Film editing is a craft that I often feel is not properly understood by the movie-going public. Many people seem to think the job is much more limited in scope than it actually is, and, indeed, fail to define it as the art form that it is. Rather, a film editor is responsible for a film’s coherence, pacing and mood, among other aspects. And in many ways, the less you notice a film’s editing, the more accomplished it may be.

Even so, the Academy tends to award showy editing, with action films, musicals and non-linear narratives tending to be major players every year. Early this decade, it appeared as though the category was incredibly tied to the Best Picture race, with match-ups of at least 3/5, usually 4/5 and, in 2002, 5/5 occurring. The last two years, however, have showed a match-up of 2/5. Perhaps we’re moving away from this?

It strikes me as a good idea to start analysis of this category with musicals, where the integration of song and dance always draws attention to the editing.

“Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street” will attempt to slash its way into the Oscar race in big fashion as Tim Burton takes Sondheim’s masterpiece to the screen. Editor Chris Lebenzon has been nominated twice before (“Top Gun” and “Crimson Tide”) so if – and this is still a big if – the film delivers, I’d expect another nod.

“Hairspray” was a surprising hit this summer and I’d say it’ll be a factor this awards season, getting a good kick start with the BFCA and Golden Globe nominations. Should it pick up steam into January, I’d say longtime veteran Michael Tronick could be looking at his first nomination. I still think “Sweeney Todd” has the better shot of the two musicals from this vantage point but, if it disappoints, that may change.

“I’m Not There” is also a musical of sorts with a very strange narrative structure. Jay Rabinowitz thoroughly deserved a nomination here for “Requiem for a Dream” as far as I’m concerned, but Haynes’s film strikes me as simply too unconventional to score a nod for the editor this time around.

In the realm of action, “American Gangster” could be leading the charge. Pietro Scalia has two Oscars to his name for “Black Hawk Down” and “JFK” (which I personally consider the best edited film ever – I mean that with no hyperbole whatsoever). “Gangster” received very solid reviews and box office and I could easily see Scalia with nomination #5 come January.

The Coen brothers are known for editing their films under the pseudonym “Roderick Jaynes.” “No Country for Old Men” has been praised for its tightness and creation of suspense. It also is bound to be a huge player this awards season. (I realize the editor of this site is being a notable holdout on its likelihood as a Best Picture nominee but there’s no denying it’ll be in the heat of contention.) While I’m not sure of history on this front, Mr. Jaynes may become the first fictional person ever to get a second nomination.

Another editing vet is John Bloom, a three-time nominee who won this award 25 years ago for “Gandhi.” This year, he’s in charge of cutting Mike Nichols’ “Charlie Wilson’s War.” The film could be a major player; it'll depend on where consensus ends up.

Arguably leading the Best Picture charge is Joe Wright‘s “Atonement.” Editor Paul Tothill will be blending three eras and very different points-of-view and storylines. I think he is probably heading for his first nomination.

“Into the Wild” is also in the thick of the Best Picture race. Sean Penn’s editor of choice, Jay Cassidy, has the best chance of his career for a nomination with this film as he guides Emile Hirsch through his journey. If the film earns a Best Picture nomination, Cassidy could very well follow with the crew to the Kodak.

Matt Chesse’s career has essentially been Marc Forster’s career. The duo collaborates again this year on “The Kite Runner.” Chesse was nominated three year ago for Forster’s Best Picture nominee “Finding Neverland.” “The Kite Runner,” like that film, strikes me as a movie that will only score in this category if it were to also make headway in the big race. So we’ll have to wait for public and critical consensus on the movie.

John Gilroy’s pacing and creation of suspense in “Michael Clayton” was well done indeed. The film’s structure could also help him out. Again, however, I think this one is dependent on how much traction the film can garner in the Best Picture race.

“There Will Be Blood” seems poised to be a critical darling. Its awards potential is more questionable but it certainly exists. Having read the script, I sense it could be a very uniquely paced film – which could work to its advantage or disadvantage in this category. Dylan Tichenor, who has had a difficult time gaining Oscar traction, is leading the charge as editor.

“3:10 to Yuma” takes us back to the Old West in grand fashion. The gun fights, the excitement and the pacing were all top-notch. Michael McKusker got a nomination two years ago for James Mangold’s last film, “Walk the Line.” Should “Yuma” get the end of year attention it deserves, I’d say he has a solid shot at returning.

Juliette Welfing ought not to be ruled out for “The Diving Bell and the Butterfly.” I have yet to see Julian Schnabel‘s film, but it’s said to be dazzling on its crafts fronts. In my opinion, it’s ultimately a question of how much traction the film can garner, especially with Miramax pushing “No Country for Old Men.”

I’ll finish with a living legend, Anne V. Coates, who is cutting “The Golden Compass.” This adaptation of Philip Pullman’s famous novel will be hitting theatres a week from Friday. Consensus on it is still unclear but should it hit, Coates, who won this award 45 years ago for “Lawrence of Arabia,” could very well be headed for another nomination.

This ends first looks at nine of the ten crafts categories. I won’t deal with the last one, Original Song, until the list of eligible tunes comes out. It’s hard to believe we’re already entering December but indeed we are. Soon, the precursors and top ten lists will be giving us more clues.

A question comes up from a friend every time I’m watching the Oscars: “What’s the difference between the two sound awards?” Well, when I was speaking to Randy Thom a few weeks ago, he used an interesting analogy: The sound mixer is to the cinematographer as the sound editor is to the production designer.

Like a production designer, a sound editor must come up with the dressing of a film’s soundscape. Thousands of potential noises and audible effects are created to fit the needs of the script. These are generated from numerous original sources, just like a production designer needs to find props and sets to suit the film’s visual look.

The sound mixer, working more in tandem with the director, will ultimately decide what is to go in the film’s soundtrack, combining not only the work of the sound editor but also the dialogue, music and other non-artificial audio elements, just as a cinematographer works with the director to decide what to actually shoot, combining the sets and props from the art department, adding lighting, camera positioning and, of course, the actors to the frame.

It’s a lengthy explanation, though you might just as easily consider a sound effect any sound manufactured and the sound mix to be the balance of everything you hear.

Sound editing is known for awarding blockbusters and loud films. Given that sounds have to be manifested, films with lots of “clinks, gurgles and rustles” – not to be overly simplistic – tend to show up here. Films heavy with action and animated endeavors, for which almost all sounds have to be created, show up with great frequency. Musicals, on the other hand, which have a great propensity to show up in the sound mixing category, seldom pop up here.

Like Best Makeup and Best Visual Effects, it used to be that this category would have seven finalists “baked off,” from which three nominees were chosen. But last year, the category was expanded to five nominees, and thus no bakeoff. This makes the category even more difficult to predict.

Going back to Thom, he is once again in competition this year. He won this award three years ago for “The Incredibles” and this year offered his talents to Brad Bird’s follow-up film, “Ratatouille.” Pixar movies are known for their sound effects, and there was certainly a lot of cleverness on display here. I sense it has a very good shot at earning Thom another nomination.

Thom’s co-nominee from “The Polar Express,” Dennis Leonard, is in charge of the sound editing on Robert Zemeckis’ “Beowulf” (on which Thom worked as a mixer). Here, again, we see a considerable amount of creativity from the sound artists, from dragon sounds to war effects. I suspect Leonard is looking at his second nomination.

I also had a chance a few weeks ago to speak to Ethan Van der Ryn, who along with Mike Hopkins, was in charge of the sound editing team on Michael Bay’s “Transformers.” Bay’s film has everything this category loves – lot of action, unique robot sounds…and it was a huge hit. The film’s use of sound is also novel when compared to other sequels floating around in this year’s race. I’d say Van der Ryn and Hopkins could very well be on track for their third Oscar (having previously triumphed for “The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers” and “King Kong”).

Paul Ottosson, supervising sound editor of “Spider-Man 3,” also has a clear shot at another mention, following a nomination for the series’ first sequel. He had the chance to build on the already established sounds of Spidey and the Goblin, which have already gained Academy attention. But further, the addition of Sandman and Venom required original sound work, the sort that this category loves.

Another threequel in contention this year is “Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End.” The sound editing duo of Christopher Boyes and George Waters II filled the film with explosions, sword fights, water noises and all around odd assortments of audio elements created on the first two. And new creativity was on display this time out. With the first two films having scored in this category, I’d be somewhat surprised if this one fails to follow suit.

The explosions and gunfights of James Mangold’s “3:10 to Yuma” combined with a construction of Old West audio flavor this year, and therefore it strikes me as not dissimilar to the work on “Blood Diamond” in 2006. That film, which created the chaos of war-torn modern Africa, was nominated by both the sound mixers and the sound editors. Don Sylvester has yet to score love from the Academy, but Mangold’s film could very well land somewhere. The old crowd of the AMPAS may have a soft spot for this exceedingly well-made, old-fashioned genre entry.

“The Golden Compass” might be one of the last great mysteries of this awards season. Some have seen it, more will in the coming weeks. But Glenn Freemantle has never had an opportunity like this one. Many fantastical situations, objects and beasts will need original sounds. So the question is: will the film catch on?

Frankly, these are the seven films I most suspect will ultimately show up in this category. But it’s become so much more unpredictable now that the bakeoff stage has been abandoned. So what else do I think is possible?

Several films we’ve seen have potential. “300” certainly had the type of sounds the category tends to embrace. But the film is the epitome of what the Academy typically avoids.

I’m surprised the magical sounds of the “Harry Potter” series have never managed to score here. It’s doubtful that “Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix” will be able to break that trend, but given the degree of attention Rowling’s world has received this year, I wouldn’t rule it out.

The car chases of the “The Bourne Ultimatum” were superbly crafted with the noise being incredibly realistic and LOUD. But given the failure of the series’ two predecessors to garner any nominations, it may simply be a franchise the Academy isn’t keen on. However, the guild has stepped up for Bourne in the past, and “Ultimatum” is the most critically acclaimed film of the series to date.

“The Kingdom,” meanwhile, is the sort of action-filled war movie that would normally be exactly what we’d see score. But it totally flopped, so I’m very doubtful.

We will be getting “I am Legend” in three weeks. The Will Smith spectacle could very well have notable sound effects. But the trailer provides little indication. We’ll have to wait.

But without the assistance of the bakeoff, this will remain a difficult category to predict until the nominations are announced. Your guess might be as good as mine.

Roger Deakins’ status as perhaps Hollywood’s leading working cinematographer has been established for years. Hailing from England, the veteran lenser has earned five Oscar nominations in his career, for “The Shawshank Redemption,” “Fargo,” “Kundun,” “O Brother, Where Art Thou?” and “The Man Who Wasn’t There.” Other efforts have included “Jarhead,” “The Village,” “A Beautiful Mind,” “Dead Man Walking,” “The Secret Garden” and “Barton Fink,” just to name a few.

His work can be seen on screen this year in three separate efforts: Andrew Dominik’s “The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford,” The Coen brothers’ “No Country for Old Men” and Paul Haggis’ “In the Valley of Elah.” These films have highlighted Deakins’ talents yet again and will most certainly result in his earning more year-end accolades.

I had the opportunity to speak with Deakins on the weekend.

Deakins is in many ways overwhelmed by the amount of success he has had. He says he always loved movies as a kid, but never dreamed he would make it into the industry.

He began in still photography, later turning to documentaries for seven years. Before long, some of the filmmakers he was collaborating with began working on narrative films. One was Michael Radford, who gave Deakins the chance to shoot “Another Time, Another Place,” followed by “1984.” Deakins soon started getting more offers in England and then in America. The rest, as they say, is history, but Deakins notes that the last thing in his mind was getting the opportunities he’s had the last few years.

He has been working with the Coen brothers for many years now, going all the way back to 1991’s “Barton Fink,” for which Deakins won the cinematography award from the Los Angeles Film Critics Association, the New York Film Critics Circle and the National Society of Film Critics. They’ve worked together ever since.

“We’re just good friends,” Deakins states frankly. “The longer it’s been going on, the more we trust each other’s instincts and we can try things with a bit more confidence than if I hadn’t known them.”

At the same time, however, he finds every effort on which he embarks with the famous brothers to be a new opportunity. He notes how unique everyone Coen film tends to be from the last and describes “No Country for Old Men” as unlike any film he’d done with them before. Despite some comparisons to “Blood Simple,” he ultimately considers it akin to a late Peckinpah Western. “It’s nostalgic for the past but with a sense of modernity, especially with respect to the modern violence,” he says.

On “No Country for Old Men,” Deakins says that the most challenging sequence was the drug bust, starting at night and becoming full dawn. “It was particularly hard to make transition between night and dawn,” he recalls. “There were few opportunities we had to do that.”

Andrew Dominik, on the other hand, was only shooting his second film ever and his first with Deakins.

“Working with a new director can vary very much,” Deakins says. “Andrew was so passionate. He’d been working on ‘The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford’ for a long, long time.”

According to Deakins, Dominik had done a massive amount of research and had so many visual ideas and references. “It was a challenge for me living up to expectations of what he wanted and had in his mind’s eye.”

Deakins explicates how every director is very different. Coming from different disciplines and with different ideas of how to realize a film, he says some purely concentrate on scripts and actors and leave the cinematographer to find a way to shoot. But others, like Dominik, have a very visual sense to start with.

“Andrew had a sense of what he wanted to see but didn’t know how to realize these images so I had to translate them into concrete,” Deakins recalls. “He wanted to do a Victorian Western, without a lot of action but about this melancholy feel of the changing West. But everything stems from the script. It’s a kind of joy of my job, being challenged to create a particular look and particular mood.”

Deakins was not expecting to get the chance to shoot “In the Valley of Elah,” only getting the offer after Haggis’s usual lenser wasn’t available. “I loved the script and I’m very much drawn to character-driven scripts,” he says happily. “I was very lucky to get that chance.”

But through all three films, Deakins tried to employ his general approach to the craft. He explains the role of a cinematographer as the “final arbiter of images,” but quickly notes the importance of collaboration in filmmaking. Specifically, Deakins embosses the importance of a location manager in his work.

Given Deakins’ popularity in the industry, it can sometimes be interesting to note that stars like Deakins in the tech ranks don’t achieve much popularity outside of the cinephile circuit. But Deakins is just fine steering clear of too much limelight.

“That’s why I’m behind the camera. Most of my work is creative and atmosphere so the actors can do their job. I like to give them room to do what they do with as little intrusion as possible.”

Deakins considers himself very lucky to have had such great opportunities this year and thinks he was truly stretched, especially on Dominik’s film, where he says he gained the confidence to take certain other risks again in the future.

“Stylistically, these were three incredibly different films,” he says. “That’s why I like getting a new script with a new approach and a totally different atmosphere. Next time, hopefully it will be better.”

Makeup in the filmmaking medium does far more than just make an actor or actress look good. In fact, it can often do the opposite. It becomes an essential part of character-building, allowing actors and actresses to disappear into the world of a film, and it is awarded every year by the AMPAS in the form of the Best Makeup Oscar.

The award is actually designated for both makeup and hairstyling. But in my humble opinion, the category has tended to ignore the latter more often than not.

This category will become much clearer after the announcement of the seven bakeoff finalists later in the season. As in the Best Visual Effects category, seven finalists are announced prior to the date when the nominations are announced, and three of those seven finalists become the nominees.

This is a strange category; seemingly easy gets often miss out while otherwise poorly-regarded films occasionally score nominations (last year’s “Click” immediately jumps to mind). Considering anything a “lock” in the makeup category is a foolhardy action indeed.

Regardless of typical shockers that pop up in the bakeoff, particular types of work do score in this category regularly. Aging is near the very top of that list. Character-building work – turning famous actors into infamous people or disguising them as fictitious personas – frequents this category all the time. Battle wounds and blood are also a good way to get work noticed. Prosthetics and very showy work show up every single year.

Tim Burton’s “Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street” would seem to have everything this category loves. Wild hair, period makeup – and there will be blood! The makeup crew also includes a giant in the field, Ve Neill, who has won two Oscars for past work with Burton (“Beetlejuice” and “Ed Wood”) in addition to her third win for “Mrs. Doubtfire.” This strikes me on paper as a solid bet. We’ll see what happens.

“Hairspray,” meanwhile, was another big, brassy musical. Not only where the hairstyles hilariously – though appropriately – over-the-top (terribly surprising, I know, given the film’s title) but “Grease” legend John Travolta was turned into the hefty Edna Turnblad! This sort of stunt transformation can easily get people talking. The crew has no previous nominations between them, but even so, recent years suggest to me insularity is not all that important in this category. So I’d say both musicals are good possibilities.

“La Vie en Rose” also turned its star into a musical icon (albeit a very different one) as Marion Cotillard was transformed into Edith Piaf. The makeup crew also did so in such a way where her aging and illness where very noticeable. Again, no previous nominees are on the crew. Last year’s winner, however, was also a foreign film (“Pan’s Labyrinth”) without prior Academy-recognized talent behind the prosthetics.

Yet another famous lady was manifested in “Elizabeth: The Golden Age.” Jenny Shircore won an Oscar for this film’s predecessor nine years ago. The hairstyling and facial makeup suggest that a follow-up nomination could occur. Then again, the predecessor was held in higher regard – and it was a Best Picture nominee. Not likely with this critical bomb.

“The Golden Compass” is aiming to be the launch of a new fantasy series, creating the characters Philip Pullman’s celebrated literary world. Peter King won an Oscar for his makeup designs on “Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King.” I don’t know if this effort is going to give him the sort of opportunity that arose there (or even on an endeavor such as “The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe”), but I’d venture to say that the average makeup artist would still love to have this sort of prospect. I really think we’ll only be able to evaluate this when we see it, however.

“Mr. Magorium’s Wonder Emporium” is another fantasy effort that could pop up. The film will transform Dustin Hoffman into a seemingly lovable eccentric with a very unique look. Disguising famous actors is something this category loves.

Speaking of which, “Fred Claus” turns Paul Giamatti into Santa Claus as well as making all the other members of the North Pole community. “The Santa Clause 3: The Escape Clause” managed to make the bakeoff last year after all! This probably shouldn’t be ruled out.

“Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End” is in a strange situation. The first film in the series probably would have won the Oscar in 2003 had it not been for the “Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King” juggernaut that year. The first sequel continued the work of battle wounds, unique pirate looks and crazy hairstyles – not to mention grotesque creations here and there – but it missed out on a nomination to “Click” of all things last year. Ve Neill and Martin Samuel continued to improve and deepen their work on the third installment this year, but is it likely that the film will score when a predecessor in its series failed? You never know. There are occasions, though rare, where this kind of thing happens.

The “Harry Potter” series has never managed to score in this category, which frankly surprises me. Makeup and hairstyling has been pivotal to this hugely successful series since day one. The Academy has never really embraced the franchise with any discernable passion, so I doubt that “Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix” will be able to break that trend. Then again, the nominations which the last two installments managed surprised many. And the only makeup nomination that “Star Wars” series ever received, for instance, was for the final installment. Never say never.

In the world of period and illness, “Love in the Time of Cholera,” though seemingly underwhelming, could be the sort of film ignored everywhere else EXCEPT here. Matthew Mungle won an Oscar for “Dracula,” after all. Something to keep in mind.

And lastly we come to my lame pun while discussing “Sweeney Todd” – “There Will Be Blood.” This will be period, seems a certain critical favorite, and the sheer amount of dirt and oil will likely result in makeup being noticeable. I wouldn’t rule it out.

But I began with saying just how unpredictable this category is; I certainly stand by that notion. I’m sure we’ll at least see a film or two making the bakeoff that I haven’t even mentioned (or considered).

In my first Tech Support column 15 months ago, I opened by discussing Randy Thom’s acceptance speech of the 2004 sound editing award for “The Incredibles.” Thom remarked how awards like Best Sound Editing are often deemed by the media to be “technical awards” when, in fact, they are awarded for artistic decisions. Bringing to light this articulation has hopefully proven itself to be the purpose of the “Tech Support” column here at In Contention. (And on that note, I sometimes wonder whether this is the best name for the column.)

Last week, I had the chance to speak to Thom and another Hollywood sound editor, Ethan Van der Ryn, about the projects they have in play this season.

A giant in the world of Hollywood sound, Randy Thom won his first Oscar in 1983 for Philip Kaufman’s “The Right Stuff. He has racked up a career nomination total of twelve, and this year, he lends his talents to Brad Bird’s latest film, “Ratatouille,” as well as Robert Zemeckis’ “Beowulf.”

Ethan Van der Ryn is a two-time Oscar winner for “The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers” and “King Kong,” both from director Peter Jackson. This year, he served as supervising sound editor on Michael Bay’s “Transformers.”

Both craftsmen spoke to their discipline’s somewhat unfortunate “technical” label in the eyes of the public and the media.

“We don’t get hired because we know how to use a computer,” Thom says. “In the process of finding and processing sound, we literally have to make thousands of creative decisions before even putting something in front of a director.”

He suggests that this difference in perception arises from the fact that people think they know what actors and writers do but haven’t the slightest idea about the day-to-day work of other film artists, and because technology is used in certain categories more than others, it is easy to label the crafts categories together as “technical” categories. Yet he ultimately laments that of all the disciplines which the Academy awards, sound is probably the most vulnerable to be labeled as such.

Van der Ryn finds a similar situation, considering the “technical” label to be somewhat bothersome and indicative of a misunderstanding of the art.

“I honestly don’t see how what we do is any more technical than screenwriting,” he says. “There certainly are technical aspects, but I think of what we do as creative as opposed to technical.”

Regardless of semantics, both artists have been busy this year and are likely to find themselves in the hunt for Oscar yet again. Both artists recalled the creative process in which they were engaged on these films.

It is worth noting that, in addition to the aforementioned “Ratatouille” and “Beowulf,” Thom also worked on “The Simpsons Movie,” “Enchanted” and “The Great Debaters” this year. Having just finished 18 months of work on “Beowulf,” the film is still fresh in his mind. He particularly remembers the character of Grendel, which he describes as “the most grotesque humanoid creature you’ve ever seen,” and for which Crispin Glover was the stop-motion actor.

Grendel has a warped mouth, and Thom explains that Glover communicated with screams, growls and other sounds, occasionally blurting out a word in Old English. To capture the audio the sound team ultimately wanted, Thom played with sounds ranging from horses drinking to noises he made with his own mouth.

“Some of that is in the film,” he explains, “but it was one of the cases where we realized that the more we played with it, the more we took away from the wonderful performance that Crispin generated…so we brought him back and pinched his mouth in weird shapes!”

Thom used the dragons in “Beowulf” as an opportunity to expand on synthesis in his work, noting that so little work has been done in that field compared to the visual domain, where companies like Pixar and visual effects houses have made considerable advances.

“We are nowhere near able to do that in sound,” he says. “It is possible to get pretty close to a believable sound, but no one is able to synthesize a human voice in a way that will fool people. It’s much easier to start with real sounds and manipulate them than to start with sign waves.”

Thom predicts that the morphing of creature sounds will be the next real advancement in the field and states that the dragons in “Beowulf” are just an extension of the sound morphing direction he’s been going in.

“You can take a real vocalization of a human voice – say, a scream – and another of a big cat or a horse and run them through a program and have the molding of two sounds into a third sound,” he explains. “It can be pretty random what comes out, but a lot of it is luck and persistence. However, we were able to come up with some sounds for the dragon which I was very proud of.”

Ethan Van der Ryn, meanwhile, fondly remembers some of the more creative sound sources which came to be in “Transformers.” He recalls watching a CNN clip of a pogo stick, for instance, and thinking it looked like fun. So he bought one and later ended up using it as a sound source on the film’s soundtrack. He also managed to use his own defective iPod, which would reconfigure notes into a random mesh-up, such as alien talk. Meanwhile, one of his colleagues accidentally stepped on his garden hose walking home one night – the weird gurgling sound was also used in the movie.

Van der Ryn has worked with director Michael Bay now for the third time (following collaborations on “Armageddon” and “Pearl Harbor”). He says he and Bay “mesh pretty well” and that he was “welcomed into a filmmaking family” on the “Transformers” experience. He says Bay has a great ear for the process, showing an affinity for variety; over 90 percent of the sounds on “Transformers” were freshly recorded, rather than being pulled from sound libraries.

Thom, meanwhile, has worked with Robert Zemeckis since “Forrest Gump” and is very pleased with their continual, working relationship. Finding himself in both the Zemeckis and Pixar workshops in the very same year for the second time, he says that doing the sound for Pixar films is “remarkably similar” to working on sound for modern, computer graphics-heavy projects. He also expresses the need to remain sharp and refreshed as one of the reasons he enjoys working as both a sound editor and a sound mixer.

“That you’re not sitting at the same piece of equipment every day for 25 years keeps your creativity up,” he says. “This approach was fostered by Lucas and Coppola and Walter Murch and Ben Burtt. Doing things as fast as possible can be very helpful but it’s not the principal reason someone hires you.”

Van der Ryn, too, spoke of the real collaboration that exists between sound mixer and sound editor, feeling that, having worked on the sound for months and having an idea of what it should sound like, it is important to stay open to the “whole fresh perspective of possibilities” which the mixers bring to the table.

Ultimately, these audio engineers have more than shown their artistry this year and their commitment to working with their colleagues in the sound and filmmaking industries. Here’s hoping they will be acknowledged for what they are – artists. I’m sure we’ll be seeing more of their films as the awards process in the sound categories continues throughout the Fall.