“The Motion Picture.” This phrase necessarily implies that the picture is, indeed, moving, and in the absence of this trait the world of cinema would not exist. Yet it does exist due to the motion picture camera. Those who master the trade of camerawork with respect to motion pictures are cinematographers. And the work that these talented individuals do for the quality of films is nothing short of invaluable.

The Academy Award for cinematography is, in my opinion, one of the most impressive Academy Awards an individual can win. So much of a movie is captured in the way it is shot. From lighting to framing to camera positioning to much, much more, mood is set, story is told and the film experience is affected...all due to the camerawork. In all fairness, I am not always thrilled with the winners in the category or even the nominees. “Prettiness” is rewarded a lot here. And while making a beautiful image is certainly an accomplishment, and one that usually makes the film better, I hardly think that it makes the achievement automatically award-worthy.

I would say that cinematography that most adds to the film is ultimately the “best,” and this can be done in many ways. I lso must add that I do admire innovative work that pushes the medium forward (seen in Emmanuel Lubezki’s work on “Children of Men” last year). Also, the category does show a distinct tendency to reward period pieces and films that are Best Picture nominees or, at the very least, contenders. Last year was an extreme oddity as none of the nominees were Best Picture nominees – the only time this has happened since the “black-and-white” and “color” categories were merged. But who knows? Maybe a new trend is emerging.

Another interesting trait about the cinematography category is that, while certain cinematographers certainly have been singled out by their branch relatively frequently, they also tend to spread the wealth around. I noted last year that, with the exception of the late, great Conrad L. Hall, no D.P. (director of photography) has reached a career tally of five nominations in over twenty years! That said, I fully expect this last statistic to change this year in the person of Roger Deakins.

The veteran British D.P. first garnered stateside fame due to his collaborations with the Coen brothers on films like “Barton Fink” and “The Hudsucker Proxy.” He’s since lensed such memorable films as “Dead Man Walking,” “A Beautiful Mind,” “The Hurricane” and “The Secret Garden.” And that’s just mentioning the films for which he hasn’t been nominated. Who can forget his work on “The Shawshank Redemption,” “Fargo,” “Kundun,” “O Brother, Where Art Thou?” and “The Man Who Wasn’t There?” He is again collaborating with the Coens this year on festival sensation “No Country for Old Men.”

Many directors and cinematographers have great working relationships. That of Deakins and the Coens is one of the best known and most successful. In “No Country for Old Men,” widely considered a return to form for the brothers, Deakins is has the task of capturing a sparse Texan landscape in what looks to be (quite literally) a dark light. Normally, I would say Deakins working for this duo and filming such atmospheres has all the makings of an assured nomination. However, Deakins is also the man responsible for the photography of Andrew Dominik’s “The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford.”

Even those who do not like Dominik’s film have tended to heap praise upon the camerawork. But will the cinematography branch go for it even though it’s not in such traditional AMPAS fare? Or will they look to the Coens once more? Or can Deakins double dip? Personally, I think he can. Deakins has also lensed Paul Haggis’s “In the Valley of Elah,” though I highly doubt he’ll end up with a nomination for it. The work is likely to do no harm with respect to his overall reputation this year, however, especially among his peers.

From where I’m sitting, the biggest obstacle in his race to a long overdue statuette for Deakins is Seamus McGarvey for his shooting of Joe Wright’s “Atonement.” McGarvey, whose work has previously been prominently displayed in films such as Oliver Stone’s “World Trade Center” and Stephen Daldry’s “The Hours,” has a fantastic opportunity here. The work will have the potential to be intimate yet epic and a particular tracking shot is already the subject of immense praise. I expect this film to be a major player this awards season and I certainly think McGarvey is going to be a major part of that.

Not far behind, I would argue, is Robert Elswit’s work on Paul Thomas Anderson’s “There Will Be Blood.” This seems to be the sort of film the cinematography category loves to embrace. If Anderson and his lenser do as well as they ought to on this effort (they’ve previously worked very well on “Magnolia,” “Boogie Nights” and “Punch-Drunk Love”), I expect to see Elswit back in the race. It’s been just two years since the veteran received his first Oscar nomination for George Clooney’s “Good Night, and Good Luck.” Elswit also has “Michael Clayton” this year. I can’t see him pulling off a nod for that, but I see the extra effort as only helping his cause.

Like McGarvey, Dariusz Wolski will be having his best chance to date for a nomination this year. Wolski’s career has been largely commercial in nature, but after memorable work on films such as “Crimson Tide,” “Dark City” and the “Pirates of the Caribbean” series, one could make a very solid case he’s due for his first trip to the Kodak. He turns to Tim Burton this year as the D.P. on “Sweeney Todd.” Musicals tend to have a fair amount of luck in this category, and camerawork will undoubtedly be key to the creation of mood in this latest effort from Burton (as indeed it always seems to be). If the film delivers (and this is a big if in my opinion), expect Wolski to be a major player this year.

Rodrigo Prieto has already garnered great acclaim for his work on Ang Lee’s latest, “Lust, Caution,” winning the award at Venice for Outstanding Technical Achievement. Prieto, like Elswit, received his first Oscar invite two years ago for “Brokeback Mountain,” also directed by Lee. The jury still seems to be out on how much love “Lust, Caution” will receive and/or how if American audiences will embrace it. But if it manages to score anywhere, Prieto’s work would be near the top of the list of potentials.

If we’re looking for pretty landscapes, Marc Forster’s “The Kite Runner” may very well deliver. The film certainly has potential (if totally unproved) to be a major player and cinematographer Roberto Schaefer was able to earn a 2004 BAFTA nod for a previous effort with Forster, “Finding Neverland.” Let’s wait for reception.

Also receiving a BAFTA nod in 2004, but failing to convert it to an Oscar citation, was Eric Gautier for his capturing of South America in “The Motorcycle Diaries.” Generally considered a bigger snubee than Schaefer, Gautier actually won the award at Cannes for his collaboration with Walter Salles. This year, he tries to capture the American western frontier in Sean Penn’s “Into the Wild.” Deemed by many to be Penn’s most accessible film to date, Gautier’s landscapes could very well bring him the attention from AMPAS many people feel he deserved three years ago.

A cinematographer who has been a consistent critical favorite this decade is Harris Savides, who garnering much acclaim for his work on such experimental features as Jonathan Glazer’s “Birth” and Gus Van Sant’s “Elephant” and “Gerry.” These are the sorts of films which obviously have a very difficult time getting any sort of traction in the Oscar race, but Ridley Scott’s “American Gangster” is his most mainstream effort to date – it could be an opportunity for brooding, gritty, memorable work. Having also lensed “Zodiac” and “Margot at the Wedding” this year, Savides, like Elswit and Deakins, is having a busy 2007. Let’s see what sort of footing Scott’s film can grab.

Other possibilities? “Charlie Wilson’s War” doesn’t seem like a classic cinematography nominee, but it could be a big hit with AMPAS and Stephen Goldblatt is respected. I wouldn’t rule that out.

Phedon Papamichael, meanwhile, is a D.P. who I am convinced is eventually going to be cited in this category. Could “3:10 to Yuma” be the film? I personally loved the western but I don’t know how well it’s going to be remembered come the end of the year.

Remi Adesafarin earned a nod for the first “Elizabeth” nine years ago. His work on the sequel looks impressive, though it’s my suspicion that the film’s overall reception will keep its nomination tally down.

Ed Lachman also got a nomination the last time he collaborated with Todd Haynes (“Far From Heaven”) and his work on “I’m Not There” does seem interesting. But somehow I doubt that the film or the work will be the sort this category tends to embrace.

And then there is the case of Henry Braham, being chosen by Chris Weitz to shoot “The Golden Compass.” This film will undoubtedly look gorgeous. But will that really be due to the camerawork? I’m not so sure. And even if it is, I can’t help but wonder if the cinematography branch will be hesitant to go to a film that is so reliant on CGI to bring its images to the screen.

At the end of the day, this category is one of my favorites. So regardless of what the Academy chooses to reward, here’s hoping to another great year for cinematic imagery.

In the first Tech Support column of 2007, which ran three weeks ago, I mentioned how many apparent contenders for the upcoming Oscar season had already surfaced in films as varied as “Transformers,” “Spider-Man 3,” “Hairspray” and “Ratatouille.” But in a situation similar to that for the awards race as a whole, it turns out the Venice and Toronto film festivals have truly added a lot of heat to the crafts race fire. A great number of films seeking to be contenders have joined the ranks of the summer titles.

Perhaps the most important development, albeit one that was not totally unexpected, was the response to Joe Wright’s “Atonement.” This film seems to be very much in the Best Picture mix, and I full-heartedly expect tech love to accompany it: cinematography, art direction, costume design, original score and film editing all seem like good bets.

Another potential crafts behemoth, “Elizabeth: The Golden Age,” seems to have underwhelmed. There doesn’t seem to be rampant hatred, however, so I’d certainly call it very much in the race for art direction, costume design, makeup and, perhaps, cinematography.

Ang Lee’s “Lust, Caution,” on the other hand, was received in the most puzzling of manners. Loved by some, hated by others, the film surprisingly won the Golden Lion in Venice – and the technical award for Rodrigo Prieto’s cinematography. The fact remains than an NC-17-rated film is at a huge disadvantage in the awards race and the apparent divisiveness of the film doesn’t help matters. But Prieto at the very least will attempt to make a run. Alexandre Desplat’s score and Lai Pan’s costumes ought not to be ruled out.

Another film with a perplexing response is Todd Haynes’s “I’m Not There.” Cate Blanchett’s performance appears to be a surefire contender, and there will likely be a loud group of followers for the film as a whole. It does not appear as though it will be a major crafts contender, but Ed Lachman’s cinematography, Jay Rabinowitz’s film editing and the makeup and sound work don’t appear to be totally out of the realm of possibility.

While not viewed for the first time, “No Country for Old Men” from the Coen brothers continued to receive much praise. The film seems to be a genuine contender in many categories, including Best Picture, Best Director, Best Adapted Screenplay and Javier Bardem’s already loved performance, likely to fall into the supporting actor category. Also along for the ride, given the film’s thriller status, could be the editing Coens’ film editing (they were, after all, nominated, under the pseudonym “Roderick Jaynes” for “Fargo.”) Even more in contention appears to be their choice director of photography, Roger Deakins, who came to fame under the directors and is in the midst of one hell of a year.

Deakins’s talent, after all, is also said to wow in Andrew Dominik’s “The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford.” The film has been declared a masterpiece by some (including the editor of this site) and overlong by others. But there seems to be nothing but praise for the work Deakins put into it behind the camera and, to a lesser extent, the production design and costume design of Patricia Norris, who appears to have her best chance at returning to the race since the 1980s.

Sean Penn’s “Into the Wild,” meanwhile, seems to be garnering a rep as the actor’s most accessible directorial effort to date. Could Eric Gautier get the nod many feel he deserved for “The Motorcycle Diaries?” At the very least, expect Eddie Vedder’s original songs to get some major play.

Gavin Hood’s “Rendition” and Terry George’s “Reservation Road” were apparently greeted with a truly underwhelming response. Any crafts category potential they may have had appears to be gone.

The fates of Tony Gilroy’s “Michael Clayton” and Paul Haggis’s “In the Valley of Elah,” meanwhile, seem to be in considerable question as both received positive if not overwhelming reviews. But like the Hood and George films, they really never seemed like major players in the crafts categories anyway. The best I could possibly see the two films pulling would be in the music and film editing arenas (cinematographers Robert Elswit and Roger Deakins have other opportunities this year).

David Cronenberg’s “Eastern Promises,” on the other hand, received a very positive response indeed before Cronenberg was awarded the People’s Choice Awarded by his fellow Torontonians. But like the Gilroy and Haggis titles, this is the sort of film that might be in contention for Best Film Editing – and nothing else, really.

So what’s left to see? Both Paul Thomas Anderson’s “There Will Be Blood” and Tim Burton’s “Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street” have the potential to be major players in the crafts races pending quality. Each is seeking to be a prestige period piece with very showy work from the tech artists. The fact that they will be trying to garner traction in the Best Picture category never hurts either.

Other films that we’ve yet to see and also likely have Best Picture on their minds include Ridley Scott’s “American Gangster” (screening for critics this week), Mike Nichols’s “Charlie Wilson’s War” and Marc Forster’s “The Kite Runner.” Unlike the Anderson and Burton films, I’d be somewhat surprised if any of these movies ended up as across-the-board tech sweepers. But as I noted in my column two weeks ago, being a period piece does wonders for potential in the tech categories. And these titles ought to be observed given some of the pedigree on board.

Zach Helm’s “Mr. Magorium’s Wonder Emporium” and Robert Zemickis’s “Beowulf” are two very different adventures into the world of fantasy that will be coming our way in November. Both are probably more concerned with box office than awards while the likely silliness of the former and probable experimentalism of the latter will likely not be the Academy’s cup of tea. But they still could make runs in several categories depending on overall embracement.

And lastly we come to Chris Weitz’s huge adaptation of Philip Pullman’s “The Golden Compass.” Some people are convinced this is going to be huge. I’m not one of those people. This is very tricky material to pull off and nothing in Weitz’s filmography suggests he’s prepared for it (nor is the marketing effective as far as I’m concerned). All that said, one can’t deny that it’ll be an opportunity for its crafts artists to shine – and Dennis Gassner, Ruth Myers and Alexandre Desplat have talent to spare.

Then again, what are we doing talking about this in September? Speculating, of course. The state of things is bound to keep changing as we continue to trek through the Fall.

Visual effects have, in many respects, been at the forefront of a change that has been occurring in cinema since “Star Wars,” where the increasingly sophisticated methods of filmmaking technology are becoming ever more important to the perception of quality in film. The increasingly expensive aspect of filmmaking is, as I noted in my column last year, perhaps most appreciated by the general public and the sole crafts medium on which a studio might try to sell a movie outright.

The Academy Award for visual effects is chosen in a manner different than every other category except makeup. The branch does not vote directly for five nominees. Rather, a list of seven finalists is announced (usually in late December, though occasionally in early January) and a committee will then screen the work and three nominees will be named on nomination morning.

This truly is the category where blockbusters rule the day. Unlike other categories, where prestige often carries the torch, the visual effects branch rewards the money-making studio efforts. This is seen in the fact that summer films usually form the majority of the nominees in the category. Last year, in fact, they formed all three. One of the reasons I am discussing this category so early this year is that we have seen so many of the contenders already. (Including, in my opinion, the three nominees, but we’ll get there in a minute.)

Cash also speaks in this category. The winner of this award is almost invariably a massive money-maker. Of the fifteen nominees in the past five years, all but three have cracked the $200 million domestic barrier. Given the increasing cost of visual effects, however, it can hardly be considered surprising that failing to return the investment makes getting a nomination very challenging.

This year, the slate looks awfully full.

As far as I can see, Michael Bay’s “Transformers” has got to be considered the leader in this year’s field. The film was essentially sold on its massive and visually extraordinary robots, completely created by the use of visual effects. The film made $300 million, a mild surprise and Bay’s top grosser to date. But most importantly, “Transformers” distinguishes itself from formidable competition by being a cinematically new endeavor. While other franchise installments will be seen this year, we’ve never seen an achievement like “Transformers” before, despite its being the sort of effects this category loves. When one also considers that Oscar winners John Frazier and Scott Farrar led this team, I’d say its status as a nominee is all but assured.

John Frazier’s talents were also seen this summer on “Spider-Man 3,” the latest, and possibly last, installment in Sam Raimi’s hugely successful franchise. I agree with consensus in calling this film the weakest in the series, and a huge drop in quality from the absolutely wonderful second installment. Nonetheless, there is no denying the work that went into creating the character of Sandman alone, not to mention Spidey, Venom, the Goblin and the general chaos ensuing in the action scenes. The legendary John Dykstra is not back this time out after supervising the series’ first two films. His replacement, however, is no slouch. Scott Stokdyk has only worked on three previous films this decade – “Hollow Man,” “Spider-Man” and “Spider-Man 2.” He’s been Oscar-nominated for all of them, winning for the latter. I doubt this film will stop the trend.

“Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End” also marks the third installment of a hugely successful franchise. This final installment was also a critical disappointment (and, in all fairness, it kind of sucked) but that did not stop audiences from flocking to see Captain Jack one more time. The numerous explosions, ship wrecks and CGI-formed characters like Davy Jones and his crew all should work towards this nomination coming relatively easily. This is not to mention the use of water and storms – one of the favorite challenges in this branch. John Knoll and his crew won Oscars last year for “Dead Man’s Chest” and were nominated four years ago for “The Curse of the Black Pearl.”

But the fact of the matter is that I’m always skeptical of calling any category wrapped up so far in advance. “Minority Report” and “Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith” are just two examples of films that in recent years appeared shoo-ins for citations here and then fell short. I feel that if the visual effects committee is looking for something new, the “Pirates” or “Spider-Man” series could be given the cold shoulder.

The primary alternate that I would look towards is the first installment of the “His Dark Materials” series, “The Golden Compass.” Chris Weitz’s take on Philip Pullman’s acclaimed – and controversial – universe will undoubtedly attract much attention come its December release. But even more importantly, the film looks visually stunning. Nonetheless, it is my suspicion that it will ultimately not be as financially successful as the three aforementioned summer blockbusters, nor is the visual effects crew as Oscar-seasoned. This is, of course, all speculation until we actually see the film, but for now I’d bet on the three summer blockbusters.

“Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix” is almost certain to join its four predecessors in this series among the finalists. However, like three of those predecessors, I don’t see it making the final trio. The only previous film in the series that did make it, “Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban,” was considered the best movie in the franchise and also came in a weak year for the category. I don’t think we can say that about this year, regardless of all the “Potter” hype. A home-turf BAFTA nomination remains assured.

Also in the realm of family features, “Mr. Magorium’s Wonder Emporium” is headed our way in the Fall with a substantial amount of special and visual effects coming with it. I could easily see this being a “Night at the Museum”-style finalist, but I highly doubt we’ll be seeing a nomination given the other spectacles coming out this year.

The epitome of anti-family feature might be “300,” Zach Snyder’s violent bloodbath take on Frank Miller’s graphic novel. The visual effects work here was actually very impressive (and I say this having hated the movie), but I’m highly skeptical that this film, lacking the sort of CGI and traditional big effects that usually make the cut, will be able to garner much traction in the race.

I really don’t see much else making a run. “Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer” will not make the final three when its predecessor failed to make the final seven. “I am Legend” looks like a typical Will Smith action film without the extravagance of the aforementioned fantasy films. And the financial failure of “Stardust” won’t be easily overcome in a year much more competitive than last. (EDITOR'S NOTE: I think it would be wise to consider Julie Taymor's “Across the Universe” at least in the early months.)

A final note on Robert Zemickis’s “Beowulf.” Special effects will certainly be pivotal to the success of this film, as will the blending of stop-motion animation techniques. But I ultimately suspect that the film may be considered more of an animation achievement. We shall wait this one out.

The crafts categories at the Oscars can be analyzed in many ways. It is possible to observe tendencies, whether they are related to famous individual artists, predispositions to gravitate towards Best Picture nominees, or the fact that box office flops are usually avoided.

But perhaps one of the most noted trends is the dominance of the period piece. I can still remember when I was first watching the Oscars, and the award for Best Costume Design was being presented. My father remarked, “It’s so much harder to design something that is real.” I’m not sure I totally agree with this assessment given that the past provides a template from which someone can already work and an artist’s imagination does not start from scratch. I personally consider the best crafts accomplishments to be those which contribute to the story and make the film better, regardless of the time they are attempting to convey.

However, it certainly must be conceded that, in the period piece, there is an inherent need for accuracy, while also contributing to the mood and feel of the film. This is not to mention that fashioning period through crafts automatically draws attention to itself, given that we do not see the era depicted in day-to-day life, if we have seen it at all.

The costume design category is, without a doubt, the most extreme example of this. Fantasy nominees admittedly pop up with some frequency. And last year actually boasted two contemporary nominees (“The Devil Wears Prada” and “The Queen”). But they were the first two contemporary nominees in the category in a dozen years!

I should add that I do not consider “The Queen” anything but a contemporary film. A cut-off date for what is “period” is admittedly arbitrary, unless we stay very strict and declare anything in the past to be period – which I don’t think is in accordance with the spirit of the term. Personally, I would say anything taking place within the past generation is better deemed contemporary.

While a spot or two in the Best Art Direction category is often reserved for a fantasy film, period films dominate there as well, with detail to a past time creating immense opportunities for a production designer and his or her team. (“Amelie” is the only truly contemporary film nominated this decade – and even that film is fantastical in a sense.)

Predictably, the Best Makeup category also tends to embrace work which brings characters, often historical figures, into past times. Fantasy and other outrageous accomplishments (see “Click”) do tend to find a home with some regularity, however.

What may be somewhat surprising is that Best Cinematography is another category where period pieces reign, with only three nominated films this decade taking place after the 1960s. The creation of a period through camera work clearly appeals to this branch. Even in the Best Original Score category, it is possible to observe that the majority of nominees are period pieces.

Categories such as Best Sound Editing, Best Sound Mixing and Best Visual Effects are not so dominated by period films. But given the number of prestigious action films in the past (“Master and Commander,” “Road to Perdition”), not to mention the number of musicals and war films that are period, it is possible to see these categories also lending favoritism to period films. And many fantasy efforts combine period elements (as is seen in the “Pirates of the Caribbean” franchise), so these films, too, can fall into both period and fantasy categories.

As for Best Film Editing, it has such a strong correlation to the Best Picture category that period films are frequently represented. Though of all the technical categories (excluding the consistently inconsistent Best Original Song award), merely being a period film is probably least advantageous.

So what does that mean for this year? To put it simply, it means keep your eyes on the period films!

Joe Wright’s “Atonement” and, assuming it does not bomb, Shekhar Kapur’s “Elizabeth: The Golden Age” seem to have the most obvious makings of across-the-board tech behemoths. Both have noted crafts artists, are somewhat epic in scope and should present opportunities for the craftspeople to show their range. But many more possibilities remain.

“The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford” presents one of three superb cinematographic opportunities this year for the great Roger Deakins, while also giving Patricia Norris – pulling double duty in both the costume and art departments – her best chance to return to the race since the 1980s.

If well-received, Paul Thomas Anderson’s “There Will Be Blood” ought to be considered, at the very least, for Robert Elswit’s photographing early 20th century oil wells against the backdrop of western America. Additionally, the production design from Sissy Spacek’s hubby Jack Fisk and costumes from Mark Bridges will strive to bring the audience into another era with clarity and accuracy. (Both Bridges and especially Fisk could be considered due for first-time recognition.)

Tim Burton’s “Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street” and Adam Shenkman’s already seen “Hairspray” both represent opportunities to craft the past while also being the sort of big, brassy musicals often loved in the tech categories (with Best Sound Mixing being no exception).

James Mangold’s “3:10 to Yuma” is a remake and not traditional Oscar bait, but nevertheless it has been very well-reviewed. Meanwhile, Ridley Scott’s “American Gangster” seems to have potential to be the auteur’s best effort in a while, if also not traditional AMPAS fare.

Ang Lee’s “Lust, Caution” being an NC-17-rated foreign-language film with not-so-favorable reviews will likely spell its own doom. But Rodrigo Prieto’s cinematography still looks gorgeous. Ed Lachman has also received very fine notices for his work on “I’m Not There,” even if people seem hesitant to embrace the film completely. It also must be considered in the makeup and sound mixing categories, at the very least.

Despite being somewhat forgettable, “Becoming Jane” ought not to be totally ruled out of the costume design category. And should they garner any traction whatsoever, “Children of Huang Shi” and “Love in the Time of Cholera” have the makings of tech contenders (though considering their total lack of buzz and status as small films, color me a tad skeptical). Ditto for “The Other Boleyn Girl,” though its release date seems to be in question now.

And we also must not forget “Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End” – certainly a period film, with great chances across the board, particularly in Best Visual Effects and in the sound categories.

Out of breath yet? We’re just getting warmed up, but many of these films may crash and burn, and there will be no shortage of potential nominees to fill the five or three slots per category. But given past years’ characteristics and this year’s current slate, I’m still sure we’ll be seeing many a period piece this year at the Oscars.