For whatever reason, I always find myself forgetting about BAFTA’s series of ‘A Life in Pictures’ tributes, wherein assorted big-name actors and directors speak about their work to a public audience at the British Academy’s headquarters. (It’s a little like the James Lipton treatment, if a mite less toadying.) Previous honorees run the gamut from Will Ferrell to Jean-Pierre Jeunet, so it’s not particularly an awards-related deal, but it just so happens that BAFTA’s two most recent selections for the series are currently on the campaign trail: “Young Adult” star Charlize Theron was up last week, while “My Week With Marilyn” hopeful Kenneth Branagh has his turn on Saturday. It certainly won’t hurt their visibility with voters.

I didn’t even know Theron was being celebrated the very next day when I reflected on the South African’s early career highlights on Friday. In retrospect, it all ties in rather nicely — even if it still seems a tad early for the 30-something star to be given the this-is-your-life treatment. (A BAFTA, incidentally, is one award Theron hasn’t won: nominated for “Monster” the year after her Oscar win due to release-date discrepancy, she wound up losing to Imelda Staunton.)

It’s a shame that BAFTA doesn’t post video footage from these talk on their website, though a gather from a colleague who was present that she was a typically engaging presence, swearing copiously as if still in character from “Young Adult” — the third act of which, she explained, was her chief reason for doing the film. (No, I don’t know, either.)

Branagh is a more expected choice for this sort of thing: I’d gladly go along if I weren’t out of town this weekend, though I’m sure he’ll be plummily erudite as ever. (If you’re in London and fancy bagging a ticket, check out the BAFTA site.) I can’t imagine he’ll have to work very hard to charm the BAFTA crowd. While I find myself wavering on what I once thought looked an easy Oscar nod for his Laurence Olivier impression in “Marilyn” — he’s fun, but the role amounts to little more than mannered schtick — I have little doubt that his eighth nomination from the Brits (most of them for small-screen work) is on its way. 

On a side note: a friend recently pointed out a nifty bit of trivia to me: should Branagh score a Supporting Actor mention from the Academy, he’ll be only the second person (Warren Beatty being the first) to have accumulated nominations in five different categories. He currently holds nods, if no wins, for Best Director, Actor, Adapted Screenplay and Live-Action Short. There’s one for the pub quiz file. 

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!

Considering what a pickle they were in only a week ago, I admire the efficiency with which the Academy is moving forward with their Oscarcast plans — with new producer Brian Grazer and host Billy Crystal in place, Oscar-winning production designer John Myhre is now on board to literally set the stage for the event. (It’s a nifty coincidence that this news should land on the same day Gerard covers the Best Art Direction race in Tech Support.)

And I must say, I’m fully down with this choice. As with Grazer, there’s something classy about bringing a previous winner into the fold to design the show that has been so good to him in the past — it suggests to me that their show, a little like Bill Condon’s 2008 ceremony, will be grounded in a strong, affectionate sense of Academy tradition.

But that’s not the only reason Myhre’s a canny choice for the gig: between “Chicago” (for which he won his first Oscar), “Dreamgirls” and “Nine” (both of which earned him nominations), he has proved himself a specialist in specifically designing and adapting stage settings for the screen. He’s ideally qualified to balance concerns of how performers will use the space and how it’ll play to viewers at home.

Myhre has also been recognized by the Academy for “Elizabeth” and “Memoirs of a Geisha” (for which he landed his second statuette). He could feasibly earn a sixth this year for “Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides,” his latest effort for loyal collaborator Rob Marshall (who, come to think of it, would make a pretty good Oscar producer himself one day). Though the franchise has been recognized in the category before, I sense, as with Grazer, that a conflict of interest is unlikely to arise.

The Academy’s press release:

Beverly Hills, CA – Academy Award®-winning production designer John Myhre will design the 84th Academy Awards®, telecast producers Brian Grazer and Don Mischer announced today. This will be the first time Myhre has served as production designer for the Oscars®.

“John is a prolific production designer, who has created some of the most intriguing sets that we’ve ever seen,” said Grazer and Mischer. “His cinematic perspective will be a great contribution to our team dynamic and the show itself.”

Myhre won Academy Awards in the Art Direction category in 2002 for “Chicago” and in 2005 for “Memoirs of a Geisha.” He has three additional Oscar nominations for his work on “Elizabeth” (1998), “Dreamgirls” (2006) and “Nine” (2009). Myhre’s other production design credits include “Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides,” “Wanted,” “Ali” and “X-Men.”

Academy Awards for outstanding film achievements of 2011 will be presented on Sunday, February 26, 2012, at the Kodak Theatre at Hollywood & Highland Center®, and televised live by the ABC Television Network. The Oscar presentation also will be televised live in more than 200 countries worldwide. 

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!

It’s really striking, the similarities between Phyllida Lloyd’s “The Iron Lady” and Clint Eastwood’s “J. Edgar.” Both attempt to paint a sympathetic portrait of a conservative politician whose ideals were eventually warped and obsessed upon. Both ultimately whitewash those ideals in favor of broad, glossed-over history lessons built from lazily structured screenplays. And both feature leading performances that, in better films, would likely be no-brainers for Oscar wins.

Lloyd’s film begins with aged former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher having difficulty merely buying milk in a brave new world that has moved on ahead of her. It initiates the viewer with a dementia-stricken Thatcher and finds some success in using mundane daily encounters — a dinner party place setting, a tea cup — to ignite her memory and send the narrative back in time for the usual biopic foundations. But that ultimately gives way to rather arbitrary flashbacks to cover her life in politics quite broadly, rarely finding time to dig in on the various human hues with which it wants to paint its subject.

Indeed, Streep brings a lot of humanity to the role. There is a love story here (with Thatcher’s husband, Denis, played as a hallucinatory companion by Jim Broadbent). There is the story of how Thatcher’s upbringing forged her sense of self-sufficiency. There is the story of a woman’s place in government being equal to a man’s. And there is the story of the casualties of war and their impact on a leader.

But the film’s need to cram in all the history does a disservice to these more nuanced elements. At the same time, that cramming offers up a blanching of Thatcherism that rings as a missed opportunity to critique or at least comment toward recent UK politics. Chalk it up as another parallel to “J. Edgar.”

Still, I liked what Lloyd was doing with cinematographer Elliot Davis in a number of areas. I liked what the editing was attempting here and there. The film was trying to be a different sort of biopic, but it just ultimately succumbs to the formula despite itself.

Nevertheless, I’d call Streep firmly in the Best Actress race. She plays the character as a strong-willed Education Secretary in the 1970s, an unlikely Prime Minister with grit in the 1980s and an elderly woman clinging to her memories in the present. She’s so good that a lived-in portrayal like this has come to be expected, but then again, she’s kind of hampered from really taking off with the performance due to inherent limitations in what the screenplay gives her.

I don’t know that this is the performance to bring her her second lead actress Oscar in nearly 30 years, but it will be an interesting sprint between her and Viola Davis. And indeed, I do think it’s between the two. And though the category seems to be sealed off to much competition (Glenn Close, Charlize Theron and Michelle Williams being the other generally agreed-upon three), I feel like something could give when Rooney Mara’s potentially star-making turn in “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” rolls around.

Oh, one more “J. Edgar” parallel. The aging makeup work on Broadbent and particularly Streep is fantastic in the film and consistently on screen. I think that will be another real race to watch, though the work in “The Iron Lady” is much more organic.

It’ll be interesting to see how the Academy responds to the film. I get the feeling it’s the kind of demographic that will take to it. If so, a nomination for Best Original Screenplay (from “Shame” co-writer Abi Morgan) wouldn’t be entirely out of the question. But I expect at the end of the day, the awards chances on this one are all about the lady at the center of “The Iron Lady.”

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

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!

You know the drill. Rifle off your need-to-knows and we’ll address as many as we can on the podcast tomorrow.

The design of a film truly does “set the scene.” I”m obviously speaking literally in part – the sets fill up our screen and can therefore present interesting opportunities for glitz and glamor, the complete opposite or anything in between.

But I”m also speaking on a more fundamental level: sets and props build the atmosphere of the world a film’s characters inhabit. If done well, the job of the directors and actors becomes much easier. It seems only fair that the talented individuals who engage in this art are recognized by their peers in an Oscar category.

Despite being called the Academy Award for Best Art Direction, the art director is unfortunately not awarded in the category. Rather, the production designer and the set decorator are cited. The production designer is in charge of the film”s entire art department as well as designing and blueprinting set construction. The set decorator is in charge of filling up those sets with elements that flesh out the space.

Much like in Best Costume Design, period films tend to dominate in this category, though slightly more fantasy films are cited here than there. Being a Best Picture nominee helps, though not as much as in many other categories. Despite some favorites, usually at least one or two of the production designers, and two or three of the set decorators, are first-time nominees each year. Fundamentally, I”d say what this branch goes for above all else is showiness.

So with those observations out of the way, what do I think are the major contenders this year?

In most categories, the “Harry Potter” series has had a mixed run with the Academy. There have only been two places where the series has scored more than once. One has been Best Visual Effects. The other has been Best Art Direction, with Stuart Craig and Stephanie McMillan finding a home here for “The Sorcerer”s Stone,” “The Goblet of Fire” and “The Deathly Hallows: Part 1.” With “The Deathly Hallows: Part 2” being the last chance to cite them for their accomplished work on this series (and indeed, the Art Directors Guild has already tapped them for their work on the series this year), I”m quite confident they”ll be back. The addition of Gringotts was one of the series”s great accomplishments from a set perspective. The real question is, will they win?

In my view, that depends largely on whether another fantasy film by a beloved production designer manages to triumph instead. I am speaking, of course, of “Hugo,” Martin Scorsese”s latest collaboration with Dante Ferretti. Ferretti finally won this category (on his seventh nomination) for Scorsese”s “The Aviator.” He won again three years later for Tim Burton”s “Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street.” On this film, he will be combining period and fantasy on a very lavish production. Assisting him as set decorator is his frequent collaborator and real-life wife Francesca Lo Schiavo. This seems like an extremely likely nomination, and a real contender for the win.

Also firmly in the running, however, is Rick Carter for Steven Spielberg”s “War Horse.” Carter won this category two years ago for James Cameron”s “Avatar” and on this effort he now has the opportunity to recreate World War I-era Europe and Britain. Assuming the film is the contender we all expect it to be, I fully expect him to be in the running.

“The Artist” will recreate Old Hollywood of the late 1920s and 1930s and will have to take account of black-and-white filming. Moreover, I expect this film to be a tech category behemoth. Laurence Bennett has done interesting TV and contemporary work for years but has never had a real Oscar contender. I fully expect this to change that.

I”m less sure of how “The Help” will do overall in the craft categories. Its box office is certainly a mark in its favor, and I expect it to get at least two acting nominations, with Best Picture probably coming along (in my view) as well. Mark Ricker received a guild nomination for “Julie & Julia,” which indicates growing respect among his colleagues. That said, the work here not that showy compared to many other contenders, and the film is divisive as well. So we”ll see how Ricker”s run ultimately plays out.

On paper, “J. Edgar” seemed to be a prime contender for James Murakami to return to the Oscar game after earning his first nomination three years ago for Clint Eastwood”s “Changeling.” But even though the work was impressive and appropriately period, it seems to lack the showiness of many other potential contenders. Moreover, I think the cool reception to the film will be difficult to overcome.

In the realm of fantasy, Bo Welch”s take on Valhalla on Kenneth Branagh”s “Thor” required immense creativity and was integral to the plot. Welch has not been nominated in 14 years, if you can believe it, and the film will likely be forgotten by year”s end. But if it were to survive anywhere, it just may be here.

Another respected summer action film is “Captain America: The First Avenger,” which gave three-time nominee Rick Heinrichs the chance to do very creative fantasy work while also working in significant history elements. Heinrichs won this category for “Sleepy Hollow” and while I still believe other titles are more likely ultimately to survive to nomination morning, I don”t think it would be wise to write him off yet.

Also in the realm of showy period is “Anonymous,” which gave Sebastian Krawinkel the opportunity to craft a Roland Emmerich-style take on William Shakespeare. But as quality as the work was, blending sets with CGI seamlessly, I don”t think the film has much going for it that would result in Academy love.

“Jane Eyre” managed to earn much respect earlier in the year. The question still remains if it will be able to translate any of that into awards success at the end of the year. I”m not sure. That having been said, after Michael O”Connor”s costumes, Will Hughes-Jones”s helming of the art department would seem its best chance. Early 19th Century England does tend to pique the fancy of this branch from time to time (“The Young Victoria” and “The Duchess” jump to mind from recent years).

Moving along in British history, Sarah Greenwood received a very deserved nomination in this category two years ago (the third of her career) for “Sherlock Holmes.” This year, she is responsible for its sequel, “Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows.” I have no doubt her work will be very good and given that she”s drawn blood once on this franchise, she may well be able to do it again. Even so, one cannot help but wonder if the novelty will have worn off. The trailer looks even more slapstick than its predecessor, which I doubt will help matters.

Yet a little later in European history, albeit in Munich, is “A Dangerous Method,” which by all accounts has very fine production design courtesy of James McAteer. I don”t know if this film will catch on with the Academy at all. I think it likely won”t. Even so, if it manages to earn a berth in any categories, this would be among the most likely.

Woody Allen”s “Midnight in Paris” won the hearts of many, myself included. While hardly on par with “Annie Hall” or “Manhattan,” the film played to many of Allen”s strengths and reminds us of many of the talents that make him one of the greats of cinema. That said, it hardly seems to be a crafts category sweeper. Nevertheless, Sonia Grande”s recreation of both modern and 1920s Paris required her to wear multiple design hats, and the period work, though subtle, was effective. If the Academy loves the film, which they might, could it score here?

Moving slightly more forward in history, “Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy” recreates the spy world of the Cold War and by all accounts Maria Djurkovic”s work is excellent. The question is whether it will be too subtle for this branch. Moreover, will the film be able to find a base with a December release?  It could end up being just the Gary Oldman show. Or not even that. Even so, I think Djurkovic has the strongest contender of her career, and this is among the film”s best chances outside of Oldman and the screenplay.

I”ll end by citing memorable low key work that likely won”t find its way to a nod but I thought I may as well flag: Jack Fisk”s design on Terrence Malick”s “The Tree of Life.” Fisk, who has worked on all five of Malick”s films, did innovative, frequently austere work that fit extremely well into Malick”s latest meditative effort. I for one loved the stark contemporary work even more than the more traditionally awards-friendly period and fantasy parts. The fact that all three blend together is a bonus. Fisk has remarkably only been nominated once over his four-decade career (for Paul Thomas Anderson”s “There Will Be Blood”), and his colleagues may just choose to further correct that injustice. Even so, the non-Academy-friendly nature of the film, and the minimalism of the production design, will be a hindrance.

Well that”s the way I see this category at the moment. A lot can happen over the next two months, however!  How do you see it playing out?

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!

Hey, has there been a more hilarious performance all year than Viola Davis’s wackily oppressed, zanily bereaved maid in “The Help?” There has, you say? Whatever. Anyway, the Hollywood Foreign Press Association is with you, as they’ve barred DreamWorks’s planned strategy to campaign the film in the Musical/Comedy races at the Golden Globes. The Globes regularly make iffy calls in this department (particularly irksome is their insistence that biopics of musicians are in fact musicals), but this one isn’t really up for debate, tonal shifts and amusing shit-pie hijinks notwithstanding. Not that this changes anything: the floor has always been clear for “The Artist” (which has its own darkly dramatic aspects, but comedy should never be simple) to triumph here. [Deadline]

Speaking of the Globes, this has been pretty much a foregone conclusion for months, but it’s official: Ricky Gervais is hosting. Hurrah. [Awards Campaign]

If you enjoyed my report from the Academy’s recent Vanessa Redgrave tribute in London, check out video footage of how it went down. [AMPAS]

Anne Thompson sizes up the indie contenders in the Best Actress race. Hey, wouldn’t it be a blast to have Ellen Barkin on the circuit? [Thompson on Hollywood]

Leslie Unger, the Academy’s director of communications, has resigned. After all she’s had to deal with this week, who can blame her? [The Odds]

An excellent piece by venerable cinephile Christie on why serious film lovers shouldn’t get jaded about 3D. [Sight and Sound]

Is there still an audience for The Muppets in the Pixar era? I’m sensing yes, but Brook Barnes gives the question due consideration. [New York Times]

On the documentaries that deserve Oscar recognition outside their ghetto category. (A big fat ‘hell yes’ to “Senna” for Best Film Editing.) [The Film Experience]

Why Andrea Arnold’s decision to cast a black leading man in her “Wuthering Heights” is a significant development. [The Independent]

So, David Fincher says Academy voters don’t go for anal rape. Charlie Lyne begs to differ. [Ultraculture]

Aside from being a handy wild card in any Oscar betting pool (as much as I like recent winners “Logorama” and “The Lost Thing,” I value them most for what I gained from their victories), the Best Animated Short Oscar is always fun to keep an eye on at this stage, given that it’s almost impossible to handicap this far out, and yet not too difficult to research. So it is with the 45 shorts that were recently revealed to have qualified for the award, any number of which look from afar like potential nominees.

As usual with this category, shorts from major animation outfits like Pixar, Disney and Warner Bros. are jostling for space with minute independent productions from various corners of the globe — what’s lovely about this category is that size is rarely an advantage here. It’s interesting to note that only one of Pixar’s two 2011 shorts is on the list, and it’s not the one (“Toy Story: Hawaiian Vacation”) that preceded “Cars 2” in theaters; rather, their hopes lie with acclaimed festival player “La Luna,” which you may recall Kris flipped for in Telluride. Smart move.

Still, a couple of the titles here have feature-film associations: Disney’s “The Ballad of Nessie” played with “Winnie the Pooh” in theaters, while Warner Bros.’s “I Twat I Taw a Puddy Tat” (yes, the return of Sylvester and Tweety Bird) will warm audiences up for “Happy Feet Two.” (Sony’s “The Smurfs’ A Christmas Carol,” meanwhile, will be a seasonal extra when the blue brigade’s feature hit is released on DVD next month. I doubt they’ll be holding their breath for Academy attention.)

Spotting potential standouts among the lower-profile inclusion is a harder task, but one name in particular stands out. Or two, rather. American-born identical twins Timothy and Stephen Quay are legends of the stop-motion medium, whose work you’ve probably seen even if you don’t know their names: they directed a key animated sequence in Julie Taymor’s “Frida” and also contributed to Peter Gabriel’s game-changing “Sledgehammer” music video. It’s on their own films, however, that their critical reputation rests: their astonishing 1986 short “Street of Crocodiles” competed for the Palme d’Or at Cannes. (Fun fact: UK critic Jonathan Romney named it one of the 10 greatest films of all time in Sight & Sound’s most recent poll.)

Their latest, “Maska,” is a Polish production based on a story by Stanislaw Lem; I regretted missing it at the Edinburgh Film Festival last year. (That’s how long these things sometimes take to come around.) From the clip below, it looks like another off-kilter visual feast; the Academy has never smiled on the Quay Brothers before, but it’d be nice to see that change.

Nathaniel Rogers has done an excellent job rounding up nuggets of information (and occasional clips) on the 45 selections, including which ones have already been nominated for Annie Awards, and which one was written by Yoko Ono. Check it out at The Film Experience. The full list is below.

“A Morning Stroll,” Grant Orchard
“A Shadow of Blue,” Carlos Lascano
“Birdboy,” Alberto Vasquez
“Chopin”s Drawings,” Dorota Kobiela
“Correspondence,” Zach Hyer
“Daisy Cutter,” Enrique Garcia and Rubin Salazar
“Dimanche (Sunday),” Patrick Doyon
“El Salon Mexico,” Paul Glickman and Tamarind King
“Enrique Wrecks the World,” David Chai
“Ente Tod Und Tulipe (Duck Death and the Tulip),” Matthias Bruhn
“Fat Hamster,” Adam Wyrwas
“Grandpa Looked Like William Powell,” David Levy
“Hamster Heaven,” Paul Bolger
“I Tawt I Taw a Puddy Tat,” Matt O”Callaghan
“I Was the Child of Holocaust Survivors,” Anne Marie Fleming
“Ingrid Pitt: Beyond the Forest,” Kevin Sean Michaels
“Kahanikar,” Nandita Jain
“La Luna,” Enrico Casarosa
“Little Postman,” Dorota Kobiela
“Luminaris,” Juan Pablo Zaramella
“Luna,” Donna Brockopp
“Maska,” Timothy and Stephen Quay
“Muybridge”s Strings,” Koji Yamamura
“My Hometown,” Jerry Levitan
“Night Island,” Salvador Maldonado
“Nullarbor,” Alister Lockhart
“Papa”s Boy,” Leevi Lemmetty
“Paths of Hate,” Damien Nenow
“Romance,” George Schwizgebel
“Specky Four-Eyes,” Jean Claude Rozec
“Spirits of the Piano,” Magdalena Osinska
“Thank You,” Thomas Herpich
“The Ballad of Nessie,” Stevie Wermers
“The External World,” David O” Reilly
“The Fantastic Flying Books of Mr. Morris Lessmore,” William Joyce and Brandon Oldenburg
“The Gloaming,” Nobrain
“The Lost Town of Switez,” Kamil Polak
“The Magic Piano,” Martin Clapp
“The Monster of Nix,” Rosto
“The Renter,” Jason Carpenter
“The Smurf”s A Christmas Carol,” Troy Quane
“The Tannery,” Iain Gardner
“The Vermeers,” Tal S. Shamir
“Vicenta,” Samuel Orti Marti
“Wild Life,” Amanda Forbis and Wendy Tilby

Okay, so they didn’t get the Oscars. Boo. But hey, work is work, so the Muppets have instead lent their services to UK cellphone network Orange (which, if you squint at it, looks kind of like Oscar) for the latest entry in a series of celebrity-satirizing theatrical ads that have become a customary part of going to the movies in Britain.

Essentially elaborate reminders to cinema patrons who haven’t yet turned their phones off, the ads do so by sending up the commercial evils of product placement in films (“Don’t let a mobile phone ruin your movie,” is the recurring punchline) and the vulnerability of fading stars seeking career resuscitation — all of which ties in nicely with the meta-narrative around “The Muppets” as a comeback vehicle for previously down-and-out vaudeville veterans.

Previous good sports who have appeared in the ads range from Sigourney Weaver to Spike Lee to Patrick Swayze to Juliette Lewis, so the felt gang is in good human company; the latest ad (embedded after the jump) isn’t the sharpest in the series, but frankly, I’ll watch these guys in life insurance commercials if it comes to that. (Meanwhile, how envious am I that Kris has seen the movie and I haven’t? Guess.) 

The collected press on Steve McQueen’s “Shame” thus far has presented the film very much as The Michael Fassbender Show — understandable, given that his superb performance in it represents the creative peak of a breakout year for the actor. Still, I do feel for Carey Mulligan, whose similarly startling work in what is arguably a co-lead role also marks exciting (I’d say career-best) new territory for a rising star, but has been somewhat sidelined in the conversation around the film.

The film’s new UK poster, however, puts that to rights: each actor is given precisely half the available space, selling it very much as a two-hander. It’s an elegant if not terribly inventive design, but I find it interesting in that it’s the first poster for the film to place the emphasis squarely on its stars — previous designs for the marketing challenge of a movie have skewed distinctly more oblique and theme-oriented.

I found the stark US poster, filled with sight of Fassbender’s desolate unmade bed, more inventive and evocative — hinting at the film’s sexual preoccupations without eroticizing it in any way, it’s one of my favorite one-sheets of 2011. (By contrast, the stereotypically racy French poster appears to pitch the film as an arty sex comedy.) UK distributor Momentum went in an almost wilfully obscure direction with an early, limited-edition quad made up of an unadorned reflective surface, seemingly inviting potential viewers to recognize the film’s title in themselves; they’ve obviously pulled back considerably for the second design, but it’ll surely reap greater commercial rewards.

Here’s the UK poster, followed by the tonally-opposed US one. (I could only find a sufficiently large image of the teaser, but give or take credits and quotes, the designs are the same.) Tell us which you prefer.

We are right in the midst of a cinephile”s favorite time of year. Though there is no hard and fast rule, many of our darlings make their way to theaters just in time for an Oscar run from September to December. But whether it is an Academy Awards contender or not, whether it is released in November or (as rare as this may be) January, each year brings us a favorite film.

Every so often, however, a selection leaps beyond the limited scope of “best of the year” into the realm of “that against which all other films will now be measured.” It becomes the golden child to which the competing star pupils are compared.

We typically frame cinema “classes,” as it were, by decade. For me, the straight-A student that ruined the curve for all the others this past decade was Fernando Meirelles” “City of God.” Though other films carved a space in my heart and mind, “Pan”s Labyrinth” and “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind” among them, I have yet to find a film that was released in that same 10-year span (2000-2009) that hits every single note quite the way that “City of God” does.

It is fresh, stunningly beautiful, confronting and emotionally rich. Adapted from the novel by Paulo Lins, the film offers a harrowing look at the bloodshed, violence and heartbreak that defines daily life in Rio”s favelas (the poverty stricken, gang-infested, forgotten and ignored shantytowns of Brazil) as seen through the eyes of an artist.

For the past eight years I have asked myself one question when the lights have gone up on a film that has left me stunned: “Is it better than ‘City of God?”” I have yet to muster an unequivocal “yes.”

Yet, each decade is distinctive and offers its own treasures. For me, the 1990s saw a three-way tie between Lars von Trier”s “Breaking the Waves,” Terrence Malick’s “The Thin Red Line” and Marc Caro and Jean-Pierre Jeunet”s “The City of Lost Children.” There really was no way for me to choose just one, as each movie offered me something beautiful, unique and enduring.

The year is now 2011 and the door has been open for the past two years for a new film to emerge as the best of the second decade of the 21st century. It”s early yet, and I”m not sure that I”ve quite landed on one, but, there have been several offerings that came to my attention in just the past few months that are already vying for a spot on this year”s Dean”s List.

When all is said and done we may look at “Inception” as a film that effectively combined stunning, innovative spectacle with a few loftier philosophical musings, at least partially bridging the gap between art and (massive) commerce. It is possible that “Shame” will ultimately stand as the first NC-17 release to win a major category at the Academy Awards. And “True Grit” may well be remembered as the film that ushered in a new era for the western.

So, in looking ahead and reflecting on the past, a conversation starter and a simple question: What were your cinematic stand-outs for the 1990s and 2000s, and has any film made its case as potential top of the class for the new decade?

Ask most awards analysts who the current frontrunners for the Best Actor Oscar are, and you’ll probably get some combination of the names George Clooney, Jean Dujardin and Brad Pitt. Clooney probably knows that, which is why it’s both magnanimous and, who knows, perhaps slyly strategic for him to name Dujardin and Pitt’s performances, in “The Artist” and “Moneyball” respectively, as being among his favorites of the year: I don’t for a minute doubt his ingenuousness (or his judgment) when he describes Dujardin’s work as “spectacular,” but by singling out these performances, he indirectly puts himself in their company. The man’s smoothness knows no bounds. [Los Angeles Times]

Sasha Stone investigates the Best Original Screenplay race. It’s a thorough rundown… but where’s “Martha Marcy May Marlene?” [Awards Daily]

Sigur Rós frontman Jónsi unveils the original song he co-wrote with Cameron Crowe for “We Bought a Zoo.” [NPR]

Aiming to regain their creative mojo after “Cars 2,” Pixar release new images from “Brave.” Anyone else think it’s looking a tad ugly? [The Guardian]

David Poland spends some time with “Warrior” actor Nick Nolte. Anyone hoping that commercially doused Best Supporting Actor buzz can return? [Hot Blog]

Bob Strauss on the identity crisis that the Oscar telecast seems to be facing. [Daily Breeze]

Angelina Jolie’s Bosnia-set directorial debut “In the Land of Blood and Honey” will no longer be released in an English-language version. Good for her. [Deadline]

A week old, but a nice piece on why the strong coming-out drama “Pariah” is a “biomythography” for writer-director Dee Rees. [New York Times]

David Hudson gathers opinion on one of the year’s best films, “Tomboy,” now playing in New York. If you can, go. [Mubi Notebook]

In case you were wondering, Bradley Cooper is the Sexiest Man Alive. But Alec Baldwin cracked the Top 10, so guys, pick your role model. [People]

I think our record at In Contention of highlighting the craft categories via the weekly Tech Support column for the last six years speaks for itself. In the wake of our centralized focus throughout said fields, outlets like Variety, The Hollywood Reporter and the Los Angeles Times have stepped up their game, featuring contenders and eventual nominees from those categories with more consistency, while other outlets like Movie City News have actually expanded their coverage to include these areas when they didn’t cover them before.

We’ve kind of prided ourselves, both Gerard Kennedy (who has written the column since its inception) and myself, on including below-the-line efforts in the same breath as higher profile elements like directing and acting because we believe they are vital and should share the attention. And speaking for myself, as someone who attended film school and knows very well what each and every one of these elements entails, it’s been kind of a passion.

So with that in mind, I think I’ll just give a certain sound mixer the benefit of the doubt regarding a few statements he made in the comments section of a recent edition of Tech Support.

Normally I’d keep this kind of thing to a corrective email, but since this person decided to get bent out of shape about this in public, I’ll step in and set the record straight in public. Because I frankly take it as a bit of an affront to our intent and dedication all these years.

He lashed out thusly:

“Would you please stop addressing us as ‘tech support’… It is CRAFT and nominated in the CRAFT catagories [sic]. As much as Cinematography is a craft…..and not tech! The tech awards are on a different night… We do not see ourselves as techs!”

And then he came back six hours later with this:

“I know this may seem petty but…. We like to be considered a Craft and not tech. The tech awards are on another night and the craft awards are on the main broadcast. Just like cinematography, what we do is creative…. and is appreciated by the filmmakers as such. The media must stop categorizing us as tech. Just because our paint brushes are knobs, does not make mixing any less creative…”

Notice the capital “C,” as well as the unfortunate ghettoization of the Scientific & Technical Awards, which, pardon me, often recognize achievements that are subjectively artful and come from some of the most important, unsung minds of our industry. I’m also well aware of when they’re handed out, being that this is my 11th year of specifically covering the film awards season.

But like I said, I kind of want to give him the benefit of the doubt here. I gather from comments like these that he is new to In Contention and/or Tech Support. After all, if he was a long-time reader or at least aware of what we do here — like some of his colleagues in the mixing field (Kevin O’Connell, Greg Russell, Gary Rizzo, Randy Thom, Jeff Haboush, Ren Klyce, Michael Semanick, etc., etc.) — then I can’t imagine he’d be so bold.

My honest guess is he found his way to us because one of his films (“Captain America: The First Avenger”) has a legitimate shot at awards attention for the first time since 2004 and “The Bourne Supremacy,” which was before In Contention’s time. At least I hope that’s the case. Because, again, if he IS aware of us and our mission statement regarding the craft categories, then what a shame.

But it brings up a whole conversation regarding the “c” word, so let’s get into that. We rarely refer to the craft categories as “tech” categories in actual copy. He’s right, though. The word “tech” pervades the media when it comes to them more than any other term, so when I first conceived of dedicating the first weekly Oscar season column to their consideration, I thought “Tech Support” was a catchy moniker and ran with it. Six years later, it’s kind of a brand, so I’m sorry, sir, but we won’t be changing the name of the column.

But do understand that we’re very aware that elements like art direction, cinematography, costume design, film editing, makeup, music, sound editing, sound mixing and visual effects are indeed crafts and creative and appreciated by the filmmakers as such and don’t deserve to be diminished by the perceived pejorative of the word “tech.” And to boot, we have frequently pointed to comments Randy Thom made about this very issue upon accepting the Best Sound Editing Oscar alongside Michael Silvers for his work on “The Incredibles”:

“Certain Academy Awards like Sound and Visual Effects and Editing are sometimes referred to as technical awards. They”re not technical awards. They”re given for artistic decisions. And sometimes we make them better than others, and I guess we made a couple of good ones on this one.”

But sometimes it’s kind of not worth it to get into a semantics battle with those who are willing, no, eager to give these achievements their due spotlight, thereby diminishing our intent, good will and overall appreciation.

I’m sorry if this comes across harsher than it probably should, but these comments kind of rubbed me the wrong way (obviously) and it seemed necessary to make some things clear since maybe new readers aren’t as aware of what we’ve tried to do via Tech Support for the last six years. Hopefully this leaves no doubt.

Meanwhile, Gerard’s next Tech Support column will single out the Best Art Direction category. Be sure to check back Thursday for that.

George Clooney has had yet another busy year. His circuit kicked off back in August at the Venice Film Festival where his fourth directorial effort, “The Ides of March,” saw its world premiere on opening night. Then it was off to the Telluride Film Festival later that week for a tribute and another world premiere, this time of Alexander Payne’s “The Descendants,” which features Clooney in a leading role that many think will bring him an Oscar for Best Actor.

It’s not unlike the path he carved in 2005, which saw his critically acclaimed “Good Night, and Good Luck.” and Stephen Gaghan’s “Syriana” find room in the awards conversation (the latter ultimately bringing him an Oscar for Best Supporting Actor).

But while Clooney’s million-dollar smile splashes across magazine covers in moments like these and his magnetic charm wins over whatever group of people the studio might put in front of him, it’s worth taking note of the considerable talent that has brought him to a place where this kind of ubiquity is more refreshing than annoying.

Clooney has been a mainstay of feature filmmaking since, oh, call it the mid-1990s. Sure, there was stuff like “Attack of the Killer Tomatoes” and “Red Surf” before that, but he was mainly a TV personality on NBC’s “ER” before finally making a significant movie splash in 1996’s “From Dusk Till Dawn.” And since that time, he’s given a wide array of portrayals and cranked out a decent enough portfolio that — with “The Ides of March” in theaters and the release of “The Descendants” imminent — affords reason enough to dedicate an installment of The Lists to his work.

Most lists would probably be somewhat similar. There isn’t a decades-long career to pull from here and most of the cream of the crop perfs are generally agreeable. Though maybe the ranking would differ significantly from person to person. But that’s the point. Again — subjectivity is key with any personal assemblage.

So have a look at my favorites in our new gallery, and feel free to offer up your own picks in the comments section below.

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

This year”s dark horse Oscar contender “Shame” has caused some people to question the purpose and validity of the NC-17 rating. It was no surprise when the MPAA slapped the film with the potentially restrictive scarlet letter as a result of frequent nudity and explicit (depressing) sex. Of course the emotional nature (or lack thereof) of the intercourse depicted is not listed as an official cause for the rating, but it is likely that it played a role (consciously or not) in the association”s decision.

It’s easy enough to name a multitude of R-rated films that treat the human body with little to no dignity (topless water skiing was a fun addition to 2009″s “Friday the 13th” – topless water skiing), and though no one is surprised by the decision, “Shame”s” NC-17 does raise questions about the ratings system.

“I mean, it”s sex,” director Steve McQueen said at a recent press conference for the film. “I think it”s what most of the people in this room have done, if not all of us have done. I mean I”ve never held a gun in my hand in my life. So, it”s this whole weird thing where what we do in our daily lives should be censored. It”s very odd. And things that we have no idea of, or have no capability of doing, should be viewed on the masses.”

For McQueen, the preponderance of nudity in the film is just part and parcel of capturing a sense of realism. “Maybe in 1951 he would have had pajamas on but in 2011 often people do not wear pajamas,” he said of his character”s frequent state of undress in the film. “I mean that”s it — normality. So there”s no big deal for me about nudity. There”s nothing graphic about it. It”s sex. There”s nothing in it which is harmful to anyone.”

In a not entirely surprising, yet still interesting turn of events, National Association of Theatre Owners president John Fithian encouraged filmmakers to take risks that would result in an NC-17 rating in a recent interview with The Wrap.

“It would have destroyed this film to cut it down to an R rating,” he said of McQueen”s effort. “Too many filmmakers and too many studios do that, and I applaud Steve McQueen and Fox Searchlight for sticking to their guns. This is the kind of film that the NC-17 is designed for, and I think we need more bold filmmakers and distributors to make content appropriate for the rating and release it that way. We’ve had conversations with other companies encouraging them to take this kind of chance.”

Fithian attests that the stigma surrounding the rating is due to a misperception on the part of cinema-goers about its meaning and intent. “The MPAA and NATO screwed up,” he said. “We didn’t get the X rating copyrighted, and the pornographers stole it. That shadow lingers, and so do myths about the NC-17.”

What are the aforementioned myths? Well, first and foremost there is the belief that theatre chains will not screen NC-17 rated films. Fithian says that a survey of 100 of NATO”s members revealed that only three would never play an NC-17 film as a personal choice. He also tries to snuff out the perception that NC-17 films can”t be advertised.

So what is the purpose of the rating?

Despite Fithian”s claims, an NC-17 rating will in many cases harm both the box office and awards potential of a film. As The Guardian pointed out last year in an article asking “Is the NC-17 rating ruining the Oscars?,” there has never been an NC-17 rated film that was awarded an Academy Award in a major category (though the X-rated “Midnight Cowboy” took home three, for Best Picture, Best Director and Best Adapted Screenplay).

Harvey Weinstein waged a campaign to get an R rating for “Blue Valentine” last year in the hopes that the film would make a strong showing come Oscar night. So whether it”s really fact or fiction, the perception that an NC-17 rating equals an inescapable stigma creates an inescapable stigma.

If we look at the definitions for the ratings according to the MPAA we see there is an inherent level of censorship in the NC-17 rating:

R Rating

“R ratings require a parent or adult guardian to be present in order to view the film. An R-rated film may include adult themes, adult activity, hard language, intense or persistent violence, sexually-oriented nudity, drug abuse or other elements, so that parents are counseled to take this rating very seriously.”

NC-17 Rating

“No one under the age of 17 is permitted in a theater to watch a film with this rating. The MPAA gives a film an NC-17 rating based on violence, sex, aberrational behavior, drug abuse or any other element that most parents would consider too strong and therefore off-limits for viewing by their children.”

The question of what does, or does not, constitute “aberrational behavior” aside, an NC-17 rating means that parents are no longer encouraged to investigate a film”s suitability; they are forbidden from allowing their children to see it in a theatre. Which brings us to our central question: Is it really an outside organization”s place to decide what artistic material is suitable for a parent to share with his or her child? Do we not trust ourselves as adults to make those choices for our children and ourselves?

Marketing Jason Reitman’s “Young Adult” has been a bit of a unique task for the director and Paramount Pictures. After all, a Reitman/Diablo Cody collaboration immediately conjures expectations of “Juno” (which, again, isn’t as light and frothy as it has been considered over the years).

First came the teaser poster for the film, which was a riff on a young adult fiction book cover featuring a passed-out Charlize Theron, bottle in hand (and, I only noticed a few weeks back, a curiously phallic pillow draped across her back — am I alone on that?). Then came the trailer, David Bowie’s “Queen Bitch” bumping on the soundtrack and a bit of a broader shot that played coy with the film’s darkest comedy elements.

Now we get the official one-sheet for the film, which has Theron and her attitude front and center and falls somewhere in between the two stabs at boiling the film down for a general audience.

When I wrote about “Young Adult” earlier this month following it’s “pop-up” screening at the New Beverly Theater in Los Angeles, I called it “an unflinching piece of work committed to following its lead character on a downward path, eschewing a narrative of redemption and never conceding any ground…quite possibly Reitman’s most refined outing to date, his voice becoming clearer, his thematic interests taking further shape. It’s a brutally dark comedy but it is a very adult piece of work, playing in hues all the more uncomfortable for how true they really are on a primal level.” Meanwhile, my colleague Drew McWeeny’s review can be found here.

Check out the new one-sheet below and feel free to offer up your thoughts on it in the comments section. The film is set for limited release on Friday, December 9 and expands further on December 16.

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

I’m finally seeing Oren Moverman’s police drama “Rampart” tomorrow evening, so for now, I’m taking it on Kris’ word that Woody Harrelson’s lead performance in the fall festival baby is a dark horse to be reckoned with in the Best Actor race. Kris has opined that Harrelson’s turn as a volatile cop in 1990s LA is the high-water mark of the two-time Oscar nominee’s career, but has voiced concern that his under-the-radar vehicle (distributed by budget outfit Millennium Pictures), may have landed too late in the race to get him in the circle, despite critical support.

“Why not hold it until Sundance next year?” was the question Kris and Anne brought up in last week’s edition of Oscar Talk, something one asks every year of several indies that impatiently decide to debut in the cold crush of awards season. Still, Millennium are opting for the best of both worlds: they’re releasing the film in late January 2012, when it’ll have slightly more commercial breathing room, but holding a one-week, one-screen release next week so as to qualify it for Oscar consideration this year.

That’s good news for hungry Oscar-watchers in the area, who’ll have a chance to check it out from next Wednesday at Laemmle’s Sunset 5. (I assume they know where that is; I sure don’t.) Whether it’s good news for the film or not remains to be seen, but Harrelson is clearly in with a chance: the Best Actor race is currently heavy on major star names in the Clooney-Pitt-DiCaprio range (with Jean Dujardin fixed in place as this year’s exotic intruder), but there’s room for an indie favorite, and while the heat is currently with Michael Fassbender, Harrelson’s popularity shouldn’t be underestimated.

Collaborating with Moverman panned out well for both men two years ago with an even lower-profile pic, “The Messenger” — could it work out again? If so, could Moverman, this time working with esteemed crime writer James Ellroy, once more surprise with the writers’ branch?

I look forward to seeing where I land on the film, and the performance; meanwhile, check out Kris’ rave here.

I can’t remember the last time a major prestige release was reviewed by newspaper critics before either the trades or the bloggers got their paws on it — it’s an almost romantically old-school approach, but that’s exactly how the first critical word on “The Iron Lady” has leaked out. Perhaps studio masterminds figured UK print critics might be more invested in a biopic of Britain’s most contentious politician, though they’ve covered their bases by allowing both liberal bastion The Guardian and right-wing rag the Daily Mail at it simultaneously, with the conservative-leaning Telegraph somewhere in the middle.

Considering their different audiences, it’s striking how similarly the Guardian and Telegraph reviews, by Xan Brooks and David Gritten respectively, read in many respects. Both are lukewarm on the film itself, Brooks a little more harshly so: the film is “often silly and suspect,” he says, after accusing the filmmakers of printing the legend and dodging the grim social consequences of its subject’s conservative policies, thereby giving us “Thatcher without Thatcherism.”

The Telegraph is obviously less concerned about this, dismissing the film’s “whistle-stop tour” of Thatcher’s career, but commending it for an even-handed approach — though he predicts US Republicans “will drool over it.”

Still, given that the film has never been marketed or discussed as anything but a potential awards vehicle for Meryl Streep, these are hardly the areas of critique its handlers — or indeed many of you readers, who flocked to comment on the film’s new trailer yesterday — are concerned about. “Does she deliver?” you cry. “Can that already widely-presumed 17th Oscar nod be written down in ink?”

The answer, based on this small sampling of critical opinion, is a probable ‘yes.’ As many of us might have predicted, the critics agree that the actress is substantially better than the film around her — a story familiar from all too many of Streep’s recent Oscar campaigns — and should limber up for a lot of red-carpet walking in the next few months. Per Brooks: 

“Streep, it transpires, is the one great weapon of this often silly and suspect picture. Her performance is astonishing and all but flawless; a masterpiece of mimicry which re-imagines Thatcher in all her half-forgotten glory. Streep has the basilisk stare; the tilted, faintly predatory posture. Her delivery, too, is eerily good – a show of demure solicitude, invariably overtaken by steely, wild-eyed stridency.”

Gritten continues the applause for the leading lady:

“Well, those doubts [about Streep’s casting] have been assuaged too; Streep is splendid, giving a detailed, authoritative performance that goes way beyond accurate impersonation to evoke Thatcher”s spirit. One can think of a few talented British actresses who might have acquitted themselves well in the role, but it”s hard to imagine them doing it better than Streep… Awards should be coming Streep”s way; yet her brilliance rather overshadows the film itself.”

You probably could have anticipated these endorsements months ahead. Streep can be divisively broad of late, so it remains to be seen whether critical consensus settles around her once a wider range of voices chip in — or whether, as in “Doubt,” her performance finds detractors as ardent as its champions. I look forward to seeing the film soon and judging for myself. For now, however, everything seems very much in its right place.

After avoiding it scrupulously for months, as is my custom, I was finally faced with the trailer for David Fincher’s “The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo” when I paid good money to see “Immortals” last night. (More on that later.) Though the film looks as dourly impressive as I’d expect, any number of reasons why it doesn’t look like a major Oscar play ran through my head: too cool, too hot, too genre, too done. One I didn’t think of was “too much anal rape,” but Fincher himself offers that as a strike against its Academy Award chances in this chat with EW. He’s willing to campaign, but the overall impression you get is of a man who really doesn’t give a shit. And cheers for that. [Entertainment Weekly] 

Scott Feinberg offers his latest Oscar forecast, and seems to think “Margin Call” is primed to receive three Best Supporting Actor nominations. Okay. [The Race]

Margaret Thatcher will not be watching “The Iron Lady.” (Word has it she thought “Mamma Mia!” was poorly constructed.) [The Telegraph]

With Brad Pitt conveniently announcing his retirement plans just in time for his Oscar campaign, Julie Miller implores him not to. [Moveline]

Anthony Kaufman on the challenges of marketing arthouse wolves like “Drive” in multiplex-friendly sheep’s clothing. [indieWIRE]

Introducing Vanity Fair’s new film critic: five-time Oscar nominee Paul Mazursky. He helpfully tells us to see “J. Edgar” because it’s “made by serious people.” [Vanity Fair]

Dennis Lim talks to Paddy Considine, Olivia Colman and Peter Mullan about the work on the harrowing British indie “Tyrannosaur.” [New York Times]

Werner Herzog talks capital punishment, woodland creatures and his acclaimed new documentary “Into the Abyss.” [The Odds]

Anne Thompson interviews “Albert Nobbs” star Janet McTeer, who it seems to me keeps getting better notices than the film’s much-buzzed leading lady. [Thompson on Hollywood]

Finally, as a helpful distraction from the here and now of awards season, The Guardian is live-streaming perhaps the greatest of all cinematic trilogies. [The Guardian]