What can I add at this stage? The race is over. Allow me a few thoughts before signing off for the year.

Without any doubt, one of the biggest stories of Oscar night was the love for “Pan’s Labyrinth.” The only film to take home multiple crafts awards, it garnered three. Best Art Direction was claimed by Eugenio Caballero for his memorable and haunting sets, with John Myrhe unable to win his third statue in five years for “Dreamgirls.”

Joining Caballero in the “Pan’s” haul was, predictably, Best Makeup and, in the real shocker of the night, Guillermo Navarro’s in Best Cinematography. I have nothing against Navarro; I admired what he was reaching for here (even if I found the work too dark at times) and I absolutely love the film. But Emmanuel Lubezki’s lensing of “Children of Men” is going into the history books. That it won the BAFTA, ASC and most of the critics’ trophies makes the loss especially painful. Alas, the work clearly was not pretty enough for the Academy. I’m confident in saying they’ll look stupid for this in years to come.

Where “Pan’s Labyrinth” triumphed, “Dreamgirls” misstepped. The expected tech behemoth merely claimed Best Sound Mixing, marking the fourth win for Bob Beemer, the third for Michael Minkler and the second for Willie Burton. Their win adds to the tally of losses for Anna Behlmer (“Blood Diamond”), Greg P. Russell (“Apocalypto”) and, most infamously, Russell’s partner Kevin O’Connell. These mixers are masters of their crafts. I’m sure they’ll triumph…eventually. (The unfortunate comments of Mr. Minkler are dealt with below.)

“Dreamgirls” also surprisingly lost out on Best Costume Design, a category claimed by the great Milena Canonero for “Marie Antoinette.” I must confess that I find this film to be terrible. But the costumes are indeed exquisite. And Canonero is a classy wonderworker of her trade. So I’m happy that the Academy was actually able to look past some pretty negative feelings towards the film. They often fail in that regard.

Having three nominations in the Original Song category probably did “Dreamgirls” no favors, as the award was claimed by Melissa Etheridge and “I Need to Wake Up” from “An Inconvenient Truth.” But I maintain this award is the result of a lot more than vote-splitting. Having a message certainly helped but so did Paramount Vantage sending the song to the industry at large. As I said two-and-a-half weeks ago, promoting your artists pays off…why don’t more studios do it?

Speaking of Paramount Vantage, sending out the compositions of Gustavo Santaolalla for “Babel” certainly didn’t hurt either. Now he has a second Oscar. While I did not predict this win, it hardly surprises me. Best Original Score was a very open race.

“Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest” winning Best Visual Effects should come as a surprise to no one; it was the most assured of the crafts awards. John Knoll now has an Oscar, after four nominations. Expect to see this crew back at next year’s ceremony for the third installment of the series. However, “Spider-Man 3” also ought to be pretty spectacular in the effects department. (Though that’s getting a bit ahead of ourselves.)

“Pirates” lost Best Sound Editing to “Letters from Iwo Jima,” the only win that would come for Clint Eastwood’s Iwo Jima double bill. Four weeks ago I commented that the tech branches, as a whole, shied away from the Best Picture contenders in the nominations process. But there really is no denying the influence major awards players have when it comes to wins. In three of the four tech categories in which Best Picture nominees were nominated, one such film triumphed (the only exception being “The Queen” in Best Costume Design, never a likely winner).

The last of those categories is, of course, Best Film Editing, where Thelma Schoonmaker’s cutting of “The Departed” edged out Stephen Mirrione and Douglas Crise’s interweaving of storylines in “Babel.” This woman is a giant in her field. One of the few crafts artists everyone in the room seemed to know. Her relationship with Scorsese clearly permeates her approach to her cutting and I find it especially appropriate they both won on the same night.

As for the show, I must say that I enjoyed the attention paid to most of the craftspeople’s work. The showcasing of the costumes, the displaying of different cuts of the editors and the showing of the sound editors creating their effects are just examples of how the crafts were presented in a fashion that was both educational and entertaining. Well done, Academy.

Before closing it out here, however, I feel compelled to comment on sound mixer Michael Minkler’s comments regarding the publicity fellow mixer Kevin O’Connell has received for his 0-19 Oscar record. In the pressroom following his victory, Minkler seemed to rather bizarrely resent the attention O’Connell’s plight is receiving, stating “Kevin in an okay mixer” and suggesting he “take up another line of work.”

I understand it would be irritating to have someone trying to win strictly on sympathy (which I'm not even convinced O'Connell is dong), but this man is literally the biggest loser in the history of the Academy Awards...of course the media is going to be interested in him! I'm not saying that it’s right to vote for him strictly on that fact alone, but at least you could show some class and not insult someone who is clearly a leader in his field (and one who also lost his mother Sunday night). Minkler’s co-winners, Willie D. Burton and Bob Beemer, were able to display some measure of good manners, telling O’Connell that his time would come and praising his achievements to date.

Well, both O’Connell and Greg P. Russell have “Transformers” and “Spider-Man 3” on the horizon, both of which should be sound spectacles. Maybe their day will come sooner, rather than later. There is still the matter of yet another musical to overcome, however (Tim Burton’s “Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street”).

(Russell’s response to Minkler’s comments.)

With that, I guess I’m done here. Though on a final personal note, I’d like to say it’s been a blast writing this year for In Contention, at “Tech Support,” on the Blog and, most enjoyably, covering the Toronto International Film Festival. I sincerely hope you’ve enjoyed reading. I’ve certainly enjoyed writing.

Three days. Then it’ll be another year before the men and women of filmmaking get to go to the Kodak Theater and celebrate their work in front of the world. As I mentioned two weeks ago, the craftsmen and craftswomen tend to take a backseat in media coverage. But they still combine for ten of the twenty-four awards handed out on Oscar night. So let’s take one, final look at these races.

BEST ART DIRECTION

“Pan’s Labyrinth” is a film that had an amazing run as the season wound itself down, nominated six times over and finding itself among the most loved films of the year. Eugenio Caballero’s elaborate sets blend both period and fantasy while also playing quite an integral role in the plot (hell, look at the title). In addition, it is the only one of the three Art Directors Guild winners to even be nominated for an Oscar. I’d say that puts it in a good position, though I certainly don’t think a win is assured.

With that in mind, “Dreamgirls” is indeed the bigger film. Academy Award winner John Myhre’s work doesn’t exactly drawing attention to itself, but it nevertheless displays a vibrant Motown spanning multiple decades. But I’m just not sure how many awards the film can win, and it’s yet to win anything in this category. Admittedly, Myrhe won for “Chicago” without any precursor awards, but that was for a Best Picture winner. This film is not even a nominee in the big race.

Prediction: “Pan’s Labyrinth”
Alternate: “Dreamgirls”
Preference: “The Prestige”

BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY

With no Best Picture nominee in the category, we don’t have to worry about the fact that this award tends to go to a Best Picture nominee. Rather, we look to the film with the most acclaimed cinematography, taking most of the critics awards, including the BAFTA and the guild award: Emmanuel Lubezki and his oft-covered, dazzling work in “Children of Men.”

Interestingly, and unlike most prognosticators, I wouldn’t really call this category “locked.” Lubezki’s work is showy, but not necessarily beautiful like most winners here tend to be. However, I don’t see what can beat it at this point. I suppose Guillermo Navarro’s eerie and atmospheric efforts on the clearly beloved “Pan’s Labyrinth” would come in second – but it’s a very distant second.

Prediction: “Children of Men”
Alternate: “Pan’s Labyrinth”
Preference: “Children of Men”

BEST COSTUME DESIGN

Now THIS is an open category, made even more so by the absence of the BAFTA/CDG winner, “Pan’s Labyrinth.” I’m leaning towards Sharen Davis of “Dreamgirls” as a winner, but it’s close. She’s yet to win anything, and how many awards do we expect this non-Best Picture nominee to take in the end? Even still, her film is a costume spectacle, one more widely seen than the other two period pieces nominated. It also has seven non-costume nominations compared to zero for each of the other period nominees (remember that period almost always triumphs in this category). Respected films go a long way. And then there’s the fact that Davis’s threads outfit a showbiz environment in “Dreamgirls.” How many industry folks can relate to that?

Chung Man Yee’s triumph at the guild awards this weekend is indicative that Sony Pictures Classics has made the rounds with “Curse of the Golden Flower.” And as over-the-top as I consider the work to be, there’s no denying it’s an utter costume showcase, like “Dreamgirls,” as well as the sort of exotic endeavor the Academy occasionally tips its hat towards in a crafts category. All of that said, it remains a foreign film, and one that is not critically respected. It also has no other nominations.

Also worth mentioning is the other period entry in this category, the oft-celebrated Milena Canonero and “Marie Antoinette.” The Academy may or may not have enjoyed this film, but the threads speak for themselves and deserve a mention. I can easily see the film taking the cake in this category.

Prediction: “Dreamgirls”
Alternate: “Curse of the Golden Flower”
Preference: “Dreamgirls”

BEST FILM EDITING

A winner of the ACE award for Editing has won this award in nine of the last ten years. What’s the problem this year? The guild itself couldn’t decide. “Babel” and “The Departed” tied for the award.

The Academy loves action in the film editing field, “Saving Private Ryan,” “The Matrix,” “Black Hawk Down” and “Return of the King” standing as examples. Moreover, I’m expecting “The Departed” to eek out a win in Best Picture. And it’s the sort of film that would seem a great possibility to win this category without Best Picture, much less with it. So I ultimately expect Thelma Schoonmaker to barely win a third Oscar.

ACE co-winner “Babel” and the work of Stephen Mirrione and Douglas Crise would be the definitive competition. Not only does the Academy love to award interlocking storylines in this category (“Traffic,” “Crash”), but this would be a potential place to reward a film clearly liked (with the lion’s share of nominations among the Best Picture nominees) but not a clear favorite in any category.

Prediction: “The Departed”
Alternate: “Babel”
Preference: “United 93”

BEST MAKEUP

“Pan’s Labyrinth,” with the awardage it has received thus far (including the BAFTA in this category), its total of six nominations and the considerable love apparent for it in the industry, would appear to have a very firm grip on this category. That it has the showiest makeup on both prosthetic and non-prosthetic fronts is a big bonus.

“Apocalypto” is a distant second – not altogether out of the running, but still distant. It is also a film showcasing makeup work throughout rather than in a handful of key sequences – something to consider.

Prediction: “Pan’s Labyrinth”
Alternate: “Apocalypto”
Preference: “Pan’s Labyrinth”

BEST MUSIC – ORIGINAL SCORE

This is the most difficult category to predict, in my opinion. Cases could be made for all nominees. Each of the efforts find secure positions in my personal top ten.

Ultimately, I’m banking on Alexandre Desplat for “The Queen,” a delicate, film-serving score, one that improves upon multiple viewings. Desplat is also a major up-and-comer in this field. Moreover, the winner in this category tends to be a Best Picture nominee when possible. (On only two of the last fifteen occasions has a Best Picture nominee lost to a non-Best Picture nominee.) That said, the score does not draw attention to itself and it lacks the sort of iconic theme that often wins this category. As such, I don’t consider it an assured winner in the least.

Philip Glass, meanwhile, is a composer I suspect we’d see more of in the Oscar race if he were to take more traditional, Academy-friendly scoring jobs. As it is, he has three nominations, is somewhat due for a win, and his “Notes on a Scandal” score is vintage Glass. That could be the ideal combo. But it’s also somewhat divisive work, and while the film has been doing well for itself throughout the film awards season, it hasn’t exactly been setting the race on fire either.

Prediction: “The Queen”
Alternate: “Notes on a Scandal”
Preference: Eeny...meeny…miny…I like all these scores A LOT. In fact, they rank between my third and seventh favorites of the year (my two faves, “The Painted Veil” and “The Fountain,” are out of the running). I’m not solid on a preference, but I think I’d lean to Desplat or Glass…imagine that.

BEST MUSIC – ORIGINAL SONG

Here’s where I’m stepping out on somewhat of a limb. I see the beneficiary of a vote-split scenario being Melissa Etheridge. Paramount Vantage has done a fantastic job getting “I Need to Wake Up” out there, sending it to every Academy member, along with the music and lyrics. Also being the sort of ballad the Academy loves, and further attached with a message to it, I feel this is where we’ll see a minor upset in a category which does not shy away from upsets.

With three nominations in this category, one would expect that “Dreamgirls” would have this award in the bag. I, however, I am not so sure. “Listen” is the song that has the most precursor attention and is the most typical winning song (a ballad with a key role in the story). But there’s considerable love out there for “Love You I Do” and “Patience,” both of which are sung by actors whose roles have been nominated by the actors’ branch. A vote split is not out of the question.

Prediction: “I Need to Wake Up” from “An Inconvenient Truth”
Alternate: “Listen” from “Dreamgirls”
Preference: “I Need to Wake Up” from “An Inconvenient Truth”

BEST SOUND EDITING

This is an interesting race, largely because both Bub Asman and Robert Alan Murray find themselves nominated twice – for two pretty similar efforts. Many would argue this is the most logical place to reward “Letters from Iwo Jima,” a film AMPAS clearly liked a great deal and has enough war effects so that an Academy voter can probably justify voting for them. As I said two weeks ago, working on a Best Picture nominee always helps in the race for wins.

Nonetheless, vote-splitting between “Letters” and the more action-intensive “Flags of Our Fathers” is not out of the question. If this were to occur, it would likely benefit the water-and-action-heavy work of George Watters II and Christopher Boyes on the blockbuster “Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest.”

Prediction: “Letters from Iwo Jima”
Alternate: “Flags of Our Fathers”
Preference: “Flags of Our Fathers”

BEST SOUND MIXING

I must concede that I feel “Dreamgirls” took somewhat of a hit here when it missed a Best Picture nomination. With the exception of “Bird,” all musicals to have won this category this side of “South Pacific” have been Best Picture nominees. (“Bird” is not even really a musical, I know, but it won because of its music). Moreover, the CAS award has been somewhat of a curse as of late, with none of the last five guild winners winning the Oscar. That said, it still would be the most traditional winner of the nominees, it has the most nominations of the nominees (it probably missed that Best Picture berth by “this much”) and I don’t see what’s going to beat it.

“Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest” is the sort of film that would win Best Visual Effects and Sound Editing before this. However, I doubt it’ll take two Oscars, much less three. But truthfully, any of the films could slip in a steal it.

Prediction: “Dreamgirls”
Alternate: “Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest”
Preference: “Dreamgirls”

BEST VISUAL EFFECTS

I’ll end with the easiest award of the night to predict. The winner of by far the most guild awards. The winner of the BAFTA. The highest grosser of any film in contention. The only film nominated in multiple categories categories. John Knoll and crew have this one in the bag for “Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest.”

Prediction: “Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest”
Alternate: “Superman Returns”
Preference: “Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest”

Good luck to all on Sunday. We’ll wrap things up next week.

One of the most dazzling technical achievements of the year has been, seemingly without question, Alfonso Cuarón’s “Children of Men.” Capturing a bleak and not so distant future through the spectrum of war-torn London, the film has been a towering achievement in pretty much every field we’ve outlined here at “Tech Support” throughout the season. And, as the Oscar ceremony rapidly approaches, one of the categories seems to have been long relegated to this, one of the most critically acclaimed films of the year.

Emmanuel Lubezki’s duties behind the camera on the film might immediately be described as harrowing if not monumental. Work that has already garnered him BAFTA, LAFCA and NSFC awards for Best Cinematography, some are quick to point out that “Children of Men”’s visual intensity will be taught in film schools for years to come. As such, the opportunity to talk with the man responsible for such a barrage of adjectives is one to relish indeed.

The mood of “Children of Men” seems to permeate the look at every turn: stark, gritty, immersing the audience in the on-screen action. But Lubezki insists his approach to creating the visual atmosphere does not necessarily change from project to project.

“Whenever I start a film, I make a set of rules,” he explains. “On this film, we stuck with ideas such as long takes, only one lens, strictly natural light and always being close to the action; you can’t actually feel like you’re in the action without having the camera close to it.”

He freely admits that shooting in the winter in England, where the temperature was always cool and the sunlight was very consistent, was ideal for his efforts. And he does concede and that he had to break away from the “no artificial lighting rule” twice when sets prevented the desired effect of the shot. But he ultimately felt that those early stand-bys helped in accomplishing what he set out to do.

Many of the shots in “Children of Men” are extraordinarily complex and have been reported ad nauseam. Lubezki mentions the infamous car chase sequence as well as the chase through the coastal city street as two particularly challenging feats to pull off. But he credits his crew and Clive Owen’s understanding of the camera for helping him with such accomplishments and he certainly does not overplay his role on the film as anything more than his job.

“When you’re on the set, you’re thinking about the audience,” he says. “You want them to feel what you feel and you always want to make sure they don’t catch your ‘magic camera tricks.’ If you pull that off, then you’ve succeeded as a cinematographer.”

It goes without saying the four-time Oscar nominee has an extremely close relationship to Alfonso Cuarón, whom he has known since they were teenagers. The two even attended film school together.

“Our similar background resulted in us looking for similar things when we started working together,” he says of his experiences working with Cuarón. Indeed, this is their fifth feature collaboration following “Y Tu Mama Tambien,” “Great Expectations,” “Love in the Time of Hysteria,” and “A Little Princess,” for which Lubezki earned his first notice from the AMPAS.

Lubezki was not, however, adopted as Cuarón’s director of photography on “Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban.” As he was shooting Niels Mueller’s (EDITOR’S NOTE: underappreciated) “The Assassination of Richard Nixon,” Cuarón instead looked to New Zealand lenser Michael Serensin. But, as Lubezki explains it, when the duo came back together on “Children of Men” after three years of being apart, it was as if no time had passed.

Cuarón and Lubezki are just two of several nominees this year hailing from Mexico, a country which Lubezki credits with defining who he is by affecting his taste and his approach to work and worldview. It’s clear he’s thrilled with the credit his fellow countrymen have achieved this year on “Babel,” “Pan’s Labyrinth,” and, of course, “Children of Men.”

“I never would have dreamed this would happen at all, much less in a single year,” he tells me. “People forget that when you’re in the film business, you give up lots. We left our families, our friends and our country. That we’re all getting recognition from so many different branches is wonderful.”

As close as his relationship with Cuarón is, Lubezki has also worked with several high profile American filmmakers: Mike Nichols (“The Birdcage”), Michael Mann (“Ali”), Tim Burton (“Sleepy Hollow”) and Terrence Malick (“The New World”), just to name a few. Lubezki freely admits all are extremely different in their approach to filmmaking. But he also does not hesitate to call all of them “film authors,” the sort of filmmaker he truly admires because he finds it is so difficult to survive in Hollywood while staying true to one’s artistic vision.

As for the awards circuit, “Children of Men” has brought more attention Lubezki’s way than any other year, and certainly, more intensely than he could have ever imagined. He confesses a love-hate relationship with the dizzying derby that is an Oscar race.

“The achievements are all so different,” he says. “How can you pick a single best picture, a single best performance by an actor in a leading role or a single best cinematographic achievement? But it’s really great to see someone who’s given their life to a film be recognized.”

As mentioned, this will be Lubezki’s fourth trip to the Oscars, after having previously been nominated for “A Little Princess” in 1995, “Sleepy Hollow” in 1999 and “The New World” in 2005. But he admits this time it’s different. “All my friends are with me!” he exclaims, referring to his fellow Mexican nominees, “it’s been crazy!”

After such a degree of acclaim and success across multiple genres, where could a man who has seemingly done it all in a short amount of time go from here? He’s the first to admit there are too many ways to answer a question such as that. There are, of course, so many directors with whom he’d like to work, techniques with which he’d like to experiment and genres he’d like to participate in. He frankly doesn’t know what the future holds. It really seems that he doesn’t want to know, either. Regardless, “Children of Men” has already established another milestone for “Chivo,” and his is a career that might very well reach one of the industry’s highlights in a mere ten days.

Allow me to step away from general analysis this week and make a few observations on the current, often underappreciated, experience that is the race for the craft awards. Perhaps there are considerable ways of improving it.

We all see the stars hitting the talk shows. The trades are brimming with ads. The DGA nominees are all giving their spiel in high profile fashion. The acting and writing nominees are visible all around Hollywood. One would be hard-pressed to say the nominees aren’t receiving ample media and industry coverage – unless, of course, you are a nominee in a crafts category.

As usual, these men and women are taking an incredibly (back back back) backseat in media coverage and even industry coverage. Sure, they turn out in support for their films at this party/gathering or that, but you won’t find much in the way of campaign concentration. This process not only ghettoizes their categories in the eyes of the public, but it is also is a disservice to the integrity of awards process in these categories.

Notice, for example, Entertainment Weekly sarcastically asking Ellen DeGeneres “who will win the all-important Sound Editing category,” tossing the notion away like a joke (remember Jon Stewart’s parody of Wylie Statement and the very same category last year). To me, this is, in fact, one of the more interesting races of the evening (more on that in two weeks).

I’m certainly not denying that a film could not work without writers (whose work serves as a film’s template), actors (who can single handedly make or break said template) and especially directors (who can single handedly make or break the achievements of every other artist in the film). But given that the crafts artists form such a substantial block of the AMPAS membership, their absence in the realm of any significant coverage attention remains rather alarming. Such is and has been the (hopefully achieved) purpose of “Tech Support” this year at In Contention.

It might be worth keeping in mind the possibility that this lack of coverage ultimately encourages tech sweepers and group thinking across the board when ballots are considered by the membership. Just consider, for a moment, that of the 60 crafts awards given out this decade by AMPAS, 90% of them were for films with at least four total nominations, 37 of these going to Best Picture nominees. Does this really seem all that reasonable?

There are no easy solutions to the issue. After all, no matter how integral Thelma Schoonmaker was to the success of “The Departed,” she was not the one putting butts in seats. Ditto, say, Christopher Boyes and George Watters II, sound editors of “Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest.” But that does not mean one cannot try to rectify the rather disconcerting lack of appreciation seen during this time of year.

The Academy itself certainly affords no favors. Consider Kevin O’Connell, gaining some fame for his rather infamous record of 19 nominations without a win (combining with partner Greg P. Russell for a staggering 0-30 record). Oprah Winfrey may bring O’Connell onto her show and speak of his un-Oscared status with a brief video package, but the average voter still may not know where to tick off their mark on the ballot, which merely says “Apocalypto” under the category placement of Best Sound Mixing.

While their branch peers undoubtedly know which film O’Connell and Russell are aboard, it is questionable that their fellows in the other branches do. And really, how much work would it take to place the names of craftsmen and craftswomen beside their film’s name on the ballot? It seems borderline disrespectful to exclude such information.

Also, unlike categories such as Best Foreign-Language Film and the short films, there is no way to ensure that the voters have actually seen all the nominated contenders. It seems common courtesy to watch all the nominated films in a category before voting in it. Should it not be necessary to ensure this happens in all categories? Food for thought.

Some studios and individuals have already made efforts to heighten awareness and recognition for the tech categories. Here and there a studio brings these artists to the forefront at this event or that, but it doesn’t seem too common. Every one of the artists I’ve spoken to for this column has obviously been pleased about talking to me regarding their roles in creating their films. Surely I’m not the only person out there pleased to talk to them.

Paramount Vantage, for instance, has highlighted their craftsmen and craftswomen with their website, vantageguilds.com. They also got Gustavo Santaolalla’s “Babel” score and Melissa Etheridge’s song “I Need to Wake Up” from “An Inconvenient Truth” out there to the industry early and furiously, seemingly sparing no expense. Lo and behold, Etheridge received a nomination for a documentary in a non-documentary category while Santaolalla got a second straight nomination for a minimalist and experimental score, the sort the music branch tends to shy away from. In other words, Vantage has seen their efforts pay off. Why don’t more studios follow suit?

“Dreamgirls” highlighted technical artists in the film’s closing credits, showing us stages in their individual work. This was a beautiful way to end the film. I am not suggesting every film needs to be a walking, talking “for your consideration” ad, but seeing more films tastefully celebrating both their casts and their crews would not only be nice in and of itself, but it would also draw more attention to both the crafts work and the individuals behind them.

I personally find it a nice touch that for the past three years, the composers and cinematographers have been onscreen like the actors and directors as the envelope is opened. This not only makes them visible to the public and their peers, but it also places their achievements on a seemingly greater level of appreciation. I understand this is a problem in the categories where multiple individuals share a nomination, but surely, at the very least, this could be done for the costume designers, where the nomination almost invariably is awarded to a single individual.

Then there is the issue of “For Your Consideration” ads in the trades. Advertising cinematographic achievements in American Cinematographer may be very effective as far as the race for nominations is concerned, but how do we expect this to work when it comes to the race for the wins? Some studios have stepped up to bat for their craftsmen and women but many don’t. That is a problem.

I could really go on and on. And again, this is an issue lacking an easy solution. I have no delusions that even if my aforementioned ideas were adopted there would not be an obvious double standard between the crafts categories and the so-called “big eight.” And I don’t even propose to suggest that directors, writers and actors should not be at the forefront of Oscar night. But as it is, the difference is simply too great and the appreciation feels almost secondary. Adapting some measures, none of them very challenging, might have some effect on this, if just in the smallest of ways. Even that would be worth it.

Two of last week’s Academy Award nominees offered seemingly diametrically opposing examples of building theme and character: the understated and the overstated. Consolata Boyle’s subtle but particular work on Stephen Frears’s “The Queen” was singled out by the costume designers’ branch, while Philip Glass’s rolling, tension-inducing score for Richard Eyre’s “Notes on a Scandal” ultimately out-lasted his more classic work on Neil Burger’s “The Illusionist.” I recently had the opportunity to speak with both artists about their Oscar-nominated work.

It goes without saying that costume design and music composition are different disciplines entirely, but every element of a filmmaking experience serves the whole above and beyond the part. Both Ms. Boyle and Mr. Glass had the challenge of crafting their work to suit the very different sides of the characters in their films; both encountered situations unique to these particular projects; and both of their achievements were clearly respected by their peers, as they now find themselves in the thick of an Academy Awards race.

Philip Glass, whose enthusiasm and love for music permeated our discussion, has been through the nomination experience before. He was previously cited for Martin Scorsese’s “Kundun” in 1997 (a year during which he was destined to lose to James Horner’s compositions for “Titanic”) and Stephen Daldry’s “The Hours” in 2002 (the year Elliot Goldenthal took the award home for “Frida”).

However, his claim to fame is not his cinematic filmography, but rather the classical work he has composed for symphonies, concertos and operas. He ultimately downplays the differences between these media.

“Producers and studios definitely have a role in composing for film,” he acknowledges. But he insists that this does not affect his approach to the work, rather stating that “the inspiration for the music will come from the imagery and the story, whether it’s dance or film or opera.”

In “Notes on a Scandal,” things are not always what they seem. As much as the inter-play of the characters is about deception, Glass’s work on the soundtrack is about reflecting that deceit. Judi Dench’s Barbara, for instance, was of particular importance, as the music surrounding the character had to have many different emotions to it, depending on the particular time in the narrative.

“The film is very much a story of revelation,” Glass says. “What you find out at the end is not what you see in the beginning. I always had to have that at the forefront of my mind.”

In similar fashion, Consolata Boyle had to be aware that the characters she was outfitting in “The Queen” held some cards to their chest, while showing precious few. She was tasked with balancing the private and public lives of some of the most photographed people in the world.

“They were recorded to a frightening degree,” she notes. But while in some instances the attempt was made to emulate archive footage as closely as possible, this was not the case for scenes in the Royal Family’s Scottish retreat, Balmoral.

“There was a need to create a very private world, so it was an act of imagination,” Boyle recollects. “But it also had to be coherent and ring true, so I had to speak to a lot of people.”

Boyle also explains that she could use these private lives to fashion threads which afforded insight into the characters. “Charles, for example, dresses in quite a formal way,” she says, “almost inclined to overdress, even in the country. His mother, on the other hand, dresses for comfort and for ease.”

An unabashedly friendly and humble woman, Boyle has received the first nomination of her career for her work on Stephen Frears’s critically acclaimed film. Like Glass, she has the rare distinction (rare at least in this category) of being nominated for a contemporary film. But she does not fixate on such matters when tackling a given project. As she explains it, “I approach each era as if I was from outer space and research in the same way, whether it’s contemporary or in the deep, distant past.”

Both artists spoke of the challenges involved in fine-tuning their work and getting inside the characters they were creatively dressing, in their respective ways.

Glass, for example, remembers having to do a lot of rewriting, often insisting on three or four different versions of music for a particular scene. He also mentions that particular pieces of music, such as the opening credits, were especially difficult to write.

Of Barbara’s bathtub scene, he ponders, “How does one write music to express the loneliness of an old lady in a bathtub? I don’t know if I’ll ever be able to use that music again, but I felt I pulled it off; that moment was an accomplishment for me.”

Boyle, on the other hand, had to feel as though she knew some of the most famous, yet most elusive, people in the world. “There is a uniqueness and eccentricity to the world of the royals,” she says. Ultimately, however, she still feels she remained out of tough with the characters, even in spite of extensive research and script analysis.

Ironically, Glass seemed to share a similar experience. “I looked at these characters for months,” he says, “I knew everything about them, but they remain the creation of artists. So in a funny way, I never get to meet them. It’s such a strange situation.”

It is further clear that both Boyle and Glass are immensely appreciative of the praise their work has received.

Boyle considers it “an absolute thrill” that the Beaufort jacket worn by the queen in the film was in hot demand in New York, selling for $365. “The whole experience has been a joy,” she says. “Stephen, Helen and everyone else made everything so wonderful, yet I’d like to think that, in a small way, I was able to help them.”

Glass, meanwhile, confesses that he is “star struck whenever I come to Hollywood.” He notes a desire to meet colleagues such as Danny Elfman and co-nominee Thomas Newman, offering that being in their company is a “huge deal.”

The 26th of this month will undoubtedly be an exciting day for these two artists. But regardless of what occurs in their categories, it is clear that Ms. Boyle and Mr. Glass are quite grateful of the attention they have already received, each having greatly enjoyed the processes that led to their first and third respective Academy Award nominations in 2006.