Award voting — though trailing it rather distantly in the buzz stakes — was Stephen Frears’ “Philomena,” another true-life tale of woe, though one that takes a mostly bright-and-breezy approach to its poignant story of a mother forcibly separated from her child, and haunted by the loss half a century later.

Bolting this narrative onto an odd-couple comedy starring Judi Dench and Steve Coogan isn’t an obvious approach, but it seems to have worked: reversing Frears’ recent run of duds, the film drew gales of laughter, tears and applause from critics and audiences at Venice, where Coogan was rewarded for his screenplay, and evidently worked its charms on the North American crowd too. Oscar talk has centered chiefly on Dench so far, though that could expand; a healthy haul of BAFTA and Golden Globe comedy/musical nods, meanwhile, seems all but assured.

If “12 Years a Slave” and “Philomena” end up as Britain’s two top horses in the awards race — which they presumably will, unless the collected members of the Academy acquire a  robust sense of humor and nominate “Diana” — they’ll doubtless be paired up by the British media as twin mascots for the country’s industry. (Expect them to tacitly ignore the Brad Pitt-produced US credentials of McQueen’s film.) It happens every year, whether the final voting bears out the bullish “the British are coming” cries — as it has recently in the years “The King’s Speech” and “Slumdog Millionaire” — or not. (To go by some of the more excitable UK Oscar coverage earlier this year, you’d have thought “Les Misérables”‘s trio of wins for Supporting Actress, Makeup and Sound amounted to a dazzling sweep.)

Still, you could hardly pick two more diametrically opposed representatives for British cinema going forward: one soft, one hard; one from the old guard, one emphatically of the new; one local in its craft and concerns, one rather more international.

Frears and McQueen share a first name, but little else. The former is an Oxbridge-certified, 72-year-old stalwart of the British filmmaking establishment, whose aesthetic trademark has become his lack thereof. 43-year-old McQueen is a British-Grenadian grammar-school graduate and Turner Prize-winning fine artist, with an avant-garde sensibility that extends to his visceral, semi-stylized feature films. Much is being made of the fact that McQueen could be the first black filmmaker to win the Best Director Oscar, but his race isn’t the only way in which he breaks the Academy mold.

Frears has strayed into cooler territory before — never more successfully than in his US genre excursion “The Grifters,” which netted his his first Oscar nomination — but has extensive form in crafting cosily televisual, thematically unchallenging audience films like “Philomena” and its closest, if slightly less fuzzy, precedent, 2006’s Best Picture-nominated “The Queen.” A film best and most inarguably described as “nice,” “Philomena” adds a drop of testy Catholic doubt to its otherwise comforting, condescending Britcom formula — enough to add the illusion of gravitas, though certainly not enough to find much friction in the secular UK market (where it’ll do roaring business upon its November release), or even in the US. That’s why the Weinsteins snapped this one up in a heated bidding war at Cannes, and why it could quietly end up as the strongest card in their hand this year.

“12 Years a Slave,” on the other hand, finds McQueen pushing himself into unfamiliar territory: his largest-scale film to date, and the one with the most American input (though he worked in the States, of course, on his sophomore feature, “Shame”), it’s a gutsy effort to fuse his independent British sensibility to a heftyTransatlantic prestige vehicle that seems, so far, to have worked. (If it seemed odd that savvy US distributors Fox Searchlight picked up “Shame” — a relatively out-there property by their standards — in 2011, that investment is paying off handsomely now.)

Furthermore, the film also serves as a showcase for a cresting generation of British or British-reared actors that hadn’t until now made their mark on the Academy, chief among them Chiwetel Ejiofor and Michael Fassbender — whose non-nomination for “Shame” two years ago seemed indicative that the Academy wasn’t yet ready for what McQueen and his team had to offer. Ready or not, they’re coming around again. And interestingly, they’re the sure bets this time, while it’s the older-school Brits — including two-time nominee McQueen and six-time nominee Dench — who are reaching for a place lower down on the ballot. 

Both “12 Years a Slave” and “Philomena” are represented in the lineup for the London Film Festival, which kicks off today. The remainder of the programme’s British contingent, meanwhile, skews more heavily in the direction of McQueen-style risk and invention. Forward-thinking British production company Film4, which had a significant hand in “12 Years a Slave,” also contributed the quartet of British titles in the festival’s Official Competition: Jonathan Glazer’s “Under the Skin,” Clio Barnard’s “The Selfish Giant,” David Mackenzie’s “Starred Up” and Richard Ayoade’s “The Double,” all striking contemporary works from rising or resurgent filmmakers that may as well have been made on a different planet to “Philomena.”

None of those directors are getting near the Academy Awards just yet — or, most likely, even the insecurely Oscar-aping BAFTAs. And they sit in amusingly stark contrast to some of the amiably undemanding Britpics showcased in the New York Film Festival, much to the amazement of UK onlookers: Richard Curtis’ cutesy time-travel romcom “About Time,” Roger Michell’s pensioners-in-Paris romcom “Le Weekend,” and Steve Coogan’s disappointing sitcom spinoff “Alan Partridge: Alpha Papa.” British film is still different things to different people, as any healthy national cinema should be. But an Oscar win for Steve McQueen — as different a figure to, say, Tom Hooper as you could ask for — may put an international spotlight on the changing of the guard.

Check out my current predictions here.

Flashbacks, romance, helicopter rescues… Alfonso Cuarón reveals some of the suggestions during the production of “Gravity” that he thankfully didn’t take on board. [io9]

An excellent NYFF interview with “The Immigrant” director James Gray, covering the challenges of period film, cinematographer-hopping and Cannes myth-making, among other topics. [Mubi]

Forget Cannes, Venice, Toronto… how can I get myself a pass to the first-ever Bacon Film Festival? Yes, it’s what it sounds like. [Variety] 

This year’s Best Actress race is full of Oscar veterans, but there are also a fair amount of up-and-coming indie hopefuls, outsider foreign film players and fresh faces to the awards scene looking for their first trip to the Dolby Theater.

That having been said, most seem to agree that this category will be full of former nominees, a rare occurrence to say the least. The work covers a wide range (and some of the individual performances themselves cover a lot of ground, too). From astronauts to alcoholics, bandits to matriarchs, there is something for everyone. How will the category shake out?

Click through the gallery story below to see our thoughts on the 20 names that seem to be in contention for a notice this year, and feel free to let your thoughts on the race be known in the comments section.

“Brave” is a word sorely overused by critics when describing any actor taking on a somewhat sexualized character – especially when they take off their clothing in the process. If the sexuality in question is LGBT, so much the “braver,” apparently. It’s a word, then, that you may have read applied a few times to Robin Weigert’s terrific performance as a dissatisfied lesbian wife and mother in Stacie Passon’s sharp, sensual debut feature “Concussion” – released last Friday on the Weinsteins’ TWC-Radius label.

Among its many individual merits as a witty, pointed study of normalized alternative families and the long-haul challenges of homosexual domestic bliss, “Concussion” also delights as an overdue leading-lady showcase for Weigert – the warm but tough-as-nails character actress whose strongest career opportunities to date have been on the small screen. She received in Emmy nomination in 2004 for her vitally vulgar Calamity Jane in cult Western series “Deadwood,” and is regularly featured in the hit biker drama “Sons of Anarchy.”

Until now, Weigert’s most generous film opportunity came in Steven Soderbergh’s odd stylistic experiment “The Good German.” That has now been handily bettered by complex, prickly role in “Concussion” as Abby, a woman who handles the combination of familiar suburban ennui and spousal indifference in a rather unexpected fashion: she takes up a secret occupation as a high-end call girl in New York City, serving other women with unfulfilled sexual needs.

The character has stoked controversy since the film’s divisive Sundance debut, but Weigert plays her with weary good humor, casually blossoming as Abby grows more comfortable in her imperfect skin. If it is indeed a brave performance, it’s not self-consciously so.

“I don’t really know how I respond to that word,” Weigert says breezily on the phone from New York, where she’s spending a few days before heading to Nebraska to complete work on a “beautifully surprising” film project. “I mean, yeah, it does put you out there, literally and figuratively, when you are playing a character who has a lot of sex on screen. I don’t know that it matters what type of sex. I think when I feel fear, that’s often a cue that I should do something. If I begin to feel fear, that’s a strong sign, psychologically, that something has its hooks in me somewhere deep. That’s why we do it.”

A large part of Weigert’s fear didn’t stem simply from her character, but the prospect of taking on such sensitive material with a first-time feature director. Weigert didn’t pursue or even audition for the role; instead, she was somewhat bemused when Passon approached her out of the blue.

“For whatever reason, Stacie saw me as this character,” Weigert says. Even now, she still sounds surprised. “I don’t know what in my previous work suggested this role to her, because I have done a lot of character parts and I don’t see anything in my body of work that exactly resembles this character, but she somehow Abby in me. That was my great fortune.”

Flattered as she was, Weigert admits to having some reservations before finally taking on the role. “I might have backed away from it, if it hadn’t so taken hold of my imagination,” she says. “It scared me, because I couldn’t really look to seven other movies Stacie had made and say, ‘Okay, I know what this will be.’ It felt like it could turn out to be anything. But something about this journey of a woman back into her body, from a dissociated state back into something that she had probably left for dead – that spoke to me.”

Once on board, however, Weigert got actively involved in the project beyond her own remit as a performer – recruiting a number of friends and colleagues to join her on the challenging endeavor. Most notable among them is her “Sons of Anarchy” co-star Maggie Siff, who shines in tangy supporting role as one of Abby’s most unlikely clients.

“Once I was in, I was determined that it needed to be of good quality, that the cast was full of people I could rely on,” says Weigert. “That made me feel more secure. But once you’ve committed, you just go blind, and you go all the way, and then you hope. Because there really isn’t any kind of guarantee that it’s going to work.”

This wasn’t the first time Weigert had undressed on screen, though her previous experience in this area was markedly different. “In ‘Deadwood,’ it was just extremely unaesthetic,” she laughs. “They actually put underarm merkins on and covered me with dirt! So it wasn’t exactly in a sexual context. I’ve played a couple of strippers – including in ‘The Good German’ – but it’s brief, it’s light. This was definitely new to me.”

Weigert was additionally concerned that Abbie was too chilly a presence to carry audiences through the film: “She sits at such a cool temperature for the whole first part of the film, I wondered if an audience could join her. She’s so relatively dissociated, which is partly head injury-related and partly from finally waking up to this stultifying existence of hers. That was where I really had to trust Stacie, who had a very clear vision for that first third of the film, and that character.”

For her part, Weigert found her way into Abby via such physical details as the character’s grueling exercise and diet regimen, which the actress herself faithfully followed. It’s a lifestyle that the film cuttingly satirizes, opening as it does to a montage of blank-gazed suburbanites at the gym, set with winking irony to Bowie’s “Oh, You Pretty Things.”

“Doing that to yourself concertedly for a period of time makes you feel a bit like a gerbil in a treadmill: the world goes a bit gray,” she muses. “You’re probably getting healthier, but it’s repetitive, and somewhat empty. I did that for a couple months. It wasn’t planned that it would have as much of a psychological effect as it did. But I think that was part of how I married this particular character. “

She continues: “It’s such an obedient way to be for a woman, to try to keep yourself in top shape, to follow all the rules and hope that will get you a measure of stability or happiness. That’s part of the affluent suburban dream: to do everything perfectly in a long-winded way, to try to fulfill all the requirements. So it started with that and then it evolved into something that felt almost chemical.

“One of the things that is interesting about the movie is that the role I occupy in the film is typically a masculine role. The one who is not satisfied sexually. But making it two women shines a different kind of light on it. I suppose it allows an empathy that might be short-circuited by saying, ‘Oh God, yeah, all men are that way. Isn’t this always the way?’”

Weigert had a small role last year’s Sundance hit “The Sessions,” and regards that very different sexually-themed character drama as an unlikely reference point for this one – and not just because of her admiration for Helen Hunt’s Oscar-nominated performance as an uninhibited sex surrogate. (“She’s a very shy actress by nature,” she says, “and was so gracious in handling that intimacy and exposure.”)

“Surrogacy is obviously a world away from prostitution,” she says, “but still, she doesn’t render herself the object; she very much remains the subject as she takes on these clients. I imagine that in this way Abby can have what she needs to feel alive, and can also maintain the life that she has with her wife and children. It’s misguided and not generally realistic, but I think I can understand where that thinking might come from.”

Though “Concussion” proved something of a revelatory career turn both for the actress and her admirers, Weigert has no plans of abandoning TV for film: she recently played a small part on a 10-part experimental series by Neil LaBute, and has landed a role in an upcoming series pilot opposite Philip Seymour Hoffman.

“Television has changed,” she says approvingly. “Some feels like good old-fashioned TV, and some of it feels more filmic and more natural and more nuanced. I don’t think there’s any clear line any longer between film and TV. Something like ‘Deadwood’ was much more of a film-like experience, in terms of the time that was spent. I kept going to other television shows and wondering, ‘Why isn’t this experience more like ‘Deadwood?’ Why are we in such a rush to get this done?’”

In the meantime, Weigert is palpably excited about the new feature she’s working on, another effort from a first-time filmmaker that she describes as giving her the same positive jitters “Concussion” did. There’s nothing sexual about this role, she explains, “but there’s a lot of my mother in there, and when you know you’re going to be mucking around in those waters, that’s a little scary too.”

http://players.brightcove.net/4838167533001/BkZprOmV_default/index.html?videoId=4912075518001

There’s a reason why teaser trailers are called just that — they tease our imaginations with suggested possibilities, but tend to withhold the full picture. The initial teaser for Ben Stiller’s “The Secret Life of Walter Mitty” did a great job in that regard — intriguing in its choice of sound and image, it provided several conflicting hints of where the romantic fantasy could go tonally. Now, with a complete trailer revealing more of the film to us — well, those of us who haven’t yet seen the whole thing at the New York Film Festival — it would appear that “Walter Mitty” is slightly more straightforward than it initially appeared to be.

That’s not necessarily a bad thing, of course: there’s more Ben Stiller-style neurotic comedy at play here, but the unusual context still charms in theory. The film, as you’ve heard by now, didn’t go over in a big way with critics last weekend, though it has defenders: Kris described the film as “disheveled,” but was “touched by its emotional honesty and artistic passion.” Check out the new trailer and see what you think.

Right up there with Roger Deakins, Mexican master Emmanuel Lubezki is surely among the cinematographers most due for Oscar recognition: he’ll surely get his sixth Oscar nomination for “Gravity,” and this looks increasingly likely to be the year he finally takes the gold. Today’s must-read is a Vulture “master class” with Lubezki, in which he talks us through five dazzling shots from his career, focusing exclusively on his partnerships with Alfonso Cuaron and Terrence Malick, including this year’s gorgeous twofer of “Gravity” and “To the Wonder.” Take note, Academy. [Vulture]

Ramin Setoodeh on why the commercial failure of “Runner Runner” should be Justin Timberlake”s cue to ditch the movie career. [Variety]

Three members of the Academy”s newly founded casting directors” branch have been elected to the Board of Governors. [LA Times]

151 feature documentaries have qualified for Oscar consideration this year and branch voters are struggling to cope, says Steve Pond. [The Wrap]

“Is ‘Gravity” a chick flick in a space suit?” asks Juli Weiner. Uh… no? [Vanity Fair]

Anne Thompson talks to “12 Years a Slave” star and surefire Oscar nominee Chiwetel Ejiofor. [Thompson on Hollywood]

Gotta love these alternative posters for “Gravity.” [The Film Experience]

My pick for the greatest filmmaker at work today, Claire Denis, is getting a Lifetime Achievement Award at the Stockholm Film Festival. At least someone’s giving her prizes. [Screen Daily] 

Finally, and I hope to write my own appreciation soon, but Patrice Chereau — director of “Queen Margot,” among other notable films — has passed away aged 68. [New York Times]

While films like “Hugo” and “Lincoln” may have received their first looks at the annual New York Film Festival via “secret screenings” in recent years, attendees can probably stop holding their breath for another surprise at the on-going 51st annual.

At least, that’s what Jeff Wells is hearing, and since we’re just a few days away from closing night, and given the fact that there’s really nothing to choose from, it seems fair to call it here. The last I heard officially from the festival, as of late last week, was “we don’t know yet.”

Over the last few years, NYFF has upped its profile, bringing in glitzy exclusive premieres like “The Social Network,” “My Week with Marilyn,” “Life of Pi” and “Captain Phillips.” They’ve kept the allure going with secret screenings also exclusive to the festival (in the case of “Lincoln,” stepping on the toes of LA-based AFI Fest, which had the film scheduled for a world premiere).

This year a handful of titles had been rumored as possible, with Martin Scorsese’s “The Wolf of Wall Street” at the top of the list, given the hometown flavor and the “Hugo” bow from 2011. But the film was not going to be ready in time for its Nov. 15 release date, let alone a public screening in October.

Other possibilities included Disney’s “Saving Mr. Banks,” which is set for a world premiere at the BFI London Film Festival and a North American premiere at AFI Fest and therefore would have potentially caused a stir with both; Bennett Miller’s “Foxcatcher,” which was on course to be screened for press in mid-October before it was moved to 2014; the Christian Bale starrer “American Hustle,” which is still undergoing the process of test screening and hasn’t yet found its groove; and George Clooney’s “The Monuments Men,” which won’t even be scored until the end of the month.

Ridley Scott’s “The Counselor” was never in the cards, though I’ve heard Scott Cooper’s “Out of the Furnace” was offered a spot, but that Relativity turned down the opportunity in favor of bowing at AFI Fest just before the film’s Dec. 6 release date instead. And Wells is reporting that footage of Wes Anderson’s “The Grand Budapest Hotel” was viewed by festival brass but that the film would not be ready to show.

So, apologies to NYFFers. Better luck next year.

UPDATE: I somehow missed this verbiage when NYFF announced a screening of Jean-Luc Godard’s “Vivre sa vie.” And again, I was nevertheless told, after this release, “we don’t know yet.” So anyway:

“Leading up to the 51st New York Film Festival, there’s been a lot of speculation about a potential surprise screening in the vein of NYFF50’s sneak of Steven Spielberg’s ‘Lincoln’ and NYFF49’s work in progress screening of Martin Scorsese’s ‘Hugo.’ Would it be Scorsese’s ‘Wolf of Wall Street?’ Or maybe George Clooney’s ‘Monument Men?’ Or perhaps some other awards-buzzed upcoming release?

“Here at Film Society, we think a surprise isn’t a surprise unless it’s surprising. So this year, we’re looking back instead of forward and are thrilled to announce an amazing treat for true film lovers. On Friday, October 4 at 9:00pm, we’ll be screening Jean Luc-Godard’s 1962 masterpiece ‘Vivre sa vie’ on Alice Tully Hall’s giant screen in a 35mm print courtesy of Janus Films.”

The 51st annual New York Film Festival rounds out Saturday with the world premiere of “Her.”

After a film strikes a chord with moviegoers like “Gravity” did last weekend, it’s easy to try and find analogies for it among previous Best Picture nominees or winners. One comparison that continues to be made is to James Cameron’s 2009 game changer, “Avatar.” Before we judge the merits of that argument, let’s jog your brain and revisit some movie history, shall we?

Unlike any film before it, “Avatar” transformed how filmmakers use 3D and how audiences view it as cinematic experience. It was more than a movie, it was a cultural touchstone that eventually earned $2.7 billion worldwide and $760.6 million in the US (and it’s still the all-time champ in both categories). The film also earned nine Academy Award nominations, but lost Best Picture and Best Director to “The Hurt Locker,” which, in an example of divine intervention, was directed by Cameron’s ex-wife, Kathryn Bigelow.

Other 3D marvels have followed including the animated “How to Train Your Dragon,” Martin Scorsese’s “Hugo” and “Life of Pi,” which earned Ang Lee his second Best Director trophy last February. Now “Gravity” has arrived and is once again demonstrating the artistic possibilities of using 3D technology in cinema. And with it comes an argument that “Gravity” cannot win Best Picture because, well, um, it’s “Avatar!” Soothsayers will tell you both films are science-fiction, 3D epics that won’t appeal to Academy members. A smaller film such as “12 Years a Slave” is really the one to watch. If it’s a battle of “Gravity” vs. “12 Years a Slave,” history has told us “The Hurt Locker” beat “Avatar,” so, therefore, “12 Years” will take home Oscar gold. Well, that may eventually occur, but it’s certainly not because “Gravity” is this year’s “Avatar.” And boy are there some stark reasons why.

There’s science-fiction and there is sci-fi
Comparing “Gravity” to “Avatar” is like comparing a McIntosh apple to a golden delicious. Sure, they are both apples, but they both taste different. “Avatar” is genre sci-fi with spaceships traveling across the galaxy, aliens and a big massive battle in robotic suits at the end. “Gravity” is barely science-fiction and is much closer to something like “Gattaca,” “Inception” or even Danny Boyle’s “Sunshine.” “Gravity” is based so much in reality (different orbits aside) that even that categorization is weak. No disrespect to Cameron, but it’s hard to get AMPAS members to vote for a movie with such a blockbuster final act as “Avatar” had. No showdown between blue aliens and machine gun-toting soldiers in “Gravity.”

Critical love comes in different shapes and sizes
“Avatar” was critically acclaimed, but not to the extent that “Gravity” has been. Cameron’s epic earned an 83 out of 100 score on Metacritic and an 83% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes. “Gravity” is currently at 96 out of 100 on Metacritic and 98% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes. That’s a substantial difference. “Avatar” won best film prizes from the Austin  and Dallas-Fort Worth Film Critics Associations, as well as the New York Film Critics Online (yep, that’s it). “Gravity” has to be a frontrunner to win the much more prestigious LA Film Critics or New York Film Critics’ Circle best film honors. “Avatar” didn’t have a chance with those groups.

James Cameron had already conquered the Oscars
Lest we forget, James Cameron had already become King of the World after “Titanic” tied the record for most Oscars for one film with 11. And Cameron himself took home three individual honors in the picture, director and film editing categories. There was no desperate need to “reward” Cameron again. Alfonso Cuarón arguably had one masterpiece already on his resume (“Children of Men”) and “Gravity” is his second. It’s time for the visionary to be honored by his peers.

Actors branch is at play
This is obvious. “Avatar” earned zero acting nominations (although Zoe Saldana got robbed in Best Supporting Actress) and it’s hard to win Best Picture without one: only “The Last Emperor,” “Braveheart,” “The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King” and “Slumdog Millionaire” have pulled that off in the past 26 years. Not only is Sandra Bullock a lock for a Best Actress nomination, but the former winner could win again. Plus, let’s remember, she won the first time for “The Blind Side” taking out none other than Meryl Streep (think about that for a second). Moreover, George Clooney could easily sneak into what is only a mildly competitive Best Supporting Actor category.

Warner Bros. is a veteran player
Remember, when 20th Century Fox managed “Avatar’s” campaign they were a little late to the party not realizing they had a shot until close to Christmas. The studio also hadn’t had a real Best Picture player since “Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World” six years earlier. That’s a long time in awards season planning. While big Fox is now back in a groove after the success of “Life of Pi,” that was not the case with “Avatar.” Warner Bros., on the other hand, has had a Best Picture nominee 8 of the last 10 awards seasons (not counting two other films they co-produced and released internationally). They also have three of the last nine winners (“Million Dollar Baby,” “The Departed,” “Argo”). When you compare that to some of the more, um, vocal players it’s quite impressive. In the same period The Weinstein Company has two wins, Fox Searchlight has one, the basically defunct Miramax has one and Summit Entertainment/Lionsgate (although not combined companies at the time) have two.  Warner Bros. does things their way. It’s not always flashy, but they are more focused at times than the other players on the board. Don’t discount this, because WB’s competitors don’t.

Remember, just because it’s an apple or an orange doesn’t mean they are the same kind apple or orange. And “Gravity” is not “Avatar” in an awards season context.

Agree? Disagree? Share your thoughts below.

http://players.brightcove.net/4838167533001/BkZprOmV_default/index.html?videoId=4912077537001

Always wanted to hear Judi Dench break down the plot of “Big Momma’s House” but never thought you’d see the day? Well friends, the wait is over.

“It’s about a little black man pretending to be a fat black lady,” exclaims Dench in the first trailer for the forthcoming Stephen Frears effort “Philomena.” It’s a pisser of a line in what otherwise looks to be one of the most tear-jerking films this year, a small-scale drama that follows Dench’s title character as she tracks down the adult son she was forced to give up for adoption decades before with the help of an unemployed journalist (Steve Coogan). Co-written by Coogan and Jeff Pope, the film won the award for Best Screenplay at this year’s Venice Film Festival and nabbed the People’s Choice Award Runner-Up prize in Toronto.

Check out the full trailer below.

“Philomena” hits U.S. shores on November 22.

Well, no sooner had I updated the category than the Academy announced the final, official slate of submissions for this year’s Best Foreign Language Film Oscar — and a bumper slate it is. Last year’s race featured 71 films, then a record number; this year, that record has been broken by a significant margin, with 76 territories vying for the award. 

Among them are a couple of nations entering the race for the first time, including Saudi Arabia (a favorite for a nomination, and possibly the win, with the feminist heartwarmer “Wadjda”), Moldova and Montenegro.

Speaking of Chad, the African country may be a minor filmmaking nation, but it’s the most high-profile of the last-minute entries: their selection, Mahamet Saleh-Haroun’s “Grigris,” played in Competition at this year’s Cannes Film Festival. A story of a physically disabled dancer who gets caught up in illegal petrol trafficking — with an unexpected feminist slant — it hasn’t been as well-received by critics as Haroun’s previous film, the father-son drama “A Screaming Man,” which won the Cannes Jury Prize in 2010. (You can read my own thoughts on the film in my Variety review from Cannes, in which I called it “elegant [and] geographically vivid,” but marred by “wan characterization.”) 

I remember being somewhat surprised that Chad didn’t enter that film (or, indeed, any other) in the race that year, having entered another of Haroun’s films in the past — it could feasibly have found some fans in the branch, so I’m glad they’re back in the mix. “Grigris” is probably a longer shot for Academy recognition, though it’s not inconceivable that its combination of sentiment and exoticism could appeal to a sect of voters, perhaps even within the executive committee. In any event, it’s always encouraging to see another African country in the Oscar hunt; the only others this year are South Africa, Egypt and Morocco.

Other late entries rounding out the list on our contenders page include “Agon,” from Albania; “Steppe Man,” from Azerbaijan; “Sang Kiai,” from Indonesia; and “All God’s Children,” from Moldova. Of those, only the Albanian entry has received much international exposure: a story of two Albanian immigrant brothers in Greece, it premiered at the Chicago Film Festival last year.

Every year, a couple of countries appear on the final Academy list with different films to the ones they originally entered, usually to comply with category rules that rendered their initial selections ineligible.

Two countries fall into that category this year: most prominently, the Czech Republic, which initially had one of the field’s higher-profile entries with Agnieszka Holland’s political drama “Burning Bush.” The four-hour film was disqualified because it initially aired as a miniseries on HBO Europe, thus preventing the Polish-born Holland from possibly becoming the first filmmaker to score nods in this category for three different countries. (She was nominated two years ago for Poland’s entry, “In Darkness,” and for West Germany’s “Angry Harvest” in 1985.) I had initially thought she might have fallen foul of the Academy rule that requires submitting countries to certify that their selection was creatively controlled by a citizen or resident, but it seems that wasn’t the problem.

Instead, a true Czech veteran will represent the country: Jiri Menzel, whose 1967 classic “Closely Watched Trains” won the Oscar 46 years ago. (He was nominated again in 1986 for “My Sweet Little Village.”) His latest, “The Don Juans,” is a broad comedy about the antics of a small-town opera troupe; it premiered last month at the Montreal Film Festival, where “slight but appealing” seemed to be the critical consensus. That’s been enough for voters in this category plenty of times before, and given Menzel’s record and reputation, this replacement contender shouldn’t be counted out.

Also switching horses is Lebanon, which is now competing with multi-stranded melodrama “Blind Intersections” instead of the more festival-traveled “Ghadi”; I’m not sure what the reason for the change is in this case. 

None of these developments, in my mind, do much to alter the apparent frontrunners in this category, which include such big-name festival hits as Denmark’s “The Hunt,” from director Thomas Vinterberg and star Mads Mikkelsen, and Iran’s French-produced “The Past,” which should benefit from the presence of two names familiar from the 2011 Oscar race: Asghar Farhadi and Berenice Bejo. The latter is part of a typically strong slate from Sony Pictures Classics, which has won the category for four years running: they have an equally strong contender in the aforementioned “Wadjda.” 

Savvy campaigners Roadside Attractions have a good shot at a nomination with Chile’s feel-good audience hit “Gloria”; it’s one of several strong contenders from this year’s Berlin Film Festival, including Romanian Golden Bear winner “Child’s Pose,” and child-led Australian festival hit “The Rocket.” Also hailing from Berlin (and representing Hong Kong) is perhaps the glossiest auteur title in the race, Wong Kar-wai’s martial-arts epic “The Grandmaster” — though I have my doubts about its chances.

We’ve plenty of time to contemplate all this, however. Official Academy screenings of all the submissions begin shortly, while pre-nomination shortlist of nine films (the six top vote-getters from the general branch, plus three selected by the smaller executive committee) will be announced in January.

Which films are you rooting for in the race, and which are you betting on? Check out the full list here, and tell us in the comments!

This weekend, 20th Century Fox arrived to the 2013 film awards season with a pair of hopefuls that couldn’t be more different from the outside. Nevertheless, Brian Percival’s “The Book Thief” and Ben Stiller’s “The Secret Life of Walter Mitty,” both of which will be viewed as cloying in some circles, are made with an honesty that could stave off some of the cynicism and register. At the end of the day, though, neither is the slam dunk contender the studio may have hoped for a year after “Life of Pi.”

Percival’s adaptation of Markus Zusak’s young adult novel is a bit of a slog through 125 minutes. It never really surprises you and it never quite becomes something special in the well-worn genre it’s exploring, but it serves up emotion that could connect. The film received a standing ovation as the opening night presentation of the Mill Valley Film Festival Thursday night, though worked-up festival reactions should always be held in perspective.

I liked the film, but it never seemed to leap off the screen. There’s a flatness to it, and Percival, a “Downton Abbey” alum, doesn’t quite find the right moment of lift-off. As the emotional anchor for the story, Geoffrey Rush is perhaps the best shot at major awards attention, though young Sophie Nélisse is a sensation to keep an eye on as she progresses in her career. Emily Watson carves a fun character full of piss and vinegar, and John Williams’ score is appropriately delicate (though, for a legend like him, curiously unmemorable). Design elements are all top notch, particularly the set decoration and costumes from Anna B. Sheppard (the go-to WWII outfitter, it seems, after films like “Schindler’s List,” “The Pianist,” “Inglourious Basterds” and “Captain America: The First Avenger”).

Stiller’s film, meanwhile, is quite uneven and a bit of a shaggy dog. I was touched, however, by its emotional honesty and artistic passion; it’s obvious that Stiller poured a lot into it. But the film just feels a bit disheveled. And it’s already an affront and a bone of contention for some critics, not that films like “The Blind Side” and “Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close” haven’t found their way through that fog in the past.

Stiller is good in the title role, but it’s nothing that can quite dent a competitive Best Actor race full of exemplary performances. Kristen Wiig is well-utilized, but it’s not enough of a performance to register (due respect to the difficulty of making the proper object-of-affection impact with such limited screen time). The best part of the movie might just be Sean Penn’s brief, soulful cameo performance of a character whose story you’d probably rather be watching unfold (though, funnily enough, that speaks to the theme lurking somewhere inside the film).

Nevertheless, like “The Book Thief,” I struggle to see this one figuring in too heavily to the awards landscape. It’s simply too good a year for movies to just slide in. Ridley Scott’s “The Counselor” is screening here and there finally, but it isn’t being positioned as an awards movie by Fox. If some critics take it on as a cause, then the scales could shift, but I think this pair of heart string tuggers (plus the DreamWorks Animation slate) is what Fox really has to work with this year. My guess is “The Book Thief” is the more viable option, but we’ll see. It could just be this and that. Or maybe Williams gets his umpteenth Oscar nomination and that’s all that happens.

So the Best Picture category continues to take shape. Spike Jonze’s “Her” will be the next to join the fray this week as the closing night film of NYFF. Will it give Warner Bros. another strong component to work with? It just might.

And on that, “Gravity” has obviously become the frontrunner this week. The industry impact it has made easily drowns out the handful of negative reactions to the more cliched elements of its story. And that’s not to diminish the criticism; we hear you. There’s just a bigger picture at work with a film like this and, for their part, I think voters are registering that bigger picture. But “Captain Phillips” is on the way. “12 Years a Slave” will be looking for a second wind from those who didn’t catch it in the saturated festival corridor. And “All is Lost” is right around the corner from release, too, eager to make its case beyond just a sure-fire Best Actor nomination for Robert Redford.

It’s a good time to love movies. There are some great ones out there. And that’s why I have a hard time seeing the Fox slate making much of an impression. Passion will quite possibly be spread too thin this year.

The Contenders section has been tweaked.

There are, obviously, many reasons to look forward to Spike Jonze’s “Her,” which premieres at the New York Film Festival later this week — beginning, of course, with the fact that it’s a Spike Jonze movie, and his first since 2009’s “Where the Wild Things Are” (much loved round these parts). But news of another major filmmaker’s indirect input just makes the whole project that much more intriguing.

It turns out Oscar-winning director Steven Soderbergh had a hand in the editing process of the quirky romantic drama, and his involvement has been described in detail by Mark Harris in his profile of Jonze. (We linked to the article in this morning’s roundup, but this particularly nugget seemed worthy of an individual spotlight.)

While the film we’ll eventually seen has not been directly edited by Soderbergh (who, of course, has edited most of his own recent work under the alias Mary Ann Bernard), Jonze turned to him for guidance when he was struggling to bring his original cut (which ran approximately 150 minutes) to a tidier length. Soderbergh offered to create his own intuitive cut of the material. His assistance, and the influence thereof, is described, in Jonze’s words, as follows:

“He”s the smartest, fastest editor-filmmaker I know. He got the movie on a Thursday, and in 24 hours, he took it from two and a half hours to 90 minutes. We basically said, ‘Be radical, shock us,” and it was awesome. He said, ‘I”m not saying this should be the cut of the movie, but these are things to think about.” It was amazingly generous of him, and it gave us the confidence to lose some big things that I wasn”t ready to lose [before]. Even though we didn”t use that exact cut, we were able to make connections between scenes out of connections he made. And making many of the cuts he suggested was a really good kind of pain.”

“Her” now runs approximately two hours — halfway between Jonze’s previous edit and Soderbergh’s quick cut, then, but it’s clear that the latter was a significant stage in the process. As a writer who knows the value of a keen editorial eye — particularly at the stage when you’ve been living too closely to your own creation for too long — it tickles me to think of two such singular artists supporting each other in this way. (It’s evidently not the first time the two friends have called each other: Soderbergh is also thanked in the closing credits for “Where the Wild Things Are.”)

Meanwhile, it’s heartening to know that Soderbergh — who recently announced his supposed retirement from directing for cinema — is still keeping in touch with the medium via the work of others. I can’t help wondering how long he’ll manage to stay away. Last month, he won two Emmy Awards for directing and editing his HBO movie “Behind the Candelabra,” so his burgeoning television career could hardly be going better.

One person, however, who might not be as thrilled with the final edit is actor Chris Cooper, whom Jonze directed to an Oscar win in 2002’s “Adaptation.” He was the focus of a movie-within-the-movie subplot that Jonze ultimately deemed inessential to his central narrative; it’s not directly stated in Harris’ piece that the omission was advised by Soderbergh, though Jonze does say of his approach to shooting such potentially extraneous material: “There are times when I need room to fall. And other times when I depend on my friends to save me.”

In any event, Cooper’s in good company on the sidelines: he joins Samantha Morton, who originally voiced the key role of the operating system with whom Joaquin Phoenix’s protagonist falls in love, only to be replaced by Scarlett Johansson in post-production.

Anyway, check out the rest of Harris’s piece here — it’s a great read, and one that only further whets the appetite for one of the autumn’s most enticing prospects.

When the deadline for Best Foreign Language Film Oscar submissions passed last week, it seemed odd that China – the last major filmmaking nation not yet in the race – hadn”t submitted a film yet. As it turns out, they”d entered one on September 29; national holidays had simply prevented the announcement. And for the second time in three years, China has looked to Hollywood names to give them a boost in the race: this year”s selection, “Back to 1942,” which was released Stateside last year, features Oscar-winning actors Adrien Brody and Tim Robbins in its otherwise Chinese ensemble.

Set during the Second Sino-Japanese War, the historical drama is directed by Feng Xiaogang, who represented his country in the race three years ago with the earthquake melodrama “Aftershock.” (A record-breaking smash at home, that rather overwrought blockbuster didn”t impress the Academy sufficiently to make the January shortlist.) Feng”s latest is another natural disaster epic, portraying the widespread droughts that plunged many provinces into famine in the titular year, just as the country was being attacked by Japanese forces. I could be wrong, of course, but I”m not expecting a lot of subtlety here. 

The film centers on the plight of a once-wealthy landlord (played by Zhang Guoli) and his family, brought to their knees by the famine. Robbins plays a priest providing shelter to the displaced; Brody plays TIME correspondent Theodore H. White.

The film premiered at the Rome Film Festival last November, and opened both in China and the US shortly afterward. Reviews have not exactly been stellar: Variety critic Jay Weissberg’s remark that the film is composed mostly of “generic suffering and a few big yet uninvolving fighter-jet strafings” seems a typical view among the English-speaking contingent. (For those who want numbers, its Metacritic average is 41.)

In choosing “Back to 1942,” China is taking a similar tack to the one they tried three years ago by submitting Zhang Yimou’s tepidly reviewed WWII epic “The Flowers of War,” which starred Christian Bale in the leading role. Some pundits thought the film’s big-name value would be enough to get it onto the shortlist, but was likely too turgid to impress either the general branch voters or the executive committee.

If that film couldn’t make the grade, I see little hope for this one, meaning the Chinese are likely to continue their decade-long dry spell in this category. Only twice has China ever been nominated — most recently with 2002’s “Hero” — and they’ve never won.

As far as I’m aware, the Academy has yet to release the finalised, vetted longlist of submissions in the category, though it’s unlikely to be significantly different from the one on our Contenders page. Other countries to have submitted since our last update include Ecuador (“Porcelain Horse”), Estonia (“Free Range”) and Uruguay (“Anina”), bringing the current total to 70 — one short of last year’s record number. Check ’em out here.

The big reveal of the weekend was Ben Stiller’s “The Secret Life of Walter Mitty,” which was unveiled at the New York Film Festival to a mixed reception. Audiences seemed to respond to the whimsical romantic fantasy; perhaps unsurprisingly, critics were, on balance, a little cooler. David Hudson, as usual, does a good job of rounding up reactions to the film so far, which include warm (if not ecstatic) reviews from the trades, while the likes of IndieWire, Slant and Film.com are less convinced. (HitFix’s own Drew McWeeny offered muted approval.) Too early and inconclusive, then, to draw any conclusions about its awards-season future; it may well come down to how it plays with the public. [Fandor]

Mark Harris talks to Spike Jonze about making “Her,” “the most timely romance of the year.” [Vulture]

Quentin Tarantino names “Gravity,” “Blue Jasmine” and (yes!) “The Lone Ranger” on his list of 2013’s 10 best films so far. [Tarantino Archives]

Fox’s low-key Oscar hopeful “The Book Thief” debuted over the weekend; Pete Hammond contemplates its prospects. [Deadline]

Steve Pond on how studios are muscling back into the Oscar race — which, until “Argo”‘s win earlier this year, had been very much indie-ruled of late. [The Wrap]  

The cost of Peter Jackson’s “Hobbit” trilogy has been revealed. Well, $560 million doesn’t get you much these days. [The Guardian]

Scott Feinberg wonders which of this year’s Oscar hopefuls will benefit (or suffer) from being viewed on screeners. [The Race]

Australia’s two most recent foreign-language Oscar submissions, “The Rocket” and “Lore,” won top honors at the country’s Writers’ Guild Awards. [Variety]

Filmmaker, Oscar-nominated screenwriter and former Venice Film Festival director Carlo Lizzani died this weekend after falling from his balcony. R.I.P. [The Independent]  

After three film festivals and weeks of buzz, Alfonso Cuarón’s “Gravity” has finally arrived in theaters in the U.S. The film has been an awards season player for some time, but the universal acclaim has likely surprised even Warner Bros., who produced and is distributing the film.

As of today, “Gravity” has a 96 out of 100 average score on Metacritic. Out of 47 reviews, 27 have been graded a 100 score (for comparison’s sake, last year’s highest rated film was “Zero Dark Thirty” with a 95 and 26 100 scores). On Rotten Tomatoes, “Gravity” has a 98% “fresh” rating with 202 positive and just 5 negative reviews. Last year, the highest rated Oscar player was the eventual Best Picture winner “Argo,” with 96% (“Zero Dark Thirty” followed with 93%). And, in terms of box office, “Gravity” earned a stellar $17 million on Friday for what could be a $44-48 million opening weekend.  That would put it in the top 10 October debuts of all-time.

Obviously, critics and moviegoers are not the Academy, but that reaction shows the film’s reception in two spheres that matter to AMPAS voters. So, the big question everyone will be asking is: can “Gravity” win Best Picture? It’s one subject Kristopher Tapley, Guy Lodge and I ponder as we bring you another installment of 3 on 3.

Did Universal Pictures make a mistake passing on the project?

Kristopher Tapley: It’s tough to say. Universal has been going through a lot of changes as of late and a risk like this may simply not have been a luxury they could afford. Certainly it would have been nice to have a film like “Gravity” in their catalog, because it is such a landmark achievement, but every studio is different at different times. Warner Bros. may simply have been a better home for the film at the end of the day, so I guess my answer is no, I don’t think they made a “mistake,” per se.

Gregory Ellwood: Absolutely. No one can ever realistically calculate what the extra time it took “Gravity” to find another home added to the final product, but Cuarón had this picture pre-visualized years ago. Did special effects significantly advance in just two years? Would Cuaron and his team come up with the same special effect solutions shooting in the US as they did in the UK? Would Steven Price still been the film’s composer? Hard to say. It’s also difficult to imagine Angelina Jolie, who was attached to the film at Universal, would have delivered a less powerful performance than Bullock. That means Universal lost out on what may turnout to be a global phenomenon. Now, if it had been Natalie Portman or Scarlett Johansson? No disrespect to those younger ladies, but then you’re talking a much different movie.

Guy Lodge: Well, one might say the reviews and the early box office returns provide an easy answer to that question — what studio wouldn’t regret passing on a commercial and critical hit that also looks and feels like nothing else out there? At the same time, it was a high-risk proposition: Cuarón’s last film, a similarly cutting-edge genre piece, registered with cinephiles but not general audiences, and “Gravity” came with a heftier price tag. (Meanwhile, the script — prior to reshoots — was cooler in temperature than the film we see today, so you can understand their fear that audiences wouldn’t respond to it.) Should they have been braver, trusting in Cuarón’s seemingly limitless artistry and the power of star casting to help audiences make the leap? Yes. But hindsight, much like Justin Timberlake, is always 20/20.

Unlike “Avatar” or “2001,” can “Gravity” win Best Picture?

Kristopher Tapley: Science-fiction always faces an uphill climb for whatever reason. I guess it’s genre bias, but then, it’s not like “Gravity” is a steeped in genre. It’s a thriller and more realistic than some of the stuff that becomes classified as “sci-fi,” but even a movie like “Apollo 13” couldn’t get there. I think, yes, “Gravity” can win Best Picture, but like those other two films, it’s an instant landmark. The accomplishment is lost on no one, but historically, those milestones are passed over by the Academy. I’d like to think it has an even better chance than those examples did, however.

Gregory Ellwood: The passion from filmmakers and actors who have seen “Gravity” so far says yes. Remember, “Gravity” is set in space, but it’s not science-fiction. It’s mostly (and yes, “mostly”) based completely on reality. And, so far, that seems to be resonating with the industry and the general public. A lot will be written about “Gravity’s” chances but the critical acclaim is probably even more than Warner Bros. anticipated. Will “American Hustle,” “12 Years A Slave” (upon release) or “Saving Mr. Banks” resonate more? One thing’s for sure, “Gravity” will be a contender until the end.

Guy Lodge: Yes. On the one hand, genre precedent (or lack thereof) is never a reason to bet against a film winning picture. Horror films “couldn’t” win Best Picture… until “The Silence of the Lambs.” Fantasy epics “couldn’t” win Best Picture… until “The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King.” And so on. But I think the more salient point is that “Gravity” — it’s unearthly setting notwithstanding — isn’t really cut from the same cloth as “Avatar” or “2001.” There’s debate over whether the film should really be labeled sci-fi at all. I say no: though my space knowledge is too limited to make clear judgements on the film’s real-world credibility, there was nothing in it that seemed implausible to me. Some Academy members might find overtly fantastical science-fiction alienating, but “Gravity” is a fundamentally relatable human drama, only against a spectacular backdrop. That will help it.

Sandra Bullock has not decided what her next film would be. What advice would you give her? What should she do next?

Kristopher Tapley: Far be it from me to give someone like Sandra Bullock advice, but honestly, I say this: Keep doing what you’re doing. We just ran a fun feature about some of her lesser-laureled performances that are nonetheless great examples of her being at the top of her game. She’s always had that spark, since we first saw her 20 years ago in movies like “Demolition Man” and “Speed.” She’s made smart decisions every step of the way, reaped financial benefits, picked up awards. Whatever she does next, I hope it’s less calculation than risk. Because the lesson of “Gravity” is to reach for the stars, so I’d love to see her do something completely, entirely unexpected.

Gregory Ellwood: Bullock has publicly stated she felt like she had to earn her Oscar after winning for “The Blind Side.” I think whether she wins or not this season (she will be nominated), “Gravity” proves her worth as an Academy Award-winning actress. Does this mean Bullock should be taking on the next “Under the Skin” or “Holy Motors” that comes her way? We certainly wouldn’t protest, but not really. First off, Bullock has made it clear she loves to make comedies or action comedies. Those films will always be part of her creative slate. What “Gravity” has done is to put her in the conversation of drama actresses such as Meryl Streep, Kate Winslet, Cate Blanchett and Nicole Kidman that many top filmmakers pursue for their talent and financing. That wasn’t necessarily the case after “Blind Side.”  Bullock might still lose out on some roles those other four ladies are offered, but I’d expect her prestige film output to definitely increase in the years ahead.

Guy Lodge: Anything she wants to, pretty much. Anyone who thought Bullock’s career might have peaked with her divisive Oscar win in 2010 was proven sorely wrong this year with the fantastic one-two punch of “The Heat” and “Gravity.” The former proved her enduring commercial viability in her bread-and-butter genre, and was one of the fleetest, funniest comic vehicles of her career. The latter not only took her into uncharteed territory — “Gravity” is both auteur cinema and a dramatic blockbuster — but demanded that she shoulder it pretty much solo. Not only has she gained the best reviews of her career, but her fans seem to be taking the leap with her. So she’s in an enviable position, career-wise: what she’s always done is still working, but she has enough industry clout and audience goodwill to experiment a little. I hope she keeps doing so, but I wouldn’t want her to neglect her gifts as a mainstream comedienne. “The Heat 2” is one summer sequel I actually want to see.

What did you think about “Gravity” and do you think it can win Best Picture? Vote in our poll and share your thoughts below

Let no one accuse the American Film Institute of not giving us sufficient notice on this: it won’t be presented until next summer, but veteran actress/activist/workout instructress Jane Fonda has been named the recipient of the next AFI Life Achievement Award. She’ll accept the honor at a gala tribute evening of June 5, 2014.

There’s a neat anniversary here, too: the selection of Fonda comes 35 years after her father, Oscar-winning leading man Henry Fonda, was presented with the same honor in 1978. She’ll be the 42nd recipient of the annual award, and only the eighth woman; others have been Bette Davis, Lillian Gish, Barbara Stanwyck, Elizabeth Taylor, Barbra Streisand, Meryl Streep and Shirley MacLaine. Not a bad club to be in, then.

AFI board chairman explained the selection as follows: “Jane Fonda is American film royalty. A bright light first introduced to the world as the daughter of Henry Fonda, the world watched as she found her own voice and forged her own path as an actor and a cultural icon. Today she stands tall among the giants of American film.”

Some may question whether that last sentence should really be written in the present tense. A two-time Oscar winner and seven-time nominee, Fonda was one of America’s finest screen actresses in her active period from the 1960s to the 1980s, as evident in such films as “Klute” (for which she deservedly won her first Oscar), “They Shoot Horses, Don’t They?,” “Julia,” “Coming Home” (Oscar #2), “The China Syndrome” and “Stanley & Iris,” a touching 1990 romantic drama with Robert De Niro that initially appeared to be her screen swansong. 

For after that film, Fonda — who, between her controversial political activism in the 1970s, and her 1980s reinvention as an workout-video queen — retired from cinema for 15 years, and is still an essentially dormant talent.

She returned in 2005 opposite Jennifer Lopez in “Monster-in-Law” (an odd choice of comeback vehicle, but she is rather amusing in it), and has since dipped her toe in occasionally: 2006’s “Georgia Rule” and 2011’s “Peace, Love and Misunderstanding” didn’t exactly make any waves, though considerably more people have now seen her cameo as Nancy Reagan in “Lee Daniels’ The Butler.” She also received an Emmy nomination this year for her guest role in Aaron Sorkin’s “The Newsroom.”

Still, it seems that she hasn’t fully regained her taste for big-screen acting; no reason why she should, of course, though it’d be nice if an adventurous filmmaker could lure the 75-year-old into more challenging territory with a role that’s really worthy of her now-seasoned talent. Perhaps the AFI honor will encourage her to keep her hand in.