“Eye candy” at the movieplex is increasingly becoming more and more dazzling, attempting to attract an audience on spectacle alone. And of all the “technical” aspects of the filmmaking medium, the arena of visual effects is perhaps the only discipline upon which a studio would try to sell a film outright.

Visual effects work is also becoming more and more expensive, sometimes taking twice as long as physical production to implement. And yet, while the work of an entire team of individuals goes into creating the visual effects of a given motion picture, only four members of the crew are ultimately eligible to share an Academy Award nomination when the time comes.

It’s not surprising that most of the nominees in this category are “the films that pay the bills” if you will, with blockbusters making up the vast majority of the nominees. With the exception of “What Dreams May Come” in 1998, the last ten winners of this award have all been among the top grossing endeavors in their respective years.

There are only three nominees per year in this category (probably because many films have little substantial reliance on visual effects). The category also has a two-stage nomination process. Before nomination morning, a group of seven finalists is announced in a “bake-off.” A committee screens the seven films and chooses the nominees from this lot. Now that sound editing has abandoned this practice, the visual effects category remains only one of two (the other being Best Makeup) to use this method of choosing nominees.

Let’s take a look at the strongest contenders this year.

“Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest” has all the makings not only of a surefire nominee but also the likely winner. Extremely reliant on visual spectacle, not only in its oceanic action sequences, but also in creating the characters of Davy Jones and his entire crew (with the exception of Stellan Skarsgård’s Bootstrap Bill), the work was undoubtedly painstaking and extremely challenging. The work is also integrated almost flawlessly into the film. That “Pirates” has claimed a mammoth box office intake is just gravy, not to mention the fact that the effects work was supervised by three-time nominee John Knoll (still awaiting his first win).

“Superman Returns” is looking pretty solid for a berth as well. The sheer size of the visual effects crew is staggering, including Oscar winners Neil Corbould and Mark Stetson. The work is also majestic (and EXPENSIVE), and it is integral to almost every scene in the movie. Some might argue that there is a lack of passion for the film itself (it did lose lots of money) – never a good sign in any category. But really…what would replace it?

“The Fountain” was seemingly on track for a nomination before it fell flat at the Toronto and Venice Film Festivals. (And in all honesty, it’s not very good). That’s never a promising sign, especially as no one on the effects team has ever garnered Oscar love before. While the film is a visual treat, the effects work is not the sort of CGI-intensive accomplishment that screams out “Oscar fodder!” Nor is the film likely to rake in a significant amount of money.

”The Prestige” from the young and talented director Christopher Nolan certainly looks visually impressive. I’d venture to say that the cinematography, art direction and costume design could all be bona fide contenders this awards season. But what of the visual effects work? Much like Nolan’s “Batman Begins,” my suspicion is that the achievement will probably be heavily intensive on camera work without a lot of the showy CGI the branch has warmed up to in recent years. We’ve come a long way since the practical effects of films like “Blade Runner,” for better or worse.

“X-Men: The Last Stand” made the most money of the “X-Men” trilogy. It also has the splashiest visual effects, with Oscar winner John Bruno among its supervisors. “Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban” managed to find a nomination here two years ago after its two predecessors failed to make the cut. Alas, “Prisoner of Azkaban” had the best reviews of the “Harry Potter” movies at that point. This installment of the “X-Men” series was widely acknowledged as the weakest of the trilogy. It would therefore be rather odd for this film to be the only “X-Men” movie to enjoy the moniker “Oscar nominee.”

“Eragon” looks like a potential train wreck in the eyes of this viewer. Much like “Poseidon” (a film whose flop status will almost certainly keep it out of the race), I suspect long-time visual effects supervisor Stefen Fangmeier’s directorial debut could be a disaster with critics and may not draw in the audiences Fox might expect. The trailer was certainly dreadful, in any case. If anything is in the cards Oscar-wise, however, that would be Best Visual Effects. Dragons, after all, are bound to necessitate top-notch CGI.

“Pan’s Labyrinth” from director Guillermo del Toro might certainly end up deserving of a nomination here. Recently submitted as Mexico’s official entry in the Foreign Film race, the film has been considered a visual spectacle by a host of admirers. However, it would be unusual for a foreign-language feature to enter the category most embracing of the films that, again, “pay the bills.”

When the dust of this year’s visual effects race finally settles, I’d look to one of the branch’s favorite sights to see: talking animals. This year, such a peculiarity shall be very prominent in “Charlotte’s Web.” With special effects being supervised by Clay Pinney (Oscar-winner for “Independence Day”) and visual effects being supervised by John Berton (of “The Mummy” and “Men in Black” fame), there is reason to expect the work to be exceptional. With an amazing cast of vocal talent, Dakota Fanning in the lead and a beloved book to sell on which to sell the film, there’s also reason to suspect it could be a big hit. Assuming “Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest” and “Superman Returns” are looking good for a mention, I’d bank on the third slot being “Charlotte’s Web”’s to lose.

So that’s the way I see the visual effects race right now. And year after year, it is one of the races that changes the least during the course of the year. That is probably because the contenders seem relatively striking from afar – but then again, who expected “Star Wars” to miss out on a nomination last year…honestly?

Next week…we’ll take an initial glance at Best Cinematography.

The 31st Annual Toronto International Film Festival was an exciting event that I thoroughly enjoyed covering for In Contention. Now we pick up the pieces and try to decipher the awards puzzle further. Many performances – from Peter O’Toole, Forest Whitaker, Kate Winslet, Penelope Cruz, Jackie Earle Haley, etc. – certainly have the makings of contenders in their categories and will get media exposure. But what of the technicians? Surely some of them are headed for nominations for their work on well-received titles from the festival, right?

Well, I wouldn’t personally bet on many.

This shouldn’t be that surprising. Last year, for instance, only 10 of the 42 tech nominees came from films screened in Toronto. Compare that to 20 of the 40 nominees in the big eight!

Two potential contenders may very well end up ineligible. The wonderful score from “Breaking and Entering” credits multiple composers. This is the same reason that “Batman Begins” was disqualified last year (a nonsensical rule in my opinion). Meanwhile, “The Purim Song,” a hilarious ditty which plays prominently in “For Your Consideration,” is only one verse long. The new rules regarding Best Original Song could be beneficial given the tune’s usage in the film but the length is still an obvious hindrance.

Many of the best received films of the festival – “Stranger than Fiction”, “The Last King of Scotland”, “Venus” – have virtually no potential in the technical categories. One could argue that “Volver” and “Little Children” might have chances at Best Original Score. That category is becoming continuously difficult to predict. But said scores aren’t really the sort the AMPAS tends to go for.

“Babel” was a huge media event up here. Should the film find itself a major player this awards season, Douglas Crise and Stephen Mirrione’s film editing could certainly make a play given the film’s structure. Rodrigo Prieto and Gustavo Santaolalla would be longer shots for the cinematography and music, respectively. But regardless, positive Academy reaction across the board on Alejandro Iñárritu’s film isn’t a tall order given the festival reception.

Another ensemble film, “Bobby,” ended up being pretty divisive in Toronto. But one can’t deny that the film is the sort that would naturally appeal to Oscar voters. So if the divisiveness ends up on the “generally positive” side of things (Variety and The Hollywood Reporter are not a bad start), veteran editor Richard Chew must be seriously considered for weaving together so many characters cohesively. Julie Weiss’s costumes were also very appropriate to the period (across many classes) and could get pulled into contention.

A somewhat surprising contender may have fallen upon us in “Pan’s Labyrinth,” Guillermo Del Toro’s much-loved latest fantasy. Its genre and language will be a hindrance to across-the-board appeal, but the Art Direction from Eugenio Caballero might just be able to sneak a nod in what appears to be a weak year for the category from where things are at now.

And then there are the bombs.

“All the King’s Men” was ravaged to such a degree that will truly make it difficult for the film to score anywhere. Though I wouldn’t completely rule out Best Art Direction, Cinematography and Costume Design just yet, I imagine there will be enough other films to fill those slots. Best Original Score, on the other hand, could be a genuine category of contention for the film, overdone or not. James Horner has three films this year. One would imagine he’ll score for one of them, and “All the King’s Men” could very well be it.

“The Fountain” also was D.O.A. It was visually a “wow” as far as I was concerned, but considering no one on the crew has experienced Academy love before, I doubt it’ll score anywhere. Again, there are many films that are contenders to fill up Best Art Direction and Costume Design, while films such as “Superman Returns,” “Charlotte’s Web” and “X-Men: The Last Stand” have bigger visual effects work from more renowned artists (not to mention the assured nod for “Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest”).

Meanwhile, “Copying Beethoven” flew completely under the radar. That’s not good news for its potential in Best Art Direction, Costume Design and Makeup. Ridley Scott’s “A Good Year” may have gotten generally solid notices (my opinion aside), but certainly not overwhelming ones. Nor is it an Oscar film. But if it were to score anywhere, it would probably be for Philippe Le Sourde’s cinematography – doubtful still.

“Catch a Fire” underwhelmed many but it’s impossible to root against Patrick Chamusso. And the very fact that film editor Jill Bilcock came up to promote the film in Toronto (rare for technical artists) is indicative of how integral her work was to the film. Noyce said he “felt lost when she left the set for a few days”. I wouldn’t rule her out.

On a final note, a film that received a surprisingly kind (if not overwhelming) response at Toronto and Venice is Douglas McGrath’s “Infamous”. It will, of course, struggle to not be considered “the other Truman Capote movie.” But the production design from Judy Becker (“Brokeback Mountain”) and costume design from Ruth Myers (Oscar-nominated for “Emma” and “The Addams Family”) was superb. It was also more traditional AMPAS fodder than the work on display in Bennett Miller’s Oscar-winner. Neither are likely nominees, but I’d keep my eye on them regardless.

I certainly expect some of the preceding artists could garner nominations, but not a lot of them. Toronto is a publicity machine, and the technical artists don’t seem to value publicity as much as many branches whose members’ work receives better coverage in the broader media. So if I’m doubtful about the potential of these Toronto titles, what films do I expect to score? Next week, we’ll take a look at one of the races in detail – Best Visual Effects.

The Toronto International Film Festival is hopefully clearing up the approaching film awards season. I’m at the festival right now, so stay up to speed on my thoughts as we continue to sort things out. This is usually the hour when some films fail, others stand out and awards watchers are charged with separating the hype from the reality.

As the madness continues around me, I thought I’d take a moment to step back from the festival and make mention of several candidates few seem to be considering this year – or at least not considering seriously. I strongly suspect a number of them could be major contenders in the technical races.

Here are ten:

(Editor’s Note: Gerard worked this list out prior to hitting up the Toronto International Film Festival. --Kris)

Best Art Direction

Rick Heinrichs, Cheryl Carasik – “Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest”

Most people seem to be assuming that this film won’t score anywhere the first one failed, and that is not completely unreasonable. The vast majority of the talents on the sequel already had their chance for what was a superior effort the first time out. And history tells us that sequels have to be perceived as being “better” than their predecessors to garner further Oscar attention.

Rick Heinrichs, however, is a new addition to director Gore Verbinski’s crew this time out. Having won the Oscar for “Sleepy Hollow” in 1999 and having probably come close to a second for “Lemony Snicket’s A Series of Unfortunate Events” in 2004, his typically elaborate fantasy and period sets have certainly found their niche amongst the Academy before. Joining him is four-time nominee Cheryl Carasik (still awaiting her first win), responsible for the film’s set decoration. In what seems to be a relatively weak year for the art direction category, I do think this nomination is plausible.

Henry Bumstead, Richard C. Goddard – “Flags of Our Fathers”

After having amassed a repertoire of over one hundred films in his nearly 60-year career, Henry Bumstead sadly passed away this May at the age of 91. His contributions to cinema (which include “The Sting,” “To Kill a Mockingbird” and “Unforgiven”) were invaluable, and he will be terribly missed. But the revered production designer still has Clint Eastwood’s upcoming Iwo Jima efforts releasing as his ultimate swansong.

War films tend to be rather landscape-oriented, a factor that rarely lends itself to consideration of production design elements. “Flags of Our Fathers” and “Letters from Iwo Jima” (recently bumped into the 2006 schedule) will nevertheless be period in nature, which the branch assuredly appreciates. Thomas Sanders was nominated here after all for Steven Spielberg’s “Saving Private Ryan” in 1998. Sentiment will undoubtedly factor in as well and deservedly so. Bumstead received his first nomination in this category 48 years ago for Alfred Hitchcock’s “Vertigo.”

Best Cinematography

John Toll – “Seraphim Falls”

We’ve heard very little about David Von Ancken’s feature debut “Seraphim Falls.” This could very well be because the film is either a dud or not necessarily Oscar-bound. But the premise and story, set against the backdrop of the post-Civil War American West, suggests the opportunity to capture gorgeous landscapes on film. Stills would hint at this potential being realized by lenser John Toll.

Toll certainly knows how to step up to the plate in this regard, having won back-to-back Oscars for “Legends of the Fall” in 1994 and “Braveheart” in 1995. If the film is any good at all, Toll – also nominated for unforgettable work in “The Thin Red Line” – has the makings of a bona fide contender.

Best Costume Design

Joan Bergin – “The Prestige”

Since the trailer for this film was released in July, people have been chatting up its Oscar potential left and right. While I have my doubts about its possibilities in the major categories, I agree with those who suspect cinematographer Wally Pfister and production designer Nathan Crowley both have great shots at making strong Oscar runs. Yet perhaps because Joan Bergin (who is not even credited yet on IMDb) is inexperienced in the awards game, far less awards watchers seem to be talking of the film’s potential in Best Costume Design.

With some minor variation, the same names – Sharen Davis, Milena Canonero, Yvonne Blake, Ann Roth, and Jenny Beavan – seem to be the ones circulated as contenders this year in the costume design category. A newbie is very likely to sneak in there somewhere, and Bergin’s work in “The Prestige” looks no less impressive than that of Pfister and Crowley in their disciplines. Bergin got her start designing threads in a number of Jim Sheridan’s early films.

Anthony Powell – “Miss Potter”

“Miss Potter”’s release date may be too late for a true Oscar run, but such is the preference of The Weinstein Company, squeezing some nine titles into the last four months of the year. The film could also be forgettable, as it is difficult to tell if director Chris Noonan still has it in him after waiting eleven years to follow up his classic feature debut, “Babe.” One thing, however, that is not debatable is that Anthony Powell’s Oscar track record is nothing short of extraordinary.

To date, Powell has been nominated for six of the twenty films for which he was costume designer. He won the Oscar for three of them. He also found himself the sole nominee for three of these six endeavors, including such mediocre cinematic experiences as Roman Polanski’s “Pirates” in 1986 and Kevin Lima’s “102 Dalmations” in 2000. Advance stills of Powell’s work on “Miss Potter” suggest the work will be both elegant and appropriate to the period – and complete with fancy hats!

Best Film Editing

Jill Bilcock – “Catch a Fire”

In the eyes of many, Jill Bilcock was robbed of a win for Baz Luhrmann’s “Moulin Rouge!” in 2001. Also with Shekhar Kapur’s “Elizabeth” and Sam Mendes’s “Road to Perdition” on her resume, Bilcock’s colleagues may very well consider her due for a return to the shortlist.

Phillip Noyce’s “Catch a Fire” is still a fairly mysterious entity, but as a major awards horse for Focus Features, the film probably ought not to be dismissed by awards watchers. Considering the necessity of creating suspense while maintaining coherence, one of the first places one would expect a political thriller to score would have to be in Best Film Editing, so if the film is a hit, watch for recognition here.

Best Makeup

Trefor Proud for “Copying Beethoven”

With “Copying Beethoven” finally gaining domestic distribution some weeks back, a few Oscar predictors have been more seriously considering Ed Harris for a nomination in the Best Actor category for his take on the legendary composer. While I always have reservations about films that fail to attract distributors for more than a year after cameras stopped rolling, this character is undoubtedly “Oscar bait.” It could certainly push the respected veteran actor into contention.

However, Harris isn’t exactly a dead ringer for Ludwig von Beethoven. In addition to the necessity for that iconic hairstyle, which the actor has already said “was a nice change,” Oscar winner Trefor Proud (“Topsy-Turvy”) is charged with transporting an entire cast back in time two centuries to Germany in the early 1800s. With the fantasy of Stefen Fangmeier’s “Eragon” also in play under Proud’s skillful guidance, the Academy might see fit to reward the versatile makeup department head.

Kate Biscoe, Robert Fama, James Sarzotti – “Fur: An Imaginary Portrait of Diane Arbus”

Makeup artist Kate Biscoe seemed a good bet for “Memoirs of a Geisha” last year until she strangely failed to make the bakeoff (she was nominated for a BAFTA). In addition to recapturing the famed photographic world of Diane Arbus in “Fur,” she and her team will be responsible for turning Robert Downey, Jr. into a believable circus freak as well.

In fact, talking of the craftsmen and women behind this Steven Shainberg biopic makes me want to cheat a little and squeeze in two other candidates from the film’s crew. It is true that the film could be too “weird” for the Academy, but costume designer Mark Bridges (discussed in August 17’s introductory column) and cinematographer Bill Pope (of the “Spider-Man” and “Matrix” franchises) have what are perhaps the best opportunities of their careers to date. And Pope has already offered unique, somewhat acclaimed golden-rod photography in Neil Burger’s “The Illusionist.” Ultimately, I feel that “Fur” has all the potential in the world to be recognized by the technical branches, regardless of a lack of representation elsewhere.

Best Music – Original Score

Danny Elfman – “Charlotte’s Web”

Some of my favorite film scores have sprung from the mind of long-time Tim Burton collaborator Danny Elfman. While 1989’s “Batman” and 1994’s “The Nightmare Before Christmas” displayed his ability to convey “brooding” and “creepiness” respectively, 1990’s “Edward Scissorhands” and 2003’s “Big Fish” were demonstrative of his ability to compose lighter musical bliss. Next up is more fantasy and the first live action adaptation of E.B. White’s “Charlotte’s Web.”

With Dakota Fanning, a star-studded voice cast and a visual effects crew of over 200 people, the film could be a new benchmark for children’s entertainment or, at the very least, a modest hit. Elfman’s work has the potential to be elevating and magical. Though the music branch has been notoriously unwelcoming of the composer into the Oscar fold – snubbing him for his legendary work while acknowledging his less memorable efforts – it’s extremely likely he’ll be back again eventually as his is a singular talent.

John Tavener – “Children of Men”

Every so often, the music branch welcomes a new composer who has risen up through the world of classical music rather than through the world of film composition. Perhaps they consider such individuals less threatening to their insularity? Tan Dun (“Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon”) and John Corigliano (“Altered States,” “The Red Violin”) immediately jump to mind. While these occurrences are not exactly common, John Tavener is such an innovative and unique talent in composing classical, particularly ecclesiastical music that Queen Elizabeth II knighted him in 2000 for his services to the art form.

This year, filmmaker Alfonso Cuarón has appointed Tavener to score “Children of Men,” a film that might not sound Academy-friendly on account of its genre. But it certainly could be a ripe, if atypical, scoring opportunity. Universal’s recent decision to bump the release date to Christmas Day seems to indicate they have awards hopes in store. And at the end of the day, “A Little Princess,” “Y Tu Mamá También” and “Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban” all scored somewhat unexpected Oscar nods despite coming from genres not traditionally embraced by the Academy.

That wraps up this week’s installment of “Tech Support.” Next week, with the Toronto International Film Festival behind us, it would be a good idea to look back at what the festival has told us about this year’s technical races.

Today marks the opening of the 31st Annual Toronto International Film Festival, which I will be covering for In Contention.

Every year, some films open here and fall flat while others start their expected Oscar campaigns. Still more start their runs out of nowhere. This is the hour when some films rise up, others fail and Oscar procrastinators are challenged with separating hype from reality. The technical races are no different from the so-called “major” races in this regard.

So let’s look at what I consider to be the biggest question marks of this year’s festival.

1. What is the fate of “All the King’s Men?”

This is possibly the biggest question mark of the festival. Despite having a star-studded cast and being the adaptation (by an Oscar winner) of a prestigious book, Steven Zaillian’s “All the King’s Men” has been significantly delayed and was rumored to have suffered a troubled shoot. That said, Sean Penn certainly seems to be reaching for Oscar in the trailer (it’s a role the Academy would eat up if the film is good), and two of Penn’s co-stars, Jude Law and Kate Winslet, will have other high-profile Oscar releases that could certainly help.

Production designer Patrizia Von Brandenstein has been out of the Oscar game for almost 20 years after scoring three nominations (including a win for her unforgettable work on “Amadeus” over two decades ago). While it’s disappointing to see her work on “Goya’s Ghosts” looking less and less likely to be a player in this year’s awards race, she might still make a run here.

Marit Allen has been a costuming films for over 25 years. Last year, her understated work on the instant classic “Brokeback Mountain” never really got awards traction but put another memorable film on her resume (which already included “Dead Man,” “Eyes Wide Shut” and “Mrs. Doubtfire”). “All the King’s Men” could be her most awards-friendly project to date.

From the trailer, it seems as though Pawel Edelman’s lighting could be absolutely exquisite – which shouldn’t be surprising to those who’ve watched his career blossom. Edelman was an unknown in America before garnering an Oscar nod for “The Pianist” in 2002, though he was a somewhat surprising omission for his work on “Ray.” That snub could help him this time around, or it could be an indication that the branch hasn’t warmed up to him yet.

And then there’s James Horner. The seemingly ubiquitous composer will have “Apocalypto” and “The Good Shepherd” on the way in December, in addition to his work here. Which one will garner awards attention? Or which ones?

2. How much of a stateside hit will “Babel” be?

After causing a tremendous stir at Cannes, including winning the Best Director prize, the third collaboration between director Alejandro Gonzalez Iñárritu and writer Guillermo Arriaga will have its North American debut at in Toronto. From this vantage point, the film seems poised to be a major critical favorite. But to what degree will North American critics embrace it? And what about North American audiences? Though the film has been considered Iñárritu’s most accessible to date, his work still lives in a world of its own.

If “Babel” is a hit in Toronto, one would surely have to look to the editing of Douglas Crise and Stephen Mirrione. Mirrione won an Oscar for Steven Soderbergh’s “Traffic” in 2000 when he was given the responsibility to blend multiple storylines into a coherent, ensemble film. His somewhat surprising snub for last year’s wonderfully concise “Good Night, and Good Luck.” could help his pursuit of a second nod.

And then there are the “Brokeback Mountain” alumni: composer Gustavo Santaolalla (coming directly off a win) and cinematographer Rodrigo Prieto (who was considered the favorite in the eyes of many going into last year’s Oscar ceremony). Typically, Prieto’s work does not represent the sort that the Academy usually goes for. And Santaolalla’s scores also tend to be the kind of unique yet minimalist work that the music branch doesn’t always warm up to. Ultimately, Toronto should clear things up and announce the film’s potential throughout the various technical branches. Unanimous critical approval is always a good first step in that regard.

3. Will the campaign for “Copying Beethoven” acquire some much-needed fuel?

Biopic. Deaf. Dying. On paper, this seems like a great Oscar opportunity for Ed Harris. But surely a film about Ludwig von Beethoven will create equal opportunities for the technicians who must transport the film to Germany in the early 1800s, right?

Costume designer Jany Temine has been up-and-coming as of late with her work on the latest two “Harry Potter” movies. She’ll also be outfitting Alfonso Cuarón’s “Children of Men” this year. Meanwhile, Oscar winner Trefor Proud (“Topsy-Turvy”) is in charge of the makeup department, while Caroline Amies has been given a real opportunity to make her mark in the world of art direction. All three could be major contenders alongside Harris when the storm settles. But Miramax Films will need to pan out their prospects, what with “The Hoax,” “The Queen” and “Venus” all being performance-driven films with equal tech potential.

Or is there ultimately a reason “Copying Beethoven” wasn’t picked up by a studio after being in the can for a year?

4. Is The Weinstein Company poised to dominate the second time around with “Bobby” and “Breaking and Entering?”

Six Golden Globes nominations, including a win, and four Oscar nominations wasn’t a bad start for The Weinstein Company last year. The achievement is all the more exceptional when you consider “The Matador,” “Mrs. Henderson Presents” and “Transamerica” were hardly considered instant classis. How the brothers will fare in their second year post-Miramax is still uncertain, but eyes will soon be set upon their upcoming awards hopefuls.

Anthony Minghella’s “Breaking and Entering” will be a departure from the sweeping period pieces that made him famous. Cinematographer Benoît Delhomme has already received fine press for his work on “The Proposition” earlier this year, which can only crutch his awards potential on Minghella’s film. But it will still be a daunting task to follow in the footsteps of Minghella regular John Seale. Meanwhile, composer Gabriel Yared will be returning to the team after having been nominated for his past three collaborations with the director. Can he do it again?

Emilio Estevez’s “Bobby” has a cast bursting with talent. On paper the film seems the sort the Academy would fall for, fit with themes and nostalgia that speaks directly to the boomer generation that dominates its membership. Regardless, some still have doubts about Estevez’s abilities behind the camera, and with reason. “Men at Work” wasn’t exactly an awards magnet (EDITOR’S NOTE: I don’t care what anyone says, that film is a classic! --Kris).

Regardless, if the film is on target, Julie Weiss’s costumes could be worthy of consideration, while veteran editor Richard Chew (“One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest,” “Star Wars”) could certainly be a contender for piecing together the multiple story lines. “Crash” and “Traffic” have managed to win the editing award in recent years with similar structures. Finally, composer Mark Isham might also have a big year between this and Brian De Palma’s “The Black Dahlia”. It has been fourteen years since he was nominated for “A River Runs Through It”. Odds are he’ll return eventually.

5. "What films are going to come up and surprise us”

We could sit here all day and crank out more and more queries, but if there’s one thing that this festival has showed us in years past, it is that surprises happen. Few thought “Capote” would be anything more than a showcase for Philip Seymour Hoffman last year, while “Lost in Translation” was all about Bill Murray at this same point in 2003. “Hotel Rwanda” was on no one’s radar before the 2004 festival awarded it the highest honor.

By that same token, what could happen this year in the tech categories? Could Phillippe Le Sourd’s photography of the French countryside in Ridley Scott’s “A Good Year” actually be awards fodder?

Could “The Magic Flute” end Kenneth Branagh’s recent slump?

“Venus”, despite its contemporary setting, seems to have some interesting design elements, notably the production design of Emmy and BAFTA winner John Paul Kelly. Could the film be a contender beyond Peter O’Toole’s Best Actor buzz?

Might Christopher Guest and Eugene Levy have supplied “For Your Consideration” with original songs worthy of awards recognition?

Will “Volver” be the first film from Pedro Almodóvar to actually garner attention for José Luis Alcaine’s cinematography or Alberto Iglesias’s score? Both always do top-notch work for the great Spanish auteur.

Is “Little Children” going to be enough of a critical favourite to help the campaigns for Leo Trombetta’s editing and, most notably, Thomas Newman’s score?

“The Fountain” is the sort of film that could have across-the-board tech potential. But the fact that NONE of its technicians have received Oscar love before will necessitate it being a substantial sized hit with both critics and the public.

What film that NOBODY is talking about will garner serious traction?

Lots of questions. We’ll have a better idea of the upcoming awards landscape in two weeks’ time…hopefully.