The funny thing about Jonathan Glazer’s “Under the Skin” is that we pretty much called it. Okay, not in print, but Greg Ellwood and I were talking to A24 publicity at the Telluride Film Festival last week and he put it bluntly: “So, you’ll be picking up ‘Under the Skin,'” he said. “It’s an A24 film if there ever was one.” And so it is.

I’m glad A24 is out there grabbing titles like this, films that challenge even in the indie vein and might not be attractive buys in the current market for the companies that might have grabbed them in the past. And mostly, I’m just excited I’ll definitely be able to see Glazer’s latest, which I kept missing at Telluride and again missed at an LA screening after the fest (it’s been playing Toronto this week).

Greg called the film a “near-masterpiece” at Telluride, noting that “Glazer has created a conversation piece that will be talked about long after the blockbusters of this year and next have come and gone.” He gave high marks to Scarlett Johansson for her performance as well. Guy, meanwhile, called it “the riskiest, most extravagantly sensual and image-fuelled film in Competition at Venice.”

I’m mostly just happy Glazer has finally made another film (and told him as much when I met him briefly up in Colorado last week). It’s been far too long since “Birth” and that film, combined with “Sexy Beast,” showed a filmmaker with a strong, definitive voice. That voice appears to be concentrated all the more in “Under the Skin.”

And by the way, this was A24’s second pick-up of the early fall festival circuit. They also nabbed “Locke,” the Tom Hardy-starrer which premiered to a warm reception in Venice. Guy will chime in with thoughts on that eventually.

The Toronto Film Festival forges on. I was dismayed to read a lot of lack-luster takes on “August: Osage County” last night. Apparently that trailer was cause to worry after all. But I’ll judge for myself when I finally see it. I did, however, catch “Dallas Buyers Club,” which is sensational. Thoughts on that in due time.

While in Venice, I lost track somewhat of the submissions process for the Best Foreign Language Film Oscar — and at this stage, with the deadline for entries only a few weeks away, turning your back on the process for even a few days means you feel significantly behind. Last time I checked in, five films had been submitted; today, by my count, the number has gone up to 22. I’ve gathered them all on the category’s Contenders page for your reference, and even done some preliminary ranking based on the entries so far; expect considerable movement there as new films join the race. As always, inside tips and insights from our international readers are most welcome, so don’t be shy.

So, where do we stand in the race at the moment? Not very steadily, to be honest, with category regulars like France, Italy, Denmark and Israel yet to submit. Last year’s complete submissions list featured 71 films, so chances are we aren’t even looking at one-third of the final field yet.

But from the smaller sampling of contenders we have so far, one trend is clear, as it has been for several years running now: the Berlin Film Festival may sit below Cannes and Venice in terms of media coverage and perceived prestige, but it’s an increasingly happy hunting ground for this particular category. “A Separation,” “A Royal Affair,” “War Witch,” “Bullhead” and “The Milk of Sorrow” are among the recent Oscar nominees to have emerged from the February chill of Berlin, and the same goes for many of the leading contenders in this race so far. 

We’ve already talked about Romania’s formidable entry, “Child’s Pose,” which won the Golden Bear at the Berlinale. But one of its closest Berlin competitors has also joined the race, and may be a slightly easier sell to the Academy: Chile’s “Gloria,” a wonderful comedy of middle-aged rebirth that won the Best Actress award for Paulina Garcia, a TV star in her home country here acing her first big-screen lead. Achingly vulnerable even at her most spunky, her delightful performance is the key selling point of this narratively loose story of a fiftysomething divorcee reasserting her personal, social and sexual worth after too many years in the background, but it also shows off writer-director Sebastian Lelio as a filmmaker of breezy confidence and warm human understanding.

As I wrote in my review at Berlin, it’s a richly enjoyable, universally accessible film with a light feminist undertow — and US indie distributor Roadside Attractions evidently agreed, smartly snapping it up shortly after it emerged as one of Berlin’s clear crowdpleasers. Roadside have proven savvy Oscar campaigners in recent years, defying the odds to land major Oscar nods for scrappy outsiders like “Winter’s Bone,” “Albert Nobbs,” “Margin Call” and “Biutiful” (their first foreign-language nominee), so I expect them to do well by “Gloria.”

Could Garcia even do a Fernanda Montenegro (who, incidentally, also began her awards trail with a win at Berlin) and break into the Best Actress race? It’ll be a hard climb, but it’s possible. For Best Foreign Language Film, meanwhile, I like their chances a lot more; indeed, I think it might be the strongest contender in the race so far. After over 20 years of trying, Chile landed their first ever Oscar nod with Pablo Larrain’s “No”; perhaps it’s a good luck charm of sorts that Larrain is attached to “Gloria” as a producer. 

Another Berlin breakout that joined the race only this morning is Australia’s “The Rocket,” which won a number of awards at Berlin — including Best First Film for director Kim Mordaunt — before going on to claim Best Film, Best Actor and, most tellingly, the Audience Award at the Tribeca Film Festival. I missed this reputedly heartwarming tale of a resilient 10-year-old in Laos who takes leadership of his family when they are evicted from their ancestral home by corporate developers, but I’ve heard nothing but moist-eyed praise from colleagues; comparisons to “Beasts of the Southern Wild” and “Whale Rider” have been made more than once.

Australia has yet to land an Oscar nod in this category; they made the January shortlist with 2009’s “Samson and Delilah,” and I really thought they’d crack it with last year’s Holocaust drama “Lore.” it seems they’ve given themselves their best possible chance of breaking that duck this year. (Meanwhile, Australia’s neighbor, New Zealand, has entered the race for only the second time with the Maori-language drama “White Lies,” about the class clashes that emerge when a wealthy white townswoman seeks the help of a traditional rural healer to help bury a potentially fatal secret.)

Another notable contender with Berlinale origins actually dates all the way back to last year — and it comes from Austria, reigning champions in the category with “Amour.” “The Wall” is hardly in the same league of art house prestige, but it’s a very fine film, and a career-crowning showcase for German star Martina Gedeck. She’s on galvanizing form as a holidaymaker in the Alps who, following the departure of her companions on a casual errand, finds herself sealed off from the rest of the world by an invisible but impenetrable barrier, with no other humans in sight. It’s a lo-fi sci-fi premise for a film that otherwise operates as a realistic character study, with Gedeck taking gutsy initiative to survive.

Music Box Films released “The Wall” in the US back in May. It was released last year, near the start of the eligibility period, in its home country, and was nominated for five awards at the Austrian Film Awards in February, including Best Film, Director and Actress. It lost all three of those to Ulrich Seidl’s daring sex-tourism study “Paradise: Love.” It’s fair to say their selection committee has picked the more Academy-friendly effort, though it might still be a tough sell to the Academy.

Two more Berlin titles in the race, both from Eastern Europe: Georgia’s “In Bloom,” a coming-of-age tale about pubescent female friendship in the post-independence climate of 1992 that won the CICAE Award at the festival, and has since taken Best Film and Best Actress at Sarajevo; and Serbia’s “Circles,” a crime drama about the long-term fallout from an act of fatal violence by three Serb soldiers that won an Ecumenical Jury award at Berlin. In fact, “Circles” had its world premiere in the World Cinema strand of Sundance, where it won a Special Jury Prize.

Cannes, by contrast, doesn’t have much of a presence in the submissions list just yet. One high-profile entry from the festival to look out for, however, is Singapore’s “Ilo Ilo.” I haven’t yet seen this debut feature from Anthony Chen, which was unveiled in the Directors’ Fortnight sidebar, but the already noisy Croisette chatter around it grew louder still when it won the Camera d’Or — beating out such higher-profile debuts as “Fruitvale Station.”

Reviews have been uniformly glowing for this gentle story of the bond between a 10-year-old Singaporean boy, neglected by his financially pressured parents, and his loving Filipina nanny; I’ve heard Edward Yang comparisons bandied about, and those are not to be used or taken lightly. Already picked up by Film Movement for a 2014 US release, it seems an unusually strong contender from Singapore, which has entered the race only seven times since 1959, to no avail.

“Ilo Ilo” may well be Asia’s best hope in the competition so far — particularly with Japan, averse as ever to the obvious in the submissions process, having thrown us a curveball with their entry. At Cannes, many pundits noted that Jury Prize winner “Like Father, Like Son,” Hirokazu Kore-eda’s sentimental study of two families rocked by the discovery that their children were switched at birth, had all the makings of an Oscar frontrunner. Hayao Miyazaki’s gorgeous swansong “The Wind Rises,” a smash hit in Japan, seemed a plausible alternative. 

Perhaps predictably, the Japanese selection committee has gone with neither of those, instead selecting “The Great Passage,” a romantic drama from 30-year-old director Yuya Ishii (“Sawako Decides”), now the youngest filmmaker ever to represent his country in the race. The story of a socially awkward bookworm tasked with compiling a vast “living language” dictionary while he pines for his landlady’s winsome granddaughter, it’s been a minor presence on the festival circuit, premiering at Hong Kong in March and since playing the Seattle fest in June.

That’s not necessarily a drawback: their last nominee in the category, 2008’s “Departures,” also emerged from next-to-nowhere before beating far more celebrated titles (including a Palme d’Or winner, no less) to the prize. The film may well be a delight, but I can’t help suspecting the Japanese selectors have denied themselves an easier path to a nomination in a race that — after two straight years of long-telegraphed frontrunners in “A Separation” and “Amour” — is very much up for grabs this year.

Keep up with the ongoing submissions list here. 

http://players.brightcove.net/4838167533001/BkZprOmV_default/index.html?videoId=4912083569001

TORONTO – One of the more intense scenes in Denis Villeneuve well respected new thriller “Prisoners” features stars Hugh Jackman, Terrence Howard and Paul Dano.  And it’s a visceral, cinematic moment you’ll likely remember the rest of the year.

Blue collar family man Keller (Jackman) has kidnapped local misfit Alex (Dano), a person of interest in the disappearance of both Keller and Franklin’s daughters that was set free by the police.  Keller takes matters into his own hands believing Alex is the best hope in finding his daughter.  Franklin (Howard) is appalled at Keller’s actions, but is torn because every hour the girls are missing means there is a greater chance they will never be found alive.  Thus begins an incredibly disturbing and abusive interrogation. It’s parallels to terrorist interrogations notwithstanding, this sequence is one reason the thriller is affecting some critics more than you would have originally thought it woudl.

During an interview with Jackman late last week during this year’s Toronto International Film Festival, I last year’s best actor nominee about one particular moment in the interrogation where Keller completely loses it. You’ve seen Jackman throw down some “Wolverine rage” before, but he’s never been anywhere near as ferocious as he is in this one particular scene. Watch the video embedded above to hear what Villeneuve said to him after his first take and then what happened next.

During our chat Jackman also admitted that if the director of the Oscar-nominated “Incendies” wasn’t chosen to direct he might not have taken the role.

“I had been offered it and it had been circling for awhile. [But] I didn’t sign on until Denis came on board,” Jackman says. “Because the movie is part genre movie. There is that element of thriller, edge of your seats, the cop finding the kid and the father. It was always in the script. It was always complex and great but I knew it needed a director of the same kind of mentality and style to bring not only the genre element of it out but the high ambition of the dramatic element.”

“Prisoners” also benefits from the expert lensing of the one and only Roger Deakins. Jackman’s eyes lit up when talking about the legendary cinematographer.  

“This movie is so stylish without making it ‘Look how stylish we are!’ Everything supports the story,” Jackman says. “That’s what’s so great about Roger. He’s by far the most famous. He has been nominated 10 times for an Academy Awards. He’s the most humble guy. Everything is in service to the story. Nothing is about ‘Look at me! Look at what I’m doing with the camera.’  Nothing.”

Jackman adds, “The day he was nominated or his 10th Oscar nomination I got my first Oscar nomination.  And I remember walking up to him on the first day of shooting and saying, ‘Man, look at that. Between you and me it’s 11 nominations.’  He’s like ‘I don’t think I’ll go.’ He’s like the humblest guy.”

Either could be nominated this year for “Prisoners” on the merits of the work, but both are in very competitive categories. That being said, the collaboration between Villeneuve, Jackman and Deakins (not to mention Jake Gyllenhaal, Viola Davis and Howard) should put “Prisoners” near the top of your must-see list for September.

“Prisoners” opens nationwide on Sept. 20.

TORONTO – Matthew Weiner has proven himself to be an incredible writer and director on the small screen. He’s earned critical acclaim and numerous awards for his landmark series “Mad Men.” On Saturday afternoon, Weiner unveiled his screenwriting and feature directorial debut at the 2013 Toronto International Film Festival with the dramedy “You Are Here.” It was not his finest two hours.

“You Are Here” is primarily about the relationship between two longtime best friends, Steve and Ben, played by Owen Wilson and Zach Galifianakis respectively. Steve is barely keeping his job as an Annapolis TV weather man and Ben is a failed writer appearing to scrape by enough to sustain both of their pot smoking habits. Ben is also suffering from some bi-polar or schizophrenic tendencies and we soon discover that Steve is shadowing him enough to make sure he doesn’t do anything too crazy or dangerous. When Ben learns his father has passed away, he convinces Steve to return to their childhood hometown in rural Pennsylvania to attend the burial.

The funeral introduces Ben’s straight arrow sister Terry (Amy Poehler) and his 25-year-old stepmother Angela (Laura Ramsey). You don’t even need Terry to utter a line to know she dislikes Angela and has serious contempt for her long absent brother (don’t worry, she verbalizes both anyway). The reading of the will surprises all parties as Ben receives the lucrative family grocery store, farm and family home. Terry is furious, believing it’s all somehow a plot of Angela’s. Meanwhile, Angela just wants to leave town and move on with her life. The pressures of his new inheritance make Ben more mentally unstable than usual and Steve’s only concern is figuring out how to hit on a widower who is still suffering from the loss of her husband. And did we mention there’s physical comedy too?

Beyond an overstuffed screenplay, Weiner’s biggest mistake is an attempt to fashion a James L. Brooks-esque dramedy out of the proceedings. It should be noted that even Brooks only succeeded with his own formula a few times (this critic would argue only twice) and it’s a specific tone that’s incredibly difficult to duplicate. “You Are Here” switches from slapstick comedy to serious family drama to romantic comedy to a mental health awareness drama over and over and over again. Even Brooks would have dropped at least two out of the four categories. Granted, Weiner directs a few individual scenes that are at least interesting to watch, but they all seem like they are cut from different films. Moreover, when he falls flat, he really falls flat. There are too many moments when a scene intended to evoke laughs played to complete silence during the picture’s premiere. Considering the improvisational talents involved in the production that’s somewhat shocking.

Overall, the actors provide Weiner little assistance in turning all the parts into a cohesive whole. And, frankly, the actual casting seems a bit strange across the board. Did Weiner bring Poehler in to play Terry because he thought she’d bring some comic levity to the role? Terry is basically a “straight” character; why waste Poehler’s talents here? On the other hand, Ben is simply old hat to Galifianakis. He’s played slightly different versions of this character in “The Hangover” series and “Due Date.” Wilson is also in familiar territory playing a loser getting by on his quick wit and charm. That’s a role he could play in his sleep. The relatively unknown Ramsey is OK, but casting her in such a pivotal role is head-scratching. Clearly Wilson, Galifianakis and Poehler wanted the chance to work with the talented “Mad Men” creator no matter what. Taking that into account, Weiner couldn’t find a better actress than Ramsey to play what is effectively Steve’s love interest and the crux of the movie’s third act? Yes, the film is so disjointed and terribly paced these are questions you start to ask yourself while actually watching the picture.

Weiner also does himself no favors in making sure the production appears as much like a studio film as possible. From Chris Maley’s glossy camera work to David Carbonara’s forgettable score you’d think you were watching a stock romantic comedy from the past 20 years. You’d hardly believe these three men are integral parts of the stylish and sophisticated “Mad Men.”

Even with Wilson, Galifianakis and Poehler in the fold, the commercial prospects for “You Are Here” are weak. It will likely earn a token limited release before heading to VOD and cable. Weiner is clearly a creative force, but “You Are Here” proves he might need another strong voice in the room to get it right on the big screen.

Boy was there a wealth of topics to write about this week. I could have dug in on an extremely crowded Best Actor race that already features 12 or 13 performances that have actually been seen (with a handful that could be real threats still to come). I could have done a typical roundup of awards prospects for films that dropped in Toronto over the weekend. I could have commented on the amount of quality we’ve already seen and how, so far, it’s looking like 2013 could be one of the great film years.

But then I saw this Vulture piece, and something I had been fending off as mere inside baseball bitching suddenly stuck in my craw. So let’s get this business out of the way at the top so we can enjoy the season.

Now, the problem with getting too bent out of shape over audacious, gun-jumping pieces like that is, really, who cares? It reads as an attention-grabbing reach, and no one is likely to take it as anything more than an attention-grabbing reach. But the stench of ownership on the race and predictions and whatnot has begun to reek far too much for my taste.

I typically scoff at notions thrown around by the hipper-than-thou set that people like me on this beat are just looking for “first” points. It’s not true of everyone and it’s simply not cred any of us here are really after, because we’ve established it. We set the stage here year after year and the track record speaks for itself. But it’s understandable for those wading into awards coverage waters to be eager to make their mark.

At Telluride, the outspoken annoyance with Oscar talk seemed to reach a fever pitch, and then, ironically, some of those same voices joined the chorus once they made it up to Toronto. “Sandra Bullock is pretty much a lock for one of the Best Actress slots,” one journalist Tweeted this weekend upon seeing “Gravity.” And then, within an hour: “I am sick to death about reading cumulative tweets about the Oscar race on the first Saturday of TIFF. Slow the f*ck down.” It’s breathtaking, really. But it’s also indicative of something else.

There is a spike in early Oscar discussion, yes. This year I submit that it has, in part, to do with the overwhelming quality of the work. “12 Years a Slave,” “Gravity,” “Captain Phillips” — these are great movies. Great movies are given to superlatives, and in certain corners of the mind, “Oscar” — as an idea, anyway — is meant to be a quality assessment. But the spike also seems to say something about a craving for relevance, a clamoring for a place in the conversation. Vulture calling the Oscar race over in September? Sure got a lot of hits. The amount of outlets — Collider, Rope of Silicon, etc. — that has begun lighting out for these destinations with awards barometers in tow? Sniffing out ad buys, no doubt. (And we, by the way, welcome the new voices to the discussion.)

This goes for mainstream outlets, too. Variety has been trying to figure out the online awards thing for a while after having frankly been on pace with, ahem, a pretty good (opinionated) blog and awards landing page six years ago. Last week it seemed someone high enough up the chain was pushing the newly appointed (old school) awards columnist to cook up something, anything, regarding the Oscars in the trade’s Venice coverage. The pressure is on to read as something at least approaching authority in some quarters. In others, as we see year after year, any pontification will do.

With that in mind, the hypocritical quote above reflects the sense that some feel as though only they are the gatekeepers of these kinds of assessments (assessments that, at the end of the day, do not equate to rocket science). I spoke with a friend and colleague well read in the space at Telluride who was bemoaning the amount of people calling “12 Years a Slave” an Oscar film, while he himself proclaimed “Prisoners” an “instant Oscar contender.” So I put the question to him: “Are you the only one who gets to call something an Oscar contender?” Rhetorical, but I think it landed.

So the voices are here to stay. The noise and the clutter will get louder. But it’s not ruining movies, and anyone who thinks it is must be stuck on facile reasoning. I submit what one Oscar-nominated filmmaker, whose work is well-loved in the cinephile set, said to me ahead of Telluride: “Awards don’t mean anything except that I get to keep making the movies I want to make.” Oscar buzz equals box office, and at the end of the day, if you want quality movies, you should want them to have Oscar buzz. It’s one of the only ways quality films meant for an adult audience can find that audience in this day and age, with brands and blockbusters weighing down advertising budgets.

Do we want Steve McQueen to keep making the movies he wants to make? Do we want Paul Greengrass to keep making the movies he wants to make? Do we want Alfonso Cuarón and David O. Russell and Bennett Miller and Jason Reitman and the Coen brothers, etc., to keep making the movies they want to make? I should hope so, lest they be stuck on a “Hunger Games” sequel or some other dubious franchise play.

But there’s nuance in this; it’s admittedly not all or nothing. Those of us who write about the awards circuit and channel our passion for movies into cheer-leading our favorites and analyzing the field have to know what the cumulative impact is, and not just the cumulative impact, but the impact of overt assertions. Through no fault of its own, Fox Searchlight — surely terrified that a Vulture piece with that headline on it is floating around in September — is the early Best Picture frontrunner with “12 Years a Slave.” But they might ask what Sony thought of that with “The Social Network,” or Paramount with “Up in the Air.” Two things happen when the media sets you up like that: you have farther to fall and you set non-festival press up with a “show me” attitude; potential backlash begins to fester as there’s a long way to go.

I’m not completely sure what my point is here. The Oscars, for all their faults, will always be an ideal. It’s good to have an ideal. It’s wrong to look at movies as product in a race to the finish but it’s good for films like “Short Term 12” and “Before Midnight” and “Mud” to be considered in terms of whether they might reach “the ideal.” The whole damn thing is a paradox. But you can put too much on it, and if your goal as a journalist is simply to be heard — if it’s about you, not the movies — then you’re getting in the way of art. Then you’re ruining movies.

With that off my chest, let’s see how the rest of the Toronto Film Festival plays out. There has been some exciting discussion of Matthew McConaughey, Idris Elba, Naomie Harris, etc. Next week, I promise, we’ll be back to actually talking about the movies, not the noise around them. In the meantime, the Contenders section has been tweaked.

It’s safe to say HitFix’s Drew McWeeny was a big fan of John Carney’s “Can a Song Save Your Life?,” which premiered at the Toronto Film Festival yesterday. “It should not come as any surprise that John Carney, who wrote and directed ‘Once,’ has made another great film that focuses on songwriters and the way their lives influence their work, and I love that it doesn’t feel like he’s just trying to reproduce that movie’s charms,” Drew wrote in his review. “It’s the sort of movie that I feel protective of right away, because it’s delicate. It’s not trying to be a giant megablockbuster that opens on 3000 screens. It is heartfelt and deeply human, and it means every word it says.”

A number of distributors must feel similarly (or see the potential for audiences to feel similarly) about the film, which stars Keira Knightley and Mark Ruffalo: an all-night auction eventually led to The Weinstein Company securing exclusive talks to acquire it. Deadline is reporting that the film will be picked up for $7 million minimum for US rights with a $20 million P&A (prints and advertising) commitment.

Meanwhile, Exclusive Media is nearly done auctioning off the remaining foreign markets, meaning this one was, in so many words, the first truly hot ticket of the festival. Focus Features nailed down worldwide rights for “Bad Words” yesterday, so it’s not the first sale, but it is the first film that has apparently yielded such a feeding frenzy, given that these kinds of auctions are uncommon these days.

TWC was also busy during Telluride, picking up John Curran’s “Tracks” (which premiered in Venice), slowly filling out a 2014 slate we could be talking about in terms of Oscars this time next year. Expect more movement from Harvey and company when Cannes rolls around again in May.

The 27th annual Toronto Film Festival is on-going. Keep it tuned into HitFix for the latest as it happens.

VENICE – “I have a feeling Bertolucci’s going to be a bit spikier than that,” a colleague said to me yesterday, after I ventured my not-at-all confident prediction that Hayao Miyazaki’s romantic animated biopic “The Wind Rises” would win the Golden Lion. To some extent, actually, we agreed. This year’s Bertolucci-led jury didn’t exactly seem likely to hand the top prize to the comfortingly middlebrow “Philomena,” however much the crowds at Venice wanted them to: with other jurors including Andrea Arnold, Pablo Larrain and Carrie Fisher, it was hard to tell just what they’d agree on, but the odds were firmly stacked against it being safe.

Well, Bertolucci was a bit spikier than that, all right.

Tonight’s Venice awards ceremony was the most surprising — and the most contentious — I’ve seen in the time I’ve been tracking film festivals. As I watched it play out in a press room filled mostly with hot-tempered Italian journalists, one announcement after another met with lusty booing, and Bertolucci proceeded to heap glittering prizes upon some of the most critically unpopular films of the festival. So hostile was the room by the time the Golden Lion was announced that my hopes were raised for Bertolucci to aggravate onlookers even further by tapping Jonathan Glazer’s profoundly polarizing “Under the Skin” for the honor. It wasn’t to be; the jury aggravated them instead by picking one of the least talked-about films in Competition.

You’d have expected the crowd to be reasonably in favor of an Italian film taking Venice’s top award: it hasn’t happened since Gianni Amelio’s “The Way We Laughed” in 1998. (Amelio, as it happens, was also in Competition this year, though he left empty-handed.) But a puzzled collective murmur, interspersed with some isolated, half-hearted claps, greeted the news that this year’s Golden Lion winner is Gianfranco Rosi’s “Sacro GRA,” a documentary about life at the edges of the circular Roman highway of the title. In hindsight, we should have seen an Italian win coming, what with Bertolucci as jury prez, and the festival celebrating its 70th anniversary, but you still probably wouldn’t have bet on it being this.

First screened on Thursday, by which time many journalists had already packed their bags for Toronto, the film met with a muted if not impolite critical response: non-Italians, in fact, seemed more responsive to what was widely labelled a curio, though the consensus was that the film was unavoidably a niche proposition, unlikely to set international art houses alight.

Catching up with it at its post-ceremony screening, I was more taken with it than most: a diffuse spaghetti-junction of lives in the margins, glowingly shot in a tenderly observational mode, it struck me as a street-level counterpart to the year’s other Roman social wallow, Paolo Sorrentino’s “The Great Beauty.” The premise suggests humorless vérité, but this is funny, poetic stuff; it never quite organizes its strands into something approaching momentum, but it’s never dull either. I can see why Bertolucci and his colleagues felt they were making an exciting choice here, even if the film’s crossover appeal is unavoidably limited.

“It could have been worse,” the aggrieved Swedish journalist next to me muttered. I had already gathered just how much worse, from his perspective, it could have been by the volume of his jeers when Bertolucci, a tellingly miscievous smile on his face, announced the first award of the Competition: the Special Jury Prize for German formaslist Phillip Groning’s “The Police Officer’s Wife,” a film that met with vicious catcalls at its press screening early in the festival, and did so again tonight. An unremittingly downbeat, three-hour study of a respectable middle-class family torn asunder by brutal domestic violence, it didn’t attract criticism for its hope-free content as much as its highly affected construction: the film is broken into 59 “chapters,” ranging in length from a few seconds to 10 minutes, each one bracketed with a slow fade to/from black, accompanied by cards stating “Beginning of Chapter X” and “End of Chapter X.”

It’s a maddening, deliberately distancing ploy that does little to enhance or connect the individual scenes — many of which are quite stunning in their intimate horror, making it all the more frustrating that Groning has decided to lock his very fine actors into such a self-admiring directorial conceit. Yet I wasn’t as mad at “The Police Officer’s Wife” as some were: its structure was fundamentally misguided but almost fascinatingly perverse, and it struck me as just the kind of commendably impossible experiment that Special Jury Prizes should probably be reserved for, particularly in a Competition lineup this short on great or even fully realized films.

Having dropped that bombshell, the jury then proceeded to mollify middlebrow sensibilities with the next few awards. The Marcello Mastrianni Award for teenage “Joe” star Tye Sheridan went down well, even if most would agree that there wasn’t much in the way of competition. The Best Screenplay win for “Philomena” was, predictably enough, greeted with elated cheers; put it down to Catholic empathy, but it seems the Italians adore Stephen Frears’ film even more than the British will. Steve Coogan and co-writer Jeff Pope weren’t there to accept the award, unable to tear themselves away from their Toronto Film Festival duties. Coogan can afford to be blase, even if his presence would have brightened up a speedy, laughless ceremony: “Philomena” seems primed to get him a BAFTA nod, if not more.

That win fed expectations of an accompanying victory for Judi Dench — those were the very two awards “The Queen” took in 2006, after all — but the jury wasn’t going to indulge the unchallenging crowdpleaser any further. Instead, Best Actress went to another veteran, Italian stage star Elena Cotta, for her turn as a stubborn Sicilian elder holding down one half of a car-based battle of wills in “A Street in Palermo.” I missed the film myself, though the win was a warmly received one. Italian cinema, oddly enough, rarely debuts its showcase films at Venice — a Paolo Sorrentino, for example, is always going to get snatched up by Cannes first — but Bertolucci’s jury gave the local industry plenty to celebrate last night.

A national cinema that Venice continues to promote more than its rivals on the festival scene is Greece. Cannes may have got the ball rolling when Yorgos Lanthimos’ “Dogtooth” won Un Certain Regard in 2009, but it’s Venice that has sustained the mini-revival since, adventurous placing Athina Rachel Tsangari’s “Attenberg” (2010) and Lanthimos’ follow-up “Alps” (2011) in Competition, where they both won awards. The filmmakers were too closely tied for claims of a Greek New Wave to rings entirely true, but this year, Alexandros Avranas’ “Miss Violence” suggested there is indeed something in the water: unrelated, but self-evidently influenced by Lathimos’ and Tsangari’s deadpan extremism, it is also now the country’s most loftily rewarded festival title in recent years.

The presentation of the Best Actor award to “Miss Violence” lead Themis Panou didn’t raise too many eyebrow. As I said in my predictions piece, that particular contest was a lean one, and Panou had been earmarked as one of its strongest possibilities for his turn as a warped patriarch whose schlubby demeanor belies his capacity for violence and sexual perversity.

But if the gathered press managed polite applause for Panou’s win, the mood in the room soured when Bertolucci announced, immediately afterwards, that “Miss Violence” had also taken the Silver Lion for Best Director. Avranas’ film hadn’t been quite as hostilely received at its initial screening as “The Police Officer’s Wife,” though it parks its car in a similar garage, portraying as it does a family paralyzed by irredeemable moral corruption: teen suicide, incest and underage prostitution are all part of the cheerful mix here. I found the film’s transgressions a little too calculated (and, in some cases, blatantly telegraphed) to be truly shocking, and the film isn’t as sophisticated an exercise an tone as the more ironic “Dogtooth,” to which it’s obviously in thrall — but its craft is immaculate. (I reviewed the film for Variety here.)

Icily deliberate as it is, “Miss Violence” is practically a mainstream thriller compared to the jury’s more anticipated choice for the Grand Jury Prize, Tsai Ming-liang’s “Stray Dogs.” A broken-family drama to sit proudly alongside Avranas’ film and “The Police Officer’s Wife,” which enterprising art house bookers could perhaps program as a seven-hour triple bill of undiluted despair, it was more gladly received by the press, many of whom had it pegged for the Golden Lion. 

Perhaps that simply comes down to brand familiarity — Tsai is a former Golden Lion winner, after all — because “Stray Dogs” was as punishing an endurance test as anything in Competition. Only 136 minutes, but made to feel significantly longer by its reliance on long, unbroken single takes — up to 15 minutes in length — it’s a story of breadline living on the fringes of Taipei that mixes social-realist grit with the odd fanciful flourish, as in its much talked-about centerpiece scene, an 11-minute take in which our protagonist (Tsai regular Lee Kang-sheng) tearily smothers, cradles and eats a raw cabbage his daughter had been keeping as a doll.

I was less enamored of the film than some of my colleagues (coincidentally, it’s another one I reviewed for Variety), but the fact that something this off-piste was widely seen as the establishment auteur choice for the jury is indicative of just how far left Venice’s programming has veered of late. With Cannes (and now, to some extent, Toronto) denying them more accessible A-list auteur works, films that would otherwise be pushed to the fringes here become main attractions.

It’s telling that Abdellatif Kechiche was fostered by Venice with “The Secret of the Grain” and “Black Venus,” but moved to Cannes when he made a film with as much crossover potential as “Blue is the Warmest Color.” Steve McQueen debuted “Shame” on the Lido and the festival was desperate for him to return with “12 Years a Slave” — but Fox Searchlight, correctly forecasting massive Oscar buzz, decided to forgo the possibility of European awards and unveil it in the more mainstream arenas of Telluride and Toronto. It may yet prove a smart move.

Even a film that did make it to Venice — Alfonso Cuaron’s spectacular opener “Gravity” — made it on the condition that it not play in Competition. Warner Bros. generally avoids European Competition slots for its prize ponies, but it was a glaring absentee from a lineup that had less need of its Hollywood glitz than simply the breadth of its directorial vision. “Gravity” remained the high point of the festival for a number of critics (this one included), which is both a blessing and a curse: every festival programmer dreams of finding something so successful for the notoriously tricky opening slot, but when nothing else in the official selection — and, in this case, nothing in line for the festival’s awards — can surpass it, that flying start can backfire on the remaining 10 days of the festival. 

Which is not to say that Bertolucci’s jury would have given “Gravity” an award had it been made available to them. They certainly had fine options in the Competition lineup that are, if not universally accessible, likelier to reach international audiences than most of the films they singled out for attention, from Kelly Reichardt’s moody eco-thriller “Night Moves” to Xavier Dolan’s dazzling Highsmith-Hitchcock riff “Tom at the Farm” to Merzak Allouache’s polished, exotically flavored melodrama “The Rooftops” to the aforementioned, and thrilling, “Under the Skin.”

Bertolucci’s jury may simply have been picking the films they liked most, but when the films they liked most are also the ones that strayed most extravagantly from even art-film standards of narrative convention and entertainment value, the sense of an agenda emerges anyway. It goes without saying that none of the jury’s four favorites — “Sacro GRA,” “The Police Officer’s Wife,” “Stray Dogs” and “Miss Violence” — will be seen soon in a multiplex near you, but they all pose formidable challenges even to specialty distributors, even with the not-terribly-marketable boost of a Venice award.

It seems significant that Tsai announced, in the press notes for “Stray Dogs,” that he is “tired of cinema,” and no longer has any interest in (if indeed he ever did) “the kinds of films that expect that patronage of cinema audiences.” The jury’s choices last night amount to a similar statement. It’s always encouraging when major fests fight the fight for the little guys, but this slate of winners is such a defiant, even perverse, statement against the mainstream that you wouldn’t blame outside onlookers for scratching their heads and going so far as to question the festival’s real-world relevance against a less curated fest like Toronto, or a more glamorously artistic one like Cannes. 

No two juries are alike, so you can’t identify voting trends in festivals the way one does with the Academy, but it’s worth noting that “Sacro GRA,” while perhaps the most obscure, in a recent run of Golden Lion winners with limited currency on the international art house circuit: those Venetian laurels didn’t encourage many to see (or, in some cases, even to distribute) Aleksandr Sokurov’s “Faust” or Kim Ki-duk’s “Pieta.” (In contrast, in back-to-back years almost a decade ago, the Golden Lion launched Mike Leigh’s “Vera Drake” and Ang Lee’s “Brokeback Mountain” to healthy exposure and long awards-season runs.)

Cannes, meanwhile, has had its most roundly well-received run of Palme d’Or winners in ages, with “The Tree of Life,” “Amour” and now “Blue is the Warmest Color” all attaining the status of art house event pictures. If the last three years underline just what different paths Europe’s two premier festivals are now following, here’s hoping the recent ballsiness of Venice’s programming and jury decision-making doesn’t gain it an overly restrictive reputation for exclusivity. Meanwhile, distributors: take a chance on “Sacro GRA.” You might be surprised.

TORONTO – As is often the case during the first weekend of the Toronto International Film Festival, two potential awards season contenders debuted within hours of each other Saturday night. In fact, “Dallas Buyers Club” and “Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom” premiered in theaters literally across the street from one another. And, happily, both have something to add to our long road to Oscar.

First up was Justin Chadwick’s “Mandela” (the “Long Walk to Freedom” was suspiciously missing from the credits), which The Weinstein Company is releasing in the U.S. The officially sanctioned story of Nelson Mandela took over 25 years to reach the silver screen and the drama is carried by the impressive performances of Idris Elba as the iconic South African leader and Naomie Harris as his controversial wife, Winnie. Disturbingly, the first half of the film feels like a series of historical flashcards as quickly cut scenes follow Mandela from his years as a Johannesburg lawyer through his first failed marriage to his early days with the African National Congress. Chadwick doesn’t allow (or wasn’t allowed to let) the film to breathe at all until Mandela and four of his ANC brothers are sentenced to life in prison. From that point on the movie is actually somewhat captivating as Elba and Harris’ efforts become more like real performances and less like trailer sound bites.

At the beginning of the picture Elba hardly looks anything like Mandela (Morgan Freeman was frankly a better double in “Invictus”), but his performance is captivating enough that when he finally gets the aid of some old age makeup in the final act, his casting makes perfect sense. Elba, who hasn’t had the opportunity for awards-worthy roles outside of television, is fantastic in conveying Mandela’s arc from disinterested bystander to anarchy-fueling activist to, finally, a man asking his people to forgive. The 41-year-old actor is particularly strong in his later scenes with Harris when Mandela is coming to grips with the fact that Winnie is no longer the woman he knew before his decades-long imprisonment.

In terms of awards, you can easily write Elba in as a Golden Globe nominee, but like every actor contender in the Oscar race this year he faces some very stiff competition. His work here is certainly SAG and Academy Award nomination worthy and better than what you’ve seen in the movie’s trailer. Whether he makes the final cut may depend more on the film’s box office performance than anything else. This writer would actually suggest The Weinstein Company push “Mandela” to spring 2014 in order to allow it some breathing room against similarly themed films that will likely garner better overall reviews. A current Nov. 29 release date makes that highly unlikely, however, and box office prospects look slight. That means, for the moment, Elba could be on the outside looking in when it comes to Oscar.

The second premiere of the night was Jean-Marc Vallée’s “Dallas Buyers Club.” The Focus Features release is centered on the true story of Ron Woodroof, an HIV positive man who began a buyers club to distribute drugs the FDA wouldn’t approve in the mid-to-late ’80s. Woodroof is played by Matthew McConaughey who, as most of you may know, lost close to 50 pounds for the role. This performance has been on our radar for quite some time as it came up when we interviewed McConaughey last November when he was campaigning for “Magic Mike.” Transformational performances have always been a favorite of the Academy, but McConaughey’s work here defies any Oscar bait tag as it’s hands down the best thing he’s ever done. Woodroof managed to live for seven years with AIDS-related symptoms and McConaughey has channeled the rage within him to fight constant government interference to stay alive. The experience also turned Woodroof from a blatant homophobe (and God knows what else) into a man of incredible compassion and selflessness. It’s an incredible arc for any actor and McConaughey nails it. The Texas native has been on a breathtaking creative streak lately with fantastic turns in “Bernie,” “Magic Mike,” “The Paperboy” and “Mud,” where he’s a supporting player. His work in “Dallas Buyers Club” is simply in a different class. Chiwetel Ejiofor is admittedly amazing in “12 Years A Slave,” but I’d be hard pressed to put my money on anyone other than McConaughey to take home the Best Actor Oscar this March.

The other great turn in “Dallas” is by actor-turned-full-time-rock-star Jared Leto. Many well-known actors have played drag queens at one time or another, but this is much, much more than a recognizable leading man queening out to show his “range.” As Woodroof’s eventual business partner Rayon, Leto is absolutely heartbreaking. Credit actually has to go to Vallée for not letting Leto’s charismatic turn divert the focus from Woodroof’s story. It’s that good.

Looking into the awards season crystal ball, Leto could easily win Best Supporting Actor honors from a number of the key critics groups (NBR, LAFCA, NYFCC), and while it’s still only September, it would be shocking not to hear his name called on Jan. 16 when Oscar nominations are revealed. Also, don’t rule out a Best Picture nomination for “Dallas Buyers Club” itself. There will be a passionate base for this drama and that may be all Focus needs to secure a nod.

Taking a quick look at the Best Actor race, Tom Hanks (“Captain Phillips), Robert Redford (“All is Lost”), Bruce Dern (“Nebraska”) and Forest Whitaker (“Lee Daniels’ The Butler”) currently stand alongside Ejiofor and McConaughey as the top contenders to land a nomination. Steve Carell (“Foxcatcher”) and Christian Bale (“American Hustle”) are two players that could also crash the party.

This pundit will have more on the intriguing reactions to some of this year’s big awards season players at Toronto in the next edition of the Contender Countdown running Wednesday.

“Mandela: A Long Walk to Freedom” arrives in theaters on Oct. 29.  “Dallas Buyers Club” opens on Nov. 1.

The Toronto Film Festival is in full swing and HitFix’s Greg Ellwood have chimed in on a number of films, from “Dallas Buyers Club” to “Enough Said,” while a handful of Telluride players — “12 Years a Slave,” “Labor Day,” “Gravity” (also Venice) have landed as well.

One of the films Greg has been high on is Jason Bateman’s directorial debut, “Bad Words.” Praising Bateman’s transition to feature director (he’s been directing television for years), Greg wrote that the film “will make many wonder if some of [Bateman’s] recent flicks might have actually been even better if he’d been behind the camera instead of just in front of it.” Indeed, with misses like “The Change-Up” and “Identity Thief” as of late, Bateman could certainly use a smash.

Focus Features will be aiming to turn “Bad Words” into just that as the studio acquired the film earlier this morning. Written by Andrew Dodge (and a Black List entry in 2011), it be released worldwide by Focus in 2014.

The official synopsis from the press release:

Mr. Bateman portrays Guy Trilby, a 40-year-old man seeking catharsis in his life. He seizes the ideal that this will come for him through…the National Spelling Bee; after discovering a loophole in the rules, Guy zealously joins the competition and easily outpaces the pre-teen field in match after match. As reporter Jenny Widgeon (Kathryn Hahn of Afternoon Delight) delves into Guy”s story, Guy finds himself forging an unlikely friendship with a competitor, awkward 10-year-old Chaitanya (Rohan Chand of Homeland), which may spell things differently for his future.

Check out Greg Ellwood’s review of “Bad Words” here and stay tuned in to HitFix for more from Toronto as it happens.

TORONTO – Over the course of her four previous pictures, Nicole Holofcener has proven to be one of the most observant and insightful American filmmakers working today. Her latest endeavor, “Enough Said,” would be noteworthy just based on the fact that its star, Julia Louis-Dreyfus, hasn’t appeared in a live action movie since 1997’s “Deconstructing Harry.” Sadly, what has put the film on the radar of many moviegoers is the fact its features one of the last performances of the late, great James Gandolfini.

Back in Los Angeles after a New York detour for “Please Give,” Holofcener puts Louis-Dreyfus front and center as Eva, a divorced, middle-aged massage therapist dealing with the uncomfortable reality that her only daughter (an OK Tracey Fairaway) will soon be heading to college. Dragged to a party by her best friend Sarah (Toni Collette) and Sarah’s husband Will (Ben Falcone), Eva ends up meeting two people who will immediately become part of her life. The first is Marianne, a popular poet (really) played by longtime Holofcener collaborator Catherine Keener and the second is Albert, a portly divorcee portrayed by Gandolfini. The two find something in common as Albert’s daughter is also on her way out the door to art school.  Unbeknownst to Eva or the audience, however, Marianne and Albert have a very personal connection that will cause trouble down the road. In the meantime, Marianne seems to be a confidante Eva didn’t know she was missing in her life.  And while she doesn’t immediately find him attractive, when Albert asks her out on a date she wearily agrees.

The romance between Albert and Eva is the best part of the film thanks to the natural chemistry between multiple Emmy Award winners Gandolfini and Louis-Dreyfus. The latter sometimes falls into the familiar mannerisms we’ve seen in her television work, but for the most part her comedic timing and unexpected vulnerability make you wish we didn’t have to wait 16 years to see her on the big screen again. Gandolfini, on the other hand, is quietly subdued as a man still suffering from a humiliating divorce and a fashion forward daughter (Eve Hewson) who is slightly embarrassed by her father’s less-than-hip choices. The “Sopranos” icon smartly plays Albert on an even keel as not to overpower Louis-Dreyfus (something that would be tough to do anyway) and brings a subtle sadness to the role.

Both actors benefit from Holofcener’s fantastic dialogue, one of her greatest strengths, but the final result isn’t as satisfying as some of her more recent efforts. “Enough Said” has a glossier Hollywood sheen and yet is still somehow less visually interesting than “Please Give” or even “Friends with Money.” In fact, Xavier Pérez Grobet is the fifth different cinematographer she’s worked with in a row. There was something with D.P. Yaron Orbach that clicked with her “Please Give” screenplay and direction that’s missing this time around.  Among the supporting cast, Collette and Falcone are very entertaining as a couple showing signs of wear and tear. Keener benefits from playing one of the more interestingly conceived characters in the picture, a poet who preaches harmony and happiness, but privately can’t get past her own peculiar hang-ups.

“Enough Said” opens in limited release on Sept. 18.

VENICE – Bernardo Bertolucci proved one thing this evening: he still has the power to surprise us. Tonight’s Venice Film Festival awards ceremony was the most surprise-laden (at this festival, or any other) in recent memory. In the press room, where I was watching it, the swiftly announced winners induced one gasp after another from the crowd — along with a smattering of boos — until the crowning stunner: the Golden Lion for “Sacro GRA,” an Italian documentary about a famous Roman highway from Gianfranco Rosi that was surely one of the most little-seen films in Competition. (I missed it too, and will be catching up with it tonight.) Hot Best Actress favorite Judi Dench missed out, though her “Philomena” co-star Steve Coogan was rewarded for his screenplay. I’ll have more analysis later; for now, the full list of winners is after the jump.

Golden Lion: “Sacro GRA,” Gianfranco Rosi

Grand Jury Prize: “Stray Dogs,” Tsai Ming-liang

Silver Lion (Best Director): “Miss Violence,” Alexandros Avranas

Best Actor: Themis Panou, “Miss Violence”

Best Actress: Elena Cotta, “A Street in Palermo”

Marcello Mastroianni Award (Best Young Actor): Tye Sheridan, “Joe”

Best Screenplay: Steve Coogan and Jeff Pope, “Philomena”

Special Jury Prize: “The Police Officer’s Wife,” Phillip Groning

Luigi de Laurentiis Award (Best Debut Feature): “White Shadow,” Noaz Deshe

HORIZONS AWARDS

Best Film: “Eastern Boys,” Robin Campillo

Best Director: Uberto Pasolini, “Still Life”

Special Jury Prize: “Ruin”

Award for Innovative Content: “Fish and Cat”

Best Short Film: “Kush”

When I said in yesterday’s predictions piece that “Philomena” was the most broadly well-liked film of the festival, I wasn’t kidding. Stephen Frears’ gentle dramedy, widely tipped to win Best Actress for Judi Dench at tonight’s Competition awards ceremony, handily leads the way in the festival’s vast array of preliminary awards from alternative juries. Its eight wins include Best Film from the festival’s Youth Jury, an INTERFILM award for “promoting interreligious dialogue,” even a Cinema for UNICEF mention. No one’s singled it out yet for walking on water, but it’s only a matter of time.

Most surprisingly of all, the film won the Queer Lion in recognition of its sympathetic portrayal of gay issues. Fair enough, though it must surely be the least queer film ever to have won the award. I can only imagine that Xavier Dolan — whose stylish, haunting thriller about rural homophobia, “Tom at the Farm,” is a Competition highlight — is feeling slightly shortchanged.

Or perhaps not, since Dolan did win the most significant preliminary award of all, the FIPRESCI Critics’ prize for best film in Competition — beating the bookies’ Golden Lion favorites “Stray Dogs,” “The Wind Rises” and “Night Moves.” Have we underestimated his chances in tonight’s ceremony? More often than not, the FIPRESCI winner goes on to win at least one major jury award — recent winners at Venice include “The Master” and “Shame” — though you have to go back to 2000 and Jafar Panahi’s “The Circle” to find the last time the Golden Lion and the critics’ award went to the same film. (Incidentally, you can read my full thought on Dolan’s review in my Variety review.)

Meanwhile, does this bode well for “Philomena” taking something bigger than Best Actress? My instinct says that this jury — which includes such distinctive auteurs as Bernardo Bertolucci and Andrea Arnold — will go for something harder-edged, but the British film could be a compromise choice if they’re split on more avant-garde options. We’ll know in a few hours.

In the meantime, here’s the long, long, long list of preliminary awards, which also includes the winners of the Critics’ Week and Venice Days sidebars. (The winner of the latter, strong political thriller “Bethlehem,” is in the frame to be Israel’s Oscar submission.) Further down, there’s something for almost everyone, including “Gravity,” “Joe” and even (gulp) “The Zero Theorem.”

Check out the full list on the next page.

FIPRESCI Awards
Best Film in Competition: “Tom at the Farm,” Xavier Dolan
Best Film in Orizzonti and International Critics” Week: “The Reunion,” Anna Odell

Fedeora Awards – Venice Days 
Best Film: “Bethlehem,” Yuval Adler 
Best Debut Director: Milko Lazarov, “Alienation” 
Special Mention: “La belle vie,” Jean Denizot

Venice International Film Critics Week 
Best Film: “Class Enemy,” Rok Bicek 
Best Cinematography: Inti Briones, “Las Niñas Quispe,”
Special Mention: Giuseppe Battiston, actor, “Zoran, il mio nipote scemo”
Special Mention: Anna Odell, writer-director, “The Reunion”  

SIGNIS Award: “Philomena,” Stephen Frears
Special Mention: “Ana Arabia,” Amos Gitai

Leoncino d’Oro Agiscuola per il Cinema Award: “Sacro GRA,” Gianfranco Rosi
Cinema for UNICEF mention: “Philomena,” Stephen Frears

Francesco Pasinetti Awards
Best Film: “Still Life,” Uberto Pasolini
Best Actors: Elena Cotta and Alba Rohrwacher, “A Street in Palermo”; Antonio Albanese, “L’inrepido” Special Mention: Maria Rosaria Omaggio, “Walesa: Man of Hope”
Special Mention: “Il terzo tempo,” Enrico Maria Artale

Brian Award: “Philomena,” Stephen Frears

Queer Lion Award: “Philomena,” Stephen Frears

Europa Cinemas Label Award Best European Movie from Venice Days: “La belle vie,” Jean Denizot
Special Mention: “Alienation,” Milko Lazarov

Arca CinemaGiovani Award
Best Film in Competition: “Miss Violence,” Alexandros Avranas
Best Italian Film: “L’Arte della Felicità,” Alessandro Rak

CICT – UNESCO “Enrico Fulchignoni” Award: “At Berkeley,” Frederick Wiseman

Christopher D. Smithers Foundation Award: “Joe,” David Gordon Green

CICAE – Cinema d”Arte e d”Essai Award: “Still Life,” Uberto Pasolini

FEDIC Award: “Zoran, il mio nipote scemo,” Matteo Oleotto
Special Mention: “L”arte della felicità,” Alessandro Rak

Fondazione Mimmo Rotella Award: “L”intrepido,” Gianni Amelio

Future Film Festival Digital Award: “Gravity,” Alfonso Cuarón
Special Mention: “The Zero Theorem,” Terry Gilliam

P. Nazareno Taddei Award: “Philomena,” Stephen Frears

Lanterna Magica (CGS) Award: “L”intrepido,” Gianni Amelio

Open Award: Serena Nono, “Venezia salva”  

Lina Mangiacapre Award: “A Street in Palermo,” Emma Dante
Special Mention: “Traitors,” Sean Gullette; “Ukraine is Not a Brothel,” Kitty Green

Mouse d’Oro Awards 
Best Film in Competition: “Philomena,” Stephen Frears
Best Out of Competition Film: “At Berkeley,” Frederick Wiseman
Special Mention: “Stray Dogs,” Tsai Ming-liang; “Heimat: Chronicle of a Vision,” Edgar Reitz.

UK-ITALY Creative Industries Award – Best Innovative Budget
“Il terzo tempo,” Enrico Maria Artale; “Medeas,” Andrea Pallaoro; “Kush,” Shubhashish Bhutiani Gillo

Pontecorvo Award – Arcobaleno Latino
Best Romance Language Film: “Con il fiato sospeso,” Costanza Quatriglio
Gillo Pontecorvo Award – Arte e Industria: Walter Veltroni

Young Jury Members of the Vittorio Veneto Film Festival Award: “Philomena,” Stephen Frears
Special Mention for a Debut Film: “A Street in Palermo,” Emma Dante

“Civitas Vitae prossima” Award: “Still Life,” Uberto Pasolini

Green Drop Award: “Ana Arabia,” Amos Gitai

Soundtrack Stars Award Best Soundtrack: “A Street in Palermo,” Emma Dante

Schermi di Qualità Award: “Zoran, il mio nipote scemo,” Matteo Oleotto Ambiente

WWF Award: “Amazonia,” Thierry Ragobert

RaroVideo – International Critics” Week Award: “Zoran, il mio nipote scemo,” Matteo Oleotto

Venezia 70 Award for Best Euro-Mediterranean Film: “Miss Violence,” Alexandros Avranas

Bianchi Award: Enzo d”Aló

INTERFILM Award for Promoting Interreligious Dialogue: “Philomena,” Stephen Frears

TORONTO – In hindsight, no one should be surprised that Jason Bateman turned out to be a very smart and talented movie director. The Hollywood veteran has had a lifelong lesson in what works and what doesn’t whether it was on the set of TV’s “Silver Spoons” when he was a teenager, amongst the creative ensemble of “Arrested Development” or any number of hit comedies he’s starred in over the past five years such as “Identity Thief” or “Horrible Bosses.” And did we mention he’s been directing TV sitcoms since he was 20? With “Bad Words,” which premiered at the 2013 Toronto Film Festival Friday night, Bateman will make many wonder if some of his recent flicks might have actually been even better if he’d been behind the camera instead of just in front of it.

The first produced screenplay by Andrew Dodge (and a 2011 Black List selection), “Bad Words” centers on Guy (Bateman), a quick-witted, unfiltered 40-year-old who is on a mission to win the prestigious National Quill Spelling Bee. Dodge and Bateman waste no time having Guy crash a local National Quill competition using a little known loophole to get in: only participants who have not graduated from the 8th grade by the time of the spelling bee are eligible. Well, Guy dropped out before the end of 8th grade so technically he qualifies. Just to be safe, Guy has recruited a reporter who knows a good story when she sees one (Kathryn Hahn) to sponsor him and provide legal assistance. After forcing himself in, Guy turns out to be something of a genius and wins tournament after tournament. Before you know it he’s on his way to Los Angeles to participate in the first TV broadcast of the national spelling bee final. Not so surprisingly, the heads of the organization, played by Allison Janney and Philip Baker Hall, are none too pleased about it. Things get even more interesting when Guy meets a charming fellow competitor named Chaitanya (Rohan Chand) who is likely his top rival to win the $50,000 prize.

Naively, the 10-year-old is intent on making Guy his friend even if Guy wants absolutely nothing to do with him. Throughout the course of the movie their relationship takes unexpected turns and this pairing is why Dodge’s screenplay is more than just hilarious R-rated take downs spouting from Guys’s mouth.  While “Bad Words'” conceptual similarities to Terry Zwigoff’s 2003 R-rated classic “Bad Santa” are obvious, “Words” differentiates itself by arriving at the finish line with something of a twist.

Bateman hasn’t played anyone this outwardly “bad” since the underrated 2006 comedy “The Ex” and he seems to be relishing it onscreen. His trademark sarcastic wit and comic timing always seem to keep things moving when there is a hint things could drag for a moment or two. Chand, on the other hand, basically steals the second half of the movie out from under Bateman and is arguably its most valuable player. As for Hahn, the point of her character is to ask all the questions the audience wants to know the answers to and by the end of the film she doesn’t really have much to do. That being said, her sex scenes with Bateman are truly some of the movie’s most hilarious and memorable moments.  Happily, Hall gets more relevant screen time than he’s had in years and Rachel Harris has a fantastic cameo as a mom who just can’t take Guy’s antics anymore.

“Bad Words” has the chance to be a breakout hit depending on the acquirer, but it’s an R-rated comedy that will need special care with the right demo in mind. Then again, even if it only turns out to be a modest success, it certainly foreshadows that Hollywood will soon be asking Bateman to spend a good deal more of his time in the director’s chair.

VENICE – We’re almost at the finish line. 11 days have passed, 20 Competition films have been screened, and tomorrow evening we’ll find out what this year’s eclectic jury, led by Oscar-winning Italian director Bernardo Bertolucci, believes is the best of them. And if it’s harder than usual to call this year — and it’s usually pretty damn hard — that’s because the only point of consensus among those remaining on the Lido is that this year’s Competition slate hasn’t been one of the festival’s finest.

As part of its 70th anniversary celebrations, Venice has preceded each screening with brief vintage newsreels from festivals past. Yesterday, I found myself marvelling at one from 1951, reporting from a Venice awards ceremony that included wins for Akira Kurosawa’s “Rashomon,” Elia Kazan’s “A Streetcar Named Desire,” Robert Bresson’s “Diary of a Country Priest” and Jean Renoir’s “The River.” Of course, you never know how good you have it at the time, but I’m reasonably confident that, in 60 years’ time, tomorrow’s winners won’t hold up quite so well. Few of the A-list filmmakers in this year’s selection have been at the very top of their game, while few of the less expected names have delivered bolts from the blue.

What I would call the two strongest films in the lineup — Jonathan Glazer’s “Under the Skin” and Xavier Dolan’s “Tom at the Farm” — have been sufficiently divisive that it would be no surprise to see the jury pass them over altogether. That said, the current bookies’ favorite for the Golden Lion, Tsai Ming-liang’s “Stray Dogs,” isn’t exactly a unifying title either. The most broadly well received film in Competition — or perhaps simply the one with the fewest vocal detractors — is Stephen Frears’ “Philomena,” but to paraphrase my Venice roommate Justin Chang, do you come to Venice looking for cinema or a warm blanket?

With all those caveats in place, what follows are my best guesses (along with my personal preferences, bearing in mind that I haven’t seen a couple of titles) for the jury’s picks in seven award categories — including the newly minted Grand Jury Prize, seemingly created in response to last year’s jury kerfuffle over “The Master,” initially voted the Golden Lion winner but demoted when it was handed too many awards. (Sadly, it’s come at the expense of the now-retired Golden Osella award for technical achievement, which was always an interesting one.) Meanwhile, I haven’t offered a prediction for the still-existing Special Jury Prize, since I have no idea how it’s going to be applied this year, whether to an entire film or an individual acvhievement. 

Still in place, as it is at Cannes, is the festival’s rather silly rule that the Golden Lion winner can’t take any acting awards, so bear that in mind as you ponder your own predictions. Click through the gallery below, then tell us in the comments who you think will win tomorrow — and who, if anyone, you’re rooting for. 

Paul Greengrass’ “Captain Phillips” is plainly one of the best films of the year. It’s the best work the director has offered to date and it features a detailed, ultimately emotional performance from Tom Hanks that is sure to draw kudos. But the big surprise is that Hanks might not even give the best performance of the film.

Prepare to hear a lot about newcomer Barkhad Abdi over the next few months. As Abduwali Abdukhadir Muse, the leader of a gang of Somali pirates that laid siege to the Maersk Alabama container ship off the African coast in April 2009, Abdi — a dead ringer for the man — stands toe-to-toe with Hanks and delivers a compelling portrait. Billy Ray’s screenplay does some of the work for him, painting Muse with a few more empathetic strokes than you might expect of a film like this, but Abdi, a mild-mannered guy from Minneapolis so believable he feels like a local plucked for the production, is captivating from frame one. He could frankly be in the Best Supporting Actor conversation at the end of the day.

Indeed, this entire band of pirates, played by Barkhad Addirahman, Faysal Ahme and Mahat M. Ali alongside Abdi, dominates the film. Each actor carves a distinct and meaningful element of the story and each really should be given due credit for making “Captain Phillips” what it is. They’re treading somewhat familiar character waters but they bring a lived-in quality that pops.

The whole film is sure to be a contender across the board, not merely in the acting ranks. And at the top of the list of accomplishments is Greengrass’ crisp direction in tandem with thrilling editing from Oscar-winner Christopher Rouse. The 135-minute running time just clicks by. It’s not breakneck pacing but it feels expertly assembled, unfolding at just the right rate. Barry Ackroyd’s photography puts you right in the middle of the action while the quality of the sound design — hugely important for a film that takes place at sea — can’t be overstated. Henry Jackman’s score thrills and soars in equal measure and could also be something to watch for in an always unpredictable category.

Not to put too fine a point on it, we’re talking about “United 93” at sea, more or less, but this is an even better procedural. There’s an obvious movie star factor this time, as well as an emotional beat at the end that could have been rote but presents Hanks with an opportunity (which he seizes) to dig up something we haven’t seen from him in quite a while.

Throughout the film, Hanks’ Phillips is cool, collected, calculating, but always warm and human. It’s a controlled piece of work from the beginning, but in the character’s moment of rescue (it shouldn’t be a spoiler that Phillips made it out of there alive, and if it is, watch more news), there’s such a magic, genuine touch from the actor that the tears come. That’s how you leave the film, and that’s going to go a long way toward securing the actor some momentum in an intensely crowded category.

Tacking this on by way of response to some of the ill-considered nit-picking of embargo jumpers this morning: “Captain Phillips” has a plainly obvious theme, commenting on the rift in prosperity between American generations by reflecting it in one between first-world and third-world status quo. It’s there from the first scene, when Hanks speaks to his wife (Catherine Keener, barely in the film) about what kind of future they can expect for their children. The pirates in this film aren’t drawn with empathy for no good reason; Muse et al. do what they have to do to survive. A line from Muse in the film about being able to settle for what’s “good enough”: “Maybe in America.” Yes, but even still, for how much longer? With that in mind, the violence in the film is not “politically motivated.” It’s situationally motivated.

Another very odd assertion insinuated at a different publication is that the film is racist. If you don’t see what Abdi is doing and how Muse and his comrades’ situation is far more grey than black and white (literally), you’re not doing the heavy lifting. This guy never, not for one moment, comes off as a “mere monster.” He’s a man facing very different circumstances, certainly, than anyone in an office typing out a film review. This isn’t simply “noble white” at the hands of “insidious black,” and I think seeing that in the movie might say more about the reviewer than it does about Billy Ray’s work on the page, Greengrass’ work behind the camera and Abdi’s work in front of it.

Anyway, you might be wondering why a ton of press for the film is suddenly dropping today, almost five weeks away from release. That’s because Sony and producer Scott Rudin decided to screen the heck out of it earlier this week and offered up an embargo date right smack at the beginning of the Toronto Film Festival. It might sound familiar: three years ago, Rudin and Sony’s similarly New York Film Festival-bound “The Social Network” made a big splash in the same way and stole a little of the festival’s thunder as a result. Today is also the big premiere of Steve McQueen’s “12 Years a Slave” in Toronto, which arrived as an awards frontrunner at Telluride last week. The whole thing reeks of confidence, and now that I’ve seen “Captain Phillips,” I can understand why.

So chalk up another sure-fire Oscar player right alongside “Gravity” and “12 Years a Slave.” This one connects. It’s a masterful, meticulous memorial to one man’s ordeal and the heroism that got him out of it. We’ll be talking about it for the rest of the year and beyond, I have no doubt.

“Captain Phillips” opens the New York Film Festival on Sept. 27. It arrives in theaters on Oct. 11.

VENICE – For several years now, the Venice Film Festival has overlapped with not one but two rival North American fests. The “Toronto effect” has been felt since the two festivals started sharing a few days of September calendar space: the exodus of journalists from the Lido in the last couple of days is all too noticeable, though Venice organizers have to accept it, obligingly front-loading their schedule with their highest-profile premieres to as to allow sufficient room for the first wave of buzz and publicity (not to mention reasonable travel time for talent) before the next one at Toronto.

And here and there, they still manage the odd unique coup. Terry Gilliam’s “The Zero Theorem” may have met with a mixed reception, but Venice has it all to itself regardless; meanwhile, Tom Hardy’s one-man-show “Locke” (review coming later today) is a surprise festival hit that won’t be going to Toronto.

But if Venice has mostly made its peace with Toronto’s encroachment, Telluride proved to be an unexpected thorn in the Italians’ side this year. For the first time ever, the exclusive showcase festival in the Colorado jumped the gun on three films that had been set to make their world premieres on the Lido: Jonathan Glazer’s “Under the Skin” and Errol Morris’s “The Unknown Known,” both in Competition, and Gia Coppola’s “Palo Alto,” in the Horizons sidebar.

In previous years, Telluride’s famously short-notice sneak previews have snapped at the heels of Venice’s premieres, often screening in the US within mere hours of Lido press screenings, but this is the first year Telluride actively leapfrogged Venice to nab the first screening of a film. And not by hours, either. The margin with “Palo Alto” was pretty fine, but the more high-profile Morris and Glazer films played in the US a full five days before their Venice dates — an eternity in film festival time. Because of Telluride’s non-official nature, Venice gets to retain the “world premiere” claim, but it’s a pretty meaningless one when the internet has already been flooded with reviews, the buzz machine already set in motion, before the veil has officially been removed.

I’m told that Venice fest director Alberto Barbera had received fair warning about the Morris doc, but was blindsided when “Under the Skin” — among the most broadly anticipated titles in his lineup this year, thanks to its director’s lengthy absence and the star presence of Scarlett Johansson — turned up on the Telluride roster. Forewarned or otherwise, he was not amused. “It was done behind everybody”s back,” he fumed to Variety, announcing his intention to take action against the possibility of this happening in future. “For next year, we will all have to be agreed on the ground rules: if a movie is in competition in Venice it has to screen here first.”

Venice has long held a strict policy of only admitting world premieres into Competition — a rigid rule that not even Cannes shares. It’s is excessive? Some may think so, but with Toronto already putting the squeeze on Venice’s publicity, and increasing numbers of media outlets economising by only sending journalists to one fall fest (with the bigger, starrier Toronto usually the victor), it’s understandable that they want to give themselves every possible advantage. (Tellingly, you don’t hear Toronto getting equally worked up about Telluride stealing seven of their world premieres, but that’s because their programme is so vast, so can afford to lose a few firsts.)

Bandera is obvious speaking partly out of immediate pique — like online film critics, festival programmers’ desire to be first isn’t always matched by the real-world significance of the privilege. But he has fair reason to be concerned in the longer term. If Telluride expands this trend in future years, getting more and more first showings of Venice’s top-tier world premieres — ones the European fest is already having to fight to get ahead of Toronto and the fast-ascending New York Film Festival — many outlets may decide that Telluride and Toronto cover their bases sufficiently, and that Venice coverage can go by the wayside. (Few are the outlets that can do all three: it’s logistically difficult and prohibitively expensive.) 

Of course, it’s ultimately up to the film’s distributors or caretakers which festival invitations they choose to accept — though if you accept a Venice competition berth, it is on the formal understanding that they get the world premiere. (Furthermore, at this point, perhaps it’s time to recalibrate the definition of “world premiere” itself.)

I’d argue that “Under the Skin” didn’t benefit from bowing first in Telluride, which is generally a showcase for more mainstream prestige fare, rather than avant garde cinema. Though our own Greg Ellwood was an exception, the reactions out of Colorado were several degrees chillier than those that greeted it on the Lido a few days later: it’d be a divisive film in any context, but contentiousness is easier to parlay into good publicity on the highbrow European festival circuit than its more market-minded North American counterpart. 

None of this is Telluride’s fault, of course, and hats off to them for wanting a challenging purebred art film in amongst the Oscar-bait vehicles. No festival has better reasons than another for wanting to be first, though sadly, as long as first reviews remain a priority for film journalists in the hit-fixated internet age, world premieres — real ones, not five-day-late ones — will remain an understandable priority for A-list festival programmers. More communication between festivals would be a good thing, but until they all join forces to form one gargantuan, month-long film festival in a neutral territory — Lagos is lovely this time of year — there probably isn’t an immediately amicable solution.

The owner of the best name in show business, Benedict Cumberbatch has been a ubiquitous presence this year. Hell, he’s a pretty ubiquitous presence simply at the Toronto Film Festival, which opens with his turn as Julian Assange in “The Fifth Estate” tonight. He’ll also be at the fest with supporting roles in two very different awards hopefuls: “12 Years a Slave” and “August: Osage County.”  

Meanwhile, his 2013 work slate sees that prestige triple-feature bookended with roles in two super-sized franchises: we’ve already seen his much-praised villain in “Star Trek Into Darkness,” while his voice as the titular Smaug will be an asset to “The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug” at Christmastime. All that, and he has his second straight Emmy nod for Best Actor in a TV Movie or Miniseries under his belt: last year for “Sherlock,” this year for the period romance “Parade’s End.” (As for the BAFTAs, he has four nominations for his TV work, though he’s never won.)

If only in terms of sheer volume, then, BAFTA Los Angeles could hardly have picked a more worthy candidate for their annual British Artist of the Year honor. He’ll receive the award at the organisation’s annual Britannia Awards ceremony on November 9 — which airs the next day on BBC America. George Clooney (Stanley Kubrick Award for Excellence in Film), Kathryn Bigelow (John Schesinger AWard for Excellence in Directing) and Ben Kingsley (Albert Broccoli Award for Worldwide Contribution to Entertainment) have already been named as honorees at the US-meet-UK ceremony, with a couple more yet to be announced. 

“Benedict Cumberbatch has had a remarkable year, and as one of the UK’s leading talents he truly exemplifies the continued respect that British talents have garnered around the globe,” said BAFTA LA chairman Gary Dartnall, while award committee chairs Rebecca Segal and Deborah Kolar gushed: “The brilliance, intelligence and charisma of rising star Benedict Cumberbatch has secured his place among the acclaimed British actors who have commanded the screen over the years,” 

Past recipients of the British Artist of the Year include Rachel Weisz, Kate Winslet, Tilda Swinton, Emily Blunt, Michael Sheen, Helena Bonham Carter and last year’s winner, Daniel Craig.

http://players.brightcove.net/4838167533001/BkZprOmV_default/index.html?videoId=4912108345001

Noted over the weekend, Penn and Teller’s “Tim’s Vermeer” might be the breakout hit of this year’s Telluride Film Festival. Talking to everyone from Oscar-nominated directors to casual movie-goers at the fest, it was clear to me that the film delighted just about everyone who managed to catch it, giving the film a nice boost into the Toronto Film Festival over the next week or so.

It could be poised by Sony Classics to be one of this year’s Best Documentary Feature nominees. That branch tends to like movies that follow a single subject and in the case of Tim Jenison, the subject couldn’t be more fascinating. The man received a standing ovation at Telluride, after all. The film is “an unassuming work that says that, for all our faults, humanity can achieve wonders,” I wrote at the time. “Invention and expression are one and the same…What is art if not the height of ingenuity?”

Check out a new clip from the film embedded at the top of this post. It does a good job of setting the overall scene for the theory Jenison puts to the test throughout the film.

“Tim’s Vermeer” plays the Toronto International Film Festival today.