It was with great sadness yesterday that I read the news of comic book artist Jerry Robinson passing. Robinson is widely known as the creator of the Joker in the Batman comic books (though that was naturally disputed by Batman creator Bob Kane in his time). It’s an iconic gift to the world of graphic literature, no matter how you slice it, and Robinson’s imprint on the industry was a considerable one. For “The Dark Knight,” filmmaker Christopher Nolan went back to the pages of Batman #1, the Joker’s first appearance, so it’s fair to say we owe Heath Ledger’s interpretation of the character to Robinson. Speaking of which, the prologue of “The Dark Knight Rises” was screened for select press last night. It will be attached to IMAX versions “Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol.” [New York Times]

Marc Lee ponders the Academy playing it safe across the pond. [Telegraph]

Alternate history Spielberg: Who ALMOST starred in his movies? [Entertainment Weekly]

Sasha Stone previews the weekend’s AFI announcement. [Awards Daily]

Brooks Barnes wonders if Scott Rudin feels burned for peaking too early last year. No, they really just weren’t done with “Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close” until Monday. [New York Times]

Gary Oldman talks “Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy” and shooting “The Dark Knight Rises” on IMAX. [Collider]

John le Carré calls the former “the films of a lifetime.” [Salon]

James Cameron gets slapped with a lawsuit over the “Avatar” story. [The Wrap]

Leonard Maltin gives a very level-headed take on awards season backlash. [Movie Crazy]

Uh-oh. Adam Waldowski reports that defective screeners of “Rampart” were sent out to Academy members. [Gold Derby]

As the race for Oscar continues to heat up the teamsters who manufacture and deliver the physical statues are coming into conflict with R.S. Owens & Company, the producers of the Oscar and Emmy statuettes.  According to The Huffington Post, contract negotiations between Owens and its workers have come to a halt and the union is now reaching out to Hollywood to back them up in their dispute. In a release on Tuesday the employees revealed that the company had frozen wages for three years beginning in 2007 and plans to renew the policy for the next three years, leaving them without the benefit of a pay increase for nearly a decade.

The union further alleges that Owens intends to cut vacation and bereavement benefits and increase health care costs. Though production continues, there is the ever present possibility of a strike, which could theoretically affect the February 26 awards show. Teamsters Local 743 plans to seek Federal mediation as a part of its negotiations strategy.

Scott Siegel, the company”s president , asserts that the union’s claims that the company earned $31 million in revenue this year is inaccurate, though he has not (to our knowledge) presented an adjusted number. Siegel has chastised the union for going public and justifies the company”s salary freeze and benefits cuts thusly:

“We’re the only unionized [award] manufacturer in the United States. We have seen one after another entertainment award that we manufactured being moved to China. At no point have the Teamsters, or members of other unions, put pressure on all the entertainment organizations to buy union-made awards and U.S.A.-made awards. Part of the predicament [R.S. Owens & Company is] in right now is because most of the main awards are now being made in China.”

The AMPAS has not yet commented on the matter. Their, website, however, does have this to say about the statue itself: “Although it measures just 13½ inches high, the Oscar statuette stands tall as the motion picture industry”s greatest honor.”  The question becomes: who (if anyone)  will Tinseltown stand with?

This symbol of the glitz and glamour of Hollywood is in fact the subject of a behind the scenes shoot going on this week at the production company. Donnie Von Moore, president of Teamsters Local 743, encouraged these filmmakers and others to lend their strength to the workers’ cause:

“From the Screen Actors Guild to the Directors Guild of America, most celebrities who get an Oscar are in a union themselves. They know how crucial unions are to protecting livelihood. What the workers at R.S. Owens need now is union support.”

Both SAG and the WGA have had some fairly public strikes over the last several years. The large majority of the entertainment industry came out in support of the unions in those cases. It will be interesting to see if the teamsters receive the same public show of solidarity from the very community that covets and/or enjoys the gleaming fruit of their labor.

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

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!

There”s a single line-make that a single word-in the opening reel of “Young Adult” delivered with such pointed lack of empathy as to immediate wipe clean any cosier expectations we might have had of a second collaboration between director Jason Reitman and screenwriter Diablo Cody. Staring disconnectedly into her glass while on a blind date with a seemingly decent chap wittering on about his experience of teaching in South East Asia, Charlize Theron”s divorced, 37 year-old youth fiction novelist Mavis Gary screws up her face and spits out the question, “Why?”

The guy doesn”t acknowledge the question; indeed, it doesn”t break his flow for a second. But after Theron”s drolly apathetic tone gets the required laugh from the viewer, her sourly confused expression seals the moment as more than a snarky throwaway: this isn”t just a woman who disdains people who help others, it”s one who sincerely doesn”t comprehend them. A kind of high-functioning autism invisible beneath her snippy intelligence and immaculate lipstick, Mavis”s misanthropy makes in her mind a gigantic ‘why” of all human relationships, though she”s sufficiently self-possessed enough not to care about the answers. We never see the face of her hapless date in that early exchange; in a sense, one doubts she does either.

If not quite a brilliant film itself, “Young Adult” is nonetheless shot through with such brilliant flashes of testy insight: it”s certainly as daringly ungenerous a mainstream comedy as American cinema has served up in recent memory, somehow standing on both sides of the mirror as it initially ridicules both Mavis for her unearned snobbery and the white-bread Midwestern society around her for allowing itself to be ridiculed. Like the pithily condescending character comedies of Alexander Payne, Cody”s script places immense stock in social and geographical limitations: Mavis assumes the classic American character mantle of the small-town-girl-made-good, returning home from the big city, but the film”s greatest unarticulated joke is that big-city life in this case lies only as far afield as Minneapolis.

In a series of tersely edited, beigely art-directed scenes at the outset, Reitman swiftly establishes the contained sense of failure surrounding the former high-school prom queen”s supposed urban self-realization: living in a boxy new-build high-rise with only Starbucks-flavored friends and a virtually clockwork Pomeranian for company, ghost-writing Sweet Valley High clones using dialogue cribbed from unwitting local teens and routinely passing out on unmade beds, Mavis”s city life seems so scaled-down, unambitiously tethered to lifelong bad habits, that it”s no surprise when, at a supremely loose end post-divorce, she returns to the smaller but similarly sterile pond of her hometown.

The ostensible, wholly deluded goal of this trip may be to win back Buddy, the jockish high-school sweetheart (Patrick Wilson) who gave Mavis her few isolated years of emotional security-that he”s blissfully married with a newborn child is but a minor irritation to her-but while the film plays the spiky farce of this scenario for good, nasty laughs, the moving, more complicated subtext is that she”s competitively chasing a life she knows she doesn”t want for herself.

Theron is superb at registering Mavis”s split-second shifts in awareness with a single facial movement, and there”s a key one when she arrives, ludicrously overdressed, at the synthetic sports bar where Buddy has scheduled a friendly reunion: the fall in her face says everything as she realizes the ex she”s held up all her adult life as the tantalizing road not taken is not just unavailable, but a dullard to boot.

Wickedly funny as it so often is-Cody”s voice has hardened and settled since her Oscar-winning work on “Juno,” now choosing its moments to be strident or smartass-“Young Adult” works best as a tricky small-town tragedy in which everyone wants someone else”s life, but no one”s life looks particularly desirable in the first place. A safer film (Reitman”s own “Up in the Air,” for example) might cast its moral lot on one side of the net, idealizing either warm domesticity or no-strings irresponsibility, but “Young Adult” is too wary and too searching for that.

Buddy”s backyard-barbecue lifestyle looks no more appropriate a solution to Mavis”s malaise than that of her disabled former classmate and unlikely kindred spirit Matt, played with wry, whisky-marinated warmth by Patton Oswalt in full-schlub mode. Ingrained codes of Hollywood romance tell us her redemption lies in a choice between them, but the film”s courageous, potentially divisive third act suggests that self-awareness, once attained, needn”t be accepted.

This is a bold narrative endgame, but Cody”s script makes some specious judgments to get there: her even-handedness is commendable, but she risks patronizing everyone in the film to exhausting effect, notably in a climactic bar-seduction scene where Mavis”s would-be cosmopolitan sluttiness and the low-rent naïvete of Buddy”s wife”s dopey garage band are pitted against each other to equally cruel effect. There”s a tonal thinness to such stretches where, far less sophisticated construction that it was, some of the open-hearted humanism of “Juno” wouldn”t go amiss.

Happily, these rare instances of undue meanness in the writing are elegantly papered over by Theron”s ferocious star turn: her sharpest, most fluidly capricious work since her career-shifting performance in “Monster” eight years ago, and a welcome workout for the vinegary comic timing that”s been curiously underused since a few far less worthy early-career vehicles. (It”s also arguably the first role of the actress”s career to make interesting, counter-thematic use of her traffic-stopping beauty.)

It”s to Theron”s considerable credit that, as inscrutably unlikeable as Mavis remains for nearly three-quarters of the film”s running time, we”re never really off her side: even in her worst moments, there”s a kind of purposeful poise to her brazenly atrocious behaviour that”s inexplicably admirable. It”s easy to imagine an actress like Katherine Heigl humiliating Mavis by playing down to her; it”s Theron”s sympathy for the devil that makes this pleasingly peppery, savagely sad character study fly. Even to the ugly end, not everyone sees through her: when a sweet loner confesses to Mavis how much she covets her life, it”s the audience”s turn to bewilderedly ask, “Why?” 

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

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!

It’s never too late to be recognized as a “breakthrough performer,” apparently. 15 years after making her first big-screen appearance in “A Time to Kill,” 39 year-old actress Octavia Spencer — the chief source of comic relief in the ensemble of “The Help” — has been honored with the Breakthrough Performance Award at the Palm Springs festival.

Like most of the awards dished out at Palm Springs and Santa Barbara next month, this honor acts chiefly as an Oscar nomination forecast: previous winners of the prize include Felicity Huffman, Jennifer Hudson, Marion Cotillard, Jeremy Renner and Carey Mulligan. (Hard luck, Mariah Carey and Freida Pinto.) Not that one needs  any such minor bellwethers to predict Spencer’s nomination, which has been set in stone since “The Help” opened in August: the question is whether she can win in a field that still has no clear frontrunner.

Much, I suspect, depends on the momentum of co-star Viola Davis’s lead campaign, not to mention the possibility of internal category competition from Jessica Chastain. (If the latter manages to score a nod at all, she could be a real threat for the win, pulling votes from fans of her work in multiple films.)

On the face of it, it sounds odd to attach the “breakthrough” tag to an actor with a career as long as Spencer’s, but that’s precisely what the performance is: trawling through her filmography, I’m surprised how many notable films she’s appeared in where her face just doesn’t come to mind. (Granted, I haven’t seen the film in a while, but I doubt Woman In Elevator in “Being John Malkovich” was a plum part.) Clearly, larger roles in such smaller movies as “Herpes Boy” didn’t do much for her either.

So good for her for turning things around with a role that, an interview with Anderson Cooper revealed, was once mooted for Oscar winners Jennifer Hudson and Mo’Nique. It was her longstanding friendship with writer-director Tate Taylor, Spencer admits, that secured her the part: given that he’s a similarly out-of-nearly-nowhere name, one imagines he was more sympathetic than most to an actress in need of a break. 

Spencer joins Michelle Williams, George Clooney and Glenn Close on the list of Palm Springs honorees: the “My Week With Marilyn” star was previously announced as the recipient of the festival’s Achievement Award. Every year since 2006, at least one of their picks has gone on to win the Oscar. Make of that what you will — I wouldn’t. 

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

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!

Tech Support inadvertently took a week off as I never did get around to writing up the Best Original Song category. No worries. Nothing has happened of note in the field all year long, really, and the contenders have pretty much laid themselves bare, for the most part.

Naturally there will be some other considerations when the official list of qualifying tunes is revealed soon enough. That announcement dropped on December 15 last year, so I imagine within the week we’ll know what’s in the running.

For now, though, it’s time to run a comb through what we’re aware of and see what makes sense as formidable in the field. There are a number of tracks worth considering, so as we close up shop on Tech Support’s category analysis this season, let’s see what they are.

(I’ve actually already written about this, and notice just as I start here that there is very little left to add. But I’ll try.)

At the top of the list, in my view, is the Alan Menken-penned, USO-inspired “Star Spangled Man” from “Captain America: The First Avenger.” The song illustrates perfectly the kind of material that fares well in the race ever since new regulations were installed a few years ago.

Seeing as the music branch views each song’s use within the context of the given film, a track like “Star Spangled Man” is sure to stand out. It gets a big montage in the middle of the film and is used as a story point, new red, white and blue symbol of the country, Steve Rogers, going out on tour to flaunt his muscles in a tight-fitting suit that’s a tip of the hat to the character’s golden years in the comics.

“The Muppets” sports a trio of songs that have been submitted for consideration, all of them numbers that come within the context of the film’s narrative (as of course they would, given that it’s a musical). What stands out to me is “Pictures in My Head,” a longing ditty full of nostalgia that sparks up as Kermit considers getting the gang back together.

However, others might prefer “Man or Muppet,” a ballad featuring both Jason Segel and new Muppet Walter at a key moment in the third act. Screenwriter Nick Stoller told me he thinks Bret Mckenzie (of “Flight of the Conchords” fame, who penned the songs from the film) deserves the Oscar (natch) for this one. But there’s also “Life’s a Happy Song” to contend with, a show-stopping number that gets a big reprise and, if nominated (and if the producers don’t squeeze the performances out of the broadcast), would be a big moment on the Oscarcast.

It’s looking more and more like Glenn Close could be snubbed for her performance in “Albert Nobbs,” but never fret. She has another shot at scoring an Oscar nod this year as one of the writers of “Lay My Head Down,” performed by Sinéad O’Connor. The music from the song lingers in an early portion of the film, while it gets reprised in the final scene, the lyrics kicking in as the credits begin to roll.

Meanwhile, after missing out for her song “I Can See in Color” from “Precious” two years back, Mary J. Blige is back with “The Living Proof” from “The Help.” The film is poised to show up in a couple of places and, even though it doesn’t pop up until the closing credits, this could be one of them.

But could those two tracks from dramas fall prey to lively numbers used within films like “Gnomeo & Juliet,” “Rio” and “Winnie the Pooh?” Animated films tend to have a leg up in the race, if only due to the sheer volume of original music they tend to invite, but these films have seven songs between them vying for attention.

Most notable of them is Elton John’s work on “Gnomeo & Juliet.” He wrote the original music for the film, which also features plenty of his classic material, too. “Hello Hello,” which brings the famed singer into a duet with Lady Gaga, seems the best bet of the two. “Love Builds a Garden” is the other contender.

Cameron Crowe tapped Sigur Rós lead singer Jónsi for “Gathering Stories,” which closes out “We Bought a Zoo.” It’s a great song but it’s used as an afterthought over the credits, so that could make it tough to register.

Chris Cornell’s “The Keeper” is probably the best song of the lot (featured in the closing credits of “Machine Gun Preacher”), while “Hugo” sports a delightful tune, “Coeur Volant,” which we featured for you a few weeks back.

“Cars 2” has “Collision of Worlds,” which is beginning to scrape the bottom of the barrel for contenders, I think. It’s a long ways away from what James Taylor brought to the first film. Meanwhile, “Footloose” has two possibilities, Zac Brown’s “Where the River Goes” most notable among them.

And finally, Madonna’s “Masterpiece” from “W.E,” which we featured yesterday, could be an excuse for the HFPA to drag her to the Golden Globes. Oscar seems a stretch but she’s in the hunt (assuming the song is eligible, given the late-in-the-credits cue).

Lots to consider. Keep an eye on the Best Original Song Contenders section for developments in the race. Feel free to offer up your picks in the comments section below.

Next week, Tech Support transitions over to our interview series, kicking off this year with “War Horse” cinematographer Janusz Kaminski.

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

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!

Remember that exchange on “Entourage” a few years back? Something about Clint Eastwood being set up at Warner Bros. for decades. “We give him $90 million to make movies now,” the studio head said. To which Turtle quipped, “I heard he uses 60 and pockets 30. That’s why he only does one take.” Like so much of the show, it was inside baseball, but it cracked me up. Anyway, the point being, Eastwood has been a fixture on that lot seemingly since the dawn of time. Every once in a while he’s ventured out and done a film with another studio, but home base is Warner Bros. So it makes sense for a handsome boxed set of his work there to hit the market. Enter “Clint Eastwood: 35 Films 35 Years at Warner Bros.,” which would make a great Christmas gift for the Eastwood fanatic in your family. It has everything from “Where Eagles Dare” to “Invictus.” [Amazon]

Charlie Rose sits down with “Moneyball” director Bennett Miller and stars Brad Pitt and Jonah Hill. [CharlieRose.com]

The Castro Theatre of San Francisco to be revamped for live performance. [The Petrelis Files]

Donna Freydkin chats with “We Need to Talk About Kevin” star Tilda Swinton. [USA Today]

Happy 150th birthday, Georges Méliès. [MUBI Notebook]

Jason Reitman talks “Young Adult” and his LACMA live reading series. [Collider]

“Hugo” star Asa Butterfield on Martin Scorsese’s film school. [Huffington Post]

David Poland sits down with the Dardennes brothers to talk “The Kid with a Bike” [Hot Blog]

Billy Crystal gets the Gary Marshall seal of approval. [Carpetbagger]

Greg Ellwood talks “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2” with Best Supporting Actor contender Alan Rickman. [Awards Campaign]

With Oscar season so invariably focused on the new and the now, it’s refreshing when the occasional awards body casts a look backward to slightly older releases — though they don’t tend to go back 44 years. Trust the conscientious folks behind the Cinema Eye documentary awards to take up that cause with a Legacy Award for classic individual documentaries that, in their view, still carry resonance and influence today. This year’s recipient: Frederick Wiseman’s 1967 debut feature “Titicut Follies.”

I’ve never had an opportunity to see Wiseman’s film, an exposé of the grim conditions at a Massachusetts prison for the criminally insane, but it’d be interesting to see on what note he started his prolific and still-productive career. I’m familiar only with the director’s later works, peaking with his staggering Paris ballet study “La Danse.” His work of late has been preoccupied with human movement and performance; his latest, “Crazy Horse,” about the titular Paris nightclub, continues in that direction. It opens in the US in January, neatly coinciding with the Cinema Eye presentation.

Edited press release after the jump. 

New York – The Cinema Eye Honors for Nonfiction Filmmaking today announced that the 2012 Legacy Award will be presented to the landmark 1967 documentary, Titicut Follies, a stark and graphic portrayal of the conditions that existed at the State Prison for the Criminally Insane at Bridgewater, Massachusetts. Filmmaker Frederick Wiseman will accept the award on behalf of the film at this year”s Cinema Eye ceremony.

“It”s hard for me to believe that Titicut Follies was shot forty-six years ago,” said Wiseman. “I”m thrilled to receive the Cinema Eye Legacy Award but it is tough for me to deal with the implications.”

The award will be presented on January 11, 2012 at the 5th Annual Cinema Eye Honors ceremony to be held at the Museum of the Moving Image in Astoria, New York. A Stranger Than Fiction screening of Titicut Follies will be held the following week, on January 17, at the IFC Center, on the eve of the opening of Wiseman”s latest film, Crazy Horse, which debuts at New York”s Film Forum on January 18, before rolling out to theaters nationwide.

“Few filmmakers – in fiction or nonfiction – have created such an enduring body of work that is also, uniquely, their own as Frederick Wiseman,” said Cinema Eye”s Advisory Chair Andrea Meditch. “The legacy of Titicut Follies stands as a beacon to all of today’s filmmakers for its unflinching honesty and the lingering power of John Marshall’s camera and Wiseman’s editing.”

“Titicut Follies is a remarkable film, both for its unwavering look at a failed institution and as the template for the decades of Wiseman films that would follow,” said Laura Poitras, the Chair of the Cinema Eye Filmmaker Advisory Board, which voted to give the Legacy Award to Titicut Follies. “As filmmakers, we look to Wiseman as an inspiration and we are honored to salute the debut film of this vital American auteur.”

This is the third year that Cinema Eye will present a Legacy Award, intended to honor classic films that inspire a new generation of filmmakers and embody the Cinema Eye mission: excellence in creative and artistic achievements in nonfiction films. The Legacy Award celebrates the entire creative team behind the chosen film. This year marked the first time that Cinema Eye”s newly established Filmmaker Advisory Board voted on the recipient of the award. Previous Legacy Awards went to Ross McElwee’s Sherman”s March and the Maysles Brothers” Grey Gardens.

A limited number of tickets for the 5th Cinema Eye Honors are now available and include a post-ceremony reception. Tickets: $75 public / $50 Museum members. Call 718-777-6800 to reserve tickets or order online at http://www.movingimage.us/visit/calendar/2012/01/11/detail/cinema-eye-honors. 

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

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!

It is an unhappy and semi-annual habit among Oscar-watchers to dismiss the Best Actress race as “weak,” a selection of performances that handily distils – either by conformity or exception – Hollywood”s routine neglect of its female performers. That narrative thankfully took a rest last year: with peak-form work by Annette Bening, Nicole Kidman, Michelle Williams and winner Natalie Portman, plus a genuine revelation in Jennifer Lawrence, all of them in variously meaty, artful films, 2010 will likely be seen as a banner year for the category for some time.

It almost certainly won”t be topped this year – the tone across the blogosphere suggests that accusations of weakness are back in full force with this year”s lead actress race. Which is not to say that the field is thin or even uncompetitive: a look at the fringes of the category reveals a wealth of fine actresses turning in remarkable work in exciting films. Tilda Swinton in “We Need to Talk About Kevin.” Olivia Colman in “Tyrannosaur.” Elizabeth Olsen in “Martha Marcy May Marlene.” Anna Paquin in “Margaret.” Kirsten Dunst and Charlotte Gainsbourg in “Melancholia.” Juliette Binoche in “Certified Copy.” Kristen Wiig in “Bridesmaids.” If this is the standard of the outsiders, how can this possibly be deemed a weak field?

Yet cross the invisible boundary into frontrunner territory and there”s a marked change in temperature. The strong actresses remain. So, to some extent, do the strong performances. The roles and films containing them, however, are harder to get excited about, in many cases falling into stock notions of middlebrow bait that, judging from the differing buzz levels, still hold true. Viola Davis in “The Help,” Michelle Williams in “My Week With Marilyn,” Meryl Streep in “The Iron Lady,” Glenn Close in “Albert Nobbs” – all previously Academy-endorsed actress in vehicles widely termed “performance showcases,” a polite way of saying one would sooner see the performer rewarded than the film.

In principle, is there anything wrong with this? Well, no. A good performance is a good performance, however soft or mishandled the film around it. Indeed, it”s hard to avoid the psychological urge to give an actor extra credit for powering through substandard material: it”s why I was one of those not wringing my hands when Sandra Bullock won an Oscar for breathing some sparky life into the dunderheaded slop of “The Blind Side,” or why I didn”t mind Russell Crowe winning for bringing texture and movie-star magnetism to a chipboard hero in “Gladiator.” They didn”t make the movies or write the characters; they can, however, elevate or complicate the characters with the decisions they make in playing them, and that”s as worthy a thespian achievement as knocking a dream role, in a dream film, out of the park.

It”s for that reason that I”ll be perfectly content – make that actively pleased – if Viola Davis wins Best Actress in three months” time for “The Help,” as I strongly suspect she will. I have more than a few problems with her film”s construction and conception, not least in the way it treats Davis”s own character as a kind of symbolic vessel for the suffering of an entire culture, but the performance is remarkable in the way it fights that flat nobility, denting it with genuine hurt and tangy flashes of irony. The wonderful film writer Nick Davis described it best in a recent chat: in a two-tone film, Davis is playing three-card monte, finding ways to sneak us the movie “The Help” ought to be inside every scene, unobtrusively slipping reality into the viewer”s pocket.

It seems entirely just to reward Davis for making the best of, if hardly a bad situation, a pleasantly unremarkable film, not least because she presumably doesn”t have an abundance of choices. A lead role for a fortysomething black character actress in a high-profile studio picture is such a hen”s-tooth rarity that Davis could be wholly forgiven for seizing the opportunity with both hands even if the film had turned out to be appalling; as it stands, awards recognition for the performance is a gesture of encouragement to studios to take more such chances with their casting.

But is there a difference between the worthiness of this situation and that of an A-list star expertly coasting through vehicles that are well beneath them? In principle, one would say not: once again, the performance should be all that counts. But in commending a star”s work, you”re also indirectly commending their creative choices. There”s a fine line between rewarding an actor for rising above mediocrity and rewarding them for mismanaging their talents, and the difference, one might say, lies mostly in their pay grade. It”s a question that”s best asked of veteran Academy pets rather than those still on the rise: is there value in honoring such masters of the craft as Judi Dench and Meryl Streep for picking projects as feeble as, say, “Mrs. Henderson Presents” and “One True Thing,” however well they acquit themselves?

A lot of people – including, evidently, many Academy members – wouldn”t hesitate to say yes, not least because many such projects inevitably look a lot more worthy at the pre-production stage. One wouldn”t necessarily penalize Glenn Close, for example, for lovingly nurturing an ambitious passion project like “Albert Nobbs” just because the film isn”t (according to many) a home run. I”m inclined to be less forgiving, however, of actors doing paycheck work in blatantly unprepossessing films: happily, there are few of those in the Oscar running this year, but just wait until Julia Roberts scores a Golden Globe nod for “Larry Crowne.”

It can”t be a coincidence that when I mentally round up the most satisfying acting wins in Oscar history, the vast majority of them are for complex landmark performances in equally rich and substantial films, from Vivien Leigh in “Gone With the Wind” to Robert De Niro in “Raging Bull” to Daniel Day-Lewis in “There Will Be Blood.” A great film inevitably sticks in the cultural consciousness for longer than an isolated great performance – which is why, as many positives could be drawn from an Oscar for Davis for raising the EQ of “The Help,” or even Michelle Williams for bringing her customary (and Oscar-due) dignity and melancholy to a gumball biopic, the Academy could do better.

Last week, for example, the National Board of Review sprang a delightful surprise by showing pundits just one such exciting alternative. By plumping for Tilda Swinton in “We Need to Talk About Kevin,” they weren”t just honouring a fearless performance in a challenging film – they were also, consciously or not, endorsing the career track of a consistently self-testing performer who rarely takes the soft option, choosing scripts no less interesting than what she can bring to them. If voters can”t stomach that extreme arthouse option, there”s still Charlize Theron, bravely and fascinatingly toxic in the spiky, tonally adventurous “Young Adult.” That these are the contenders fighting for the fifth spot perhaps prompts concern less about the range and depth of roles currently available to women than the industry”s willingness to promote them.

Updated Oscar predictions here. 

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

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!

Thanks everyone who participated in the “Super 8” contest on Monday. The winners were “ASCHU” and “GRUBI,” so if you’re reading, drop me a line so I can get you your prizes.

The giveaways keep on truckin’ today as we have two DVDs of Gore Verbinski’s “Rango” to dish out. I think we’ll do something similar to the last contest. With an expanded field of Best Picture nominees, the odds are slightly better for animated films to make it into contention. While Pixar has had the stranglehold on that kind of consideration the last two years, this year, they clearly do not. And some might consider “Rango” the heir apparent to Best Picture potential in the medium.

So, if you agree, give me 100 words or less telling me why you think it deserves a fair shake and should play with the big boys in the Best Picture field.

Deadline is noon on Friday. Now… Go!

I’ll finally get around to running down the Best Original Song category in tomorrow’s Tech Support column, but how about one last contender spotlight?

Madonna’s “W.E.” has took a critical thrashing when it premiered at the Venice Film Festival in September. Having finally caught the film last night, I’m sorry to report that the pans were on point. What a delirious mess of a film. A Vogue photo shoot brought to life. Which, it should be noted, the film is indeed gorgeous. The costume design, production design and cinematography would all find room on my ballot, I bet.

I had heard there was an original song for the film from the Material Girl herself, but didn’t really think about it until I noted the FYC section of the screener packaging. Indeed, “Masterpiece” — which leaked recently and is expected to also be on Madonna’s next album — is being pitched for awards.

But I’m not actually sure if it’s eligible. According to the rules and regulations in the category, the song either has to play in the body of the film or be the first music cue over the closing credits. However, the first cue of the credits is a continuation of Abel Korzeniowski’s score. “Masterpiece” doesn’t kick in until a few minutes later.

Oh well, I guess we’ll know for sure when the official list of eligible contenders is released within a week’s time. For now, though, have a listen to the new track below. I actually dig it.

Madonna, by the way, was recently announced as the entertainment for the upcoming Super Bowl’s half-time show. Her film goes wide two days before. Well played.

“W.E.” opens in limited release this Friday, December 9.

The tribute announcements keep coming for the upcoming Santa Barbara International Film Festival. Today the fest announced the recipient of this year’s Cinema Vanguard Award, given in tandem for the first time this year, to “The Artist” stars Jean Dujardin and Bérénice Bejo.

The honor is given annually “in recognition of an actor who has forged his/her own path, taking artistic risks and making a significant and unique contribution to film.” I guess that sums up what Dujardin and Bejo did with the film, but it’s unique amid the flurry of recent recipients: Nicole Kidman, Christoph Waltz, Vera Farmiga, Stanley Tucci, Peter Sarsgaard, Kristin Scott Thomas and Ryan Gosling.

Anyway, festival director Roger Durling made his case in the press release: “In an age of sight and sound spectacle, there is great risk in a silent film. Jean and Bérénice’s acting is an amazing pas des deux both physically and emotionally – recalling classic Hollywood pairings like Hepburn and Tracy, and of course indelibly Ginger and Fred.”

Said Dujardin, “We are grateful to the Santa Barbara International Film Festival for this incredible honor. Delivering a silent film to the 21st century is no easy task, and it would have in no way been possible without the talent and dedication of the incredible ensemble of actors we had the pleasure of working with:  James Cromwell, John Goodman, Penelope Ann Miller, Missi Pyle and Malcolm McDowell.  This award is just as much for them as it is for us.”

The award will be presented on Saturday, February 4 at the Arlington Theatre in Santa Barbara.

Viola Davis was previously announced as recipient of this year’s Outstanding Performer of the Year Award. Other designations will come, including the American Riviera Award, the Modern Master Award (which has to go to Martin Scorsese, right? – I guess it could be argued a couple of different ways) and the Virtuoso Awards.

The 27th annual Santa Barbara International Film Festival runs January 26 through February 5.

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

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!

It’s hot as hell in here. No, really, Gary Oldman has set the thermostat so high that it feels less like a room at the Beverly Hills Four Seasons than a fire-heated Transylvanian castle on a snow-blown mountainside.

“The first thing I do when I get into a hotel room is crank it up to about 80,” he says jokingly through that recognizable twangy British accent to a publicist as she makes her way out of the room. Or is it recognizable? Oldman is a classic character actor, a “that guy” for film-goers the world over. So maybe it is. But his career never took hold in a leading man capacity, so he lingers on the pages of recent film history. Maybe it was the dust-up behind the scenes over the perspective of Rod Lurie’s “The Contender” in 2000 that held him back at a time when his career was set to take off. Maybe that’s an overstatement.

He looks remarkably young. At 53, he’s taken on roles as of late that have played up older, wiser traits, but they’ve clearly shielded some vitality. His latest, Tomas Alfredson’s “Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy,” is a prime example, Oldman saddling up to the role that Alec Guiness first fleshed out on the screen via British television mini-series. Now he’s being asked by young press types who aren’t likely aware of Guiness outside of “Star Wars” whether he was familiar with that project before taking the role.

Alas, Oldman’s status as a featured element of countless films that speak to young film enthusiasts (“Sid and Nancy,” “JFK,” “True Romance,” “León,” “Basquiat,” “The Fifth Element,” etc., etc.), coupled with his high profile gig in Christopher Nolan’s Batman franchise, has brought him to that place.

Since everyone’s asking, no, with “Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy,” Oldman had no trepidation over taking on the John le Carré-penned role of George Smiley, regardless of who played it before him. It was a challenge and a unique one for the actor, who has made his name as a lively, outwardly performed slice of vast esteemed ensembles. Now he’s fronting one, but with a more subdued, inwardly performed piece of work. The irony is delicious.

“You take inspiration from anywhere, really, any way you can get it,” Oldman says of his approach to preparing for a role. “But with this, you are blessed in as much that you”re working from a great book. All the secrets, all the keys to unlocking the doors are all there in the book.”

Indeed, Oldman met with le Carré (the pen-name of author David John Moore Cornwell, who was himself a part of MI5, the British intelligence organization depicted in “Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy”). He wanted to get a sense of who Smiley was before the audience meets him in the story, as it picks up much later in his career. What was he like as a younger man, when he was out on active service? Oldman quizzed le Carré for these particulars as flavoring for his performance.

“The most interesting thing we talked about, I think, was just the sheer level of paranoia,” Oldman says, “and the pressure one is under when you have an alias, when you”re undercover, and the fear that your cover will always be blown.”

That seems like the kind of thing that would greatly inform the physicality of the performance. So much of the film is observational, both (rather brilliantly) in theme and in atmosphere. The subtleties are a playground for an actor like Oldman.

“There”s a passage in the book that I will butcher,” he recalls, “but it is by Ann, George”s wife, who describes him as a creature that can regulate his sort of body temperature to that of the surroundings, almost like a reptile. And that suggested to me someone who is very still and not frenetic or fussy. I don”t see him as someone who”s touching himself all the time. [He mimics straightening his clothing.] There”s this sort of poise to it. So that gave me a clue. And, you know, we grayed the hair and there”s a slight hunch in the shoulders. You have to absorb the character. You’re always looking for the minutiae of things, how a character moves, how he walks, how he eats. And some characters are easier.”

It’s interesting Oldman would highlight Smiley as adaptable to surroundings and “almost like a reptile,” because Oldman himself has been described as a chameleonic actor. As noted in yesterday’s look back at his finest performances, he has settled into an array of characters with equal confidence and ease. But for the more nuanced Smiley, Oldman actually says the task at hand was easier than some of those embossed characters from his portfolio.

“Your life is the book, in a way,” he says. “The subtext. So you can always bring the book, even to a scene that has three lines and a look. I may have three lines and just a little flick of the eye, but you never felt that you were out there like a cork on the water, you know what I mean? You felt supported by the novel.”

The difference between “Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy” and so many of those other movies is Oldman was able to marinate in the role. The flip-side is something like, say, Nolan’s Batman franchise, coming in, working a day and then being off for a month before coming back, working a week, and then having three weeks off, etc. The stop-and-go nature of filmmaking can play havoc on embodying a character and keeping it alive, so on this project, he was happy to let other actors, like Mark Strong or Colin Firth or Tom Hardy — all brilliant in the film — deal with those travails.

“When you”re asked to come in and you’ve got to burn from the first bar, it”s like rock and roll,” he says. “You’ve got to hit a frequency in a performance. And it may be violent, it may be emotional, it may be both. It may be tears. It could be many things. I always felt that as exciting as it was, there was a bit of a black cloud over me. You”d get there in the morning and it was like standing at the foot of a mountain looking at the peak and thinking, ‘Oh God, I”ve got to get there today, and when I call on it, will I have the resource? Is the well going to be dry or am I going to climb the mountain?’

“With Smiley, a lot of that sort of emotional work, in a way, was done in the privacy of my own home. It”s sort of done in my kitchen, me in a communion with the novel. And so it was a relief to know that it was other people that were bouncing off the wall and that I could come in and put my suit on and sit in a chair and listen. It was a great relief to be able to do that. There’s a continuity to it. And it”s those other guys that have to kind of come in and win the race, you know? Like I said, it”s like jazz. You just find that you ease into the solo and these other guys can start to come in and rock and roll.”

It’s left to be seen if Alfredson’s film is the one that brings Oldman his long-overdue first Oscar nomination. But how ironic would it be to come for an effort so of a piece with his work across an array of ensembles, yet so unique for the measured, reserved portrayal at its center?

“Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy” opens in theaters nationwide Friday, December 9.

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

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!

It’s been interesting finding myself caught in the middle on a great many films this year that have sparked passion on both sides of the scale. Watching the pendulum swing between love and hate on “J. Edgar,” “The Help” and now, “Hugo,” has been strange, because I can’t passionately argue one case over the other, but I sympathize with both. We first mentioned the idea of 2011 as a season of films about nostalgia a few weeks back, and that narrative has continued to take hold. Mark Harris recently spotlighted it, but went a step further into accusing films like “The Artist” and “Hugo” of “faux-nostalgia, pegging the latter for being “not a valentine to the dawn of movies [but] a valentine to the people who send those valentines.” Flattery, he seems to surmise, will get you everywhere with the Academy. [Grantland]

David Poland talks to “Young Adult” star Charlize Theron. [Hot Blog]

In honor of “W.E.,” Madonna’s five best moments on screen. [Movieline]

Glenn Kenny has his say on #teammargaret. [Some Came Running]

Peter Knegt commits to predicting the precursors. I can’t summon it anymore. [indieWIRE]

Angelina Jolie is being sued for copyright infringement over “In the Land of Blood and Honey.” [Hollywood, esq.]

Dave Karger runs a comb through his predictions. [Entertainment Weekly]

Sasha Stone on keeping the faith this time of year. [Awards Daily]

Albert Brooks talks about going to dark places for “Drive” at a recent Q&A for the film. [24 Frames]

The interwebz has been roaring in the wake of Eric Bolling”s “Follow the Money” segment that accused the creators of “The Muppets,” Roland Emmerich and Hollywood at large of brainwashing the minds of the kids of America. According to the program, the film is doing its part to spread the red (subliminal Marxist programming) by luring the wee ones in with the endearing felt-made friends, and the charm of Jason Segel, only to unleash the grander liberal agenda when they are distracted by unmitigated delight.

The Fox Business Network and Media Matters show explained that the selection of a “successful business man” (Tex Richman) as the primary villain in the film is indicative of a large scale campaign to ensure that the upcoming generation is teeming with little Lennons and Lenins (either John or Vladimir will do). The ideal populace will also be sprinkled with Rasputin – for flavor.

Proselytizing! Well, if one network would know it when it sees it…

For those who have not seen “The Muppets,” Richman is an oil tycoon who has nefarious plans to raze the Muppets studio and drill for the black gold that lies beneath. The benefits are twofold: an end to the gang’s cheery rapport along with an influx of cold hard cash! In truth the character, like much of the film, is rather overtly aware of its own anachronistic nature. He fits with the tone of the whole of the film, which notes that it acts like a 50s musical come to life in modern day Los Angeles. In fact Walter (new Muppet and brother to Segel”s Gary) mimics Richman in a tone that is reminiscent of an old Edward G. Robinson baddie, to which Amy Adams responds, “Do people even talk like that anymore?” This exchange takes place in the clip that Fox used to illustrate its point about the film by the by.

The lower thirds in the “Follow the Money” program read: “Are liberals trying to brainwash your kids against capitalism?” To reiterate the query Bolling (in a shining display of the objective journalism we have grown to know and love in our modern media) asked guest Dan Gainor of the Media Research Center, “Is liberal Hollywood using class warfare to brainwash kids?” Gainor responded, “Yeah absolutely, and they”ve been doing it for decades.”

Gainor went on to list several films that also attacked the oil industry including, “Syriana,” “There Will Be Blood” and what he referred to as “the Al Gore-influenced film,” Roland Emmerich’s “The Day After Tomorrow.” The “expert” claimed that these films ignore the purpose that oil serves in reality: lighting hospitals and heating homes. Host and guest go on to, in essence, attribute the Occupy Wall Street movement to an overindulgence in TV and “The Matrix” (which they believe proposes that mankind is a virus “ravaging” mother earth).

The choicest portion of the segment comes at the close when Bolling shares the tale of his poor family”s response when they would come across a wealthy community member when he was a child. His mom and dad would say, “See that guy? He started a business, he worked hard, you can be like that one day.” If only his own parents hadn”t been so lazy!

I don”t doubt that Bolling felt inspired by his parents and that is all well and good. It simply seems like an equally childish, black and white picture of wealth in America, though. The difference of course is that the stereotype in the kids film…knows it is presenting a comically limited image.

As it is to be expected several entertainment journalists have had their say on the matter, with the overwhelming consensus being that Fox is out of its mind. I actually found watching the segment hilarious…until it made me sad. I will not argue that Tex Richman (portrayed by Chris Cooper in the film) is a caricature; the film indeed references his cartoonish nature as we have mentioned. And filmmakers clearly do utilize the medium to express their political perspectives.

Aside from Fox”s “media expert” needing a crash course in the larger themes present in “The Matrix” trilogy, it is the methods that are employed to deliver the messages that I find tragicomic. They repeat inflammatory phrases, make large logical jumps, present sweeping claims with cursory “evidence” and regularly engage in ad hominem arguments. We will not even touch the intrinsically capitalistic nature of show business. We will point out that one of the properties in question is a narrative film with puppets and one (at least in theory) is a news program.

We aren”t saying anything new, of course. This has been the nature of our public dialog for as long as many of us can remember. Fox, like Hollywood, wants to make money. There is an appetite for this sort of hyperbole and they are there to feed it.

Jon Stewart pointed out the distinction between comedy and news programming years ago in his now famous appearance on CNN’s “Crossfire,” but the discourse seems to have gotten more polarized, more like a 24 hour comedy sketch than adult conversation with the passage of time. Perhaps there is a place for a discussion about a cinema”s role in geopolitics; I certainly believe that there is. This program, however, is not it.

When the comics (the jesters and the fools) are the ones consistently making the most sense, we can be sure that we really have devolved into the cultural equivalent to a Shakespearean tragedy.

Here is the segment in question:

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

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!

The crowded carousel of critics’ awards and industry precursors makes up just one half of the year-end accolades: I find it just as interesting to monitor the flood of individual critics’ (and others’) Top 10 lists, where films far outside the Oscar race can pop up with refreshing frequency. One-man lists have for more capacity to surprise, delight and sometimes infuriate than middle-skewing collectives.

Today, for example, I’ve enjoyed wallowing in the full results of Sight & Sound’s critics’ poll, the overall Top 10 of which I posted last week. It was a fine list, but the individual top-five lists of the 101 critics surveyed inevitably paint a far broader picture of the year in film. My own contribution is here: as if to illustrate what a generous cinematic year it’s been, not one of my five choices made the magazine’s final list. (Incidentally, my top five is already out of date, having been submitted in early November; expect some shifting when I post my formal Top 10 later this month.)

Meanwhile, far loftier voices than mine have weighed in over the last few days — none more esteemed than the wily French critics of Cahiers du Cinema, whose annual Top 10 can generally be relied upon to baffle even the most perverse of taste-makers. This year’s list is no exception. I can’t say I’ve met a single critic who’s crazy about Nanni Moretti’s aggressively middle-of-the-road Vatican comedy “We Have a Pope,” which was met with a collective shrug at Cannes in May (my review here), yet there it is in the #1 position. Perhaps the English-speaking crowd missed something.

The Cahiers list always singles out at least one Hollywood popcorner, so it’s no surprise to see “Super 8” in the Top 10 (tied with “House of Tolerance” and “Meek’s Cutoff,” no less), though given their usual Spielberg crush, one might have expected “The Adventures of Tintin” to make the cut instead.

The Guardian’s Peter Bradshaw goes the whole hog with performance, direction and screenplay selections as well, though his Top 10 films are slightly more conservative than his picks in those categories: like many of his peers, he’s fully on board the train for “The Artist,” which is both his top film and directorial achievement of the year. His runner-up, meanwhile, is a topical choice: Team “Margaret” has another member here.

Finally, it’s unlikely most critics will come up with a list quite as diverse or eccentric as the Top 10 of off-the-wall filmmaker John Waters. If it seems to follow form that he’d love Pedro Almodovar’s “The Skin I Live In” (his #1 pick) and Gregg Araki’s “Kaboom” — sleeker and hornier versions, respectively, of freaky material Waters could plausibly have taken on in his outrageous prime — his enthusiasm for the ;ast two Palme d’Or winners isn’t quite as obvious.

You also have to love a list that contains three documentaries: one of them the Oscar-shortlisted environmentalist study “If a Tree Falls,” and one of them, well, the Justin Bieber concert movie. Compared to that, the juxtaposition of “Incendies” and “Paul” in Armond White’s top five for Sight & Sound looks positively pedestrian.

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

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!

“It’s an exciting day,” Sony Pictures Classics co-president Michael Barker says by phone the day his company’s films racked up eight Independent Spirit Award nominations last week. “I’m really happy for ‘Take Shelter.’ If ever there was a movie that justified the Independent Spirit Awards, it’s a movie like ‘Take Shelter.'”

Indeed, Jeff Nichols’ stripped-down focus on a father and a husband’s descent into paranoia was a modest affair, and the intimacy of the production, actor Michael Shannon said in advance of the film’s release, is what drove the characters and the relationships on the screen. And it’s most heartening, Barker says, that Shannon is getting recognition.

“I”m really thrilled that the guy”s finally getting his dues,” he says. “My partner [Sony Classics co-president Tom Bernard] and I, I mean, we think this is like the greatest actor going right now. We saw him in this play off Broadway and he knocked our socks off, which helped cause us to make an offer on the movie before we”d even seen it. And then ‘Boardwalk Empire’ this year, this season he”s just amazing.”

But “Take Shelter” is just a slice of the Sony Classics pie this year, as the company — celebrating its 20th anniversary in 2011 — has a typically full slate of awards contenders to nurture.

There is Woody Allen’s “Midnight in Paris,” which has been held in theaters long enough to become a box office story and is a definite contender for major Oscar recognition. There is “A Dangerous Method,” David Cronenberg’s study of Carl Jung and Sigmund Freud. There is also “Carnage,” adapted from the hit play “God of Carnage” with a delicious cast.

And then there are the foreign films. Sony Classics has always been a haven and an outlet for international cinema, starting with Pedro Almodóvar, well into his second decade of being in business with Barker and Bernard and releasing “The Skin I Live In” this year. Typically their acquisitions dominate the list of Oscar nominees for Best Foreign Language Film. This year they’re also releasing “In Darkness,” “Footnote” and “A Separation,” among others.

But “Take Shelter” was the dominant film for Barker at the Spirits, amid a the usual array surprises, he says.

“The Spirit Awards always surprises me and it”s always a mixed blessing,” he says. “There”s no Glenn Close, there”s no George Clooney, there”s no Woody Allen, but then it dawns on me, okay, been there before. I remember when we had ‘The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada’ and it was nominated in every category but Best Actor and Best Director. And I remember ‘Get Low,’ it got nominations but not Best Actor for Robert Duvall. It”s really obvious they shy away from the kind of established names, and to me that”s kind of frustrating. But then I’m thrilled that Darius Khondji and Corey Stoll (cinematographer and star of ‘Midnight in Paris,’ respectively] get recognized.”

When it comes to a heavy slate of contenders, though, especially those from the indie sector, it can be difficult to know where to place your chips. Early on an emphasis was placed on lead actress consideration for Jodie Foster in “Carnage.” The film’s entire quartet has since been announced as supporting for the purposes of awards campaigning and is a bit of a long-shot at best. “A Dangerous Method” hasn’t really picked up steam in the precursor circuit, either. You have to keep your finger to the wind and note when it shifts, allowing the season to help make your decisions along the way.

“Every year we push everything that we feel has any possibility,” Barker says, “and as these things get announced and as the critics and the journalists write about them, you”re able to focus on what your possibilities are. But you kind of start pretty wide, you know, with things that you think are possible. Something I was really disappointed in is that Vera Farmiga was not nominated for the Best First Film or Best Actress [for her film ‘Higher Ground’], and I really think she deserved that. She was nominated for the Gotham Awards. So you get these surprises, but every one of these groups is really different in their makeup, in their demographics, in the way they choose these things. I don”t think we”ve ever given any one short shrift that has an opportunity.”

And so a showing like “Take Shelter” had with Independent Spirit Award nominations, nailing down bids for Best Feature, Best Director, Best Male Lead, Best Supporting Female and the Piaget Producers Award, can be encouraging. It can be added fuel for dying embers or the much-needed spark of life to sending an entry on its way through the season.

“In years past when we”ve gotten a substantial number of nominations, you realize there is a possibility that a Jeff Nichols might be considered [by the Academy] for screenplay, or Michael Shannon for Best Actor,” Barker says. “I mean, two years ago when we had ‘Frozen River,’ it was really these nominations that we felt put Melissa Leo and Courtney Hunt kind of in people”s faces. And then they”re both nominated for the Oscars. So you never know what”s going to happen, but it certainly makes things be a little more possible.”

The other notable film for the company so far has been Woody Allen’s “Midnight in Paris,” which has made nearly $56 million at the domestic box office to become the director’s highest grossing film to date. Since its Cannes debut and subsequent counter-programming summer release, the film has stirred talk of Oscar consideration. Barker zeroes in on why he thinks the film has succeeded: It has something to do with the emotional climate of the times.

“I think because of the volatility of what everyone”s going through with the economic crisis, I think there is a tendency for audiences to prefer less-serious movies,” he says. “And I think in that atmosphere a film like ‘Midnight in Paris’ can really take off.”

And Barker feels that Sony Classics’ experience with Allen’s latest has been a real confirmation that the company’s approach to releasing films really works. The film was slated for a May 20 release, going up against “Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides,” and by design. “We said, ‘We’re the alternative entertainment,'” Barker says. “Everybody else was afraid of that date. We had planned a kind of slow release. The opening was so huge that we moved up the wide date by two weeks and actually that wide date became 900-something screens as opposed to 600. And the whole plan was then going after the young audience for the July 4th weekend with spots that highlighted Owen Wilson and Rachel McAdams, and the younger audiences started to come.”

The film was pushed out yet again on November 30, to 300+ screens, looking to capitalize on the modest awards exposure it’s seen so far. It’s set for DVD and Blu-ray release on December 20, a date that was also pushed back as it was seen as a solid bet for holiday business.

Meanwhile, Sony Classics has rather quietly celebrated its 20th anniversary this year. It’s an observation Barker is flattered by. Not of the anniversary itself, but of the modest manner in which it’s been celebrated.

“Yes, Tom and I, as of September, have been together 30 years, but we’re celebrating our 20th anniversary in December,” he says. “And you know what? I’m happy you said that, because Tom and I have always felt it’s about the films and it’s about the filmmakers and we want to put them out front, and I was hoping that would be the impression.”

And the highlight reel is long and memorable for Barker, naturally. There are too many to name, but I push him for a few memories.

“I mean, the number of films we”ve had with Pedro and Agustin Almodóvar, we”ve grown with them over many films and it”s been really gratifying, both personally and professionally,” he says. “But there”s so many moments over the years, you know, the success of ‘Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon’; doing that, pulling that off was so exciting. There are just moments throughout our career, the first film, ‘Howard’s End,’  and ‘An Education.’

“I, of course, have personal favorites, like ‘Waltz with Bashir.’ I”ll never forget the moment we sent the film to the Academy and we said, ‘We”re not sure which categories this film qualifies for.’ Bruce Davis called me up and said, ‘We may have a first: we have a film that qualifies for Best Picture, Best Foreign Film, Best Documentary, and Best Animated Feature.’  And then movies like ‘A Prophet’ and ‘The White Ribbon.’ We feel like we really make a difference to those films, and those films have the kind of perfection that become evergreens. We are so fortunate”

Here’s to 20 more years.

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

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!

I won’t lie to you, there are many nice things about being a film critic: the free advance screenings, the year-end screeners, the trips to festivals, the freedom to spend some mornings drinking tea in your pajamas while you duck out of seeing “New Year’s Eve.” But along with the money, an overriding sense of usefulness isn’t one of them. Some hands heal the sick, some hands build bridges and some hands warn people off spending money on seeing “W.E.” They’re all services, true, but the world wouldn’t exactly spin off its axis if the last group of hands remained idle. 

The discussion about what purpose critics serve in an age when social media and the blogosphere increasingly blur the lines of “qualified” opinion — some of the most engaging film writers I currently read don’t practice professionally — while the notion of films being “critic-proof” dates back much, much further. Even before I became one myself, I found critics less useful for helping me decide what films to see than for feeding my post-viewing thoughts. I’m always delighted when someone tells me one of my reviews encouraged them to see a film, but somewhat surprised as well. There are enough critically adored films that approximately no one goes to see to support the idea that most critics have little audience to speak of.

Or perhaps they do. Last week, I saw and wrote about Kenneth Lonergan’s “Margaret,” the tortuously delayed indie, shot in 2005, that I immediately identified as one of my favorite films of the year. Discussing it with an equally enthusiastic colleague afterwards, we both preemptively mourned the fact that no one was going to see the thorny moral drama, which was buried by upon its U.S. release by Fox Searchlight (unluckily for “Margaret,” an outfit well-stocked with critically beloved indies this year) in September. With the film set to open on a single screen in London — and one of the West End’s pokiest, at that — there was little reason to suspect it wouldn’t die an equally swift death in the UK.

But then a funny thing happened. Just as a small pocket of London critics attempted to spread the word about the film on Twitter, American critic Jaime Christley, troubled by the lack of any awards push for the film from Searchlight, formed an online petition imploring the company to boost its profile with screenings and/or screeners. (The goal was less to reach Academy types than fellow critics, many of whom hadn’t yet seen the film to consider for their own year-end honors and lists.) The timing was coincidental, but ideal: the #TeamMargaret hashtag took off on Twitter, TIME and the New Yorker, among other outlets, reported on the phenomenon and the original petition amassed the signatures of over 600 critics.

Which is all well and good, but on its own, suggests little more than a critical echo chamber with little real-world impact. Until, that is, “Margaret” began its humble single-screen run in London — and the effect of the critics’ efforts came into focus. Fuelled by spectacular notices in the UK broadsheets, including five-star reviews in both The Telegraph and The Guardian, the film grossed nearly $7,200 in its opening weekend — which, as The Guardian’s box-office expert Charles Gant reports, makes for comfortably the highest screen average of any film in the country. A friend reports that this afternoon’s matinee showing was still half-full: pretty impressive for a downbeat 150-minute film centered on themes of guilt and litigation.

That isn’t even the best news. It was confirmed yesterday that, from this coming Friday, “Margaret” will expand to at least seven screens in the capital — a stunning turnaround for a film that seemed destined to vanish from theaters after seven days. Meanwhile, extra screenings for London critics voting in year-end awards have been offered: with such gestures also being made in the US (indeed, it’s screening for L.A. press today), Christley’s petition is having precisely its desired effect.

Of course, any year-end awards attention for “Margaret” remains in the pigs-might-fly realm of possibility, but that’s hardly the point. The more important reward is that a film which scarcely anyone had seen, much less thought to talk about, is now not just the subject of active critical conversation, but a word-of-mouth success story among paying arthouse patrons on one side of the ocean. And for once, critics can actually claim some credit for lighting the fire.

In the past week, I’ve had a number of messages from readers and followers thanking me for drawing their attention to the film, with those in a position to do so stating their intention to see it: a bigger direct response than I’ve had for any of the more popular films I’ve reviewed over the past couple of years. And whatever number of people I’ve inadvertently managed to talk into buying a ticket must be a drop in the ocean compared to the crowds prompted by vastly more widely-read British critics like Peter Bradshaw or Tim Robey.

Hearteningly, this success comes only a month after another of my scrappy 2011 pets, Andrew Haigh’s “Weekend,” similarly managed to increase its UK screen count and build solid arthouse numbers after a united front of critics boosted its profile far beyond what might have been expected. (One cinema chain that initially decided against programming the film, believing it a less promising commercial bet than Miranda July’s “The Future,” changed its mind after seeing the early numbers.) I’m not being so self-righteous or deluded as to suggest that critics are important, but it’s nice to see they can help more than just the occasional loyal movie fan.  

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

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!

Tomas Alfredson’s “Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy” might seem like it’s been on the way for some time at this point in the season, considering an early-September world premiere, followed shortly by a UK theatrical release. But nearly three months later, the film is making its way to domestic theaters this weekend and everyone here will finally get a load of another Gary Oldman performance in a long line of versatile, chameleonic portrayals.

The occasion seemed an obvious one for dedicating an installment of The Lists to the actor’s work. Indeed, this was the first list I jotted down as a must when preparing the season’s coverage a few months ago; Oldman is easily one of my favorite actors, an impeccable performer who has managed to do something fresh with every new endeavor.

Roger Ebert once wrote of Oldman that “like a few gifted actors, he is able to re-invent himself for every role.” If you can believe it, that was in his May 1987 review of Stephen Frears’ “Prick Up Your Ears.” And Oldman has proved the point over and over again in the years since.

Oldman’s work has never been recognized by the Academy. It’s fair to call him one of the greatest actors to never receive an Oscar nomination, I think (which may change this year), but even if you can argue with that, you can’t really argue with the output.

The performances are varied and lived-in, rarely if ever a false note struck. He’s settled into pimps and dwarfs, rednecks and clergymen, kingpins and gangster pawns, punk rockers and classical musicians, crooked cops and noble detectives, political villains and Gothic monsters with equal aplomb. And while whittling the list down to 10 was itself a chore (an understatement), the ranking of the list was equally challenging. I think it’s the most interchangeable collective I’ve ever assembled in this space, but of course, a stand had to be taken.

With that in mind, the exclusions were heartbreaking. I wanted to find a place for Oldman’s under-seen, commanding work in films like “Chattahoochee” and “Track 29,” but the movies built around them often failed to serve the performances.

Outstanding work in good films (“Murder in the First”) and bad (“The Fifth Element”) were ultimately just too fleeting for consideration, though that’s being a bit hypocritical, considering the presence of one show-stopping cameo portrayal.

Meanwhile, much as I appreciate what he brought to the Beethoven biopic “Immortal Beloved,” and much as I love the emotional anchor he has provided Christopher Nolan’s “Batman Begins” and “The Dark Knight,” I couldn’t find room. And on the latter, I sense his best work on the franchise is still to come.

Nevertheless, believe me, virtually every at-bat was considered. What a fruitful and abundant career it’s been so far.

Have a look at what I settled on in our new gallery. I imagine everyone who takes in all of his work could turn up a different list. So considering as much, feel free to list your favorites 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!