With a DVD/Blu-ray release imminent, Paramount is milking the “Super 8” comeback train while splitting focus with other awards contenders already in the mix. It’s always tough to bring the conversation back around on a movie, especially on a summer entertainment hoping to be something more in the eyes of voters. One move was a big screening and reception at the Academy last night in honor of the release, part and parcel of a campaign party free-for-all this season. Director J.J. Abrams recently sat down with Geoff Boucher to talk about the big lessons of small budgets (conservative spending being a particular narrative on that film all year). [Hero Complex]

Pete Hammond, meanwhile, writes up that campaign party free-for-all as the inevitable result of loosened rules that it is. [Deadline]

Errol Morris mini-docs The Umbrella Man at Dealy Plaza. [New York Times]

Speaking of docs, the Academy has “The Lottery” and “Waiting for ‘Superman'” set to screen for free in Hollywood. [Oscars.org]

Greg Ellwood thinks Meryl Streep will break her Oscar losing streak with “The Iron Lady.” [Awards Campaign]

Viggo Mortensen wants the Oscars to recognize David Cronenberg. [Vulture]

Scott Feinberg on the complicated line between serious and light-hearted Golden Globe contenders. [The Race]

Why the Globes, meanwhile, crawled back to Ricky Gervais. [Hollywood Reporter]

Jim Henson and the Muppet legacy he left behind. [Film School Rejects]

All you need to dupe the internet: a white door and a dry erase board. [Batman-News.com]

I sat down to watch Martin Scorsese”s “Hugo” last night with little idea of what to expect but one thing: that the screen would be awash with some of the finest, most inventive technical artistry that money (or, indeed, imagination) can buy. I was not disappointed: while I”m still sorting out my thoughts on the film as a feat of storytelling, there”s little denying that it”s one of the year”s most lustrous craft showcases, rendered in genuinely eye-popping 3D and buttressing the cinematic valentine it writes to pioneering filmmaker Georges Méliès with its own arsenal of visual wonders.

Such expertise is now par for the course with Scorsese, whatever the film: I was cool on “Shutter Island” last year, but still delighted in his own delight in the filmmaking tools at his disposal – even less obviously extravagant works like “The Departed” or “Taxi Driver” are fat with aesthetic and sensory detail. That”s partly down to the director”s own genius, and partly down to the intimate collaborations he fosters with masters of their own craft: to love Scorsese is to love editor Thelma Schoonmaker, designer Dante Ferretti, DPs Michael Ballhaus and Robert Richardson, and so many more who have become part and parcel of the man”s auteur identity.

So Scorsese seemed as ideal a candidate as any for one of our occasional craft-themed lists – here, I”ve selected the 10 below-the-line contributions to his films, ranging from cinematography to sound to production design, that have most amazed me over the years. 

It was a subjective process, not to mention an agonizing one. I made life more interesting, if a little easier, for myself by deciding only to pick one craft element per film: Scorsese”s filmography is so broad that it wouldn”t do to have certain favorites hogging three spots on the list. The ranking, meanwhile, shouldn”t be taken too seriously: how does one compare costume design to scoring, after all? The list really offers only a taste of the visual and sonic marvels of Scorsese”s cinema, a buffet so broad that even a film as technically gifted as “Hugo” struggled to find a place.

See if it did in our new gallery, and please share your own thoughts and favorites in the comments section below.

Next August marks the 50th anniversary of Marilyn Monroe”s death. Half a century after her passing we find that Monroe remains an enduring figure in our collective consciousness. Director Simon Curtis hopes that the release of his film, “My Week with Marilyn,” will provide audiences with fresh insights into the complex nature of the cinematic icon. Indeed the film’s star, Michelle Williams, is receiving consistent Oscar buzz for what many feel is a revelatory, nuanced portrayal of Monroe.

Marilyn Monroe represents both more, and less, than an actress of repute or a captivating movie star in our cultural lexicon. Marilyn, Norma Jean, the human being is often distilled to an image, a representation of an ideal, a desire, or a figurehead. Monroe herself quipped about her status as a sex symbol in her final interview: “A symbol? I always thought those were the things you clashed together.” She laughed with the journalist but went on to explore essential quagmire of being Marilyn Monroe. “See that”s the trouble is a sex symbol becomes a thing,” she said. “And you just hate to be a thing.”

And yet that is exactly what the screen legend was, and in many ways still is. “That”s what”s interesting,” Curtis says of Monroe”s enduring mystique. “What”s exciting for our film is that there”s such a tremendous interest about Marilyn, and at the same time people don”t know that much about her.”

For some, Monroe”s appeal can be distilled down to “the x-factor,” that indefinable quality that makes it impossible to look away from her. “She just had something that was special and unique,” Curtis said. “Her personality was what made ‘Some Like It Hot’ work, because with another woman playing that part, with a different sort of aura, it would have been harder to buy into her believing that these men were women. And I think with Marilyn, whether it was deliberate or unconscious, the way her life became a sort of talking point in a soap opera. Her marriages, her affairs, of course her awful death, all of these things contributed to the mythology of it.”

There is also the matter of her incredible physical appeal. “It”s that face,” Curtis says. “It”s everywhere you go. The Warhol face, the Madonna version of it, Lady Gaga”s version of it.” Yet there have certainly been other starlets that were as captivating and scandalous.

Jayne Mansfield, who followed in Monroe”s blonde bombshell wake, also faced a tragic end. There”s something about the essential dichotomy of Monroe, the darkness of her life experience and her interior landscape as opposed to the light that she projected on the world, that we cannot get enough of. What is interesting to think about is what that says about our own fundamental nature.

Perhaps we relate to Marilyn”s endless need to be loved and approved of, as well as her inability to truly feel either. She become an unfillable void. As much as she desired affection, as much the world desired to give it to her, Monroe was an emotional sieve. In an attempt to prove that she was worthy to an ephemeral public she built a private prison in the form of her persona where true affection could not reach her.

For Curtis, “it”s not so much that everyone wants attention; it”s that everyone wants to look after somebody. And certainly, I think it was Peter Bogdanovich”s quote that she was in ‘bad trouble from the moment she was born.” Michelle and I and everyone working on it grew to have a lot of admiration and sympathy for Marilyn.

“This not a biopic, however. It”s a moment in time.” A moment in time taken, not from Monroe, but from the life of the author of the memoir the film is based on, Colin Clark. Clark was hired as the 3^rd AD on “The Prince and the Showgirl” as his first job in show business, a job he pursued with dogged persistence and unsinkable enthusiasm, as most who are bitten with the cinema bug do.

“The starting point for me was the visceral excitement, this young man with a passion to be in this business,” Curtis says. “It”s his golden ticket, not only to get to meet Marilyn but to work on this extraordinary film with this extraordinary collection of people.”

Said “collection of people” include Laurence Olivier, Vivien Leigh, the cast and crew of “The Prince and the Showgirl,” Monroe”s new husband Arthur Miller and, of course, Monroe herself. Clark (played by Eddie Redmayne) represents everything that Monroe projects, but does not ultimately posses – innocence, hope, healthy passion. The film is not so much about revealing heretofore unexamined dimensions of Monroe”s personality, but more about witnessing a vision of her through the eyes of a love-struck boy. He is in some ways representative of the trajectory of Marilyn”s relationship with her public and visa versa.

Clark initially display”s a distant sense of awe, followed by an understanding of Monroe as a wounded bird wherein the desire to rescue her comes into play. He has the arrogance to believe that he has the ability to make her see what she is in relentless pursuit of an empty well, to shake her out of her emotional addiction to fame, but he never fully reaches her. The real woman, the woman who has the self-awareness to wonder, “Shall I be her?” when she enters a crowd, never truly reveals herself to Colin.

For as Michelle Williams discovered, the greatest role Monroe ever played, was Monroe. “She herself had clearly adopted a lot of the body language and these attributes,” Curtis mused. The discovery of Monroe “s affectations gave both Curtis and Williams a sense of comfort in pursuing the project. “If Marilyn could adopt them, so can we,” Curtis reasoned.

There are layers of self-reflexivity in “My Week with Marilyn.” It is, most notably, a film about the making of a film. But it is also a film about being in love with filmmaking and about how that love can tear at you, destroy you, madden you and ultimately renew you. Colin”s naïveté is set against Monroe”s savvy. Monroe”s astonishing beauty is set against the agony that an aging Vivien Leigh (once called the most beautiful woman in the world) must endure. Monroe”s madness is set against her seemingly effortless (in reality effortful) genius.

Yet perhaps the most interesting pairing is that of Monroe and Olivier. They were notoriously at odds during the course of production. He ridged, demanding, unforgiving and cruel, she unreliable, spoiled and inconsiderate. There is a moment in the film in which Colin sums the whole matter up as impossible to reconcile in that Olivier”s aim is to become a movie star, while Monroe”s is to be a respected actress and they find themselves in a film which will accomplish neither goal.

“The Prince and the Showgirl” features Olivier as a stodgy old Prince Regent well past his political time and Monroe as a fresh, invigorating woman he finds frustratingly attractive, childish and deeply inconsiderate. There are pieces of dialog in the film where one would swear Sir Laurence is referring to Monroe. “It”s amazing,” Curtis said of the connection. “And also, Olivier, age 50 in 1956, is emblematic of fading England. And Marilyn, age 30, is emblematic of exciting, complicated new America.”

A particular point of contention between Olivier and Monroe was her commitment to Stanislavski’s the method as opposed to his traditional approach to acting. In a poetic marriage of the two, Williams initiated her work on the role by crafting the voice and movement she would use to portray Monroe. She began by focusing on the choreography for a pivotal dance number and as such, in a sense, worked form the outside in. Curtis”s method on set was to provide Williams with as much space as possible for, “Marilyn to pop,” as he puts it.

“We wanted to have the opportunity to sort of splice together moment by moment,” he said. “And Michelle is a great one for just wanting to keep going and offering as many different things as possible. When you”re doing something like this, obviously like any film, you”re helping an actor deliver a scene, or make that journey in that scene work. But on this, there was another thing where you could do that and not be particularly Marilyn-like. So it was about finding the moments that were the most Marilyn-like within that.

But that left a question. What is Marilyn like in from moment to moment? “There were so many different versions of Marilyn,” Curtis says. “There was the bipolar thing, and mood swings. So I think it is a sort of Hamlet of a part for an actress, because there”s just so much at stake. In a way you think of Hamlet, and being compared to everyone who”s already played Hamlet, now she”s being compared to Marilyn. But the part offers so much texture and complexity, and I think that”s what really paid off.”

For Curtis, “My Week with Marilyn” represents a “love letter” to the films of the past. “It”s a film about human beings,” he says. “It”s not a special effects movie. “The Prince and the Showgirl” was about people. Films are made very differently now.”

“My Week with Marilyn” opens in theaters Wednesday, November 23.

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

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!

If auteur theory has brought us to the point where directors” surnames become definite articles describing their films (oh, if one had a dollar for every unironic reference to “The Haneke” or “The Polanski” overheard at any major film festival), the apex of auteurist achievement must be the conversion of a surname into an all-purpose adjective, used not only to describe that director”s films, but others as well.

Few of these ungainly adjectives are quite as evocative, or eagerly repeated by critics, as “Cronenbergian,” a term generally loaded with promises of physical and psychological penetration, a vague entry point into an oeuvre critic Tim Robey aptly described, referencing Cronenberg’s debut feature, as the director”s “own Academy for Erotic Enquiry.”

“It can be a mixed blessing, obviously, and you could put yourself in the position of railing against your own adjectival success,” Cronenberg says with a dry lilt, his voice genially Canadian where one might expect it to sound, well, perhaps a little more Cronenbergian. “The good part is that it suggests you have a real voice in cinema that didn”t exist before, and that is a major achievement. I mean, Fellini films get called Felliniesque, so why complain? But it can also be a trap that encourages audiences to put you in a box, to the point where people might say ‘A Dangerous Method” is not a ‘Cronenbergian” film. And at that point, you bristle, because it”s like typecasting.”

He”s right: since the aforementioned “A Dangerous Method” premiered at Venice in September, more than a few critics (this one included — see my review) have noted that the film seems uncharacteristically demure from a filmmaker regarded in some quarters as mainstream cinema”s reigning king of kink. A precise, academic study of the clash of wills and ideas between psychiatrists Carl Jung and Sigmund Freud, both men wrestling for the mind of patient-turned-protégée Sabina Spielrein, it”s intricate adult material that, on one hand, seems to play right into the director”s psychosexual preoccupations. On the other, it”s realized with a measured historical reverence that will disappoint viewers hoping for the warped extremities of “Dead Ringers,” only bound in a corset; it”s as easy to sympathize with them as it is with the director for wishing to play it straight.

“Sure, I”ve done horror films in the past and this is not that,” he offers agreeably. “People tend to associate my work with body parts and the grotesque and strange inventions of bodily creatures. Even if a lot of my past films don”t meet those criteria, I guess that”s what they mean by ‘Cronenbergian.” And when you apply that to ‘A Dangerous Method,” you don”t necessarily see all that.”

One senses a ‘but” coming, and sure enough it does. “Still, when you look at the film thematically, it may still satisfy the adjective. What intrigues me about Freud is that he was interested in the theology of the human body. This was the Victorian era: very repressive, even down to the clothes they wore. And here he was talking about penises and vaginas and anuses and abuse and incest and stuff, things that were not spoken of, which he focused on as the motor of our neuroses. In that respect, that you can easily connect ‘A Dangerous Method” with my other films, even if visually you”re not seeing the things you might expect from, say, ‘eXistenZ” or ‘Scanners.””

Or perhaps we”re not looking hard enough. Certainly, the director”s overriding concern with physicality is present in the performance of Keira Knightley as Spielrein, the young woman who entered Jung”s care in a state of crippling hysteria, before regaining control of her faculties and emerging as one of history”s first female psychoanalysts. Knightley doesn”t shy away from the overtly unhinged nature of the role at the outset, entering the film with arms flailing and jaw prominently contorting itself; it”s been a divisive turn, but Cronenberg insists they were merely honoring the reality of Spielrein”s condition.

“There”s a lot of historical recording of what Sabina was in terms of her hysteria,” he explains. “There”s silent footage of people with her condition, and it”s quite unwatchable – these women were destroying themselves. I felt strongly that we should concentrate on the mouth, because here was a woman who being asked, forced even, to say things she felt were unspeakable. So she would be forcing these things out of her mouth, but part of her body would be resisting that force. I know some people find what Keira”s doing pretty out there, but we thought we were being restrained compared with what we had seen.”

Watching Knightley”s daring turn, it”s hard to imagine the film as a mid-1990s vehicle for Julia Roberts titled “Sabina,” but that is in fact how Christopher Hampton”s script was first conceived – until the project fell through and Hampton decided to take it to the stage instead. Cronenberg tells me about the project”s circuitous route from screen to stage and back again with some glee – which is understandable, considering that the film has been criticized by some for its perceived staginess.

Warming to his topic, he continues: “It”s such a cliché, but to me it comes down to what you think of as cinema. As a director, I”m most interested in photographing the human face talking. So I don”t think of lots of words as being automatically theatrical at all. I think of it as being essentially cinematic. A car chase is a car chase, and it”s not that interesting after a while. But an incredible face saying incredible words is, to me, the essence of cinema.” He pauses, pleased with his point. “So yes, it gives the lie to the idea that the subject matter is particularly rooted in theater. We had the play to the work with, but also the original screenplay, plus other research and materials that we worked into a new screenplay. So it wasn”t as if we just transferred it straight from the stage.”

Historical authenticity is something Cronenberg keeps returning to in describing his approach, something he doesn”t seem to believe the critics calling for a more subversively florid take on the material are taking into account. “For me, this project is about resurrection, bringing these people back to life as accurately as we can. I had no pro-Freud or pro-Jung agenda, I just wanted to make them alive, to see and hear them speak. And when I”m doing that, I”m absolutely not thinking about any of my other movies.”

He does, however, admit that he personally sides with Freud off-screen: “Freud lines up more with my existing view of human reality. Jung became more of a religious leader, frankly, and that involved something of a flight from the body: he wanted to talk about spirit, God, archetypes, self-realization – which isn”t really what I”m about. But they were both brilliant, charismatic men.”

Cronenberg”s interest in Freud is a longstanding one. He admits that he”d long wanted to make a film about the birth of psychoanalysis – an ambition that even his very first feature, “Stereo,” clearly supports to some extent – and seized upon Hampton”s play as a means of doing so with a structure already in place. “Anybody growing up in the last century was influenced by Freudian thought and analysis, whether they wanted to be or not,” he says, explaining his fascination. “I grew up seeing everyone from Salvador Dali to Bernardo Bertolucci apply psychoanalytic thought to their art. I”ve never been in that group, but there is a clear relationship between the disciplines.”

Does he see the comparatively straightforward “A Dangerous Method” is his own most psychoanalytic film, then? He avoids comparisons with previous films – “A director is in no position to analyse his own work,” he states emphatically – but it”s clear the film has been an exhaustive thematic exploration for him, Cronenbergian or otherwise.

“I do think an artist and a psychoanalyst do the same thing, in a way,” he ventures cautiously. “They”re presented with an official version of reality, and then they say, ‘Okay, but what”s underneath that? What are the hidden factors driving it?” We”re both fascinated by the human condition in general – we want to know what”s really going on.” He pauses, a smile audible over the phone. “I do, at least.”

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!

Okay, I’ve been a bit down on “The Artist” since day one. And I took another shot this morning. Well, allow me to take one more.

Really, I don’t want to be a wet blanket. I appreciate that people are discovering and loving the movie on the festival circuit. I think it’s a thin sort of satisfaction, though, and oddly enough, some of the same people who took “The King’s Speech” to task for being (in their view) a trifle against the STAGGERING density of “The Social Network” last year are glomming onto Michel Hazanavicius’s film like it were a blast of freshness. It’s not. It’s novel. And charming. And yes, it celebrates Hollywood’s Golden Age, which is delightful.

The thing is, when I see a runaway locomotive narrative getting out of hand like the idea that “we should award ‘The Artist’ because it celebrates film history” or what have you, I feel like I have to step in. Especially since that narrative isn’t at all unique to “The Artist” this season, or even this weekend, for that matter.

So good on Tom Shone at Slate for pointing out that “The Artist” is but one example of a few films harkening back.

He writes:

“Come Nov. 23, cinemagoers will have a choice of two valentines to the silent era: The Artist or Hugo, Martin Scorsese”s 3-D adaptation of Brian Selznick”s best-selling children”s book, whose poster echoes Harold Lloyd”s clock shenanigans in Safety Last (1923) and whose final 25 minutes turn into a loving revivification of the earliest days of cinema…

“Nobody could accuse modern blockbusters of silence, but the aesthetics of silent cinema-its favoring of the visual over the literary, action beats over dialogue, international markets over domestic- is alive and well.”

From there Shone spins a thesis around these films recalling, specifically, the aesthetics of silent cinema. And it’s a fine note to make on a season that is full of so many interesting trends, many of them already explored in this space.

But I’m only just now really noticing that Hazanavicius and Scorsese’s films are both hitting theaters tomorrow, and despite my trepidation on “The Artist,” it is a delightful little flick that would make for great holiday viewing this week. Meanwhile, Scorsese’s effort is a thorough piece of reverence from one of the only guys in the industry who could have given it that proper care.

So, see both. Come for the puff pastry appetizer, stay for the hearty turkey dinner.

(Two other films that kind of fit the theme, though abstractly: “Midnight in Paris,” which reflects on a simpler but invigorating time of creativity in 1920s Paris, and “Super 8,” which is a love letter to analog days of yore.)

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

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!

There’s a really annoying campaign going on that is nevertheless SO Harvey Weinstein (meaning it will get the job done): Charlie Chaplin’s granddaughters are going around waxing on about how they love “The Artist,” and The Weinstein Company is happy to bring that message and the messengers to any and all who’ll listen. But the thing is, while I get it, I couldn’t care less what Chaplin’s granddaughters think of “The Artist.” I’d rather hear what they thought of, say, “Shame.” You know, a film with a conversation that stretches past the concession line? Anyway, all that aside, the cast and crew of the film are also making the rounds and Bret Brevet recently chatted up director Michel Hazanavicius. [Rope of Silicon]

And while we’re at it, here’s Michael Fassbender on simulating sex in “Shame” and “A Dangerous Method.” [Vulture]

Michelle Kung talks the “risky road” of the latter with screenwriter Christopher Hampton. [Speakeasy]

How social media revived “The Muppets.” [Mashable]

Speaking of which, new Muppet Walter was modeled after Michael Cera. [New York Times]

Anthony Breznican talks “J. Edgar” with director Clint Eastwood. [Entertainment Weekly]

Anthony Kaufman sans the Oscar doc shortlist is short on current social issues. [RealPolitik]

Jon Hamm writes a love letter to “Bridesmaids” co-star Kristen Wiig (with smokin’ hot photo accompaniment). [GQ]

Nathaniel Rogers digs in on Oscar shorts and songs. [Film Experience]

And because you can never be too quick on the draw (FIRST!), the NYFCC has started a Twitter feed. [Twitter]

In our newly revised (and newly two-headed) Contenders section, you may have noticed a slight uptick for one of the year”s last great unknowns, “The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo.” Kris has placed David Fincher”s remake of the Swedish blockbuster thriller as a dark-horse Best Picture outsider, while Fincher himself cracked the top 10 in my own rejigging of the Best Director category. The film also pops up in a couple of tech categories, while Rooney Mara is waiting to pounce into the Best Actress inner circle.

With the film not yet seen, there”s no telling whether this is that start of greater upward movement, or if we”re just catching some December fever. I”ve been sceptical for some time that the Academy will warm to a nasty pulp remake by a director they seem to admire more than they like, however expertly executed it is, and I remain so.

Certainly, Fincher would discourage us from getting too excited. He”s taking great pains to distance his film from the Oscar race in the advance publicity trail: first, he quipped to Entertainment Weekly last week that his violent genre piece had “too much anal rape” to win over the Academy, and he pretty much repeats that statement in this Total Film interview, where he says he “can”t imagine anyone in their right mind” describing the script as Oscar bait.

He also plays up the “ugliness” and “pervy” quality of the material, which shouldn”t come as a surprise to anyone familiar with the source material – though one imagines Fincher”s typically off-kilter sensibility will kick them up a notch.

All this is to be expected. Box-office glory is the first prize “Dragon Tattoo” has its eye on; assuming devotees of the franchise turn out in their droves next month, what Oscar voters think of the film is a secondary concern, to say the least. And after last year”s “Social Network” fizzle, I can”t imagine Fincher being terribly eager to get back on the campaign trail – everyone says they don”t care about awards, but Fincher”s one of the few I believe actually means it.

Still, I can”t help but wonder if he”s protesting too much here, and whether his loud dismissal of the film”s chances actually amounts to a sneaky reverse-psychology campaign. Is he really warning Academy types off the film… or just daring them to like it? In many ways, I”m reminded of the clever anti-campaign game Warner Bros. played in 2006 for another pop remake of a foreign genre hit, Martin Scorsese”s “The Departed.”

After the director”s two recent disappointing go-rounds with the Academy, we were told, this one was being treated strictly as a commercial play with no awards prospects – until, of course, the film scored with audiences and critics alike, and coolly scooped the Best Picture and Director Oscars a few months later. It was a smart strategy that was clearly rooted in the studio”s own confidence in the film”s ability to connect with viewers, and I wonder if Fincher is feeling similarly, quietly bolshy.

Of course, there isn”t anything like the level of sentimental industry attachment to Fincher as there was to Scorsese that year, and an all-star Boston gangster saga is closer to the Academy”s wheelhouse than a nihilistic Scandinavian hacker study, so the parallel ends there. But if critics cotton on to Fincher”s latest as much as audiences presumably will, there”s a chance the Academy will throw him a bone for switching tack. “The reason awards season was created was to sell movies,” he says, quite correctly, in the interview – and one way or another, he”s using it to sell his.

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!

Such a weird year for movies, this. I feel like it’s been a rather weak one, to be honest. Not in terms of the quality of what’s there, but in terms of the quantity of quality. And even then, I note that so many of my favorite movies this year carry that designation with more caveats than normal.

Yet I really am enjoying 2011 in cinema, or at least, I’m enjoying my favorite movies from the year quite a bit. And it’s interesting to note so many of them are all about a state of mind. “Rampart,” “Shame,” “Drive,” “Take Shelter,” “We Need to Talk About Kevin,” “Martha Marcy May Marlene,” all films that play in the abstract and put the viewer into a character’s frame of perception, at times painting a bit of a dreamscape to do so. Fascinating.

Where the art is meeting commerce, there are still joys to be had. “The Descendants” opened this weekend and landed on my doorstep this morning. Even though I was cooler on it than most at Telluride over two months ago, I find myself eager to give it another look. “Young Adult” and “Hugo” are films that expect to be repeat viewings on my Blu-ray player when I get them, as will “Moneyball” and, most definitely, “Rise of the Planet of the Apes.”

And I haven’t been as excited to receive a screener as I was when “Midnight in Paris” showed up, funnily enough. That says a lot about that film, which may be a trifle to many, but is no less delightful to most.

I’ve already written about 2011 as a Rorschach season, though. And I mention screeners now because it’s getting to be crunch time for many studios looking to bring their product back around for awards voting bodies. Generally most critics groups and the like have just about everything, save for the really late-breaking films, by Thanksgiving. That gives the holiday to mull over everything again or catch up with elusive titles and then, traditionally, voting is held in the first or second week of December for these guys.

Well, things changed this year when the New York Film Critics Circle cravenly opted to jump ahead of the National Board of Review and be FIRST! out of the gate with an assessment of the year’s best. They made it easy for their colleagues on the west coast, the Los Angeles Film Critics Association, to look classy when that organization opted to stay in the usual mid-December frame for its vote.

Though word is Sony will not be able to screen “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” for New York press in time for the November 28 vote, so things were delayed until November 29. That still gives them a day’s cushion before the NBR announcement on December 1, though. So no sweat off their back, I guess.

However, Warner Bros. will not be screening Stephen Daldry’s “Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close” for either the NYFCC or NBR. It’s been in the editing room for quite a while and I legitimately think it just won’t be ready, but alas, if you have to be FIRST!, you miss out on this and that. (And it’s worth mentioning that NYFCC chief John Anderson has reportedly noted in a letter to the membership notifying them of this development that they are to “draw their own conclusions” about this, which is vaguely casting an aura of failure onto the film for having the gall not to meet his asinine early deadline. How professional.)

The LA critics vote on December 11. Coincidentally that is the voting deadline for the BFCA’s Critics’ Choice Movie Awards picks. Those nominees will be announced two days later on December 13. Then there will be the countless critics groups across the continent who make their picks, which will hopefully be more varied and inspired than last year’s snooze fest of group think. Two weeks later AMPAS ballots hit the mail on December 27 and then it’s one mad publicity dash until polls close on January 13.

Oh yeah, and there are still films waiting to be screened for a great many: “War Horse,” “We Bought a Zoo,” “In the Land of Blood and Honey” and the aforementioned “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” and “Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close.” How will they figure into the race? We’ll find out soon enough.

A note on prediction updates this week. As previewed two weeks ago, Guy and I are now splitting up the Contenders section between us. We’ll have a separate space for final predictions further down the line, but for now, throughout the season, we’ll be sharing these duties. Who is tackling what can be noted by the commentary section of each category. Those predictions are reflected in the right sidebar, as always, though now the sidebar paints a more inclusive portrait of multiple takes on the race rather than the exclusive portrait of just MY take. So head on over there now and have a look at what we’re thinking this week.

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

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!

The color of love was a fetching blood red in both theaters and on VOD this weekend.

It’s possible that two more divergent explorations of the agony and the ecstasy of love could be found. Possible. But the synchronistic release of the micro-budgeted, darkly masculine fantasy of love “Bellflower” vs. the blockbusting female fantasy “The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn – Part 1” warrants a mention and a brief examination. The former represents an independent passion project 8 years in the making for writer/director/star Evan Glodell, while the latter represents the penultimate instillation in a YA phenomena.

Most readers will already be familiar with the general story structure of “Breaking Dawn,” but for referential purposes: Bella and Edward get married. Jacob gets sad. Bella gets pregnant. Jacob gets mad. The werewolves turn against the Cullen vampires.The fetus threatens to drain Bella of her life from the inside out. Edward begs for death alongside his beloved. Bella learns to love the taste of blood, blooood, blooooooood! Jacob is forced to gag. All of this culminates in a frighteningly intimate c-section with teeth and Jacob “imprinting on” (aka falling in enslaving love with) an infant.

“Bellflower” follows childhood friends Woodrow and Aiden who (as adults) remain committed to their post-apocalyptic daydreams of glory in which they and their “Mother Medusa” gang will be the lone survivors prepared to handle the harsh realities of a world on fire (side note: Charles Manson had a similar fantasy). They build elaborate muscle cars and homemade flamethrowers together in preparation for the end, until Woodrow falls maddeningly in love with sexy tom boy Milly, at which point a frenetic nightmare of betrayal and violence ensues.

Broken down in those terms it’s going to be a challenge to decide which of these films is indeed more of a mind twister. 

It is easy enough to note the ways in which the two films are distinct from one another. “Breaking Dawn” opened theatrically this weekend to the tune of $139.5 million (according to studio estimates), whereas “Bellflower” has completed its limited theatrical run and is now available on DVD, Blu-ray and VOD. As mentioned, one was created with limited funds and primarily via the pure force of will of the team behind it, while the other is (in relative terms) an enormous studio endeavor. Critics have had a lukewarm to adverse response to “Breaking Dawn” and tend to favor “Bellflower” as a darling out of Sundance (it stands at 73% on the review aggregate Rotten Tomatoes to “Breaking Dawns”‘s 27%).

Yet we find that each film looks at adult psycho-sexual realities, be they marriage, infidelity, or childbirth, through the eyes of an adolescent. What distinguishes them is that “Bellflower” may in fact be a critique of said male adolescent fantasy, while “Breaking Dawn,” for all intents and purposes, is a celebration of the feminine side of that coin. “Twilight” was created for young adults, whereas “Bellflower” is meant for a “more mature audience,” yet the prepubescent visions presented in the films speak to the teenager within all of us.

When we say masculine and feminine we are speaking in general terms. It is not to say that all women love “Twilight” (simply that the vast majority of that franchise demographic is female, roughly 80% this weekend according to Entertainment Weekly); nor is to say that the male of the species are ever boys who secretly harbor lifelong fantasies of engaging in all manner of mayhem and bloodletting. We simply wish to notice the archetypal representations of feminine and masculine ignis fatuus present in each of these films.

It should be noted that “Bellflower” is more likely to speak to both men and women in that it takes a step back from its subject matter and asks the audience to engage in an exploration of the male fears and fantasies.

A Boy’s Dream:

“Bellflower” lovingly references, and plays worshipful homage to, “The Road Warrior” (also known as “Mad Max 2”) as if it is (at least in part) the same 13-year-old boy who initially became enamored of the harsh and desolate Australian plains depicted in the film is standing behind the camera of this one. In fact he is. So the film itself is indeed an expression of a boy’s dream.

The object of Woodrow’s desire is the picture of a young male’s imagination. Milly is gorgeous, desired by all of the other men (allowing the one who wins her to know that he may indeed beat his chest hardest), impetuous, supportive of his childish habits, a “guy’s girl,” and incredibly forgiving of any perceived sexual inadequacies. 

She makes absolutely no demands that he grows up or out of his less adult habits, encourages his testosterone driven displays of bravado and in fact engages in such displays herself. She is a portrait of perfection: a dude in the form of a stunning, sexually free woman with an incredible body. The 12-year-old’s fairytale is replete with an eternally loyal best friend with whom to run around and blow things up.

A man’s fears come into play when Milly is unfaithful, calling Woodrow’s prowess and masculinity into question. At that point the film erupts into a furious fever dream in which Woodrow indulges his imagination and desire for painful retribution and re-balancing. The final exchange between Aiden and Woodrow exemplifies the purpose of the exercise, to give voice to a longing on the part of the male to be as tough as “The Road Warrior”’s Lord Humongous, so tough that it is impossible to be hurt. Aiden paints an inviting picture of the two friends traveling cross country looking “so fucking cool,” being insulated from the harsher realities of adult, emotional life in their car full of weapons. Because you see, Humongous “doesn’t get heartbroken or cheated on,” no “Lord Humongous dominates his women – and they love him for it.”

This may be an over-read, but I found it interesting that the souped up, armored, external expression of the masculine primal yell (the boy’s automobile) is aptly named Medusa. I have a particular sympathy toward the cursed, snake-headed she-demon myth. Of course, we all know of Peruses’s defeat of the Gorgon (thank you Harry Hamlin and Ray Harryhausen), but many forget how she came to be exiled on that Island to begin with.

Medusa was once the most desired woman in Athens, but as a virgin priestess of Athena, was also completely unattainable. In what scholars describe as a “fit of lust” and frustration, Poseidon raped Medusa in Athena’s temple. Athena saw the act as an unforgivable desecration, and rather than take out her ire on the male perpetrator, she chose to curse Medusa to lose her beauty and live a life of utter isolation wherein her gaze (which had once inspired the most basic, life-affirming response) would result in death to the viewer. Her head held the power to defeat enemies on the battlefield, and as such Medusa became a target. Warriors fought to slay her, and thus steal her power. And so, the car that (with all its weaponry and additions) represents a safe masculine encasement for the boys also calls to mind the stolen power of a woman.

A Girl’s Fairytale:

We’ve had several years to explore, debate, and in some cases dismiss, the feminine wish fulfillment themes present in “Twilight.” There have been multiple articles written on Bella as a destructive set back to female empowerment (something which may be the subject of a future article). Whatever your particular take, there can be no doubt that there are layers to the “Twilight” phenomena. From the initial shock of the extent and fervor of the fandom surrounding the first film, to the resultant backlash from the more geek-centric fanboys and girls, no one can deny that it strikes a deep cultural chord. Many look at the series as emotional porn for women, porn in that it has a titillating, addictive nature and in that if it is taken to excess, the viewer/reader may eventually prefer the escapist fantasy that it provides to more complex, intractable genuine human relationships.

I am of the belief that Maslow had it right when he proposed that what most of us desire above all else is self-actualization. Some would contend that what drives women (outside of the aforementioned universal human needs) are the distinctly feminine twin cravings to feel safe and desired. Of course “Twilight” speaks to the awkward girl’s fantasy that despite all evidence that she is ordinary she is, in fact, an object of overwhelming appeal (someone worth killing and dying for) and a woman of extraordinary powers.

In terms of the longing for safety “Twilight” handily addresses any concern a young woman may have about a relationship. Let us look at the nature of our heroes, Edward and Jacob. They are each “impossibly” fast, inhumanly strong, able to face and defeat all comers in a physical contest without any desire to do so as an act of showmanship. The chosen lover, Edward, is also wealthy beyond measure, ensuring material physical comfort (though of course, Bella doesn’t care about that, we are not superficial in our fantasies you see, just very, very lucky). He is cultured, gentlemanly and permanently young. It certainly doesn’t hurt the fantasy that he is achingly gorgeous. More than that, he has the ability to change us (for Bella is the stand-in) so that we too will remain youthful and the most physically perfect versions of ourselves possible. That genetic shift will effectively address any fear the viewer might have about becoming older, faded, and replaceable.

“Happily ever after” is no longer enough to satisfy the adolescent female fantasy of love. We are too savvy, too cynical, we have too often heard the phrase “as faithful as their options.” This brings us to the subject of fidelity. Stephanie Meyer has created two characters that are genetically imprisoned. They are biologically compelled to remain faithful and put the concerns of “their woman” above those of their own. Jacob’s “imprinting” “reorients his world” so that all “chords” that connect him to other things are cut and redirected toward the object of his desire. He is unable to do anything but be everything and anything she needs. As a vampire, Edward has been frozen physically, but also emotionally; the book describes change as something that is next to impossible for a vampire. It takes a cataclysmic event to create one (like, say, falling in love) and once complete the change is permanent.

The structure of the love story reads like an iron clad emotional contract with absolutely no out clause. The heroine is guaranteed everlasting youth, beauty, devotion and a child to carry on her likeness in an externally realized manifestation. There is no sacrifice, no compromise and no real emotional risk. At the most fundamental level “Twilight” speaks to the very human fear of our own insignificance and inevitable mortality.

In aesthetic terms I find the films vastly divergent.  “Breaking Dawn” is an uninspired, sleepy undertaking that utilizes every cinematic short cut possible in order to turn in a paint-by-numbers offering that aims only to satisfy the most basic demands of the fan base. “Bellflower” is a visually engaging dreamscape that effectively utilizes the look of bleach-bypass or color reversal film (though it was shot digitally) to create a sense of unreality that allows us to engage with the fantasy presented at the level of the unconscious. It challenges its own youthful whimsy (if by whimsy we mean the craving for brutal violence) and some of the more widely accepted perceptions of machismo (in both its male and female characters).

In thematic terms, I find the films to be fascinating mirrors of the male and female adolescent psyches, the desire to completely insulate oneself from pain, and the push/pull, attraction/repulsion that we must all ultimately feel toward and away from both violence and connection.

So the HFPA tapped Ricky Gervais last week as Golden Globes host despite cries from within that he went too far last year. Hell, even the organization’s brass hit the stage THAT NIGHT to bemoan the comedian’s taunts. Anyone with eyes can see it’s a ratings grab, just like a number of the dubious nominations equate to star-f***ing over the years. They beg to differ on that, but come on: “While the Hollywood Foreign Press Assn. takes the firm position that its members are not starstruck and an actor’s place in Hollywood hierarchy doesn’t mean anything when it comes to who’ll appear at the org’s kudocast, the list of recent noms may prove otherwise.” [Variety]

Steve Pond reports from the Academy screening of “The Descendants” on Saturday night. [The Odds]

Beth Hanna, meanwhile, offers up highlights from a LACMA screening of the film. [Thompson on Hollywood]

Speaking of LACMA, Jen Yamato was on hand for the Jason Reitman-directed live script reading of “The Apartment.” [Movieline]

Rebecca Keegan says modern audiences are responding to “The Artist.” We’ll see how what the box office has to say about that. [The Envelope]

Greg Ellwood was on hand for a taste-maker gathering on behalf of “Contagion” and screenwriter Scott Z. Burns this weekend. [Awards Campaign]

Geoff Boucher has video of Woody Harrelson talking “Rampart” at a Q&A. [24 Frames]

Michael Fassbender shares about “delving” into sexual roles. [MTV Movies Blog]

“J. Edgar” producers Brian Grazer and Robert Lorenz get interviewed by “the Deadline team.” How does that work? A press conference scenario with Pete, Mike and Nikki grilling them under heat lamps? [Deadline]

Alex Ben Block talks to the principals of Simon Curtis’s “My Week with Marilyn.” [Hollywood Reporter]

What do James Cameron, Wes Anderson and Paul Thomas Anderson have in common? Well, a number of things, probably, but as of late, they are directors who have moderated Q&As with Martin Scorsese following screenings of his latest film, “Hugo.”

Paramount has a history of slotting filmmakers for Q&As. It’s something they try to do as often as possible, anyway, and in the case of DGA screenings (one of which Wes Anderson moderated in New York a few weeks back), the requirement is that members serve as moderators. All that aside, it’s an interesting accent on a film like “Hugo,” which is ultimately about the magic of cinema, from the larger-than-life experience of a movie to the joy of the nuts and bolts of making one.

With that in mind, the studio has made available a featurette with Cameron (who moderated a guild Q&A here in Los Angeles for “Hugo” and called it a “masterpiece”) and Scorsese talking about the film, its themes, the 3D technology employed and more.

“Your film is about the magic of cinema,” Cameron says in the video below. “And the movie is magical…It’s like a 16-cylinder Bugatti firing on all cylinders, and the 3D is one of those cylinders…It’s absolutely the best 3D photography that I’ve seen.”

Says Scorsese of 3D, “It’s such an exciting chance now for the medium to expand. Imagine ‘Citizen Kane’ in 3D.” Of course, he adds for good measure, “I’m not saying do it.”

And the philosophy fits in, ultimately, with Scorsese’s passion for the form. I smiled when he talked about cinema heading toward holograms when he spoke following an early-November screening of the film. “In ‘Hamlet’ the character can walk into the audience and do ‘to be or not to be,'” he said, giddy at the prospect.

It’s also interesting to note that along with Scorsese, Steven Spielberg (“The Adventures of Tintin”) and Francis Ford Coppola (“Twixt”) have taken to 3D as of late. Are the legends adapting to a natural progression or are they sparking to a new element and searching for ways to pioneer it in their way? Probably a bit of both.

Check out the featurette below. “Hugo” opens nationwide on Wednesday, November 23.

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

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!

The documentary branch of the Academy is beginning to get as crazy with it’s random snubs as the music branch, I have to say. Today’s announcement of 15 eligible contenders for the Best Documentary Feature category revealed outright snubs of two of the most acclaimed hopefuls of the year — “Senna” and “The Interrupters” — while perhaps less surprisingly, Werner Herzog got the shaft once again for his best film in years, “Into the Abyss: A Tale of Death, a Tale of Life.”

Errol Morris was also shafted for “Tabloid” (which is embroiled in a lawsuit threat from subject Joyce McKinney), while other high-profile hopefuls like “Being Elmo: A Pupeteer’s Journey” and “Page One: Inside the New York Times” were also ignored.

Interestingly, Wim Wenders’s 3D Pina Bausch ode (and German selection for Best Foreign Language Film) “Pina” made the cut. So did “Paradise Lost 3: Purgatory,” which slated a one-week theatrical qualifying run ahead of its HBO premiere expressly for the purposes of being in this discussion.

Check out the full list of advancing titles below.

“Battle for Brooklyn” (RUMER Inc.)

“Bill Cunningham New York” (First Thought Films)

“Buck” (Cedar Creek Productions)

“Hell and Back Again” (Roast Beef Productions Limited)

“If a Tree Falls: A Story of the Earth Liberation Front” (Marshall Curry Productions, LLC)

“Jane’s Journey” (NEOS Film GmbH & Co. KG)

“The Loving Story” (Augusta Films)

“Paradise Lost 3: Purgatory” (@radical.media)

“Pina” (Neue Road Movies GmbH)

“Project Nim” (Red Box Films)

“Semper Fi: Always Faithful” (Tied to the Tracks Films, Inc.)

“Sing Your Song” (S2BN Belafonte Productions, LLC)

“Undefeated” (Spitfire Pictures)

“Under Fire: Journalists in Combat” (JUF Pictures, Inc.)

“We Were Here” (Weissman Projects, LLC)

Feel free to offer up your predictions of how this will all shake out in the comments section below. We’ll finally start charting this category via the Contenders section as of next week’s update.

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

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!

It had been nearly 12 years since Jim Henson’s beloved creation the Muppets had seen any sort of action on the big screen when Jason Segel took a meeting with Disney execs about potential properties the studio owned that might be of interest to him. The first thing out of Segel’s mouth: “What are you guys doing with the Muppets?”

The thing is, the studio didn’t know. “Which is funny,” screenwriter Nicholas Stoller says, “that a corporation lost one of their brands. I think there were a variety of corporate reasons. Things I don’t really understand. Like, I mean, 18 different people seemed to have owned the property in the past 10 years.”

That idea of “where have the Muppets been?” is what drove the original story process. Segel phoned up Stoller and asked, simply, “Do you want to write a Muppet movie?” And of course, Stoller jumped at the opportunity.

“I’m a huge Muppet fan,” he says. “I call the Muppets the gateway drug to comedy. Anyone who’s involved in comedy, unless they’re a bad person, loves the Muppets.”

The idea of a reunion movie made the most sense, of course, but there is an added element of reclaiming the Muppets for posterity. In the film, actor Chris Cooper plays a (comically two-dimensional) businessman aiming to buy the “Muppet Studios” to get at (what else?) the precious oil under the facility. Stoller and company conceived of a new character and life-long Muppet fan, Walter (himself a puppet, which shouldn’t work, but somehow does) who leads the charge of getting the gang back together for one last fund-raising variety show.

“The emotional stuff really came out of that,” Stoller says, “of like the bittersweet nature of when a group of friends breaks up or a family breaks up, the sadness of that and then trying to get them back together and trying to resolve their problems. I think the reason it resonates is — and this is something that we can’t take credit for — there’s kind of a meta narrative of all these people who grew up with the Muppets who are now seeing them for the first time in years.”

That re-experiencing of childhood was always going to be the added flavor to push the film forward. Stoller cites the “Toy Story” films as particularly powerful examples of fleshing out the sadness of having lost your childhood and wanted that aspect here as well.

“Not to get too deep, but I think there’s that element of it, too,” he says. “I watched [original song performance] ‘Pictures in My Head’ and I’m like, ‘Oh, my God. I was a kid once, too. And I loved these characters as a kid. And I miss them as an adult. But I’m no longer a kid.'”

Being a Muppet movie, celebrity cameos were naturally essential. Segel stars alongside Amy Adams as the two central live-action leads of the film, while the aforementioned Cooper, Jack Black, Whoppi Goldberg and Zach Galifianakis, among others, fill out some of the other walk-on roles. And Stoller says the team had little trouble landing the actors they planned for in the script.

“It was pretty awesome,” he says. “The fact is most comedians, you know, they’re kind of earliest inspiration are the Muppets. So basically whoever we asked wanted to do it, and then it came down to scheduling. The few people who couldn’t do it was due to scheduling.”

Well, not everyone was so excited to be a part of it. When the project was percolating, Frank Oz — one of the originators of the Muppets as a puppeteer and the voice of characters like Miss Piggy, Fozzie Bear, Animal and Sam the Eagle — said publicly that he felt the script wasn’t respectful of the characters. One can only imagine it was a misread of the running gag throughout the film (from the perspective of smarmy TV execs and the like) that the Muppets are irrelevant and outdated. Because at the end of the day, “The Muppets” displays incredible reverence for the material and is inherently ABOUT that reverence.

It’s unfortunate that Oz opted out of participating due to his take on the script, but Stoller takes it in stride.

“I’ve never met him or anything,” he says. “So I only know him as like a public figure. There are many drafts of the script. We wrote this over four years. I’m sure he read an early draft that we revised and I’m sure he’s weirded out other people are, you know, dealing with the franchise he helped start. But I think once he sees it, if he sees it, he’ll like it. I mean, we’re just trying to stay true to their vision. We’re trying to do another movie in the grand tradition of those first couple movies and I think, I feel, as if we succeeded.”

With that idea of the Muppets being outdated and potentially “irrelevant,” though, comes a question: How do they speak to the younger generation of today? There is something timeless about them, but finding that resonance was going to be a certain trick on this film.

“They kind of set the stage for a lot of modern comedy, whether it be ‘The Simpsons’ or ‘Shrek’ or the Pixar movies or whatnot,” Stoller says. “So I think the big thing is — and I didn’t really understand this until I sat down and watched the final cut of the movie, as I had been focused on the comedy, the story, the emotional aspect of it — when the movie ended, I had a huge smile on my face. And that’s kind of the point of the Muppets, to put a huge smile on your face and make you really happy. It’s really about putting on a show and making people happy. And there isn’t really a lot of stuff that’s out there just to do that, that’s just about that.  And the Muppets are really just about that.”

Yet there is certainly substance in the film, not least of it being a running theme (tied to the Walter character) of finding one’s inner talent and having the courage to tap into it.

The characters’ collective talents won’t be on display as hosts of the Oscars this year, despite a valiant effort by an online grassroots campaign. But they will be when the film hits theaters this Thanksgiving. And one imagines a slew of adults will feel young again, while a smile will be put on the face of a whole new generation.

“The Muppets” opens nationwide Wednesday, November 23.

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

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!

The Telluride premiere of Alexandre Payne’s “The Descendants” seems like ages ago. I saw the film there and had my say on it at the time, and we circle back again in today’s Oscar Talk. Plus, earlier in the week, we dedicated an installment of The Lists to the best George Clooney performances. But the film hit theaters this week and it’s time for you to have your say. If you get around to it this weekend, come on back and give us your thoughts.

If you were still in any doubt that Asghar Farhadi’s superb Iranian marital drama “A Separation” is this year’s Chosen One on the world cinema circuit, there was further confirmation this week, as the film scooped the annual BBC Four World Cinema Award, handed annually by rotating jury of film and arts luminaries to what they perceive as the standout non-English-language film of the year.

The award itself is a modest one, but it has a habit of going to consensus critical champions. Previous winners include “The White Ribbon,” “4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days” and “Pan’s Labyrinth.” Juries here clearly aren’t encouraged to surprise with against-the-grain choices, nor should they be.

“A Separation” is clearly, and deservedly, now in that elevated league of approval, despite its lesser-known auteur and more modest origins: it’s the first winner of the award since “Downfall” in 2006 not to have debuted at Cannes. (If the success of Farhadi’s film has taught us anything this year, it’s that people should pay closer attention to the Berlinale in February.) An Oscar nomination is expected — should the general branch members not vote it in, there’ll be critical hell to pay if the executive committee doesn’t save it — though I’m still not counting on the soft-centered voting contingent giving this thorny moral study the win.

Looking at the films it beat to the World Cinema Award, one can’t imagine the jury — headed this year by playwright and Oscar-nominated screenwriter David Hare, with filmmaker Gurdinder Chadha and novelist Kazuo Ishiguro also in the mix — had to sweat to hard over this decision. “The Skin I Live In,” “Uncle Boonmee Who Can Recall His Past Lives,” “Of Gods and Men” and “Le Quattro Volte” may all have their champions, but none have united opinion to the same extent as Farhadi’s film, the humanism and structural sophistication of which is very tough to argue against. Including the likes of “Poetry,” “Tomboy” or “Miss Bala” would have made for a stronger shortlist, I think, but I can’t see how the outcome would have been any different.

Meanwhile, in another pretty inarguable decision, Isabelle Huppert won the World Cinema Achievement Award. Huzzah. I doubt her trophy cabinet was looking particularly lonely, but there aren’t really enough awards to give one of our greatest working actors. Anyone want to tell that to the Academy?

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.

Though I’ve been away most of the week, it’s been a busy one. Academy events, movie premieres, news items, all kinds of things to discuss. So now that I’m back in town and have already hit the ground running, let’s see what’s on the docket today…

Late last week Steven Spielberg’s “The Adventures of Tintin” closed out AFI Fest. We haven’t had a chance to talk about it on the podcast yet so we dig in on how taxing it is for some, how elating it was for others.

Last weekend, after a hell week that saw Oscarcast producer Brett Ratner and host Eddie Murphy bow out of the ceremony amid controversy, the Academy celebrated Honorary Oscar recipients at the Governors Awards. Anne was on hand and has plenty to say about it.

The Weinstein Company has begun screening “The Iron Lady” in Los Angeles after UK press got a look recently. I discuss its strengths and weaknesses, one of the former being Meryl Streep’s performance.

This leads to some discussion on other elements in play in the Best Actress race, including Ellen Barkin’s work in “Another Happy Day.”

After the Academy made a safe choice in tapping Billy Crystal to host the Oscars last week, the Hollywood Foreign Press Association has gone risky by bringing Ricky Gervais back to emcee. We discuss.

“The Descendants” is opening this weekend. We circle back around on that and discuss where it seems to be in the race presently.

Bill Condon’s “The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn – Part 1” premiered in Los Angeles this week and Anne was there. She gives her take on that circus and the film overall.

And finally, reader questions. We answer queries involving Angelina Jolie’s “In t he Land of Blood and Honey” and the Oscar chances of “The Ides of March” a number of weeks removed from release (not looking good).

Have a listen to the new podcast below with a little Black Sabbath 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.

“Iron Man” courtesy of Black Sabbath and Vertigo.
“Hope” courtesy of Descendents and New Alliance.

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!

So The Hollywood Reporter held its directors round table and didn’t invite any women. Then the outlet’s editor Stephen Galloway was condescending toward the profile of female-directed films this year, asking the filmmakers to “name a female director who made a major film this year.” This made Melissa Silverstein hit the roof, and I think she speaks truth. “‘The Whistleblower’ was a major movie that actually made the UN stand up and look at how peacekeepers are acting around the world,’ she says. ‘Circumstance’ was a major movie that brought us into Iranian culture from the perspective of two teenage girls. ‘Pariah’ is a major film about an African American girls dealing with sexuality…It matters that the Hollywood Reporter doesn’t think a woman made a major movie this year.” [Women and Hollywood]

Ricky Gervais says his third stint of hosting the Golden Globes is “definitely [his] final time.” [RickyGervais.com]

Marlowe Stern profiles “Tyrannosaur” and “The Iron Lady” star Olivia Colman. [Daily Beast]

Greg Ellwood reports from the Los Angeles premiere of “The Descendants.” [Awards Campaign]

Ryan Adams points to a boat load of tracks from John Williams’s original “War Horse” score. [Awards Daily]

Cameron Crowe’s “We Bought a Zoo” will sneak a month in advance on more than 800 screens. [The Uncool]

Steve Pond on the Oscar doc race and the looming short list announcement. [The Odds]

Move over Billy and Ricky, the National Board of Review has tapped “Today”‘s Natalie Morales to host its gala this year. [Deadline]

David Poland talks to “Happy Feet Two” director George Miller. [Hot Blog]

And if you haven’t seen it yet, you must watch Drew McWeeny’s kid interview Kermit and Miss Piggy about “The Muppets.” [Motion/Captured]

Are you surprised? Well, if you”ve been reading the site, then perhaps not. In Contention informed of Ricky Gervais”s imminent return to Golden Globes hosting duties (read: indiscriminate razing of Hollywood”s collective egos) in August and then again earlier this month. Still, given the recent Oscarcast shake-up, today”s official announcement could be interpreted as the Globes, in essence, sticking their tongue out and saying, “Suck it Oscars. The Globes aren’t afraid of a live wire.”

Gervais Tweeted his intentions clearly: “It’s gonna be biblical.” Anyone familiar with the Brit comedian”s view on religion knows that “biblical” (in Gervais speak) may well mean full of epically scaled exaggeration, fancy and lies. (TO BE CLEAR – that is not my take on the bible so please release the caps lock button.) It is simply my best estimation of the comedian”s implications. It could also denote a grandiose disaster that only the animals will survive…if anyone.

If last year”s telecast is to be any indication, it will be a bit of all of the above. In point of fact, as The Guardian reports, when Gervais was asked how he would handle a third turn as the host of the Golden Globes, he replied simply, “I’ll go fucking mental.”

So you”re lucky, Hollywood Foreign Press Association, so very lucky, that this year brought us, the viewing public, “Moneyball,” and you a legitimate reason to invite the Pitt-Jolies to supper. “They must be mad,” Gervais said of the HFPA in a statement (via Reuters) on Thursday. “Not sure if I’m flattered that they trust me or insulted that they trust me. Either way…they shouldn’t trust me.”

So why have they trusted him after the previous head of the HFPA referred to last year”s performance as “totally unacceptable?” The answer is simple: they don”t. Gervais has said that many celebrities were unjustly offended in 2011 and that this year he is “going to make sure their offense is completely justified.” He is going to be an absolute bastard, a hilarious, irreverent, offensive bastard. He is also going to generate ratings. So there is our answer. Gervais is a ratings grabber that HFPA would be foolish to pass on. The truth is that many will tune in just to see how far he will go. By the way, it”s going to be far.

What is interesting to note is the difference between the HFPA”s host selection versus the Academy”s. One is a very safe choice while the other is a clear risk. Shortly after the HFPA”s official announcement, Gervais Tweeted “He’d better not use any of my holocaust or pedophile material” in reference to Oscar host Billy Crystal.

The contrast may actually work in everyone”s favor. People will tune in to see what shenanigans Gervais will get up to during the Globes, be inexplicably shocked when he tells the truth as he sees it (and/or makes an actual pedophilia joke) and be ready for Crystal”s more family- (and celebrity-) friendly brand of humor come Oscar time. The variance in the two comedian”s styles should also put the awards shows into perspective.

As Guy previously reported, Gervais himself does not necessarily believe that the Oscarcast is the appropriate venue for his particular flavor of cheek. It is his belief that the Academy Awards viewership, “[doesn’t] want to hear jokes, they want to hear who”s won the most important award of their career,” which, as Guy rightly pointed out at the time takes a subtle jab at the Globes. Gervais”s assertion that the Globes invites comedy whereas the Oscars do not essentially translates to, “Have you seen the Globes? They”re eating during the ceremony; it”s basically celebrity dinner theatre.”

I find that the difference between Crystal and Gervais”s humor is analogous to the contrast between Steve Carell”s Michael Scott and Ricky Gervais”s David Brent on the American and British versions of “The Office.” As someone who was an enormous fan of the British version (and as such completely prepared to detest the American iteration), I was surprised to find that the comedic styles were in many ways complementary. David Brent was a shockingly funny and hopelessly irredeemable character and it was impossible to turn away from his appalling and often legitimately repulsive antics. But Michael Scott”s sweet (painfully inept) innocence was equally engaging.

That is not to say that Mr. Crystal is not all that bright (he clearly is) or that Mr. Gervais is an asshole (though he clearly is – in the best possibly way), it is simply to say that, often, diversity is both nice and appropriate.

Sign up for Instant Alerts at In Contention!