Much more interesting to me this morning was Film Independent’s list of nominees for the Independent Spirit Awards. Any slate that features multiple tips of the hat for “Drive,” “Take Shelter” and “Beginners,” love for Woody Harrelson in “Rampart” and recognition for Corey Stoll in “Midnight in Paris” is fine by me.

The announcement was made via Film Independent’s Twitter feed. No online stream or TV announcement. The economy route. Which made things kind of hairy if you were also following the New York Film Critics Circle’s feed at the same time. But it also brought a smile to my face to see, say, Albert Brooks winning a Best Supporting Actor prize for his work in “Drive” while at the same time receiving a nomination for same at the Independent Spirit Awards. Ditto Jessica Chastain and her work in “Take Shelter.”

Still, let’s not do this again, okay? Too much at once.

The big surprise of the field, I thought, was George Clooney missing out on a Best Actor nomination for “The Descendants” when the film was clearly a favorite across the board (receiving notices for Best Feature, Best Director, Best Supporting Female and Best Screenplay). I don’t know that Clooney should take it too personally, though, as the field of lead actors is an impressive and accomplished one (see below).

I appreciate that Film Independent spotlights a below-the-line category (Best Cinematography), but I wish they’d be even more interesting in their choices. “Bellflower” and “The Dynamiter” are handsome picks, but “Midnight in Paris,” much as I love the movie, and “The Artist,” though it does have some compelling compositions, feel like a placeholders for more dynamic work, like “Drive,” for instance, or, to say the least, “Rampart.”

And why just spotlight cinematography, by the way? It seems to me it’s time to expand a bit. Bring in film editing. That’s a good start. I know cinematography is the most accessible in terms of people actually knowing what they’re talking about when awarding films, but I think you can grow into a few other areas. I’d love, for instance, to see the eclectic picks this group would offer up for Best Original Score.

Who gets a boost out of all this? Well, I think it’s a good feather in Corey Stoll’s cap, for one. He was part of the David Cronenberg tribute at the Gotham Awards last night, and no, there is no connection between the two, other than the fact that both “Midnight in Paris” and “A Dangerous Method” are Sony Pictures Classics movies and it shows they are clearly trying to push him out into the light a bit. Good.

John Hawkes could get some more attention for his work in “Martha Marcy May Marlene,” but there seems to be an atmosphere of reserve around that one suddenly after it failed to win a prize at the Gothams or from the NYFCC and was only noted for acting and the producers award here.

The “Win Win” screener could be popped into a few more DVD players now, as could “Pariah” and “Beginners,” which both did well at the Gothams last night. But mostly, this all seems to solidify “The Artist” and its ubiquitous place in the season. While it was busy sharing the lead in nominations here it was winning the Best Picture and Best Director prize from the New York critics.

It’s lovely to see Jonathan Levine’s “50/50” get some love, particularly for Anjelica Huston, who’s very little screen time is masterfully handled and draws out real emotion. And I’d like to think that the strong showing for “Drive” will put some wind in its sails, but I’m doubtful.

“The Artist” and “Take Shelter” led the field with five nominations each. “Beginners,” “The Descendants” and “Drive” weren’t far behind with four apiece.

The full list of nominees:

Best Feature
“The Artist”
“Beginners”
“The Descendants”
“Drive”
“50/50”
“Take Shelter”

Best Director
Mike Mills, “Beginners”
Alexander Payne, “The Descendants”
Nicolas Winding Refn, “Drive”
Jeff Nichols, “Take Shelter”
Michel Hazanavicius, “The Artist”

Best Male Lead
Demian Bichir, “A Better Life”
Jean Dujardin, “The Artist”
Ryan Gosling, “Drive”
Woody Harrelson, “Rampart”
Michael Shannon, “Take Shelter”

Best Female Lead
Lauren Ambrose, “Think of Me”
Rachel Harris, “Natural Selection”
Adepero Oduye, “Pariah”
Elizabeth Olsen, “Martha Marcy May Marlene”
Michelle Williams, “My Week with Marilyn”

Best Supporting Male
Albert Brooks, “Drive”
John Hawkes, “Martha Marcy May Marlene”
Christopher Plummer, “Beginners”
John C. Reilly, “Cedar Rapids”
Corey Stoll, “Midnight in Paris”

Best Supporting Female
Jessica Chastain, “Take Shelter”
Anjelica Huston, “50/50”
Janet McTeer, “Albert Nobbs”
Harmony Santana, “Gun Hill Road”
Shailene Woodley, “The Descendants”

Best Screenplay
“The Artist”
“Beginners”
“The Descendants”
“Footnote”
“Win Win”

Best First Feature
“Another Earth”
“In the Family”
“Margin Call”
“Martha Marcy May Marlene”
“Natural Selection”

Best First Screenplay
“Another Earth”
“Cedar Rapids”
“50/50”
“Margin Call”
“Terri”

Best Cinematography
“The Artist”
“Bellflower”
“The Dynamiter”
“Midnight in Paris”
“The Off Hours”

Best International Film
“The Kid with a Bike”
“Melancholia”
“A Separation”
“Shame”
“Tyrannosaur”

Best Documentary
“An African Election”
“Bll Cunningham New York”
“The Interrupters”
“We Were Here”
“The Redemption of General Butt Naked”

Robert Altman Award
“Margin Call”

John Cassavetes Award
“Bellflower”
“Circumstance”
“The Dynamiter”
“Hello Lonesome”
“Pariah”

Piaget Producers Award
Chad Burris, “Mosquito y Mari”
Sophia Lynn, “Take Shelter”
Josh Bond, “Martha Marcy May Marlene”

Someone to Watch Award
Simon Arthur, “Silver Tongues”
Mark Jackson, “Without”
Nicholas Ozeki, “Mamitas”

Truer Than Fiction Award
“Bombay Beach”
“Hell and Back Again”
“Where Soldiers Come From”

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

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!

After all the extraneous stuff surrounding the New York Film Critics Circle and their vote, the organization finally sat down and painstakingly settled on its list of award winners for 2011 this morning. They were lapped by Film Independent’s Independent Spirit Awards announcement (more on that in a moment), which was revealed via Twitter, just as the NYFCC announcement was. But when the dust finally settled, it was an ode to silent cinema that walked away with the goods.

Jessica Chastain and Brad Pitt were each cited for their work in “The Tree of Life,” alongside other projects they have in play this year, while Meryl Streep (“The Iron Lady”) and Albert Brooks (“Drive”) rounded out the acting honors. “Moneyball” also did quite well, nabbing Best Screenplay and getting cited alongside “The Tree of Life” for Pitt’s award.

If you didn’t keep track in real time, you can read my commentary on all of the award winners below. From here, the National Board of Review takes the baton on Thursday and the circuit marches on.

Best First Feature: “Margin Call”

Commentary: A night after “Martha Marcy May Marlene” walks away from the Gothams empty-handed, it has to lose a prize like this to a thoroughly uncompelling (my opinion) drama with some admittedly top-notch performances. Unfortunate. Is this a sign that Sean Durkin’s brilliant film is on track to get the shaft all season? Time will tell.

Best Non-Fiction Film: “Cave of Forgotten Dreams”

Commentary: This is a film that, shamefully, I have not seen. But while I’m glad the group stuck up for Werner Herzog’s film, I’m bummed out that “Into the Abyss” seems to be falling to the wayside this year, for the most part. “Cave of Forgotten Dreams” was eligible for Best Documentary Feature at the Oscars last year.

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

Commentary: Deliberations on this one seemed to take forever, only to boil down to a bit of an obvious choice. Jessica Chastain has had a sensational year. She’s even in two other films that weren’t cited as part of her award here — “Coriolanus” and “The Debt” — and yet she still seems to be in a precarious situation as far as a potential Oscar nod goes. Critics awards often choose to award actors for multiple films, but in this instance, it might have been helpful to take a stand on one of them

Best Actress: Meryl Streep, “The Iron Lady”

Commentary: So Meryl Streep racks up her first critics win of the year, of which I’m sure there will be many. It’s a safe choice but a commendable one, because Streep is fantastic in the role and, as noted in my thoughts on the film a few weeks back, it looks to be her and Viola Davis in a heated race to the finish line. This, by the way, is the fifth NYFCC award for Streep. She last won for “Julie & Julia” in 2009.

Best Supporting Actor: Albert Brooks, “Drive”

Commentary: This is fantastic. Announced just as he was receiving an Independent Spirit nomination, no less (where “Drive” did well in general). And I’d say it’s a boost he needed, not that he was fading, but other elements were beginning to take over the conversation. This roots him firmly.

Best Actor: Brad Pitt, “Moneyball” and “The Tree of Life”

Commentary: This is a bit of a surprise from this crowd, but a welcome one. I’m happy Pitt was cited for both films, even if “The Tree of Life” represents a supporting portrayal. It’s a smooth move and guarantees further traction for the film, which, as noted in this morning’s round-up, should be priming itself to strike in an uncertain season.

Best Foreign Language Film: “A Separation”

Commentary: A handsome choice, no question. One of the year’s best films, painfully human and hopefully a contender for the Best Foreign Language Film Oscar when the nominees are announced in January.

Best Director: Michel Hazanavicius, “The Artist”

Commentary: Are you kidding me? I am so happy this film was able to be made. It’s an uphill climb. It was a passion project. But it… Forget it. I’m on the record. Suffice it to say there were countless other directors who put out more compelling work this year. Malick, Moverman, Durkin, Refn, Ramsay, Farhadi, Scorsese, Nichols, McQueen, the list is epic. This I count as a real disappointment.

Best Screenplay: Aaron Sorkin, Steven Zaillian, “Moneyball”

Commentary: Great pick! The “Moneyball” script is one of the most nuanced and dense pieces of work this year. And with this, the NYFCC raises the profile of the film even more.

Best Cinematography: Emmanuel Lubezki, “The Tree of Life”

Commentary: Any other choice would have been a bit unexpected, no? Well, maybe not, as there is some fine work out there from cinematographers this year (which I’ll touch on in the Indie Spirits commentary shortly). A deserved win. Nothing touches it this year.

Special Award: Filmmaker Raoul Ruiz (posthumously)

Commentary: A nice nod to the director of films like “Mysteries of Lisbon” and “Three Lives and Only One Death”

Best Picture: “The Artist”

Commentary: This is where that long line of announcements was going? A film that is little more than reference and reverence with no real soul of its own? Very surprising, and very disappointing. Films like “Moneyball” and “The Tree of Life,” which were clearly in the running, would have been much more meaningful selections, but it’s their party and they’ll cry if they want to, I guess.

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

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!

Yesterday I asked via the Off the carpet column what films and/or performances needed some wind in their sails from the upcoming critics awards circuit. But now is also the time to strike for a film like “Moneyball,” which has that flash of effortless panache that seems to be missing this season. Smartly, the campaign has started showing signs of life as Brad Pitt and Jonah Hill participated in a Los Angeles post-screening Q&A for the film Sunday night. I wouldn’t say anything is falling away, but nothing appears to be running away with it. So, carpe diem. Sophia Savage was on hand Sunday. [Thompson on Hollywood]

Pete Hammond exhaustively reports on something that, in the final analysis, doesn’t even look likely to happen: an Oscar move to January. [Deadline]

Steve Pond poses and answers 10 burning questions about this year’s Oscar season. [The Odds]

On the slack-key native tunes of the Hawaii-set “The Descendants.” [The Envelope]

Sasha Stone talks to “A Dangerous Method” star Viggo Mortensen. [Awards Daily]

Steven Zeitchik wonders if “Hugo” is in it for the box office long haul. [24 Frames]

Martin Scorsese talks the film across the pond. [Independent]

Bérénice Bejo on the “The Artist,” sequel futility and the joys of Peppy Miller. [Movieline]

The Gray Lady’s awards blog is back on the case, with Michael Cieply chatting up honcho Harvey Weinstein. [Carpetbagger]

The original ending for “The Muppets” was more upbeat. [Badass Digest]

As I walked past the offices of Technicolor on my way to see a screening of what may (one day) be considered the film that represents the first true step the entertainment industry at large took in its embrace of 3D as a legitimate cinematic tool, Martin Scorsese”s “Hugo,” I could not help but think of Kris”s piece on the company”s efforts to restore and preserve cinema”s classics. There is something beautiful and compelling about the symmetry of a film that is reverential in its depiction of cinema history nudging a business that is still at odds with itself about a new technology. And there’s something about a company that is responsible for one of the most significant advances in film restoring its past that I find intriguing.

I was struck again by a sense of synchronicity when I read Mr. Scorsese”s interview with Deadline this weekend in which the director indicated that he would be interested in shooting his future projects in 3D. He, as James Cameron frequently does, compared 3D to the advent of Technicolor in the mid-1930s. “We view everyday life with depth,” he said. “You have to go back to Technicolor; when it was used in 1935 with Becky Sharp. For about 10-15 years, Technicolor was relegated to musicals, comedies and westerns. It wasn’t intended for the serious genres, but now everything is in color.

Of course, 3D has been introduced and reintroduced in a series of fits and starts over the last hundred years, beginning with the first presentation in 1915. The journey with 3D began for Scorsese with “House of Wax” in 1953. Though the filmmaker attests he was, “always fascinated with it,” even before he saw any 3D films. Yet, his current enthusiasm for the medium comes just few years after he said he had no interest in it. The director explained that the shift in his attitude was due to, “the climate of what Jim Cameron did with ‘Avatar’ and noted that he felt it was time to take a chance with the new technology.

Before I delve too deeply into my thoughts on the significance of “Hugo” and what Scorsese had to say about the use of 3D, let us pause to acknowledge James Cameron”s role as the undisputed champion of the tool in its current iteration. He has, however, faced very public battles with poor conversion techniques and 3D kitsch films such as “Piranha 3D”; which brings us to Scorsese, the significance of “Hugo” and his role in the advance of the technology.

There can be no doubt that a filmmaker with Scorsese”s gravitas giving his endorsement to 3D both within the context of a children”s fantasy film, and then beyond the confines of fantasy will change the scope of how the industry sees and utilizes the medium. He says he thinks it’s open to any kind of storytelling and shouldn’t just be limited to genre, which is the tack proponents like Cameron have taken in the past. This year has seen two genre efforts from Francis Ford Coppola (“Twixt,” which played the festival circuit) and Steven Spielberg (“The Adventures of Tintin”) that fit int he genre frame, but Wim Wenders’s use of 3D in the Pina Bausch ode “Pina” has been cited as perhaps its best implementation to date by some, while another documentary, Werner Herzog’s “Cave of Forgotten Dreams,” was championed for it as well.

It is the combination of the respect that Scorsese inspires and his unmitigated passion for the art and craft of filmmaking that will allow other (what some people refer to as) “proper” filmmakers to embrace the medium across a broad spectrum of genres. Once again, a sense of balance feels present when one thinks of the thematic core of “Hugo.”

The new film is based on the graphic novel “The Invention of Hugo Cabret” by Brian Selznick about an orphaned boy, Hugo (played by Asa Butterfiled) who lives in the in the walls of a train station in 1930s Paris. The boy becomes connected to a mystery surrounding the only thing that remains of his father, a broken “automaton,” the man who runs the station’s toy shop (Ben Kingsley) and his adopted daughter Isabelle (Chloe Moretz). The toy maker, we discover, is Georges Méliès, one of the cinema”s earliest and most imaginative innovators. This element brings the focus of the film back to Scorsese”s lifelong obsession: film. “Hugo” reaches its greatest potential in the third act, the portion that deals most specifically with Méliès and his work.

The imagery of Méliès’s “A Trip to the Moon” (particularly the rocket through the eye of the man in the moon) acts as a motif in the film, an image that Hugo tells us his father felt was like “watching his dreams” in his waking life. Portions of the restored version of “A Trip to the Moon” appear in the latter part of the film, which as Kris points out truly brings the intrinsic and extrinsic themes in Scorsese”s film “full circle.”

What is interesting to note is that a director who was at one time known for his gritty portrayal of the harsher elements of “reality” is paying homage to a man who was taken by flights of fancy, a man who (in the world of the film) became irrelevant when tastes shifted to “realism” following World War I. Méliès, in some ways, may have been like a Cameron of film’s earliest days. (Indeed, Lobster Films’ Serge Bromberg, who headed up the restoration of “A Trip to the Moon,” called the film “the ‘Avatar’ of its day” during a presentation at the Telluride Film Festival in September.)

Méliès was a creator driven by the need to push the edges of what is possible in order to capture what his imagination demanded he express. He was an artist who hand-painted his frames in order to give them color, built his own cameras and nudged the boundaries of technology in order to present the illusions, the fantasy, the sense of splendor that he desired to bring to an audience.

Full disclosure: I have always been a supporter of what 3D, at its best, brings to the cinematic experience. It is a tool, like any other, and as such can be either utilized to transform and transcend current confines or grotesquely misused. Yes, there is work to be done. Yes, we would all like to see the glasses disappear. But what Cameron has done and continues to do, what Peter Jackson is creating by shooting “The Hobbit” at 48 frames per second in 3D, and what Martin Scorsese has done with “Hugo” is exiting. It opens up realms and choices for storytellers. It does not shut the door.

I love film. I love the look of film, the feel of it. I have held it in my hand and spliced it together and felt an almost sensual attachment to it. But change happens, and it is something we must look at with an eye toward harmony. Forgive me as I take a momentary foray into the realm of hyperbole, but in this as in most matters I find resistance to change both restrictive and futile and the abandonment of the lessons of history tragic.

We can, as Scorsese does with “Hugo,” honor the past even as we embrace the future. Change has a ripple effect. A switch to digital projection, for example, may open the door to independent films by cutting down on the excessive costs of delivering pricey film prints. That aside, though, Scorsese sees 3D as a tool that could have been applicable to some of his most revered films. He cites “The Aviator” as one which may have benefited from the technology and, somewhat surprisingly, “Taxi Driver,” because of “the intimidation of the main character” and his “presence.”

3D may indeed become the standard as Cameron predicts, or it may remain a tool, one among many that directors and cinematographers can select to support the story they are telling or not. I’ve just come from seeing the incredible landscapes that Janusz Kaminski captured in Steven Spielberg’s “War Horse,” vivid, rich, pictorial (even in the horrific) vistas that lent themselves to capturing the essence of what is, in many ways, a fairytale. Alternatively, one of my favorite uses of the camera this year was the stripped down, intimate space that Sean Bobbitt created for “Shame.” The raw quality served the story just as Maryse Alberti’s did for “The Wrestler.” Each narrative has its own needs. It is how the medium is used to tell a given tale that is key, and it is likely that we are just beginning to discover how flexible 3D can ultimately be.

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

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!

Back in July, I had the rare privilege of seeing Ken Russell’s grandly insane 1971 ecclesiastical drama “The Devils” in all its pristinely restored, newly uncut glory on the generous screen of London’s BFI Southbank — and left feeling rather as if I’d pummelled in the face with a movie camera. In a good way.

I’d never seen this hard-to-access film before, and was glad I’d waited to meet it with no missing parts: a feverish, alarming story of sexual repression and religious persecution in 17th-century France, it’s the kind of fearlessly unhinged filmmaking that is best served by being permitted to go all the way. (And by ‘all the way,’ I do mean a mass of nuns sexually assaulting a church crucifix and Vanessa Redgrave masturbating with the charred bones of an executed priest. Christmas is coming — order in the DVD!) “Chilling, silly, beautiful, usually at once,” I tweeted, slightly dazed and in need of a drink, after the screening. “Ken Russell’s bravura barminess, as possessed as his subjects, never met apter material.”

It didn’t: “The Devils” may or may not be the director’s best film, but it seems like the one that, some 35 years ahead of his final trip behind the camera, represented the culmination of his recurring visual and thematic points of concern. Though ostensibly a provocateur, Russell was an oddly (very oddly, if you like) spiritual filmmaker, his work steeped in moral judgment and reckless retribution, even if it wasn’t always in the place or order one might expect. I was intrigued to hear how Russell felt about his arguable magnum opus four decades on, and was impatient for the live Q&A with him set to follow the screening.

Alas, it never came: the Q&A was abruptly cancelled, we were told, due to Russell’s ill health. The now blemish-free film spoke quite persuasively for itself, but it was a disappointment nonetheless — and a sourer one still, now that we know there will be no further opportunities. The director passed away on Sunday, apparently in his sleep, at the age of 84: a sedate end for one of British cinema’s wildest talents.

There will no doubt be several among the slew of obituaries that will tacitly sidestep the truth that Russell made some terrible films in his time: “The Lair of the White Worm,” the kind of irresistible title that tantalises obscurity-seekers until they actually find track it down, is a prefab bore; his final feature, 2002’s “The Fall of the Louse of Usher,” has its share of apologists and an endearing, quite literal shot-in-a-garage chutzpah, but that doesn’t make it watchable either. Russell had a proudly tacky side to his creative persona that rather got the better of him in his later career: I sense many UK film buffs are trying to ignore the fact that many Brits are referring to him today, and probably fleetingly, about the death of the batty old geezer who withdrew from “Celebrity Big Brother” after a week.

When directed towards worthier material, however, Russell’s rather beautiful tastelessness was something to behold — particularly in an era of British cinema that had been encouraged toward stark naturalism in the 1960s, with the occasional shot of cutesy psychedelia. Russell would no doubt have been more comfortable in the Italian realm of excess led by Fellini and Pasolini: even his attempts at good behavior, like his dizzy, Twiggy-starring Busby Berkeley tribute “The Boy Friend,” end up as fabulously unwieldy peacock films in spite of themselves. “The Boy Friend,” all kaleidoscope choreography, sequins and toothpaste smiles, is so frenziedly bent on having a good time it’s hard to believe he made it in the same year as “The Devils.”

The National Board of Review, in a show of daring quite unlike what we’ve come to expect from them today, handed Russell their Best Director award. No one else was biting, and this 1971 one-two surely remains one of the most heroically alienating responses any director has yet made to the normalizing gesture of an Oscar nomination. He was, of course, a ‘lone director’ nominee for his D.H. Lawrence adaptation “Women in Love,” which also won Glenda Jackson her first Oscar; even that nomination, for a prickly, ambiguously sexualized costume drama that has held its place in the cultural conversation mainly on the strength of its nude wrestling scene between Oliver Reed and Alan Bates. Thanks to that pleasingly out-of-character move, Russell joins David Lynch as one of the most anti-establishment directors ever to earn a ticket to the dance.

My first experience of Ken Russell was where I suspect many younger generations of filmgoers started: his uneven, all-stops-out, sporadically stunning visualization of The Who’s rock opera “Tommy.” For reasons I can only put down to a generous supply of Christmas alcohol in the broadcast offices, one of South Africa’s public TV channels scheduled the film on the afternoon of New Year’s Day: ideal family viewing time for pinball wizards, acid queens and a fierce Ann-Margret bathing in baked beans, thoroughly earning what must rank as the loopiest Best Actress Oscar nod of all time.

I was only 12 years old, though my reaction wasn’t too different to my 28 year-old response to “The Devils” a few months ago — which is to say my eyeballs practically fell out my skull. I haven’t been back to the film in years, though I recently watched a clip of a possessed Tina Turner rocking the living daylights out of “Acid Queen” in her cameo appearance and was reminded that it’s one of the most electric musical moments in all cinema — just one reason to go back. Turner loses her mind in those few minutes; it’s where Russell, throughout his career, seemingly preferred everyone to be.

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

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!

After all that clamoring to anoint this or that contender, the New York Film Critics Circle was stuck in a theater being the FIRST! to see “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” while preparations for the first legitimate awards show of the season were being finalized. And say what you might about the Gotham Awards, which some argue turn in dubious representation of the independent film scene year after year, but I’m glad it was them, instead of a group led by outright ego, who fired the starting gun.

Alas, the starting gun didn’t come with any particular dose of authority, as things ended in a tie for Best Feature. Two of the year’s absolute best films shared the prize, however: Terrence Malick’s “The Tree of Life” and Mike Mills’s “Beginners.” I am so okay with that.

The surprises actually started early, though, with a heartening win for Dee Rees in the Breakthrough Director category. Rees, whose “Pariah” has been nurtured all season by Focus Features, beat out high profile contenders such as Sean Durkin (“Martha Marcy May Marlene”) and Vera Farmiga (“Higher Ground”), as well Evan Glodell (“Bellflower”) and Mike Cahill (“Another Earth”) for the honor.

Mike Mills’s wonderful film “Beginners” managed to steal the Best Ensemble Performance prize away from not only Best Picture thoroughbred “The Descendants,” but late-breaking Oscar hopeful “Margin Call” as well. A nice win for the film, and one of two for Focus Features of the evening. Christopher Plummer accepted the prize on behalf of the cast, and one wonders if he’ll take the stage a few more times this season to offer a few choice words of thanks.

Moving back to the breakthrough theme, “Like Crazy” star Felicity Jones bested Elizabeth Olsen (“Martha Marcy May Marlene”) and Shailene Woodley (“The Descendants”) among others to win the Breakthrough Actor award. I’ve been saying all season that she’ll likely trade those distinctions off with Olsen for most of the circuit, but it would be nice to see Woodley manage one.

I appreciate Jones quite a bit in “Like Crazy,” a film about which I have conflicted feelings. She’s wonderful and gives a performance full of life and highly tuned to the young love vein of the piece.

No Gotham Award-winning documentary has ever gone on to win the Oscar for Best Documentary Feature. Well, the trend continues this year as “Better This World,” which was did not make the finalist cut for the Academy, won the prize.

Blue Hadaegh and Grover Babcock’s “Scenes of a Crime” won the Best Film Not PLaying at a Theater Near You award. Meanwhile, Tom Rothman, Charlize Theron, Gary Oldman (who reportedly got the only full-on standing ovation of the evening) and David Cronenberg were all feted with career achievement recognition. And Lucy Malloy, director of “Una Noche,” received the Calvin Klein Spotlight on Women Filmmakers ‘Live the Dream’ Grant for $25,000.

You can check out the full list of Gotham nods here. It’s interesting to note that the two nomination hogs of the lot, Fox Searchlight’s “The Descendants” and “Martha Marcy May Marlene,” managed to go home empty-handed. Not that they haven’t had ample time in the spotlight over the past month.

And with that, the precursor circuit is (truly) off. Tomorrow we get the Indie Spirit nods, which will be announced at the same time the New York Film Critics Circle is making its way through its proceedings. Thursday brings the National Board of Review and, with all of that behind us, we’ll be looking to the critics happy to keep their usual spot in the timeline in the coming weeks.

One more time, this year’s Gotham Award winners are:

Best Feature: (tie) “The Tree of Life” and “Beginners”

Best Documentary: “Better This World”

Breakthrough Actor: Felicity Jones, “Like Crazy”

Breakthrough Director: Dee Rees, “Pariah”

Best Film Not Playing at a Theater Near You: “Scenes of a Crime”

Calvin Klein Spotlight on Women Filmmakers ‘Live the Dream’ Grant: Lucy Malloy

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

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!

I’m always interested in the outcome of Sight & Sound magazine’s annual critics’ poll, since it’s perhaps the broadest and most international of its type: its 100 contributors range from their own writers to Peter Bradshaw to Armond White, ensuring a list that’s reflective of the year’s critical trends. This year, I feel slightly more invested than usual, because for the first time, I was invited to participate.

Every critic was asked to submit a list of their five “best, favorite or most important” films of the year. You’ll be able to see mine, along with everyone else’s, when Sight & Sound publish the full results of the poll online next week. For now, however, we have the Top 10 (or 11, given a tie at the bottom), and it’s a typically credible if not terribly surprising one.

It was pretty much a foregone conclusion that Terrence Malick’s “The Tree of Life” would top the list: divisive it may be, but the film remains unrivalled as the critical talking point of 2011. It won the poll by a comfortable margin: editor Nick James reveals that it had half as many votes again as the similarly predictable runner-up, Asghar Farhadi’s “A Separation.” Check out the full list below.

1. “The Tree of Life” (Terrence Malick)

2. “A Separation” (Asghar Farhadi)

3. “The Kid With a Bike” (Luc and Jean-Pierre Dardenne)

4. “Melancholia” (Lars von Trier)

5. “The Artist” (Michel Hazanavicius)

=6. “Once Upon a Time in Anatolia” (Nuri Bilge Ceylan)

=6. “The Turin Horse” (Béla Tarr)

8. “We Need to Talk About Kevin” (Lynne Ramsay)

9. “Le Quattro Volte” (Michelangelo Frammartino)

=10. “Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy” (Tomas Alfredson)

=10. “This Is Not a Film” (Jafar Panahi and Mojtaba Mirtahmash)

It’s a sign, to me at least, of what a strong year it’s been that I’m delighted by many of these inclusions — and yet not one of the five films I included on my list made the cut. (Had we been invited to submit Top 10 lists, there might have been more overlap.)

I’m pleased the expected critical backlash to “The Artist” in some quarters isn’t in evidence here, and am thrilled that “We Need to Talk About Kevin” is holding up so well. It’s the highest local inclusion here, though the unexpectedly strong showing for “Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy” here suggests to me it’s still set to be the prime British crossover title of the awards season. (I thought it might be a touch mainstream for this traditionally high-minded list, but there’s clearly a place for genre work here: James writes that two of the films tied for twelfth place are “Attack the Block” and “Kill List.”)  

Still, it’s the overwhelming dominance of Terrence Malick’s Palme d’Or-winning opus that’s the main takeaway here: the fact that a challenging American art film with its fair share of detractors still managed to sail to victory in a critics’ survey on this scale strengthens my conviction that the film could be a force to be reckoned with in the upcoming slew of US critics’ award: I’m predicting it will pip “The Descendants” to the post when the NYFCC vote tomorrow. (In case you’re wondering, “The Social Network” handily topped the Sight & Sound list last year.) 

I’ll be sure to provide a link when the full results go up online: for now, you can read half the entries in the print edition, on shelves now. Before you complain that it’s too early for Best of 2011 lists, bear in mind the long-lead restrictions of magazine publishing, and the fact that any late-breaking critical hits can always show up next year. With international release schedules varying wildly, and critics permitted to include festival-only releases on their lists, it’s never going to be an exact science. 

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

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!

I’d been dimly aware of the re-appropriation of the sinister Guy Fawkes mask from Alan Moore and David Lloyd’s “V for Vendetta” graphic novel — and, of course, its Wachowski-branded 2006 film adaptation — as a symbol of protest by present-day political and environmental demonstrators. I have only recently begun noticing it in the real world, however.

As the Occupy movement took shape — in the past few weeks, chiming in neatly with Guy Fawkes Day (November 5) three weeks ago, I’ve spotted that leeringly stylized visage stencilled on more than a few walls in London, including one on my own block. It was in front of this one that I heard the following dry exchange between two skinny-jeaned students that put things, I felt, nicely in perspective:

“Isn’t that from the film where Natalie Portman shaved her head?”

“Yeah, protesters are using it to make a point.”

“Huh. It was a rubbish film, but I wouldn’t bother protesting about it.”

They were being droll, but it still brought home to me the irony of trying to force cultural potency onto a symbol that was arguably neutered by Hollywood five years ago: with due respect to comic fanatics, more man-in-the-street types will think of the film than the work of Alan Moore when confronted with that image. And wherever you stand on the film — I think many would file it under “commendable failure” — I don’t think many would count it today as a politically incendiary piece of work.

That it seems to be catching on as a kind of activist’s lucky charm is a refreshing case of a minority group not quite reclaiming a symbol from Hollywood, but stealing something already stolen and taking it somewhere a little closer to its origins: representational rehabilitation, if you want to be multisyllabic about it. Moore clearly seems pleased, judging from this interesting interview with The Guardian’s Tom Lamont about this wholly involuntary revival of his work:

“That smile is so haunting…I tried to use the cryptic nature of it to dramatic effect. We could show a picture of the character just standing there, silently, with an expression that could have been pleasant, breezy or more sinister…And when you’ve got a sea of V masks, I suppose it makes the protesters appear to be almost a single organism – this ‘99%’ we hear so much about. That in itself is formidable. I can see why the protesters have taken to it.”

Read the rest here. What other items of lesser blockbuster iconography could be given a new lease on life in this way? I don’t hold out much hope for Ryan Reynolds’s fey little carnival mask from “Green Lantern,” but you never know. 

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

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!

I probably use the phrase “take a deep breath” to signal a pause before an awards frame plunge a bit too often this time of year, but the fact is this afternoon really is your last chance to breathe in some (somewhat) unsullied air before the precursor circuit really starts to mold this season into something resembling what it will be in three months’ time.

Today, the New York Film Critics Circle will be screening David FIncher’s “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.” Today was the group’s original date for voting on its year-end superlatives (already noted as asinine in its early nature), but due to the fact that this film had a ready-by date that was immovable (and it still has color timing to be completed, but is nevertheless in a shape in which Fincher is comfortable screening it), they decided to move the date one day. No one asked them to do it, but they did.

The issue with “Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close” was different. It really isn’t ready and wouldn’t be before December 2. So, NYFCC president John Anderson publicly and other members privately cast doubts on the film’s quality as a result. I’ll let you be the judge of that professionalism.

So the NYFCC didn’t get to be FIRST! after all, because the Gotham Awards will be held tonight in New York. (HitFix’s Greg Ellwood will be covering from on the ground.) And the NYFCC votes tomorrow, now, beginning at 9:30am ET. And there is no way they will be done with things by 11am. Why does that time matter? Because that’s when the Independent Spirit Award nominations are announced.

Way to clog up the works with your nonsense, guys.

The rest of the circuit will begin to file in line after that, a progression already outlined last week. What, then, do we have to look for? What films and performances need the exposure of this circuit? What elements are clinging onto a precious foothold that could use an extra boost?

I’m thinking one actor who could really use some wind in his sails is Woody Harrelson. A committed campaign has been assembled around him and his film, “Rampart,” is on the screen here in Los Angeles for its one-week qualifying run, but if he’s to figure into the race at all, I think he needs some critical support.

Elsewhere, Tilda Swinton is hanging on on the edge of the Best Actress conversation for dear life. Her performance in “We Need to Talk About Kevin” is one of the year’s best and deserves to be on a higher rung. Someone needs to spring for her. Meanwhile, the performance that beat her out for Best Actress at Cannes, Kirsten Dunst in “Melancholia,” could use some muscle from the precursors to have any impact whatsoever (though I don’t really think it would make much of a difference for her one way or the other, ultimately).

One film that could have a better-than-deserved showing is “The Artist.” If Jean Dujardin hopes to make a play on a Best Actor Oscar that is somewhat up for grabs, he’d do well to best George Clooney as much as he can along the circuit. Gary Oldman could use some help, as BAFTA won’t be coming to the rescue for a little while yet.

Best Picture winners on the circuit don’t count for much. Just ask “The Social Network.” Indeed, it’s significant when the critics line up behind a contender, but that won’t be a story this year because I don’t see them filing in behind one horse. “The Descendants” will have a good run, and “The Tree of Life” will surely find its champions, but it should be a little more scattered than in recent years.

Speaking of “The Tree of Life,” Brad Pitt could really use a little gas in the tank. Now’s the time.

Last year saw a single critics’ fave. 2009 saw “The Hurt Locker” take the lion’s share with “Up in the Air” and “Avatar” taking a few honors here and there. 2008 was dominated by “Slumdog Millionaire” and 2007 was all about “No Country for Old Men” for the most part. But this year, I expect more slices of the pie, for a (welcome) change.

I hope I’m right.

Anyway, that’s just a sampling. If you have any ideas for performances or films that could use the critics’ love in the coming weeks, rifle off your FYCs. You never know who’s reading…

Guy and I have updated the Contenders section in full. The sidebar predictions reflect those changes.

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

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!

I mentioned my thoughts on Cameron Crowe’s “We Bought a Zoo” in this morning’s round-up. To elaborate a bit, the film has problems. But I don’t know if “problems” is the word, because there’s no denying that the film works. It’s just heavy-handed in a way that doesn’t feel organic to the material (unlike the heavy-handedness of, say, “War Horse”).

Nevertheless, I have zero desire to dismantle it because its heart is in the right place. It mines legitimate emotion in a number of areas and, knowing what Crowe has been through in his personal life as of late (divorcing his wife of many years, Nancy Wilson), you can see him working through some things with this material. And much of it rings true. It’s an uptick from “Elizabethtown,” no doubt, and I think he’ll find his stride again very soon and before long, we’ll have another top-notch Crowe film on our hands.

One thing that stuck out in “We Bought a Zoo,” though, was the soundtrack. Of course, it would.

Crowe’s professional life began as a music journalist at Rolling Stone magazine when he was 15 years old. Talk about a cush gig. My colleague Steve Pond was bouncing around the same beat at that time and cracked me up once when he told me, “I was 16 and covering music at the Los Angeles Times, which would have been hot shit except Cameron was 15 and at Rolling Stone.”

That early initiation into the world was fictionalized in the great (and I mean great) “Almost Famous” in 2000. But Crowe’s love affair with music made its way into his films from the beginning. There are classic moments in Crowe cinema that feature music, whether it’s John Cusack holding a boom box blasting Peter Gabriel above his head in “Say Anything,” a busload of misfits crooning “Tiny Dancer” in the aforementioned “Almost Famous” or the original tracks he commissioned from Bruce Springsteen and Paul McCartney for “Jerry Maguire” and “Vanilla Sky,” respectively.

But then there are the soundtracks. The compilations. The collections of tunes that make up the emotional landscape of his films in music. And “We Bought a Zoo” is another example, with Tom Petty’s “Don’t Come Around Here No More” and Temple of the Dog’s “Hunger Strike” finding room with equal aplomb. And, by the way, he has now featured two songs from my favorite Bob Dylan album in his films (“Shelter from the Storm” in “Jerry Maguire” and “Buckets of Rain” in “We Bought a Zoo,” both from “Blood on the Tracks”), which gets him major brownie points in my book.

In any case, The Hollywood Reporter has a big cover story on Crowe this week and in it, Kim Masters gets into the music thing pretty intensely. Most intriguing was the mix CD Crowe assembled for actor Matt Damon to help convey the emotional journey of the film. It went like so:

1. “Save it for Later” – Pete Townshend

2. “I’m Open” (Live) – Eddie Vedder

3. “War of Man” (Live) – Neil Young

4. “Soul Boy” – The Blue Nile

5. “Mohammed’s Radio” – Jackson Browne

6. “Sanganichi” – Shugo Tokumaru

7. “Airline to Heaven” – Wilco

8. “Buckets of Rain” – Bob Dylan

9. “The Heart of the Matter” (Live) – Don Henley

10. “I Will Be There When You Die” – My Morning Jacket

11. “Ain’t No Sunshine” – Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers

12. “Child of the Moon” – Rolling Stones

13. “If I Am a Stranger” – Ryan Adams

14. “Concrete Sky” – Beth Orton

15. “Helpess” (Live) – Neil Young

16. “Don’t Be Shy” (no piano) – Cat Stevens

17. “Nerstrand Woods” – Mark Olson and the the Creekdippers

Also revealed in the interview is that Crowe is working on an interview with Neil Young that will be featured in Rolling Stone, bringing things full circle. Talk about living the life.

“We Bought a Zoo” opens in theaters nationwide on December 23.

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

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!

So the big story of the weekend, after the “War Horse” chatter died down a bit, was the nationwide sneak peek at Cameron Crowe’s “We Bought a Zoo.” I bought a couple of tickets and headed down to the local multiplex to have a look, and while it’s certainly a better film that Crowe’s last outing (2005’s “Elizabethtown”), it’s unquestionably heavy on the saccharine pedal. Nevertheless, I immediately thought of it as a film I’d watch again, probably multiple times. It’s a definite stop-and-watch on TV in the future. Probably because of the characters Crowe is still, even in a film that doesn’t begin to approach his best work, able to manifest, people you want to spend time with. I think Drew McWeeny did a good job of separating these various moving parts in his review here at HitFix. [Motion/Captured]

In honor of “Shame,” a remarkable piece of journalism: 43 memorable nude scenes. [Entertainment Weekly]

Sheila Roberts sits down with “The Artist” director Michel Hazanavicius. [Collider]

Sasha Stone on the heartstrings of the season. [Awards Daily]

Roslyn Sulcas digs into Ralph Fiennes’s helming debut, “Coriolanus,” with the star and director. [New York Times]

In case it hadn’t been obvious from the start, Christian Bale is done with Batman after his original three-film deal concludes on “The Dark Knight Rises.” [Philippine Daily Inquirer]

Anne Thompson talks “A Dangerous Method” with director David Cronenberg. [Thompson on Hollywood]

Jack Giroux gets there, too. [Film School Rejects]

Rounding up the year’s actresses: Viola Davis, Charlize Theron, Glenn Close, Michelle Williams, Octavia Spencer and Carey Mulligan. [Hollywood Reporter]

Jeremy Smith chats up “Arthur Christmas” screenwriter Peter Baynham. [Ain’t It Cool News]

This afternoon, following the nationwide sneaks of Steven Spielberg’s “War Horse” (which joined in Cameron Crowe’s “We Bought a Zoo” in that regard, two films that share more than just that distinction), the esteemed director took the stage in front of a Lincoln Center theater audience to participate in a Q&A with journalist and author Mark Harris. The event was streamed live at MSN Entertainment and rebroadcast afterward.

Since this was a public event and given the live broadcasting of the discussion, it seems fair to me to lift a number of choice quotes from the proceedings. Spielberg hasn’t done a lot of press in advance of the film’s release (though he did speak with the Chicago Tribune’s Michael Phillips recently), so it’s a good perspective to finally have.

Harris began things by actually noting a parallel between “War Horse” and the cinema of John Ford, which Anne and I brought up in Friday’s edition of Oscar Talk. “Ford’s in my mind when I make a lot of my pictures,” Spielberg said. “I grew up with John Ford movies and I know a lot about his work and have studied him. I think the thing that might resemble a John Ford movie more than anything else is that Ford celebrated rituals and traditions and he celebrated the land. In ‘War Horse,’ the land is a character. It’s the biggest thing that is a character that you perhaps didn’t notice until you think back.”

He went on to cite the Monument Valley settings of Ford’s westerns as well as the Ireland setting of “The Quiet Man” to further his point.

And indeed, much of the film is a love letter to the landscape. Spielberg is working with cinematographer Janusz Kaminski once again (they have collaborated on each of Spielberg’s films since “Schindler’s List” in 1993). “My general feeling about cinematography is I want a cinematographer who can bend light,” Spielberg said. “He’s a genius at storytelling through lighting.”

He also mentioned that it was a goal to film in a manner similar to the productions of the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s, filling the frame with characters rather than insisting on the close-up to tell the story (which he blamed on the rise of television).

Spielberg’s creative relationship with Kaminski isn’t as storied as his career-long collaboration with film music composer John Williams, however, who has scored every single Spielberg film (save “The Color Purple”) since “The Sugarland Express” in 1972. Williams delivers another soaring, theme-heavy but still unique score for this time around, one in stark contrast to his more playful work on Spielberg’s “The Adventures of Tintin,” also releasing next month. His “War Horse” work is receiving a lot of praise out of early screenings, but I felt it to be lacking where others find it resonant.

“Next year it will be our 40th anniversary of working together exclusively,” Spielberg said of his relationship to the man who has offered as much of an identity to films such as “Jaws,” “Raiders of the Lost Ark” and “E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial” as Spielberg himself. “So we have a shorthand. He always sees the movie early and then he just goes away and I don’t see him. And then he calls me and I go over to the office and he starts playing me themes.

“I love everything he’s ever written, but some sketches he plays on the piano have a profound effect on me. The themes he played from ‘Schindler’s List,’ my wife and I were just devastated. I was devastated by what he did on ‘E.T.’ And on this one, he played me three themes and I was just a goner, three hankies in.”

Most interesting about the discussion, though, outside of the typical insights that are to be gleaned from looking to the past (Did you know Spielberg watched Truffaut while prepping “E.T.: The Extra Terrestrial?” Seems obvious now.) is what he wanted to bring to the canon of war films in “War Horse.”

World War I doesn’t have a film lineage as storied as World War II cinema, Harris noted, but there are installments that provide a very specific and legendary core unto themselves. Spielberg noted the harshness of that war in the face of the more “fluid” World War II and how that sparks it off as an entirely unique sub-genre.

“In World War I, the warring sides actually spoke to each other,” he said, recalling a key scene from no man’s land in “War Horse” that stands out in the genre. “It was trench warfare. The lines never moved. It was a brutal war because soldiers lived in those trenches for four years…It was a static war. It was horrendous. Four million horses were killed in World War I.”

Which is part of what made Spielberg want to tackle the project; he has lived with horses for over a decade, he said. And by tackling the material for a wider audience (meaning children, not necessarily of all ages, but of most), he was able to make more creative strides than he felt he could on a film like “Saving Private Ryan” or series like “Band of Brothers” and “The Pacific.” (You might recall I noted something similar in my initial take on the film.)

“All three of those were unflinching looks at what combat was like,” he noted of the past war projects. “I did not want to show, in the cavalry charge [depicted in the film’s second act], this slaughter of all that cavalry. It gave me a chance to show what was likely the last cavalry charge, because of the advance of technology. This story allowed me to be a bit more mythological, to be able to show cavalry charging and then in the next cut show a riderless horse jumping over machine guns.”

Plenty more was covered, from the eight horses that played the titular Joey, to how he wanted Joey to be able to touch more lives than he did in the book or the play on which the film is based (“This is really a story about connections,” he said), to the importance of films like “War Horse,” “Hugo” and “The Artist” potentially sparking audiences to flip over to Turner Classic Movies and indulge in classic cinema. It was a lively discussion and one of few early peeks behind the veil of making “War Horse” a reality. I’m sure there will be more as the weeks go by and the inevitable Oscar march begins.

Check out the highlights of the Q&A at MSN Entertainment.

“War Horse” opens nationwide on Christmas Day.

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

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!

A reader comment in last week’s “War Horse” assessment sparked me to an element of this year’s Oscar season that I hadn’t even noticed: Dartmoor’s time in the spotlight.

The Dartmoor moorland in South Devon County, England is a protected National Park known for its tors, rivers and bogs (yep, I’m skipping a stone across the Wikipedia entry). It’s notable this year, though, because two of the upcoming holiday season’s crowd-pleasing, sentimental entries share ties to the location.

Cameron Crowe’s “We Bought a Zoo” was adapted from the memoir by Benjamin Mee, who purchased the Dartmoor Wildlife Park (now called the Dartmoor Zoological Park) and set up shop with his family. The film was shifted to a San Diego County location, however.

Crowe did tell me, however, that he and production designer Clay Griffith “studied every frame” of the BBC documentary “Ben’s Zoo” throughout production. When Mee saw the finished product, he told Crowe, “It looks just like Dartmoor.”

Crowe says he’s looking forward to visiting the zoo for the first time in the next few months.

Steven Spielberg’s “War Horse,” meanwhile, actually filmed under the codename “Dartmoor” and set up production in the Dartmoor countryside for a number of weeks. Much of the landscape is captured gorgeously by cinematographer Janusz Kaminski, and indeed, the film’s opening visuals are a brief love letter to the scenery.

Quoted in The Telegraph newspaper way back in October of 2010, Spielberg confessed, “I have never before, in my long and eclectic career, been gifted with such an abundance of natural beauty as I experienced filming ‘War Horse’ on Dartmoor. And with two-and-a-half weeks of extensive coverage of landscapes and skies, I hardly scratched the surface of the visual opportunities that were offered to me.”

This afternoon, Spielberg participated in an MSN-sponsored live stream Q&A and spoke about the connection to John Ford cinema some have made about “War Horse.” It’s notable because of what that connection reveals about Spielberg’s perspective on his locations in the new film.

“Ford’s in my mind when I make a lot of my pictures,” Spielberg admitted. “I think the thing that might resemble a John Ford movie more than anything else is that Ford…celebrated the land.” And in “War Horse,” he said, the landscape is very much a character.

“All I know is that the Devon Tourist Board must be rubbing their hands in glee at this,” In Contention reader Peter Pedant wrote in response to my “War Horse” piece over the weekend. “It’s such beautiful countryside and I can see the tourism boom there is going to go on for a long time.”

Maybe it will indeed get a spurt of interest, and that never hurts. As a huge National Park hound myself (I’ve been to many throughout the U.S. and consider that kind of spirit important and vital), I certainly hope the area gets an uptick in visibility.

I feel more and more strongly about this kind as the years go on, I notice.

Keep up with what’s going on at the Dartmoor Zoological Park via its website and Twitter feed. Learn more about the Dartmoor moorland, meanwhile, at the official National Park site.

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

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!

Nick Nolte seems to be engaging in a small round of media events and interviews in the hopes of generating renewed Academy interest in his role in Gavin O’Connor”s MMA drama “Warrior.” The film generated a predominantly positive critical response (it stands at 83% at Rotten Tomatoes) but was a box office disappointment (or disaster, depending on your perspective) with a $25 million production budget and $22.2 worldwide gross. “Warrior””s financial failings have in all likelihood destroyed any hopes the film had of making a real showing at the Oscars. But if there is one person who may be able to rise above the limitations imposed by the stigma of (perceived)  failure, it is Nolte.

Several critics found “Warrior” to be a film with a limited story that was supported by strong performances (Kris is notably included in this camp). And Nolte”s portrayal of Paddy Conlon has been singled out as particularly strong. His turn as an abusive, recovering alcoholic struggling to reconcile with his two sons, Tommy (Tom Hardy) and Brendan (Joel Edgerton), is quintessential Nolte. He is mercurial, vulnerable to the point of discomfort and grounded. O”Connor wrote the role specifically for the actor, and Nolte delivered the natural and raw performance that we imagine the director both hoped for and envisioned.

Though I loved Nolte”s performance, and would agree that Academy recognition is warranted, it is Tom Hardy”s portrayal of the emotionally shattered war veteran Tommy Riordan that has left the strongest imprint on my psyche. There was a sense of unpredictable rage that, combined with the pure, brute force of him, electrified the screen. I found myself cringing, flinching and waiting for the leash to snap with irreversible consequences each time he moved (even slightly) toward Brendan or Paddy. His performance was restrained in the sense that one felt (almost physically) the scale of the torment that Tommy was holding within, as well as the sheer force of will it took to keep his wrath caged. And yet, there was no doubt that this was a man with the heart and loyalty to sit beside a dying woman”s side, even as it destroyed him to do so.

All of that aside, Nolte really is the best bet for a “Warrior” nomination. First, as mentioned, his performance is legitimately deserving. Additionally, there is obviously respect for him in the insustry. There is also the reality of a ticking clock. Nolte is a 70-year-old man who has done some notably hard living. He”s been nominated for two Academy Awards (Best Actor for “The Prince of Tides” and “Affliction” respectively) and hasn”t yet won. Nolte himself noted the presence of a time element in a recent in interview with The Daily Beast. “You know, it would be nice (to win an Oscar),” he said. “I”m getting to the end of my life. I”m 70 now. I don”t know how long you”re supposed to live. It goes fast.”

There is also a self-reflexive quality to his portrayal of a man who has over indulged and is now looking to redeem himself that will appeal to those who love a tale of triumph over adversity. The actor feels that the performance is not as much about addiction as it is about a father”s desire to provide in a way that he failed to do initially. “What”s behind drunkenness or any of these infections is a spiritual problem,” he said. “And it”s usually love. In ‘Warrior”, the father was so obsessed with winning that he drove his boys to not connect with him.”

Nolte also attests that the connection between his own life and that of his character is loose at best. “They seem to think that”s me because my life seems to have alcohol in it. But it really doesn”t,” he said. “I wasn”t arrested for alcohol. I was arrested for driving under the influence of an intoxicant, but it wasn”t alcohol.” The particulars of the substances involved aside, the truth is, Oscar loves an underdog and much as it loves a comeback kid, and a Nolte nomination for “Warrior” combines both of those sit-up-in-your-chair and cheer-worthy elements. Side benefit: as anyone who has interviewed Nolte knows, there is truly no telling what he might say in an acceptance speech. At all.

It is not unheard of to honor the scope of a career, or simply to acknowledge an actor”s place in cinema history, with an Academy Award for a specific film or performance. So whether you are a “Warrior” supporter or detractor, a Nolte nomination would likely inspire a positive response. During the course of his conversation with the LA Times”s Rebecca Keegan as a part of the Times’ Envelope Screening Series, Nolte assessed his chances with characteristic humor and pragmatism: “They might give an Academy Award to a felon. They might not. You never know.”

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

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!

Welcome to Oscar Talk.

In case you’re new to the site and/or the podcast, Oscar Talk is a weekly kudocast, your one-stop awards chat shop between yours truly and Anne Thompson of Thompson on Hollywood. The podcast is weekly, every Friday throughout the season, charting the ups and downs of contenders along the way. Plenty of things change en route to Oscar’s stage and we’re here to address it all as it unfolds.

A late-breaking edition of the podcast today as we try to muster the energy to shake off the food coma of Thanksgiving. And there is tons to talk about today in a somewhat longer podcast than usual. Let’s see what’s on the docket today…

Steven Spielberg’s “War Horse” finally burst onto the scene this weekend as more press and guilds got a look at the film, Anne and I among them. We discuss the film and its Oscar prospects.

We get into “Hugo” some more, which has done gangbusters with the critics and got an uptick in box office yesterday.

Anne got around to two films that look to figure into the Best Actress category this year, “The Iron Lady” and “Young Adult.” We circle back on those films and talk about how they look to figure into the season.

With the animated feature shortlist out as of a few weeks ago and with us going through each of the contenders, we take a moment to spotlight the field.

The New York Film Critics Circle won’t be able to see “Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close” before its asinine early voting deadline. Aw. We talk a little about that whole non-story story.

And finally, reader questions. We answer queries regarding the botched (again) Best Documentary Feature finalists, the possibility of reform in the category and how talent respond to us when we, uh, don’t like their work.

Have a listen to the new podcast below with some of John Williams’s “War Horse” score leading the way. If the file cuts off for you at any time, try the back-up download link at the bottom of this post. And as always, remember to subscribe to Oscar Talk via iTunes here.

“Learning the Call” courtesy of John Williams and Sony Masterworks.
“You’re So Vain” courtesy of Carly Simon and Elektra.

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

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!

“People keep telling me what a good idea it was to make this movie, but the truth is that it was a bad idea, a very bad idea,” Michel Hazanavicius says on the phone from Los Angeles, a chipper lilt to his warm French accent. “I don”t even know if ‘idea” is the word – it was more of a desire, something I needed to discover. There”s a difference. If it had been just an idea, it”d have been too far out of the market to pursue.”

The “bad idea” he”s is speaking of, of course, is “The Artist,” the director”s playful ode to classic Hollywood moviemaking that has beguiled critics and festival audiences on assorted shores, turned the head of Harvey Weinstein, scooped an award at Cannes and now finds itself among the frontrunners for this year”s Academy Awards. All this despite the minor obstacles of being French-made and in black and white. Oh, and silent. If Hazanavicius sounds like he can”t quite believe his luck, a lot of industry pundits are with him.

What”s driving its success, however, is that once in the theater, the film seems so much more familiar and comfortable than it does on paper: the storytelling is fluid and classical, the emotions naked, the star chemistry between leads Jean Dujardin and Bérénice Bejo (who also happens to be Mrs. Hazanavicius) tangible. It”s a movie first and an exercise second: more ambitious formally than the “OSS 117” films, the hit parodies of 1960s spy capers with which the director made his name, but no less committed to its audience amid all the affectionate, clever-clever pastiche.

The story of George Valentin, a fictional silent-movie star drowning in personal and professional insecurities as Hollywood enters the talkie era, it would make for a tough pitch to potential collaborators. So it”s handy that Hazanavicius had his stars already in his pocket.

“When Michel came to me with this script, I immediately said, ‘Yes, yes, yes,” because it”s Michel,” recalls Dujardin, who previously headlined both Hazanavicius”s “OSS 117” films. The suave French leading man, equal parts Yves Montand and Gene Kelly and a major star at home, speaks via a translator, though he meets me halfway with enthusiastic bursts of English. “Then I thought about it for a moment, and I said, ‘No, no, no.” The whole idea made me nervous — I was wondering what people would expect of me when they saw this, and I never make my choices that way. But I trust Michel and I love challenges. Who gets to do anything like this now?”

For the Argentina-born Bejo, there were fewer initial misgivings – though as the director”s wife, obviously, she was on the project from the get-go. “As an actor, you don”t usually get to see the whole process of a movie coming to life from the idea stage, so it was exciting watching Michel thinking and working and coming home full of ideas for this scene or that, as the project came together little by little,” she says, sounding every bit as bright and eager as the aptly named Peppy Miller, the fast-rising ingénue she plays in the film.

“But then I wasn”t as intimidated by the film as I thought I”d be. I worked much the same way I always do: finding the character, where she”s going, what she”s doing, identifying the dramatics of each scene. I think it was a much more different experience for Michel. He”s the one who has to work out how to tell this story using only images. We still had words, even if you can”t hear them.”

Dujardin, meanwhile, describes the experience as feeling at once familiar and alien: “Acting for silent film is very instinctive – it”s your subconscious that does a lot of the work,” he explains. “Because the sound isn”t the focus of the scene, you find your body moves very differently. But you eventually stop thinking about the fact that it”s a silent film. After all, we had lines, we spoke, there was a lot of noise on set, it was all very lively. So it was surprisingly easy to forget what an unusual movie we were making.”

For Hazanavicius, this lack of self-awareness was key. He was determined that the film wouldn”t play as an academic or embalmed exercise. “I love silent cinema, but don”t hold it sacred: like any branch of film, there are some very boring films alongside the masterpieces. These films are old because of the era they”re from, not specifically the format they”re made in, which is extraordinary, and can still be contemporary. It was important on ‘The Artist” not to think of it as an ‘old” movie: it”s now, it”s new. But you have the benefit of this neglected format, which gives you such exciting options as a storyteller. I wanted the audience to share in that specific experience, not a history lecture.”

Which is not to say that the director skimped on his research. Many days were spent at the Paris Cinémathèque poring over silent classics and obscurities alike, while cartloads of DVDs were brought home. Hazanavicius admits he never went to film school, so his films” cribbing from past genres has been something of a self-education. And Bejo, whose filmmaker father instilled a cinephile”s passion in her from an early age (“Robert Mitchum was my favorite actor… which I suppose was funny for a 10-year-old girl,” she laughs), joined in the homework, as she and her husband discovered a mutual enthusiasm for the works of Frank Borzage and F.W. Murnau.

While Dujardin regards the films of silent star Douglas Fairbanks as his primary reference point, Bejo is more cautious about naming names. “I really loved watching Janet Gaynor,” she says, name-checking the first ever winner of the Best Actress Oscar. “But in a way, she seemed too close to Peppy to me – I didn”t want to base her on anybody. I looked more at Joan Crawford and Marlene Dietrich at the beginning of their careers, neither who were very like Peppy in their manner, but had this sweetness to them that shifted as they got older. I was interested in how the industry molded these women into movie stars, and how they changed themselves.”

Does she see any of herself in the character? “Michel does!” she laughs. “She”s like his projection of the perfect Bérénice for him. But that”s not me. Like everything in these movies, it”s bigger than life. That”s what I think the movie gets about old Hollywood: they”re characters you can dream about.”

Likewise, Dujardin recognizes the universality of his character”s crisis – the fear all successful artists have of the world outgrowing their talents – but stops short of identifying it in himself. “I don”t have that kind of angst,” he says. “I mean, I expect it”s going to happen – everyone gets older, and there will come a time when you”re no longer in fashion and have to reinvent yourself. Maybe I”m just naïve. Though that”s a little like George Valentin, too.”

Causing Dujardin more concern than his character”s emotional problems were the twin challenges of dancing and dogs – his closest scene partner throughout the film is Uggy, an evidently precocious Jack Russell with some pretty sharp moves. “Those were the two things I really rehearsed: the tap-dance sequences and the interaction with the dog,” he says. “Everything else just came together on set. I admit I thought it would be more complicated, but that dog knows what he”s doing. As long as you kept feeding him sausages, he”d do what you wanted him to. I had a lot in my pocket.”

All three profess delight and surprise at the smooth ride the film has had to the top since its enthusiastically received Cannes debut. The challenge of making the film, Bejo explains, was so great that its mere completion seemed an ample reward in itself. Have they any idea what audiences are connecting to in the film, even – perhaps especially – ones unfamiliar with silent cinema?

“It”s precisely that unfamiliarity, I think,” Hazanavicius ventures. “I think, above all, people really respond to the format. They might come to the film with negative preconceptions about silent film. They think it”ll be boring, or hard to understand, and they”re surprised to find that they not only follow it, but enjoy it, relate to it. It”s like they”re saying, ‘I survived the silent movie!’ So I think there”s a double pleasure in that.”

Dujardin, however, takes a different tack: it”s what”s inside the slightly exotic presentation that resonates. “It”s a feel-good movie, obviously,” he says. “But I think when you leave the dialogue out, this pure emotion is left, and in a way, the audience participates more. They create their own dialogue in their heads, their own story. We have so many films these days in which special effects obscure the emotion, and a film like this takes it back down to the basics: a love story, a human story, a nice little dog.”

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

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!

As I floated around the web recently, I found myself struck by a pair of (on the surface) unrelated articles on The Guardian‘s culture site. One dealt with John Cleese taking steps to transform his dream of staging an “A Fish Called Wanda” musical into a manifest reality and the other with the possibility of Aaron Sorkin penning a Steve Jobs biopic. Alright, they are unrelated. And yet I could not help but remember how much I loved “A Fish Called Wanda” and think to myself, ‘Hmmm, Sorkin, Jobs, biopic: Oscar bait.’

It occurs to me that comedies are often given a perfunctory pat on the head in the form of a nomination, or altogether ignored by the Academy. To be fair, “Wanda” was nominated for Best Original Screenplay, and Best Director and Kevin Klein won for Best Supporting actor — but the film itself was not given a Best Picture nod (though “Working Girl” was). The revolutionary, enduring and entertaining “Who Framed Roger Rabbit?” also failed to make the cut. The reality is that these films are unlikely to secure a Best Picture win against something like “Rain Man.” Oscar overwhelmingly favors drama. Which brings me to a query: Has the time come for the Academy to take a page from the HFPA’s book and introduce a new category?

Is it fair to say that “A Fish Called Wanda” was a better film than “Rain Man?” Perhaps. Perhaps not. But the more salient question is do they belong in the same category? If we break it down to the most human elements, how is a person going to feel about themselves if they (with their vote) effectively say a movie about a group of wacky con artists is better than the story of a man overcoming his greed and prejudice to find the beauty and wisdom his autistic brother has to offer?

It is a bit limited and dismissive, but the term “Oscar bait” exists for a reason. There are certain cinematic endeavors that one gets the sense the Academy is “supposed” to like. They indicate a level of gravitas by virtue of the individual and combined talent attached to the project and/or the subject matter. A Sorkin biopic about one of the past century’s most influential and innovative leaders of industry (Steve Jobs) would, by virtue of its very existence, be an awards contender, even in its most nascent stage. By that I mean, we would assume on some level that source material and the skill of the man adapting it will necessarily equate to some form of genius. If and when a film with all the “right” ingredients does not produce a transcendent final product (which happens), denial sometimes comes into play. We are meant to believe that the “weightier” films are necessarily also the worthier films. Where, then, does that leave the films that critics and audiences alike really do favor (whether we are meant to or not)?

Statistically speaking Oscar says that dramas are worthier and more challenging films. Only two comedies have won Best Picture in the last 34 years, “Annie Hall” in 1977 and “Shakespeare In Love” in 1998, which happens to be the same year that “Rushmore” (a film that deserved a bit of recognition in its own right) was released. Certainly, it is a delicate thing to bring a story that expresses the darker elements of the human experience to life, but as any stand-up comedian will tell you, it’s no small thing to make someone laugh. And as the Muppets would say, laughter is the third greatest gift in the world.

Let’s take a snapshot of the Best Picture field for 2000. The nominees: “Chocolat,” “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon,” “Erin Brockovich,” “Traffic” and the winner, “Gladiator.” First I would say that there were two dramas more deserving of recognition than four out of those five in the form of “Memento” and “Requiem for a Dream.” I would also say that “Almost Famous” and “Best In Show” are far better films than “Chocolat,” for example. (I could write a three-page article that addresses the multiple tiers of my disdain for “Chocolat.” But then I’d have to watch it again. So, no.)

In 2004 Clint Eastwood’s “Million Dollar Baby” won Best Picture, a selection we may or may not agree with. Some may feel that the dramedies “Sideways” or “Finding Neverland” were more deserving. Whatever your take on “Million Dollar Baby”‘s win, it becomes clear that there was a strong enough field that year to warrant a separate category for comedy or musical. I would argue that “Napoleon Dynamite,” “Mean Girls” and “Shaun of the Dead” were all worthy contenders.

1999, the year of “American Beauty” (which happens to be a film I really enjoyed) also represents a great year for comedy. “Toy Story 2,” “Election,” “Being John Malkovich,” “Galaxy Quest” and oh yes, “South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut” could have constituted the nominees for Best Picture Comedy or Musical that year. I’d likely say “South Park” deserved it. I love “Being John Malkovich” and “Election” and “Malkovich” offered the most nuanced exploration of human nature, but “South Park” had the most to say about society at large. Also, I busted a gut watching it.

Of course the door has been opened recently for a broader spectrum of films to be nominated. But let’s face it: nominated isn’t winning.

There have been plenty of films over the past several decades that deserved the attention of the Academy and/or the box office boost said attention may provide. Just a few examples: “Stranger Than Fiction,” “Fanboys,” “Office Space,” “This Is Spinal Tap,” “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind,” “The Royal Tenenbaums,” “Tropic Thunder,” “Bad Santa” and “The Princess Bride.” All right, there does need to be a line. The fact remains, there are comedies deserving of the industry’s awards attention.

Is the Academy always going to “get it right” as far as we are concerned? No, clearly not. Nor are we all going to agree on what “getting it right” is. The creation of a separate category for comedy, however, would in essence force Oscar to take making with the funny seriously. That’s a step in the right direction.

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

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!

The screening procedure on Steven Spielberg’s “War Horse” has been an odd, not exactly particular one. I say not particular because it’s not like they’ve been hiding the film. It’s been completed since September and various long leads have gotten a look. Rival publicists have even seen the film and that’s a bit of a rarity this early. And then there’s the “heartland” strategy of doing pop-up screenings around the country for the public, not unlike what Paramount did with “Young Adult.”

So a lot of what we’ve heard has been Joe the Plumber rifling off a LiveJournal entry here or a Tweet there. Others have already written about the film (one outlet, as always, making sure to be extra clear it got a look a few weeks back, as if that is relevant). Readers who caught public screenings have even posted little mini-reviews in the comments section here at In Contention. So an embargo might be tough to hold up. I was given the green light to write, but the goal is to open the movie, so funneling as much coverage to the release date as possible obviously makes sense.

In any case, this isn’t so much a review as an assessment of Oscar potential. But to get the necessary things out of the way first: I really enjoyed “War Horse.” It was fitting that I saw it last night with a belly full of Thanksgiving goodness, because in many ways, it’s the ultimate comfort food movie. I don’t really mean that as a slight, but that’s probably what it sounds like. Let me try to be a little clearer.

The film feels a bit bloated; there are spots that drag in the second act. Spielberg and cinematographer Janusz Kaminski are obviously striving for a different sort of visual aesthetic, probably because this is the kind of material Spielberg can knock out in his sleep and they wanted to at least try to mix it up. So there are elements with such high key lighting as to make it feel stagy. But that’s also part of the attempt at nostalgic charm, as there are shots here that recall “Gone with the Wind” or “Lawrence of Arabia,” though more reverentially than anything.

I was choked up frequently. I felt manipulated to that place but I didn’t mind. “War Horse” isn’t a movie that plays in organic emotion. It’s inherently contrived (as all art is, when you really boil it down) but the effect is no less legitimate. The film is PG-13 but seemed to be teetering on the edge of PG, and I think that pushed the director to be a little creative here and there. (I read that a shot of a windmill obscuring a certain beat in one scene has rubbed some wrong, as if it were a cop-out, but I thought it was fine and of a piece with the atmosphere of the film.)

Yet while a handful of moments have that Spielberg touch of crafty visual storytelling, they are few and far between. Often, in fact, “War Horse” doesn’t even feel like a Spielberg effort at all and comes across almost anonymously. It was filmed during the lengthy post-production interim on “The Adventures of Tintin” as the director had some free time on his hands. There were moments I thought you could sense that “time filler” thing. There’s almost something too slick about the film, too easy and not all that challenging to him.

But I still liked it. And the story of the production is Spielberg’s handling of the horses on display, which become fleshed-out characters in their own right, with arcs and emotional beats and relationships of their own. It was really quite something, and ultimately, very moving. Because it speaks to the themes of the film. The anti-war element might feel like a bit of a pulled punch on first analysis, but seeing the brutality from the perspective of Joey (the titular character) puts the horror of war in a perspective unique in the genre. And indeed, there is a no man’s land scene between two soldiers that may or may not have been in the book or play (I haven’t investigated, but it does feel very play-like) that ranks up there with the best of war cinema, for my money.

Anyway, I’ve gone and written more of the “review” stuff than I wanted. The question for most is whether the film is the Oscar horse (no pun intended) many have expected it to be, sight-unseen, since the contracts were signed. And in my opinion, it most certainly is.

Someone wrote recently about how “Midnight in Paris” and “The Artist” should be given real consideration as threats to win the big prize this year because, in a sea of films that don’t exactly play to the frothier emotions, they stand out as, well, nice. “War Horse” gets to be nice and robust all at once, a feel-good yarn about a serious subject matter and a unique bend on anti-war cinema. I mean, let’s face it, we knew what it would be from the moment the trailer hit, and that’s what it is. Either you’ll spark to that or you won’t. It’s a Thanksgiving meal, equal parts nourishing and not.

The ensemble doesn’t really have a particular stand-out worth noting as a play in the acting categories. Emily Watson is gone after the first act (that’s not a spoiler, the narrative just moves away from her). Benedict Cumberbatch and Tom Hiddleston have precious few moments. (I don’t know why Pete Hammond chose to single out the latter because the character is in and out.) David Thewlis and Eddie Marsan are good, but they come and go. And the lead, Jeremy Irvine, can’t really shake his character’s two-dimensionality (we get it, he loves that horse).

The only performances with real meat on their bones come from Peter Mullan, as Irvine’s drunkard father losing his pride one drop at a time, and Niels Arestrup, as a grandfather in France suffering the extraneous effects of war in a homeland. Arestrup, in particular, delivers something special since the last time most saw him he was a terrifying mob man in Jacques Audiard’s brilliant “A Prophet.” Here he’s warm and loving and full of much different emotions. I wish his role had been developed more because he’s a fantastic actor (who we’ll hopefully see more and more) and he could have been in the hunt. He gets a reprise after his section of the film comes and goes (the whole film is almost set up like a series of vignettes), but I don’t know that there’s enough to get voters on board.

The crafts are dazzling, as expected. Particularly the design elements, costumes and sets, are noteworthy. I’m down on the photography because it’s just so wildly uneven and the visual homage thing didn’t really connect. In fact, I really wish Spielberg would consider mixing it up with his DPs. I’m not a Kaminski detractor on principal like some (I like a lot of his work), but I would love for the director to partner up with Allen Daviau or someone else again. The sound design is great, the sound effects nicely integrated in the war sequences, and Michael Kahn’s film editing is creative when it needs to be, but mostly invisible (a compliment).

So with all that in mind, nominations are likely for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Art Direction, Best Cinematography (though I wouldn’t be surprised if this missed), Best Costume Design, Best Film Editing (another place it could miss, which would put it’s status as Best Picture frontrunner in question), Best Sound Editing, Best Sound Mixing and Best Original Score. (Speaking of which, I thought John Williams’s work here was undercooked, but that appears to be a minority opinion.)

“Can it win?” That’s what everyone is asking, and will continue to ask, no doubt, in the comments section. My opinion: It most certainly can. Will it? Well, we’ll have to see if the season is kind to it. Critics will be mixed on it, I imagine. It won’t get the boost of their awards circuit, but it won’t need it. And really, after last year’s “Social Network” orgy, can we stop overstating the importance of critics’ awards, at least for films that have an eye toward Best Picture? What matters is how the Academy will gauge the film, and I think this will be right up their alley. At the end of the day, it could be a showdown between three feel-good period crafts showcases: “The Artist,” “Hugo” and “War Horse.”

So another contender finally has its moment in the sun this season. Tomorrow night brings sneaks of Cameron Crowe’s “We Bought a Zoo” in advance of its Christmas release, while David Fincher’s “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” and Stephen Daldry’s “Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close” will begin to screen, I imagine, in a week’s time.

The curtain is dropping fast on 2011.

(Anne and I will talk more about “War Horse” in today’s Oscar Talk, which will drop later this afternoon.)

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

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!