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.