Tomorrow’s 17th annual Critics’ Choice Movie Awards ceremony just went electric.

The Broadcast Film Critics Association has announced that singer/songwriter Bob Dylan, along with Leonardo DiCaprio and Olivia Harrison (widow of Beatle George Harrison), will participate in Martin Scorsese’s Music+Film Award tribute. DiCaprio and Harrison will present the award, while Dylan (who was featured briefly in Scorsese’s “The Last Waltz” in 1978 and in depth in the 2005 documentary “No Direction Home”) will toast the director with a performance.

Scorsese was announced in December as the second recipient of the award, which was inaugurated last year when it was presented to filmmaker Quentin Tarantino at the 2011 CCMA ceremony. The award honors “a single filmmaker who has touched audiences through cinematic storytelling and has heightened the impact of films through the brilliant use of source and original music.”

Scorsese’s film, “Hugo,” meanwhile, was nominated for 11 Critics’ Choice Movie Awards by the BFCA, including Best Picture and Best Director. His documentary, “George Harrison: Living in the Material World,” was also nominated in the Best Documentary Feature category.

It’s obviously an inspired selection, and a more apt choice for the honor than even last year’s recipient, I’d wager. But it all dovetails nicely with Scorsese’s work this year. And it will be a real treat to see Dylan offer up what’s sure to be a fantastic tribute performance.

What follows is an essay I contributed to the Critics’ Choice Movie Awards program in honor of Scorsese’s receiving the award:

From the famous bass drum intro of The Ronettes’ “Be My Baby” to open 1973’s “Mean Streets,” to the melancholy intermingling of Dinah Washington’s “This Bitter Earth” and Max Richter’s “On the Nature of Daylight” to close 2010’s “Shutter Island,” the films of Martin Scorsese have been as much a musical education as they’ve been a cinematic one.

Harry Nilsson’s “Jump Into the Fire” is forever wedded to images of a strung-out Henry Hill scoping the skies for surveillance helicopters in “Goodfellas.” Pietro Mascagni’s “Cavalleria Rusticana: Intermezzo” takes on a whole new meaning when laid over a silhouetted, ballerina-like Jake La Motta sparring with the air in “Raging Bull.”

There have been times, like this year’s collaboration with Howard Shore on “Hugo,” when Scorsese has seen fit to work with a film music composer for an original score. And those moments have been no less memorable: I can’t ride the streets on a rainy New York night without the building horns and crashing cymbals of Bernard Herrmann’s contribution to “Taxi Driver” creeping into my mind. The eerie cry of strings giving way to celebratory synth bells sounding at the end of “The Last Temptation of Christ,” meanwhile, never fails to stir a collision of emotions in my heart.

Documenting musicians and their work has been just as integral to Scorsese’s explorations on the screen as using their music to further narrative. Beginning with his involvement in Michael Wadleigh’s lightning-capturing “Woodstock” in 1970 on through concert films featuring The Band and The Rolling Stones, as well as in-depth studies of towering icons like Bob Dylan and George Harrison, Scorsese’s reverence for lyric and melody is as defining a characteristic of the artist as his often celebrated reverence for film.

And now, whether it’s Peggy Lee (“After Hours”), Philip Glass (“Kundun”), Van Morrison (“Bringing Out the Dead”), Johann Sebastian Bach (“Casino”), Bob Dylan (“The Last Waltz”), Elmer Bernstein (“The Age of Innocence”) or the Dropkick Murphys (“The Departed”), the moments flash as memories of the overall tapestry when we hear the tracks today.

That’s the power Scorsese wields as a constructionist, building story with what we hear, as much as with what we see, cementing those moments as classic, instantly and forever.

I was happy to contribute that to the program because, indeed, Scorsese’s work with music is very much a part of my cinematic upbringing, as I’m sure it is many others. The two elements are really inseparable.

The 17th annual Critics Choice Movie Awards, hosted by comedians Paul Scheer and Rob Huebel, will air live for the fifth straight year tomorrow on VH1 at 8pm ET/PT. It was announced this week that George Clooney will be on hand to present Sean Penn with the Joel Siegel Award for humanitarianism.

Meanwhile, Ty Burell, Vin Diesel, Kirsten Dunst, Donald Glover, Mindy Kaling, Ben Kingsley, Diane Kruger, Melissa McCarthy, Elizabeth Olsen, Paul Rudd, Maya Rudolph, Jason Segel and Owen Wilson have all been confirmed as presenters.

You can refresh yourself on the CCMA nominees here.

For year-round entertainment news and awards season commentary follow @kristapley on Twitter.

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!

If you’ve read the first two parts of this column series, you’ll know by now what the drill is. Every year, the Oscar race is overwhelmingly tilted in favor of films released later in the year (one need only observe the surprising Guild performance of “The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo” to realize the see the side effects of voters’ short memories), as numerous early-year standouts struggle to remain in the conversation. These columns, then, aim to remind you of certain deserving but time-faded contenders from films released from January to June 2011, their buzz largely fading if they ever had it in the first place.

We’ve already covered the supporting and screenplay races: this week, it’s the turn of the leading actors and actresses. Combing through the list of first-half releases, I was pleased to encounter enough worthy names that restricting myself to the traditional five-wide ballot proved rather a challenge: Best Actress, in particular, served up a number of far tastier options than the more recent ones we’re currently considering in the Oscar race. I wanted to find room for Catherine Deneuve (“Potiche”), Saoirse Ronan (“Hanna”), Brad Pitt (“The Tree of Life”), Clive Owen (“Trust”) and even Johnny Depp (“Rango”); unfortunately (or fortunately, from a film viewer’s perspective), I ran out of room.

That’s to say nothing of the eminently deserving names who aren’t even on the Academy’s official eligibility list, and therefore couldn’t be considered for this feature: if Grigoriy Dobrygin (“How I Ended This Summer”), LA Critics’ winner Yun Jung-hee (“Poetry”) and Monica del Carmen (“Leap Year”) were in the running, the lists below would look a little different. Alas.

Anyway, these are the 10 names I settled on. Ladies first: 

Juliette Binoche, “Certified Copy”
It’s been nearly two years since Binoche won Best Actress at Cannes for this stoically romantic puzzle picture, and if a more artfully shuffled leading turn has hit our screens in the interim, I haven’t seen it. It takes an actor of uncommon warmth and empathy to keep character from turning to concept in this kind of intellectual exercise, but Binoche’s careworn art collector remains authentic in her every gesture, even as her precise situation eludes us.

Liana Liberato, “Trust”
It’s been a strong year for youth performances, though you wouldn’t necessarily know it from the names getting cited in various newcomer categories on the precursor trail. No one’s getting shafted more than 16 year-old Liberato, who makes a blazing impression as a teenaged victim of an online predator in David Schwimmer’s almost-there domestic thriller: bristling with uncertain hormonal energy and yawning emotional need, she recalls Juliette Lewis in “Cape Fear,” cooled for the Facebook generation.

Mia Wasikowska, “Jane Eyre”
Mia Wasikowska’s 2012 took a flat turn, with neither “Restless” nor “Albert Nobbs” doing much to showcase her delicate gifts, but why have people forgotten that it started with the performance of her already considerable career? As Charlotte Brontë’s shy-yet-candid romantic heroine, the Australian ingenue is ideally cast, yet doesn’t let that do the work for her: her alternately ordinary and exquisite face is constantly alive with thought and observation, gifting the medium with its loveliest, spikiest Jane yet.

Kristen Wiig, “Bridesmaids”
Kristen Wiig will very likely be rewarded for her writing on Oscar nomination morning, but as the film and co-star Melissa McCarthy continue to rack up the precursor mentions, why is its brightest light catching no residual buzz in the Best Actress category? Wiig’s dorky, sexy, self-effacing star turn is the reason “Bridesmaids” works as well as it does: committing valiantly to a bevy of unflattering character flaws, it’s her own emotional comprehension of this chaotic woman that keeps us steadily in her corner.

Michelle Williams, “Meek’s Cutoff”
One woman who will certainly receive an Oscar nomination in two weeks’ time is Michelle Williams — what a shame it’s going to be for the wrong film. Williams’s Marilyn Monroe is a smart thespian stunt colored with the actress’s customary emotional intelligence, but it’s a bauble beside the silently steely conviction with which she shoulders Kelly Reichardt’s Oregon Trail western. Her Emily Tetherow seems grown from the land even as she is dourly unimpressed by it; Williams’s wary gaze is a question when it isn’t an outright acusation.

Moving on to Best Actor:

Michael Fassbender, “Jane Eyre”
Fassbender has a good shot at landing his first Best Actor nomination for “Shame,” and rightly so, but he’d scarcely be less deserving for his subtly sexed-up Rochester here. Indeed, the characters are scarcely that far apart. Acing two mainstream tests — his first romantic hero and his first dalliance with breech-bound heritage cinema — without playing down his familiar clear-eyed cool, he’s an ideally unreadable foil for Wasikowska’s guileless Jane, sizing her up in quick, crisp glances even as the chemistry boils over between them.

Chris Hemsworth, “Thor”
Sneer if you like, but it takes heavyweight presence and a healthy lick of humor to make this kind of silly multiplex escapade fly, and Hemsworth carries Kenneth Branagh’s good-natured, slightly ungainly comic-book jaunt with a twinkly bravado that belies his Mr. Universe physique. As a result, he’s both imposing and witty enough to pull off pricelessly goofy moments like the displaced god sauntering into a pet shop and booming, “I want a horse!” Thor doesn’t get the joke, but Hemsworth does, and he maintains that understanding throughout.

Ewan McGregor, “Beginners”
McGregor’s woolly charms as an actor are so comfortably worn-in that it takes a moment or two to realize when he’s applying them slightly differently, and this sweetly sad little performance, emotionally pinched and generous from one scene to the next, is one that snuck up on me rather unexpectedly. Christopher Plummer may be cruising to an Oscar for his fine-tuned work here, but McGregor deserves no less acclaim for his half of this touching father-son pas de deux.

William Shimell, “Certified Copy”
As unlikely a screen debut as we’ve seen all year, renowned operatic baritone Shimell is required to bring little of his day-job grandeur (and none of his singing ability) to his end of Abbas Kiarostami’s abstract post-mortem of a maybe-marriage, and his brusque English rigidity is easy to underestimate in the face of Juliette Binoche’s more dazzling capriciousness. But the dynamic between them works precisely because the character’s an impermeable stiff: this is more knowing and articulate work than many have given the first-timer credit for.

Owen Wilson, “Midnight in Paris”
If, for many, “Midnight in Paris” is Woody Allen’s most agreeable film in many a year, Wilson deserves more credit than he’s receiving for its success: the Woody proxy is a character model that has defeated such actors as Kenneth Branagh and Larry David, but Wilson makes it work by filtering its neuroses through his own trademarked dude-ish persona. The result may not be great acting by many people’s yardstick, but it’s an engaging, exemplary instance of a personality performance doing the job.

And there we have it — a more competitive field than I might have expected, yet one dismayingly short on names in the awards conversation. Which leading turns from early 2011 do you wish people were talking more about? Share your thoughts and favorites in the comments, and join me next week for our last installment, in which I’ll tackle the Best Picture category.

For more views on movies, awards season and other pursuits, follow @GuyLodge on Twitter.

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!

The Gay & Lesbian Entertainment Critics Association has announced its list of nominees this year, and out front with two mentions apiece were “Albert Nobbs,” “Beginners” and “Weekend.”

The film of the year category includes several of the standard precursor favorites: “The Descendents,” “The Artist” and “The Tree of Life” among them. But it also includes a film that I feel as though I have been in an ongoing conversation with since seeing it several weeks ago, a contemporization of the myth of Pygmalion as only Pedro Almodóvar could conceive: “The Skin I Live In.” Andrew Haigh”s indie exploration of gay romance “Weekend” also got a nod.

Christopher Plummer and Janet McTeer both received nominations for Performance of the Year for their work in “Beginners” and” Albert Nobbs” respectively. Plummer is an odds-on favorite for a Best Supporting actor Oscar nomination, while Janet McTeer one-upped her film’s co-star, Glenn Close. My dark horse Best Actor favorite Michael Fassbender is also included in the field for his work in “Shame.”

On a lighter note, both “Justin Bieber: Never Say Never” and “The Muppets” are selected as potential Campy (Intentional or Not) Film of the Year recipients. Here is me hoping (praying) that seeing those two properties together (Bieber is more of a property than a boy at this time – it”s called the reversed Pinocchio) doesn”t give Disney any ideas. DON”T GET ANY IDEAS DISNEY.

Check out the full list of film nominees below.

Film of the Year
“The Artist”
“The Descendants”
“Midnight in Paris”
“The Skin I Live In”
“The Tree of Life”
“Weekend”

Performance of the Year
Christopher Plummer, “Beginners”
Leonardo DiCaprio, “J. Edgar”
Janet McTeer, “Albert Nobbs”
Meryl Streep, “The Iron Lady”
Michael Fassbender, “Shame”
Rooney Mara, “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”

LGBT-Themed Film of the Year
“Albert Nobbs”
“Beginners”
“Pariah”
“Tomboy”
“Weekend”

Campy (Intentional or Not) Film of the Year
“Justin Bieber: Never Say Never”
“Kaboom”
“The Muppets”
“Thor”
“The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn – Part 1”

Unsung Film of the Year
“50/50”
“Insidious”
“Jane Eyre”
“Warrior”
“Win Win”

Documentary of the Year (Film, DVD or TV)
“Carol Channing: Larger Than Life”
“Cave of Forgotten Dreams”
“Page One: Inside The New York Times”
“Pina”
“We Were Here”

LGBT-Themed Documentary of the Year
“Becoming Chaz”
“Bill Cunningham New York”
“Making the Boys”
“Vito”
“We Were Here”

The We’re Wilde About You Rising Star Award
Elizabeth Olsen
Jessica Chastain
Melissa McCarthy
Michael Fassbender
Tom Hardy

Remember to keep track of the ups and downs of the 2011-2012 film awards season via The Circuit.

For year-round entertainment news and commentary follow @JRothC on Twitter.

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!

Ballots are in hand and the last push to this Friday’s poll deadline is tight and spirited. The guilds have done a nice job of shaking things up somewhat, offering some nominees here and there that were a bit unexpected, but they haven’t exactly turned the usual order of things on its ear, either.

Nevertheless, now is the time when you cross your fingers for completely left-field picks from the Academy’s membership (most of which has likely already turned in its ballot by now), but mainly hope for some bubble contenders that are highly deserving to fall on the right side of the line come Tuesday, January 24.

Enter this installment of the lists, which is an attempt to look at the race somewhat realistically by offering up some bubble-contending suggestions to the few holdouts still staring at blanks on their ballot and hoping for inspiration.

There are a number of films, performers and artists in contention for Oscar consideration this year that need just a little push. They thrive on the outskirts of categories, not at all out of the conversation, but dangerously close to losing a grip on whatever exposure they might have. They win critics awards, they get nominations here and there, but for whatever reason, they haven’t closed the deal as sure-fire Oscar nominees.

Of course, that’s not the worst position to be in. Foregone conclusions fall by the wayside year after year for a variety of reasons: bloated hype, over-exposure on the circuit, etc. The majority of these don’t have that problem and might even appear fresh to many, despite being somewhat in the conversation throughout.

They are our top 10 bubble contenders to consider, so head on over to our new gallery to see what they are and our reasoning for choosing them. Both Guy and I contributed to the list. Feel free to offer up your own or some added considerations in the comments section below.

For year-round entertainment news and awards season commentary follow @kristapley on Twitter.

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!

Over the course of a career not much shorter than her 29 year-old life, Kirsten Dunst has covered a lot of bases — skipping gamely between fluorescent Hollywood blockbusters, handmade American indies, fizzy teen comedies, primetime television and the chillier climes of the European arthouse — but there’s one area the actress feels she’s neglected thus far.

“I really want to do a film in another language,” she says, her tone ruminative but quite serious, over the phone from Los Angeles. “My dad’s from Germany, so it’d be really cool to do a film in German. I’m not quite fluent, but I can get there. And my accent’s pretty good. I wouldn’t feel too out of my element.”

It’s not just any German film she wants to work on either: Michael Haneke, that esteemed Austrian dissector of psychological trouble, currently tops her wishlist of directors to work with in the future, a group that also include Paul Thomas Anderson and Alexander Payne. The prospect of the sunny New Jersey blonde collaborating with the frosty German-born formalist isn’t quite as unimaginable as it might have been a year or two ago, before another prickly European provocateur, Lars von Trier, showed everyone what Kirsten Dunst is made of in “Melancholia.”

von Trier’s film, a nervy, finely textured relationship drama set casually over the days leading up to a quite literal apocalypse, is the kind of substantial art-blockbuster that reflects well on everyone involved — but it represents a career watershed for Dunst, an actress of long-held promise never previously gifted with a part this emotionally rich or restless. Inheriting the role of Justine, a clinically depressed copywriter whose mental unravelling begins on her botched wedding night, after Penélope Cruz bowed out, Dunst seizes the opportunity to bring a more acrid subtext to her radiant sweetheart demeanor.

The result is a startling performance that not only holds its own with von Trier’s illustrious gallery of complex female portraits (including Emily Watson, Björk, Nicole Kidman and Dunst’s own, equally impressive, co-star Charlotte Gainsbourg), but has deservedly earned her Best Actress prizes from the Cannes Film Festival and, only last weekend, the august National Society of Film Critics. She remains an exciting dark horse to consider for the Oscar ballot; whether she gets there or not, the point has been proven.

“Even before I read the script, I knew this would be something special for me,” she says. “I knew it’d be a chance for me to let loose and be vulnerable in a way that I haven’t been able to show before — because those roles just aren’t out there. Lars is one of the rare major filmmakers whose films center on female leads. We’re so used to see women on screen just as wives or girlfriends or moms, and a lot of people don’t like to see women on screen in the way that Lars presents them — they want them pretty and gilded, even when they’re sad and breaking up inside.”

Justine hardly lacks for surface prettiness, but she’s allowed to be chaotically irrational, even aggressively sexual, in her impulses in a way that certainly shatters the gilding — which is precisely what Dunst responded to in her. “Pristine vulnerability is just so boring to me,” she continues. “The performances that I love are ones like Gena Rowlands in ‘A Woman Under the Influence,’ where women are allowed to be messy and imperfect. It’s that kind of woman that has always inspired me to seek roles that are a little out of the box. I just haven’t always had the opportunity to do them.”

I suggest that von Trier’s preoccupation with alternately challenging and challenged female characters doesn’t really square with the accusations of misogyny frequently levelled at him by detractors. Dunst enthusiastically agrees: “What’s interesting is that many of the people who surround him in the highest positions on set are women. Not only does he create a lot of opportunities for women in his films, but I think he in turn likes to be nurtured by them — he’s more comfortable with women on set.”

Some actors have described working with von Trier as a trying experience — Paul Bettany and, most famously and acrimoniously, Björk fall into the “never again” camp — but Dunst has nothing but fond memories of their collaboration. Indeed, she’s keen to reteam with him down the line. “We had a wonderful relationship,” she says. “People call him demanding, but then, I’ve always been very demanding of myself as an actress. I found him more vulnerable than demanding, actually: I feel like his presence almost permeates the scene when he’s on set, as if he’s one of the actors. So when he gives you ideas to try, it feels like it’s coming from a very real, empathetic place. I felt very safe with him.”

“I guess it’s a different situation with someone like Björk. Like him, she’s such a singular genius, and when you put two of those together, there’s going to be friction. But it turned out be worth it — what they got out of each other was amazing. And even if I hadn’t got along with Lars, it would still have been worth it: it’d still have stretched me, I’d still be proud of this work.” She feels the film reveals certain shifts in the director’s own sensibility, too. “I know he’d hate me for saying this, but I do think it’s the work of a kinder Lars. It just is. Even if it’s about the world ending.”

Dunst’s loyalty to von Trier has weathered the storm of controversy that followed the film’s disastrous Cannes press conference, where the director’s poorly misjudged joke about Nazi sympathizing elicited fury from festival brass and visible mortification from the actress herself. (“Oh, Lars,” she murmured to him at the time. “That was intense.”) von Trier may still be dealing with the fallout to some extent — he took a vow of public silence in the autumn — but Dunst is mostly happy the film has come out the other side.

“I care for him, so obviously I was frustrated by his behavior,” she remembers. “Lars has always said provocative things, and I knew he was going down a really inappropriate track there, but it was so very Lars at the same time. I know, we know, he didn’t mean any of that; he was trying to make a joke, really badly. Who knew they would kick him out of Cannes? Maybe I’m defending him too much: at the time, I was shocked and humiliated and didn’t know what to do, but I was soon ready to move past it.” Winning Best Actress only a few days later suggested others were, too. “Yeah, it was just a shame that we couldn’t celebrate together. But he apologized to me. We’re good friends.”

I observe that it wasn’t her first experience of Cannes controversy — Sofia Coppola’s “Marie Antoinette,” in which she played the titular French monarch as a spoiled, wayward teen, endured a rocky reception there six years ago, and came out stronger for it. Does she welcome the chance to ruffle a few feathers? “As long as it’s not in a bad movie!” she laughs. “At least both ‘Marie Antoinette’ and ‘Melancholia’ I can take great pride in, whether people like them or not. A lot of people have come up to me and said ‘Marie Antoinette’ is one of their favorite films, which means more to me than any media attention.”

Coppola’s film was one of several earlier signals of Dunst’s intended artistic reach, though the actress has no desire to be cornered exclusively into arthouse fare. She enjoys adjusting to the differing scales of disparate projects: her 2012 slate includes sci-fi romance “Upside Down” (“It looks like nothing I’ve seen before,” she says), all-girl comedy “Bachelorette” and a supporting role in Walter Salles’s Jack Kerouac adaptation “On the Road.”

“I feel like everyone directs their own career according to their taste, what they migrate to emotionally and what kind of artists they want to work with,” she says. “And I’m lucky enough to be in a position where I can wait six months for a project that really interests me. The filmmaker is really important to me: it could be their first film, it’s not just about their reputation, but I have to really believe in them. In a way, to me, even ‘Spider-Man’ was almost like an independent film on a very large scale, because Sam Raimi has such an independent spirit.”

So, dreams of a German-language debut aside, she’s open to all offers? “Well, I don’t limit myself, and I don’t do things just to do things,” she says firmly. “I’ve been lucky to find people who want to work with me, whom I respect and like, but the truth is there aren’t that many good projects out there. And we make way, way too many movies. So it’s not always going to happen with every project. But I try and wait it out.”

Your move, Haneke.

For more views on movies, awards season and other pursuits, follow @GuyLodge on Twitter.

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!

“The Descendants” may have led the way with the Denver Film Critics Society’s nominations, but it was “The Tree of Life” that won the big prize. Still, Alexander Payne’s film won a field-leading three awards, for Best Supporting Actress, Best Screenplay and Best Ensemble. Check out the full list of winners below.

Best Picture: “The Tree of Life”

Best Director: (tie) Terrence Malick, “The Tree of Life,” Michel Hazanavicius, “The Artist”

Best Actor: Brad Pitt, “Moneyball”

Best Actress: Meryl Streep, “The Iron Lady”

Best Supporting Actor: Christopher Plummer, “Beginners”

Best Supporting Actress: Shailene Woodley, “The Descendants”

Best Screenplay: “The Descendants”

Best Original Score: “The Artist”

Best Ensemble: “The Descendants”

Best Breakout Star: Jessica Chastain

Best Foreign Language Film: “A Separation”

Best Documentary: “Page One: Inside The New York Times”

Remember to keep track of the ups and downs of the 2011-2012 film awards season via The Circuit.

For year-round entertainment news and awards season commentary follow @kristapley on Twitter.

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!

After leading with four nominations from the Vancouver Film Critics Circle, Michel Hazanavicius’s “The Artist” has won Best Picture and Best Screenplay from the group. Meanwhile, David Cronenberg’s “A Dangerous Method” got some love in Canadian spotlight categories. Check out the full list of winners below.

Best Film: “The Artist”

Best Director: Terrence Malick, “The Tree of Life”

Best Actor: Michael Fassbender, “Shame”

Best Actress: Elizabeth Olsen, “Martha Marcy May Marlene”

Best Supporting Actor: Christopher Plummer, “Beginners”

Best Supporting Actress: Jessica Chastain, “The Help,” “Take Shelter” and “The Tree of Life”

Best Screenplay: “The Artist”

Best Foreign Language Film: “A Separation”

Best Canadian Film: “Café de Flore”

Best Director of a Canadian Film: David Cronenberg, “A Dangerous Method”

Best Actor in a Canadian Film: Peter Stormare, “Small Town Murder Songs”

Best Actress in a Canadian Film: Michelle Williams, “Take This Waltz”

Best Supporting Actor in a Canadian Film: Viggo Mortensen, “A Dangerous Method”

Best Supporting Actress in a Canadian Film: Helene Florent, “Café de Flore”

Best British Columbia Film: “People of a Feather”

Achievement Award for Contribution to the BC Film and Television Industry: Marv Newman

Remember to keep track of the ups and downs of the film awards season via The Circuit.

For year-round entertainment news and awards season commentary follow @kristapley on Twitter.

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!

The Alliance of Women Film Journalists has revealed its list of winners in 30 (!) categories after announcing a slate of nominees recently. The big winner in the traditional categories was “The Artist,” which won Best PIcture and Best Director. Check out the full list of winners below.

Best Film: “The Artist”

Best Director: Michel Hazanavicius, “The Artist”

Best Actor: Michael Fassbender, “Shame”

Best Actress: Viola Davis, “The Help”

Best Supporting Actor: Christopher Plummer, “Beginners”

Best Supporting Actress: (tie) Janet McTeer, “Albert Nobbs,” Octavia Spencer, “The Help”

Best Adapted Screenplay: “The Descendants”

Best Original Screenplay: “Midnight in Paris”

Best Cinematography: “The Tree of Life”

Best Editing: “Hugo”

Best Film Music or Score: (tie) “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo,” “Hanna”

Best Animated Film: “Rango”

Best Non-English Language Film: “A Separation”

Best Documentary: “Buck”

Best Ensemble Cast: “Bridesmaids”

Best Woman Director: Lynne Ramsay, “We Need to Talk About Kevin”

Best Woman Screenwriter: Kristen Wiig, Annie Mumolo, “Bridesmaids”

Kick Ass Award for Best Female Action Star: (tie) Rooney Mara, “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo,” Saoirse Ronan, “Hanna”

Best Animated Female: Isla Fisher, “Rango”

Best Breakthrough Performance: Elizabeth Olsen, “Martha Marcy May Marlene”

Female Icon Award: Glenn Close, “Albert Nobbs”

Actress Defying Age and Ageism: Helen Mirren, “The Debt”

Outstanding Achievement by a Woman in the Film Industry: Jessica Chastain

AWJF Award for Humanitarian Activism: Angelina Jolie (for UN work and making “In the Land of Blood and Honey” to raise awareness about genocide)

AWJF Hall of Shame Award: The Hollywood Reporter (for failing to invite any women to join the Directors Rountable)

Actress Most in Need of a New Agent: All the actresses in “New Year’s Eve”

Movie You Wanted to Love but Just Couldn’t: “Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy”

Unforgettable Moment Award: “The Artist” (the sound of the glass clinking on the table)

Best Depiction of Nudity, Sexuality or Seduction: (tie) “Melancholia” (Justine in the moonlight), “Shame” (opening sequence on the subway train)

Sequel or Remake That Should Have Been Made Award: “The Hangover Part II”

Most Egregious Love Interest Age Difference Award: (tie) “Albert Nobbs” (Glenn Close – 64, Mia Wasikowska – 22), “The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn – Part 1” (Bella – 18, Edward – over 100)

Be sure to keep track of the ups and downs of the 2011-2012 film awards season via The Circuit.

For year-round entertainment news and awards season commentary follow @kristapley on Twitter.

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!

Okay, so you’ve probably got the message by now that we love “Margaret” around these here parts. So any word from the film’s embattled writer-director Kenneth Lonergan is something we’re going to seize upon, even if it’s a fairly brief Q&A with Variety’s Christy Grosz, recorded in the presence of his lawyer. Sadly, the film’s continuing legal problems mean he can’t cut loose on his desired edit (or indeed the one that we’ve seen), but he offers some nice insights on the writing process and what the eponymous Gerard Manley Hopkins poem means to him. Finally, he describes the #TeamMargaret phenomenon as “astonishing and wonderful.” Right back atcha, sir. [Variety]  

2010 Best Actress nominee Jennifer Lawrence will announce this year’s Oscar nominations with Tom Sherak on January 24. I hear she has a movie coming out soon. [Reuters]

With the ASC set to announce their nominees today, Jack Egan spotlights the remarkable work of Manuel Alberto Claro in “Melancholia.” [Below the Line]

Joe Utichi claims detractors of “The Artist” are now “breaking their silence” — and then quotes Jeff Wells, who hasn’t shut up about it for months. [The Guardian] 

Chin up, Spielberg. You may not have scored with the DGA, but Armond White still loves you. The cranky critic’s Better-Than list is typically, well, typical. [CityArts]

Glenn Whipp on the widespread theory that David Fincher’s surprise DGA nod amounts to a mea culpa for Tom Hooper’s win. Guys, it’s not as if every DGA member voted for Hooper last year. [Los Angeles Times]

Meanwhile, Steve Pond offers a Guild scorecard in the wake of the DGA, sorting the contenders that can rest easy from those that should be worried. [The Odds] 

Melena Ryzik talks to Max von Sydow, the last awards hope (and honestly, not much of one) for “Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close.” [The Carpetbagger]

Which under-the-radar 2011 films are potential cult classics? Michael C. considers “Submarine,” “The Guard” and “Bellflower.” [The Film Experience] 

NEW YORK – There”s something oddly perfect about meeting “Win Win” writer/director Tom McCarthy in a small café in Chinatown with Gershwin’s “Rhapsody in Blue” playing in the background. (Though that would feel slightly less charming when transcribing the interview weeks later.)

Firstly, it is the last sort of place one would imagine either McCarthy”s writing partner, Joe Tiboni, or their central protagonist, Mike Flaherty (Paul Giamatti), to turn up. In fact, McCarthy recalls that Tiboni”s daily, cyclical routine consists of his self-described “triangle of death” from home to Dunkin” Donuts to work and back again.

Secondly, it’s difficult to not enjoy the novelty of speaking to the filmmaker about his restrained, deceptively simple suburban life offering with Gershwin”s exultant, experimental ode to urban chaos as a backdrop.

“Win Win” takes place in McCarthy”s home town of New Providence — a small, North Jersey suburb — and is loosely based on some of Tiboni”s experiences as an elder law attorney there. The film follows Flaherty, a lawyer and part-time wrestling coach who finds himself at a cross roads, a husband and father and, yes, pillar of the community whose practice is in danger of collapse. An opportunity arises to pocket the guardianship fee as the caretaker of his client, Leo Poplar (Burt Young), by defrauding the court and challenges his grounded, ethically sound center. When Leo”s absentee grandson Kyle (Alex Shaffer), a wrestling prodigy of few words, enters the scene, Mike discovers just how tangled a web he has woven.

Childhood friends McCarthy and Tiboni wrestled together in their youth, so when the writer/director initially conceived of the project, he says he approached Tiboni to assist him in the crafting of the tale. The two spent a few weeks breaking down the script in Vancouver while McCarthy was working on Roland Emmerich”s love letter to the truncated last page of the Mayan calendar “2012,” in fact.

McCarthy found that there was a greater risk of losing himself to nostalgia with “Win Win” than some of his previous films, but that the distance that his adult life provided offered a necessary level of objectivity.

“I haven’t lived there as an adult,” he says. “Part of the reason that I included Joe in the project (besides that I knew it would be a lot of fun) was because he does live there. His insight into that life is different than mine. We talked a lot about the check that Mike Flaherty got for taking care of Leo, for example. Some people have questioned if $1,500 is enough money to take that kind of risk. For Joe, that dollar amount is the equivalent of a mortgage payment.”

The trajectory of McCarthy”s own life has provided him with a singular perspective. International travel, playing a role in an award-winning television series and receiving an Oscar nomination (Best Original Screenplay for “Up”) are not on the experiential menu for most people. One of the remarkable things about McCarthy as a filmmaker, however, is his sense of perspective about his unique lens and commitment to maintaining a balanced vision. It was paramount to him that, as much as is realistically possible, he “not impose his eye” in the creation of his latest film. “My fear was that I would comment on this life that we think we know so well: suburban life,” he says.

“Win Win” does parallel some larger cultural themes, however. He likens his creative process to a romantic entanglement. There is the initial attraction, a dating period, and finally, commitment. In “Win Win””s case, the wrestling was the initial hook, but it was when McCarthy realized that he could use the story to draw a comparison to the recession and the conditions that lead to the economic crisis (in this case the questionable decisions made by the banks) that he truly became engaged.

“There’s an aesthetic hook and an intellectual hook,” he explains. “I think “Win Win” is a really funny movie but there’s still something there that I was really interested in exploring which was about good people doing bad things for selfish reasons and why and how to reconcile that. It’s a wonderful thing about what we do, you find yourself having very serious conversations about odd things, and I love that.”

The use of an elder law attorney/volunteer wrestling coach as a metaphor for the heavy hitters of Wall Street is indeed in some ways anomalous; but it is also surprisingly beautiful. In my own mind, I may tend to relegate the men and women behind the velvety curtain of American big business to an amorphous mass. I associate the errors that were made, the gross negligence and lies that led to the recession with rampant avarice. Alternatively, I feel as though I understand Mike Flaherty and view his decision as one born of desperation rather than greed.

“I would argue that some people in the banks were making those choices because they over-committed their lifestyles, maybe like Mike did,” McCarthy counters. “And suddenly they had a big house and a couple of kids and were like, ‘It”s not working and I”m going to have to let some things slide.” I know a lot of those people and they weren’t all just like, ‘I”m rich and I”m getting richer!” I would argue that this guy made a decision to suit his own needs. I don’t care that you”re couching that in ‘I have a family’ or ‘I have a wife.” That doesn’t make doing the wrong thing right. That’s just what got you there. It still doesn’t excuse you. That was part of it and the other part is that you sympathize with him on some level but I hope not to the point that you forgive him because what he did was pretty bad.

“We wanted to get to what Mike did to Leo and then the idea that when this kid, Kyle, comes in and is adopted by the Flaherty family everyone starts doing well. The kid”s doing well, the parents are doing well, everyone is feeling better and then it all becomes clear that this is built on sand. It’s built on a minefield. That’s really what I was referring to as my model, how we just look the other way sometimes because everything just seems okay, and that’s not right either.”

The analogy becomes quite a fascinating moral conundrum. The film asks, in a sense, whether it’s the consequences that make an action immoral or the action itself. “Win Win” isn”t heavy-handed, however. The themes are there but subtly rendered. And McCarthy”s directorial style is notably (and aptly) economic.

“I think sometimes you”re telling a story and you want to grab people,” he muses. “There is the idea to get them in the first act and the first ten pages. And I think there’s a great lesson to be learned in that and I believe in it. I don’t believe it’s the only way of storytelling. I think that can start to feel manipulated and manufactured and as a writer you”re really trying to reach through to something genuine and authentic.”

For year-round entertainment news and commentary follow @JRothC on Twitter.

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!

Ah, the trumped-up non-controversy. It’s a kind of hazing ritual that many a certified Oscar frontrunner has to go through: remember the accusations of child actor neglect levelled at the makers of “Slumdog Millionaire,” the supposed military inaccuracies (not to mention poor producer etiquette) of “The Hurt Locker,” or even the revelation that a key set in “The King’s Speech” had previously housed a gay porn shoot? These mildly tangy stories tend to be forgotten as quickly as they flare up, and rarely do much lasting damage, so it’s just as well “The Artist” is getting it over with now.

I’m speaking, of course, of the ludicrous full-page Variety ad taken out against the film by, of all unexpected people, veteran Hitchcock blonde Kim Novak, who may not have made a film in 20 years, but is still gifted with an Oscar ballot — one she presumably will not be using to vote for the French silent film she has more than a little melodramatically accused of “raping” her “body of work.”

A little translation is required here. By “her,” she actually means “Alfred Hitchcock’s and Bernard Herrmann’s.” By “body of work,” she actually means a single film, “Vertigo.” And by “raping,” she means “legally, with due permission and credit, interpolating the music score of.” If that doesn’t sound quite as offensive as what Novak is implying, that’s because it isn’t: this is a case of sincere artistic tribute being rather unfairly dressed up as dishonest creative appropriation.

If Novak weren’t so rash and insensitive as to use the unnecessary alarm word “rape” — a term that should surely be put to rest in anything but a literal context — she’d find a number of critics rather sympathetic to her point. Right from “The Artist”‘s premiere in Cannes, informed viewers have debated the merits of one of director Michel Hazanavicius’s riskiest artistic gambles: at a crucial low point in the protagonist’s psychological unravelling, Ludovic Bource’s substantial, already eclectic score gives way to a direct lift of Bernard Herrmann’s legendary love theme from “Vertigo.”

Novak protests that the sampling idly “use[s] the emotions [Herrmann’s music] engenders as its own.” Many critics, meanwhile, have complained that the use of a famous 1950s cinematic theme is both distracting and anachronistic in a film that specifically celebrates an earlier Hollywood era. Others find the noir-tinged selection thematically at odds with the film’s sprightlier narrative of artistic decline and redemption. Others, more simply, feel that Herrmann’s work is something you don’t touch. 

All of these are sound starting points for a critical debate; none of these point to any intellectual violation perpetrated by Hazanavicius or “The Artist”  — a work so purposefully built as a pastiche of past cinematic forms that to complain about it referencing existing films is a little like complaining that Andy Warhol stole the Campbell’s Soup logo.

I’ve already had several long debates, both in person and on Twitter, about how effectively or otherwise Hazanavicius’s film is served by his postmodern magpie instincts: for me, it makes as much sense for a film explicitly about the future of cinema to borrow sound from the 1950s as any other era, while others think he could make his point more subtly by sticking to a more rigorous silent-cinema aesthetic. (In which case Bource’s entire score, itself a hodgepodge of vintage Hollywood scoring styles across 30-odd years, is an anachronism in itself, with or without the “Vertigo” loan.)

Two opposed viewers can argue about all of this without either of them thinking the film has done anything unethical. As critic Anton Bitel, himself unconvinced of the success of Hazanavicius’s “Vertigo” tribute, so succinctly put it on Twitter: “Just being bad at sex doesn’t make you a rapist.”

Hazanavicius is hardly the first director to pull such a stunt, either. Quentin Tarantino has frequently filched from the soundtracks of existing films, though never ones quite as well-known as “Vertigo”: are some films more sacred than others in this respect? Or does the greater recognizability of the “Vertigo” score make it fairer game for poaching? (Yes, there will always be those viewers who haven’t seen “Vertigo” or don’t recognize the source — is Hazanavicius also to blame for going over their heads?)

Do the rules change when it comes to pre-existing music from outside the cinema? Lars von Trier, Terrence Malick and Martin Scorsese are just three of the major auteurs who have incorporated major classical themes into the scores of their recent films — if the difference between cheating and intelligent citation lay solely in whether or not an artist finds their reference points within their own medium, we’d also have to take Steven Soderbergh to task for splicing scenes from a Ken Loach film into “The Limey,” burn Zadie Smith’s “On Beauty” for “raping” an E.M. Forster novel and vilify pretty much every hip-hop artist in recorded music for sampling others’ tracks. 

Hazanavicius hit on the sound he wanted for a section of his film; he could have asked his composer to vaguely replicate it (an approach that would have been far more dishonest than directly quoting it), but found instead that using the very piece he’d imagined could strengthen and color his film’s relationship to its own medium. He got the required permission, and made the required acknowledgement. We may or may not think it a deft or beneficial move, but it’s a reference to be discussed rather than denied. End of non-story, as further demonstrated by Hazanavicius’s gracious response to Novak’s ad: 

“‘The Artist’ was made as a love letter to cinema, and grew out of my (and all of my cast and crew”s) admiration and respect for movies throughout history. It was inspired by the work of Hitchcock, Lang, Ford, Lubitsch, Murnau and Wilder. I love Bernard Herrmann and his music has been used in many different films and I”m very pleased to have it in mine. I respect Kim Novak greatly and I”m sorry to hear she disagrees.”

Well, that was fun. It’ll be interesting to see if this kerfuffle has any impact on Ludovic Bource’s sizeable shot at the Best Original Score Oscar — I suspect it won’t, given that it was hardly his decision to go with Herrmann — but anyone hoping to dent the film’s overall campaign will need to try harder than that. Anyone got any dirt on Uggie?

A brief bit of business here. HitFix has been in the process of getting a slate of message boards off the ground, and as of today, they’re live.

I imagine most of the discussion from those around these parts will be confined to the movies section, and specifically the Oscars and Golden Globes arenas. But HitFix being a unique collective of music, television and movie content, there are naturally other areas, too.

So if you haven’t already, sign up for a HitFix account and then feel free to dive in and kick-start the discussion yourselves!

The North Texas Film Critics Association (yep) has gotten together to announce this year’s list of winners. And it was “War Horse” that came out of top, with Martin Scorsese winning directing honors. No were to be found “The Artist.” Check out the full list of winners below.

Best Picture: “War Horse”

Best Director: Martin Scorsese, “Hugo”

Best Actor: George Clooney, “The Descendants”

Best Actress: Viola Davis, “The Help”

Best Supporting Actor: Christopher Plummer, “Beginners”

Best Supporting Actress: Octavia Spencer, “The Help”

Best Cinematography: “War Horse”

Best Animated Film: “The Adventures of Tintin”

Best Documentary: “Being Elmo: A Puppeteer’s Journey”

Best Foreign Language Film: “A Separation”

Remember to keep track of the ups and downs of the 2011-2012 film awards season via The Circuit.

For year-round entertainment news and awards season commentary follow @kristapley on Twitter.

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!

We’ve reached that point in the season where one has to actually keep a diary to remember which precursor announcements are landing on which days — as far as the guilds go, the actors, producers, writers, art directors and now the directors have all had their say, while the American Society of Cinematographers will join their ranks tomorrow.

I’d like to say I’m anticipating a surprise or two, but Best Cinematography is rapidly starting to feel like the most cemented of the craft categories. At least three of the five slots are spoken for, with a couple of ubiquitous titles jostling to fill the other two. The odds don’t favor an exotic and/or pulpy interloper like “House of Flying Daggers” or “The Black Dahlia” making things a little more interesting this year.

“The Tree of Life,” “Hugo” and “The Artist” all seem comfortably locked in for nominations from both the Guild and the Academy, with the eventual winner likely coming from that trio. A week ago, I might have said the same for “War Horse,” but Steven Spielberg’s lavish WWI epic is performing so dismally with the guilds thus far that I wouldn’t be entirely surprised if it missed the cut tomorrow. Still, Janusz Kaminski is an industry favorite and the film’s rampant (if peculiarly lit) pictorialism is catnip in this department: I’m not going to bet against it just yet.

That leaves one slot to fill, and I’m increasingly sensing that the ASC is going to rather unimaginatively fall in line with the other guilds by nominating Jeff Cronenweth’s handsome, if not particularly revelatory, work on “The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo.” Darius Khondji’s jewel-box lensing of another Guild favorite, “Midnight in Paris,” seems a plausible alternative. There are more exciting directions they could go in — it’d be great to see “Drive,” “Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy,” “Jane Eyre” or even “Melancholia” slip in here — but I’m not sensing much independent spirit on the guilds’ part this year.

As for the win, well, the answer should be obvious. If Emmanuel Lubezki has lost a single significant precursor thus far for his staggering work on Terrence Malick’s “The Tree of Life,” one doesn’t come to mind: his achievement, binding disparate perspectives and states of consciousness into one summer-dream whole, is the one area the film’s worshippers and detractors are united on.

But Lubezki knows as well as anyone that unanimous critical agreement counts for little with Academy members, who frequently vote in the technical categories as much for the films they like most as the artistic achievement at hand: just as “Pan’s Labyrinth” snatched the Oscar away from precursor leader “Children of Men” in 2006, it’s all too easy to imagine a more widely embraced Best Picture nominee like “The Artist” or “Hugo” undeservedly triumphing on the night. The Academy owes Lubezki big time, but how many voters are aware of that?

At the very least, Lubezki can count on the respect of his peers, made abundantly clear in Variety’s fascinating Cinematographers On Cinematographers feature, in which a number of major DPs single out their favorite achievements in the field from 2011. It’s a diverse, generously spread selection, but three contributors — Hagen Bogdanski, Javier Aguirresarobe and the venerable Caleb Deschanel, himself a five-time Oscar bridesmaid — have chosen to single out Lubezki’s work. (Weirdly, the only other DP to cop more than one tribute is Phedon Papamichael, whose work in “The Descendants” and “The Ides of March” is, to put it mildly, hardly transcendent.)

Having a veteran of Deschanel’s stature singing your praises is pretty special in itself, but his piece for Variety is particularly specific and perceptive on the merits of Lubezki’s work in the film. Would that more voters in this field bore in mind his point that cinematography isn’t merely about exquisite still images, but the camera’s relationship to the film’s onscreen participants:

“Most people think of cinematographers as choosing subjects of an epic nature to show off what they do — big, sweeping images of war or pageantry. In “Tree of Life” the cinematography records a small story, a celebration of the courage of everyday life. But it does it so up close and so effortlessly that it has the effect of elevating the intimacy of the story to a grand scale.

“You could argue anyone could use the technique to the same effect. But to achieve this intimacy with the camera requires trust. The great photographers of life — like Diane Arbus and Walker Evans and Robert Frank — all must have had some special quality: a personality of nurturing and non-judgment that frees the subjects to reveal their most intimate reality. It really is what makes a great photographer, every bit as much as understanding composition and lighting.”

Amen to that. Plenty more good stuff in the Variety feature, including reigning Oscar champ Wally Pfister on “Midnight in Paris,” and in turn, Jeff Cronenweth on the Pfister-shot “Moneyball.” Check it out here.

What are your predictions for tomorrow’s ASC announcement?

For more views on movies, awards season and other pursuits, follow @GuyLodge on Twitter.

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!

The Academy has announced seven advancing finalists in the race for Best Makeup, and among the chosen are the Meryl Streep-starrer “The Iron Lady,” which transformed the beloved actress into former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.

Another film that transformed a recognizable actor into a famous political figure, Clint Eastwood’s “J. Edgar,” was snubbed, as was comic book blockbuster “Green Lantern” (which featured impressive, heightened work on actor Peter Sarsgaard but was obviously not well-received by critics or audiences).

The makeup branch tends to go its own way, though, regardless of perceived quality. And the branch can often throw a curve ball, as it did two years ago by advancing and ultimately nominating Paolo Sorrentino’s “Il Divo” and again this year by standing up for Joann Sfar’s Serge Gainsbourg biopic “Gainsbourg: A Heroic Life.”

It’s significant when something like that suddenly pops up. When “Il Divo” was shortlisted, one had to figure that if it would make it that far, then perhaps it was likely on its way to a nomination. The same could be said for Sfar’s film.

Other films that made the cut included “Albert Nobbs,” which transformed Glenn Close into a homely woman posing as a man in 19th century Ireland, as well as Roland Emmerich’s period film “Anonymous.” Best Picture contenders “The Artist” and “Hugo” were also in the mix, as was “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2.”

Speaking of which, the only other Harry Potter films to make it this far in the process were “The Sorcerer’s Stone,” “The Prisoner of Azkaban” and “The Order of the Phoenix.” The makeup on the film’s closing installment, though, was perhaps the most elaborate to date, a number of goblins featured, all of them sporting better makeup than similar characters in past films from the series. Could it be a formidable contender for a nomination? Quite possibly.

From here, on Saturday, January 21, all members of the Academy’s makeup branch will be invited to view 10-minute excerpts from each of the seven shortlisted films. Following the screenings, members will vote to nominate three films for final Oscar consideration.

Right now, my guesses are those three will be “The Artist,” “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2” and “The Iron Lady.” But I wouldn’t be surprised if “Anonymous,” “Gainsbourg: A Heroic Life” (which Guy is predicting) or especially “Hugo” made the cut.

Once again, the seven films advancing for a potential Best Makeup nomination from the Academy are:

“Albert Nobbs”

“Anonymous”

“The Artist”

“Gainsbourg: A Heroic Life”

“Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2”

“Hugo”

“The Iron Lady”

What are your guesses?

For year-round entertainment news and awards season commentary follow @kristapley on Twitter.

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!

George Clooney will present Sean Penn with the Joel Siegel Award at the Broadcast Film Critics Association’s 17th annual Critics’ Choice Movie Awards this coming Thursday. Siegel was the “Good Morning America” film critic for over a quarter of a century as well as a BFCA member. The award is meant to “honor those who understand, as Joel did, that the greatest value of celebrity is as an enhanced platform to do good works for others.”

Among other charitable and political endeavors he is and has been associated with, Penn founded the J/P Haitian Relief Organization in the aftermath of the 7.0 magnitude earthquake that struck Haiti on January 12, 2010. “We are extremely proud to be able to make this presentation to Sean on this night in particular, exactly two years after the devastating earthquake struck Haiti,” BFCA President Joey Berlin said via press release. “While it was heartening to see such an outpouring of support and aid for the Haitian people in the immediate aftermath of the tragedy, the long-term commitment made by Sean and his organization is particularly notable. The Joel Siegel Award was created to spotlight such above and beyond efforts by the leading lights of our industry and its spirit is truly personified by Sean Penn.”

Penn was subject to some perplexing criticism following his efforts in New Orleans in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, but I have always admired his commitment to philanthropy. I understand that it becomes en vogue to deride celebrities that are frequently in the media supporting their various chosen causes. Bono, Angelina Jolie and Penn are some notable examples of the trend. But I can see no better use of the (sometimes frightening in its scope and scale) influence that actors, singers and filmmakers are afforded via their creative careers than to try and assist, in whatever way they can, those in need.

In addition to the Joel Siegel Award, Penn has been nominated for seven Critics” Choice Movie Awards throughout his career, including two wins in the Best Actor category (for “Mystic River” and “Milk”).  It is interesting that the release makes mention of Penn”s attachment to “The Tree of life” (nominated for Best Picture), given his public criticism of the film (particularly as it relates to his character) earlier in the year. Perhaps that is all just water under the bridge at this stage in the game.

Martin Scorsese is also slated to receive the Critics” Choice Music+Film Award during the ceremony.

The show will air on VH1 Thursday, January 12 at 8:00pm ET/PT.

For year-round entertainment news and commentary follow @JRothC on Twitter.

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!

Well. This has been an interesting couple of weeks to start the new year.

As the 2011-2012 film awards season forges ahead, general assumptions and standby wisdom are beginning to fly out the window. What was beginning to seem somewhat settled is anything but. The bed looked like it was made, now the covers are thrown to the far reaches of the room.

And that, by the way, is a very good thing. As flabbergasted as I am by the fact that David Fincher’s least compelling film to date seems to be riding residual respect from his impressive awards season showing last year, I am nevertheless happy that “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo,” and “Bridesmaids,” for that matter, are keeping things interesting, keeping the circuit on its toes, drawing everything into a place of exciting unpredictability.

But is that really just a smokescreen? Underneath it all, “The Artist” is forging ahead, strong as ever, the likely Best Picture winner at this juncture. This isn’t new news and some pundits have been sniping about it being the frontrunner from the sidelines for months, in fact (though our own Guy Lodge was on about its Oscar potential back in Cannes, when people were looking at him like he was crazy for bringing it up in such a conversation). Are all of these pleasant or not-so-pleasant surprises just accoutrement to the inevitable?

Maybe. Then again, maybe not. “The Descendants” is now the only film to have a perfect guild showing thus far, having been chalked up by the SAG, PGA, DGA, WGA and ADG. That will run out of steam tomorrow when the ASC nominates, of course, but for now, it gets that designation. “Inception” had a perfect showing throughout ALL the guilds and societies last year, though, and ultimately wasn’t nominated in the two most important fields for gauging a Best Picture contender’s chances: Best Director and Best Film Editing. The point being, nothing is a given.

The story out of the guild circuit so far is the lackluster showing for Steven Spielberg’s “War Horse.” I’ll admit now that its chances of winning the big prize on Oscar night are all but completely gone, but it’s silly to start writing it off as a non-nominee, I think. “Munich” didn’t exactly light up the guild circuit, either (though it did get a DGA nod), but still, that wasn’t a film with as populist a bent as “War Horse.” So it’s all very curious.

“Midnight in Paris” seems to be firing on all cylinders lately. I wouldn’t be surprised if the ASC chalked it up tomorrow. And “Hugo” is quietly sticking in there as a formidable force, too. Some may point to its lack of a SAG ensemble bid to douse its Best Picture hopes, but I think it’s right in the thick of that race, along with Woody Allen and Michel Hazanavicius’s films.

Some might want to figure “The Descendants” heavily into the conversation for a win, but I’m still not feeling it. If it’s fair to point to the fact that “Hugo” won’t likely get an acting nomination then I think it’s fair to point to the fact that “The Descendants” might not get a single below-the-line nomination. Yeah, the actors make up the biggest branch, but all those other branches add up to a considerable chunk of the vote, too, no?

Regarding the DGA nominees, it’s once again worth pointing out the fact that the DGA is a massive organization, whereas the Academy’s directors branch is a small, sometimes eclectic group. So someone like Terrence Malick still has a chance there. And so, by the way, does Steven Spielberg, regardless of this morning’s news — though admittedly, it’s as slim a chance as ever.

But David Fincher’s “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” has to be considered a likely Best Picture nominee now that it has shown up with the PGA (which, by the way, uses the preferential balloting system) and the DGA. The last two years (since the Academy’s change-up in the way the Best Picture category is sussed out), films that have made it in with both guilds have included “Avatar,” “Black Swan,” “The Fighter,” “The Hurt Locker,” “Inception,” “Inglorious Basterds,” “The King’s Speech,” “Precious,” “The Social Network” and “Up in the Air.” Pretty nice company. It’s clear with 10 nominees the film would be in, but how do the new rules affect it?

And that’s really the question, and it remains the key reason for the rule change this year: keeping things interesting. We just don’t know how it’ll shake out, how many nominees there will be (I’m still thinking seven, though I’ve moved “Moneyball” out of my predictions — I don’t know why, I just don’t feel heat) and how the passion will be disseminated.

I’m okay with that, even if I am pulling out my hair at the way things are panning out for this film or that.

Guy and I have updated the Contenders section this week. The sidebar predictions reflect those changes. Meanwhile, keep up with the back and forth of the season and all the critics and guild announcements so far via The Circuit.

For year-round entertainment news and awards season commentary follow @kristapley on Twitter.

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!

The Directors Guild of America (DGA) has announced this year’s slate of nominees for excellence in directing, and chalk another guild citation up for David Fincher, who somehow got in for “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.” Also nominated was Woody Allen for “Midnight in Paris,” while Steven Spielberg and Tate Taylor were snubbed for Best Picture contenders “War Horse” and “The Help,” respectively (both of which I had expected to get in). So was respected auteur Terrence Malick for “The Tree of Life.”

This announcement is largely considered the most important harbinger of Oscar, as the 14,000-member organization often taps directors of films that go on to receive Best Picture nominations from the Academy. With the expanded Best Picture field, first to 10 and this year to anywhere between five and 10, the odds get even better, of course, but this is a good way of whittling the field down to the pulpy center of industry favorites.

The real story here is the strong showing of “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” with the major guilds, having now added this feather to the PGA nomination it received last week.

I’m a little confused as to why this is happening. It feels like either lazy, knee-jerk voting based on residual respect from his stellar run last year (that ended with no Oscar to show for it) or…what? I don’t know. And no, the answer can’t just be “maybe the movie is just that good.” Because…it’s not. But with this and PGA, I think we have to consider it a likely Best Picture nominee. Ay, ay, ay.

Alright, I won’t be annoying any further on that score. Steven Spielberg getting snubbed by a guild that tends to be slavish when it comes to him is significant, and added with a lack of industry goodwill so far (ADG, SAG and WGA snubs), could be indicative of a sinking ship. Then again, “Munich” didn’t exactly light up the guild circuit either.

Woody Allen asserts the dominance of “Midnight in Paris” this season with a key nomination today. The film now has PGA, SAG ensemble and WGA nods in its cap. Meanwhile, “The Descendants” becomes the only film to show a perfect record with the guilds thus far as Alexander Payne was naturally chalked up for a notice.

Tomorrow the American Society of Cinematographers (ASC) speaks up. A week from today, the American Cinema Editors (ACE) announcement drops (another key precursor guild), while the Cinema Audio Society (CAS) reveals its list of nominees on Thursday, January 19. The first guild awards ceremony of the year will be the PGA Awards, held on Saturday, January 21.

The 2011 DGA nominees are:

Michel Hazanavicius, “The Artist”

Alexander Payne, “The Descendants”

David Fincher, “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”

Martin Scorsese, “Hugo”

Woody Allen, “Midnight in Paris”

Be sure to keep track of the ups and downs of the 2011-2012 film awards season via The Circuit.

For year-round entertainment news and awards season commentary follow @kristapley on Twitter.

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!