After bowing at AFI Fest just a few days ago, Clint Eastwood’s “J. Edgar” is set for release nationwide later this week. And with it comes a pair of performances, from Armie Hammer and particularly Leonardo DiCaprio, that could spark up Oscar consideration as the season moves forward.

Eastwood has often been called an actor’s director, and indeed, actors love working with him. He trusts them to find their way into a performance quickly. He does few takes and doesn’t even call “action.” It’s an organic process and by most accounts, actors feel at ease under his direction. With 32 films under his belt, it’s no wonder he knows what he wants and how to get it, even if the quality of the outcome can so frequently be up for debate.

With that in mind, it seemed like a good opportunity to dedicate an installment of The Lists to the greatest performances Eastwood has ushered to the screen. With 32 films come plenty of possibilities, and the cream of that crop does indeed make for a list of highly accomplished portrayals, I think.

Still, I had to leave a few off the list (as always). Chief Dan George’s humorous stoicism in “The Outlaw Josey Wales” was a particularly unfortunate snub. Ken Watanabe and especially Kazunari Ninomiya in “Letters from Iwo Jima” were definitely in the mix, as was Morgan Freeman in the otherwise sluggish “Invictus.” And I actually do like the ensemble of “Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil” more than I probably should, but, alas, none of the performances made sense along with the others who made the cut.

I’m not as big on the Oscar-winning pair of Sean Penn and Tim Robbins from “Mystic River” as most are, so don’t let your jaw hit the ground when they don’t show up. Similarly, the two Oscar-winning performances from “Million Dollar Baby” don’t make an appearance. Nevertheless, fans of both films won’t be disappointed.

But enough prologue. Check out my list in our new gallery. As always, remember that every list is bound to be different, so feel free to offer up your choices in the comments section below.

It really isn’t any mystery what the big story of the morning is. Well, it was the big story of all day yesterday, actually, but I saved it for this space. Brett Ratner, you’ve probably heard, decided to make a joke and say “rehearsal’s for fags” at a recent “Tower Heist” Q&A. This after the Oscarcast producer has made public remarks about his sexual encounters with Lindsay Lohan and Olivia Munn. Not that anyone expected Ratner to come in and class up the Academy Awards, but it goes without saying, this got people talking. And it was Mark Harris quick on the draw calling for Ratner’s head on a platter…well, calling for an AMPAS pink slip, in any case. [Grantland]

Our own Greg Ellwood had some choice remarks on the matter. [Awards Campaign]

And then Tom Sherak and The Academy embarrassingly backed the producer with a meaningless caveat. [Deadline]

Meanwhile, did the power of the retweet get him to apologize to Munn? [Huffington Post]

Meanwhile, regarding Ratner’s “Tower Heist,” which managed to land in second place at the box office this weekend, Steven Zeitchik wonders if Eddie Murphy’s tank is out of gas. [24 Frames]

Charlotte Gainsbourg on “Melancholia,” Kirsten Dunst and Lars Von Trier. [Movieline]

Apparently “The Muppets” isn’t high brow enough for snooty Savannah Film Festival audiences. [Vulture]

Nathaniel Rogers has a little fun reading through the “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2” FYC booklet. [Film Experience]

Sasha Stone crunches some numbers, but I can’t think about the Best Picture category in any serious way. Can’t do it. [Awards Daily]

And finally, congrats to indieWIRE on a classy new design. But bring back the old logo! [indieWIRE]

It seems longer ago than August that the movie-blog fraternity was getting worked up about Andy Serkis’s digitally-enabled performance in “Rise of the Planet of the Apes,” with many getting prematurely irate about the awards attention he would inevitably not receive.

I wrote my two cents about it then, arguing that, skilful as his work is, “much of the critical praise for Serkis”s Caesar hinges on a undeniable expressiveness that has nonetheless been enhanced beyond the actor”s own means.” Whether that qualifies for acting awards or not is in the eye of the beholder.

For my part, I don’t find the perfectly nifty finished performance interesting enough to merit consideration, so it’s a moot point. Personally, I find Serkis’s second motion-capture creation of 2011 — the sozzled Scottish seadog Captain Haddock in “The Adventures of Tintin” — the more rewarding turn, and I wouldn’t throw statuettes at that one either. I appreciate I may be in a minority here.

Even with the release of “Tintin,” I rather expected this mo-cap debate to depart with the summer. However, with the news that Fox is planning to mount an Oscar campaign for Serkis, it appears to be back with us: his cheerleaders from August are once again shaping up for a fight, while the less convinced among us wonder if they’re more in love with the idea of history being made than the year’s finest screen acting being recognized. (I’ve said this before: where was all this support for Serkis when he hit it out the park, in human form, in last year’s “Sex & Drugs & Rock & Roll?”)

Could you give Serkis an Oscar and claim that it’s only the on-screen emotional effect, rather than the process behind it, that’s being celebrated? I expect the arguments to continue, even if Serkis doesn’t stand a snowball’s chance of a nomination. (Certainly not in Best Actor; campaigning him elsewhere would be fraud of the first order.)

Among the people who disagree with me, surprisingly enough, is Fox head Tom Rothman; in a good piece on the issue by the LA Times’s Rebecca Keegan, he professes himself high on the actorly elements of Serkis’s performance:  

Our job is to try to have people be aware of and recognize great performances, even when they come in this case in an unusual skin… I think it’s one of the great emotional performances ever. The challenge is to overcome preconceptions and certain prejudices, to have people understand that … the emotionality of the character on screen is not provided by the animators, it’s provided by the actor.

“One of the great emotional performances ever” strikes me as hyperbolic praise even from a man as invested in the cause as Rothman, but it does suggest that, for every industry type wary of the technology, there’s another getting genuinely excited about it. Serkis himelf, who’s well accustomed to the curiosities of motion capture by now, seems to think it’s on the road to normalisation: 

For many years talking about Gollum, it was about the technology, the how of it all… Performance capture was an exotic, strange activity, separated from the craft of acting. People thought when I was doing Gollum, ‘What is he? Is he a contortionist or a dancer or a circus performer? How does he fit into the process?’ Ten years down the line it’s become an industry standard and it’s more about talking about character.

If, as Serkis says, we’re this close to performances like his own in “Apes” becoming an “industry standard,” one can only presume we will eventually see an acting nominee emerge from the format — though it’ll need to be sufficiently relatable that motion capture isn’t the first aspect of the performance we think about. That Serkis’s work in “Apes” is largely wordless and expression-based doesn’t help him: amid the techno-wizardry, vocal work can be more easily attributed than gesture.

Keegan mentions the lack of acting nods for FX evtravaganzas like “Avatar,” though you’d be hard pressed to find many objectors there. Serkis’s work in both “Apes” and “Tintin” is a step up, and eminently commendable at that, but when the right mo-cap candidate for an Oscar comes along, I like to think the performance will comfortably dwarf talk of its creation.

EDITOR’S NOTE: I’m happy to introduce a new writer and a much-needed female voice to the In Contention team: Roth Cornet. And what better way to bring her into the fold than a report from last night’s AFI Fest premiere of Gina Carano actioner “Haywire” from director Steven Soderbergh?

Steven Soderbergh premiered his new MMA spy-thriller “Haywire” at the AFI (not so) secret screening Sunday night at the historic Grauman’s Chinese Theatre in Hollywood. The director was in attendance along with Ewan McGregor, Michael Fassbender, and the film”s inspiration and star Gina Carano for a post-screening discussion moderated by “The Insider””s Joel McHale.

As a filmmaker, Soderbergh is known to make idiosyncratic choices. Though many of his films contain a similar visual style and tone, he is ultimately only predictable in his unpredictability. Over the past several decades he has released art house favorites, glossy popcorn chompers, earnest awards efforts and occasionally, some combination of the three.

Soderbergh also seems to have a proclivity toward stories that allow him to infuse his art with some of the quirkier sides of life. With 2009’s “The Girlfriend Experience” he attempted to usher adult film star Sasha Grey onto a more mainstream world stage. In June of 2012 he will unveil “Magic Mike,” the self-referential look at Channing Tatum”s early career as a male stripper. “Haywire” gives the director the opportunity to indulge both his meta tendencies and his ongoing love affair with the thriller.

As Soderbergh tells it, he was home watching television one Saturday night some years ago when he happened upon something that engaged his appetite for the novel: Gina Carano fighting. As he watched the MMA star tear through the competition, the auteur thought to himself, “Someone should really build a film around this woman. She”s a natural beauty and she beats people to a pulp in a cage.”

Rather than let an opportunity go uninvestigated, the director essentially set out to combine his fascination with Carano with his affection for the early Bond films in order to create a contemporary “From Russia With Love” starring what he refers to as a female (step-up from) Steven Seagal. Soderbergh tapped “The Limey” scribe, Lem Dobbs, to pen the script with the following directive: “She needs to beat her way through the cast.”

Dobbs reverse-engineered said directive to create a revenge tale that utilizes a fairly traditional spy/espionage action-thriller storyline as the backdrop. Carano plays a covert ops specialist working for a “private company” who unleashes a methodical fury when she is double-crossed by those closest to her.

An eclectic cast (including Channing Tatum, Bill Paxton, Ewan McGregor, Antonio Banderas and Michael Fassbender) was then assembled for Carano to brutalize in her feature film debut.

Two things motivated Soderbergh when he began the project: The desire to A) Introduce a female action star other than Angelina Jolie and B) Provide Carano with the same platform to showcase her talent that Steven Seagal was given 23 years ago when he was cast in ”Above The Law.” In fairness, the director has constructed a significantly elevated platform for Carano”s debut.

“Haywire” combines elements of expansive international suspense with the more nuanced camera and editorial work that initially made Soderbergh an indie darling. There is a raw quality to the cinematography and sound design that only serves to highlight the natural power of Carano”s fighting prowess.

Her co-stars are equal parts enamored of and terrified by her pure physical strength. There is an attraction that feels earthier than that of the more fetishized/sexualized female action leads that we are accustomed to, perhaps the most well known of whom is Ms. Jolie.

Jolie”s merits as an action heroine seem to be a common theme whenever “Haywire” is under discussion. McHale opened the Q&A by comparing the two women, saying, “This is the first action movie I”ve ever seen where I felt like you could kick the shit out of me and anyone here for real, as opposed to ‘Tomb Raider,’ where you were like, ‘Yeah…well.”” Aside from the side-by-side examinations of the films, Carano”s build stands in sharp contrast to Jolie”s slight and delicate frame.

As mentioned, “Haywire” was in some ways created as an answer to the standard female action fare, a way to break through the stereotypical depictions that perhaps function more as male fantasy than a legitimate illustration of feminine strength. 

Though the male supporting cast does display a respectful titillation when describing their fight sequences with Carano. Fassbender repeatedly hugged, kissed and stroked the sweet natured MMA star throughout the course of the Q&A but also confessed that he advised McGregor to “just run” when his turn came to go toe-to-toe with the cage-fighter.

McGregor described the most emblematic example of Carano”s dual nature when he recalled that in the midst of a right-left-right series of hits he accidentally “punched her right in the head.” To his shock, “She came straight up and she went, ‘Are you okay?” And she was right! I really fucking hurt my hand. She didn”t even feel it!”

Though Soderbergh”s global pandemic thriller “Contagion” will likely serve as his awards offering, “Haywire” may be the stronger effort for some. Stronger in the sense that it accomplishes what it sets out to do in a more effective manner for it is the reality of Carano’s abilities that interests the “Haywire” team. The film is meant to work as an entertaining stage to showcase her rough, ruthless and ultimately captivating mixed martial arts expertise.

Audiences will decide if “Haywire” does just that when it is released on January 20th, 2012.

I started writing this week’s column with the age-old tactic of trending in mind. And as I thought about a number of this year’s hopefuls, I thought maybe the season was very much about the power of memory over who we are.

In “Hugo,” a boy struggles to understand the key to remembering his father (as well as a classic filmmaker’s desire to forget who HE was).

In “The Muppets,” a fan of the forgotten characters fights for their posterity. In “Young Adult,” a delusional author lives in the memory of an old flame and the fantasy of rekindling it.

In “Martha Marcy May Marlene,” a young woman struggles to separate memory from the present following a poisonous run-in with a cult and in “The Tree of Life,” a man remembers his family life in strokes both vague and vivid, his parents boiled down to archetypal essence.

But that only got me so far. Soon I found myself stretching to fill the concept, reducing films like “The Descendants,” “The Artist” and “Midnight in Paris” to over simplification. What struck me in that moment was how truly wide-ranging the field of themes and narratives in the Best Picture category really is.

We have Spielberg and Scorsese working with their trusted crews to crank out epic stories with massive design elements. Both are sentimental in nature, in some quarters considered (dismissively) “children’s movies.” But each is playing in adult themes of war, loss, emotional repair and, well, cinema history.

Alexander Payne is working in his usual gray area between drama and comedy to find basic truths while Steve McQueen is digging even deeper for truth, deeper than many will likely want to go.

There are spy dramas, biopics, animated extravaganzas from commercial live action directors, uncompromising dark comedies, nihilistic character studies, saccharine history lessons and just about any and everything in between. It truly is a season with something for everyone. So it becomes about settling on what the season is for you.

The best films of the year are films outside the Oscar box. Of course, they typically are, but it’s true this year more than ever. While all eyes are on “The Descendants” or “The Artist” or “The Help,” I find myself more enlivened by Terrence Malick’s masterpiece “The Tree of Life,” the organic despair of Oren Moverman’s “Rampart,” Jeff Nichols’ penetrative study of paranoia in “Take Shelter” and Asghar Farhadi’s moving, universal portrait of moral and social complexities in “A Separation.”

I’m also cognizant of a certain current about art and artists flowing through films like “Midnight in Paris,” “Anonymous,” “Hugo” and even “Moneyball.” It’s the ultimate Rorschach season.

Anyway, short column this week. Recent screenings have been assessed in this space with more to come. Better to chew on everything for a bit, but I’ve run a comb through the Contenders section and updated the sidebar predictions.

Which brings me to an announcement. I’ve decided to relinquish the stranglehold I’ve had on the sidebar predictions and Contenders section for so long and bring Guy into that fold. As a result, the field of predictions will be a mixture of our takes on the race and the categories we handle separately will be indicated with a byline at each contender page. The next update will include that change.

For whatever reason I’ve been saying no to Q&A moderation requests the last year or two. But when I was asked to do one last night for a mixed guild/AMPAS screening of Oren Moverman’s “Rampart,” I jumped at the opportunity. I was anxious to talk with Woody Harrelson again (after first crossing paths with him two years ago in the publicity blitz for “The Messenger”), and I was interested to see how the film played.

And it played really well. Lots of reverence for the actor (who joined me at the WGA with writer/director Oren Moverman and co-star Brie Larson) and, of course, the tour de force performance he delivers in the film.

Much of the discussion centered on Moverman’s process of filming, allowing for no rehearsals and finding things organically. Larson quipped she is “ruined” after this experience, because she doesn’t want to work any other way, while Harrelson admitted he prefers the preparation of rehearsal and it’ll take him a good five or six takes to really get warmed up.

And that’s fine for Moverman. He’s all about finding spontaneous emotions and beats within the scenes, however long it takes to refine them within that process. Larson told a story about a certain scene in the film when she confronts Harrelson (who plays her father) in a hotel room with her little sister. She had an idea of how things would play out, but when she went up to the room and knocked on the door, thrown into the scene, every idea and assumption changed and new, authentic gestures and lines were brought into the fold as a result.

“She explained it perfectly right there,” Moverman said of the story to a member of the audience after the Q&A. “If we had rehearsed, none of that would have happened. They would have done one specific thing.”

For Moverman, a New Yorker of over 20 years, doing a film so specific to Los Angeles was a “lonely experience,” he joked, but he enjoyed being the outsider. He recalled forgetting his sunglasses one day in Los Angeles and really feeling oppressed by the brightness of the sun. That’s something he and cinematographer Bobby Bukowski (who shoots the heck out of this film) wanted to incorporate, as well as the “riot of color” that pops as you drive around the city, particularly downtown.

Harrelson said he went on a ride along with LAPD officers as preparation for the role of “the most corrupt cop you’ve ever seen on screen,” as the tagline on the poster puts it. And being a “happy hippy,” he didn’t think he’d be all that believable as such a corrupt, authority figure persona. When he first tried on the uniform, he said it felt like a Halloween costume.

But regardless of those early doubts, he settled into the role and delivered perhaps his greatest performance to date. It was an emotionally taxing shoot and both Harrelson and Larson admitted that it was difficult to shake their characters at the end of the day, but it was all worth it if the end result is a film as powerful as “Rampart.”

Will Harrelson net some Oscar recognition? One can only hope. Along with Michael Shannon in “Take Shelter” and Michael Fassbender in “Shame,” it’s one of the year’s best portrayals, but one that doesn’t fit the mold of others more firmly in the Best Actor hunt. My collage Greg Ellwood (who saw the film at AFI Fest last night) is certainly down on his chances, and he also notes the same thing I’ve been saying, that holding for a Sundance premiere and milking the film throughout 2012 might have built a better awards case.

But regardless, Millennium Entertainment will give it their best shot. A nice profile of Harrelson in the New York Times sure is a good start.

“Rampart” is an official selection for the on-going AFI Fest this year. It will open for one week in Los Angeles and New York on November 23 to qualify for this year’s Oscars before a wider release on January 27, 2012.

Meanwhile, the poster for the film was released last week, and it maintains the icy chill of the film’s emotional palate. Check it out below.

As Anne and I discussed in Friday’s Oscar Talk podcast, Disney/DreamWorks has been screening Steven Spielberg’s “War Horse” to the public in a pop-up screening strategy kinda/sorta like the one Paramount employed for “Young Adult.” Some are taking the cynical route, thinking the strategy is playing keep-away with a film that doesn’t have the goods for Oscar. The goal of these screenings is indeed fuzzy, but the reactions are key, and they seem to be wide-ranging.

If you dissect Twitter you can find them. Some call the film a “masterpiece.” Others call it shameless “Oscar bait.” Whatever it is, I stand by my comments on Friday. If press members want to feel scorned by not getting an early look at such a highly anticipated film and then take it out on said film, that’s incredibly petty and sad. I look forward to seeing and hopefully enjoying the film on its own terms.

Meanwhile, though, the press tour is showing signs of life. And one of the first considerable interviews with Spielberg I’ve seen regarding the film has popped up over at the Chicago Tribune with film critic Michael Phillips.

In the interview, Spielberg notes that, due to the animation process of “The Adventures of Tintin,” which he had already filmed, suddenly he had a lull in his schedule. He first saw the play upon which “War Horse” is based in early 2010. He brought in Richard Curtis to punch up Lee Hall’s pre-existing screenplay and was in production on the film by August.

He tells Phillips:

“This broken bond between this amazing young man and this miracle horse, this deep, deep friendship between human and animal, I don’t know, it just hit a good button for me…[Audiences are] watching a great story [on stage]. And that’s what involves them, even more than the great puppeteering. That’s what I glommed onto, even after being moved to tears by the puppeteering. I was also moved to tears by the storytelling.”

Meanwhile, it’s also worth noting the revelation that there is very little digital effects work in the film. Spielberg claims there are only “three shots lasting about three seconds” with CGI, because the horse’s safety became an issue. “That’s the thing I’m most proud of,” he tells Phillips. “Everything you see on screen really happened.”

Scattered press will be seeing “War Horse” throughout November. Most of us will get a look at the end of the month. The film is set for release on Christmas Day.

Check out the Chicago Tribune for the full interview. The bit at the end regarding Alfred Hitchcock’s thoughts on a young Spielberg was sweet, I thought.

Actress Keira Knightley has cranked out a boatload of sincere performances in the wake of her work in the “Pirates of the Caribbean” franchise, whether it be “Atonement” in 2007, “The Duchess” in 2008, “Never Let Me Go” last year or the soon-to-be-released “A Dangerous Method,” which could generate Oscar talk for the actress yet again. Well, it turns out she’s desperate for a bit of levity, having recently completed “Seeking a Friend for the End of the World” (great script) opposite Steve Carrell. But then, well, it’s back to the grind with Joe Wright and “Anna Karenina,” so call it a brief comedic pit stop. [Telegraph]

Sam Strange on “Tintin” and the continuing evolution of Steven Spielberg. [Badass Digest]

Rachel Dodes talks Hoover’s sexuality with “J. Edgar” screenwriter Dustin Lance Black. [Speakeasy]

Julie Miller offers up nine milestones from Eddie Murphy’s career. [Movieline]

Nicole Sperling talks to “Young Adult” star Patton Oswalt. [Los Angeles Times]

Allison Loring reports from the AFI Fest panel featuring young Hollywood: Anton Yelchin, Evan Rachel Wood, Armie Hammer and Kirsten Dunst. [Film School Rejects]

Is a dangerous precedent being set with Ubisoft’s unheard-of control over the “Assassin’s Creed” movie? [Vulture]

And finally, how about some “Hugo” reactions, starting with Jeff Wells. [Hollywood Elsewhere]

Sasha Stone. [Awards Daily]

And Steve Pond. [The Odds]

There’s a tendency in our circles to talk about the European Film Awards, which announced their annual nominations on Saturday, as some kind of highbrow parallel-universe Oscars, where art reigns and Hollywood-style politics have no place. To some extent, that’s true: at what other international awards ceremony would the top nominee be something as off-the-wall as Lars von Trier’s apocalypse drama “Melancholia,” which comfortably leads all takers with eight nods?

But look closer at the EFA list, and you’ll see it’s as riddled with conservatism and short-sightedness as any Academy Award ballot. Familiar big-name filmmakers dominate, while newer talents get frozen out. Exciting, difficult European marvels like “We Need to Talk About Kevin” and “Elena” are shunted out of the top categories in favor of vanilla, Academy-endorsed titles like “The King’s Speech” and “In a Better World.” Cannes remains the standard-setter: two-thirds of the Best European Film slate comes from this year’s Competition.

More discouragingly, the EFAs are even worse than the Academy when it comes to thinning the field: you could be forgiven for thinking that the entire continent of Europe produced only 12 films this year, since that select group fill every one of the 40 nomination spots available. Does “Le Havre” really feature one of the outstanding male lead performances of the year? Is the editing of “The King’s Speech” truly worth singling out in this field? Did nobody see Céline Sciamma’s “Tomboy?” We know they saw Wim Wenders’ form-bending “Pina” — so where’s the love?

Okay, enough whingeing on my part. Sift judiciously through the nominees, and there are several inclusions to cheer. It’s nice to see Béla Tarr’s uncompromising “The Turin Horse” recognized, particularly for its breathtaking black-and-white cinematography, while Pedro Almodóvar’s “The Skin I Live In” is acknowledged in precisely the areas it deserves. (The Spanish veteran has lost his magic touch with EFA voters — this is the first time since 1997’s “Live Flesh” that he hasn’t scored a Best Director bid.

Unusually enough, the Best Actress category looks far stronger than its male counterpart. Thank goodness Tilda Swinton (“Kevin”) and the remarkable Nadezhda Markina (“Elena”) managed to register here where their films were otherwise blanked. And I’m glad EFA voters recognize that Charlotte Gainsbourg is at least as strong as Cannes winner Kirsten Dunst in “Melancholia,” which is even split between its two leads. (Sadly missing: Olivia Colman in “Tyrannosaur.”)

Finally, even if “The Artist” was an inevitable choice — I suspect it’ll win the big one, despite the dominance of Team Von Trier and the unaccountable lack of a nod for director Michel Hazanavicius (see what I mean about established auteur names?) — it’s still a kick to see this delightful one-off muscle its way into all corners of the awards season.

The European Film Awards take place in Berlin on December 3. Greg Ellwood has the full list of nominations here. For no particular reason, other than that, for once, I’ve seen all the nominees, my bets and preferences are as follows:

WILL WIN
Best European Film: “The Artist”
Best European Director: Lars von Trier, “Melancholia”
Best European Actress: Tilda Swinton, “We Need to Talk About Kevin”
Best European Actor: Jean Dujardin, “The Artist”
Best European Screenwriter: Lars von Trier, “Melancholia”
Best European Cinematographer: Manuel Alberto Claro, “Melancholia”
Best European Editor: Mathilde Bonnefoy, “Three”
Best European Production Designer: Antxón Gómez, “The Skin I Live In”
Best European Composer: Ludovic Bource, “The Artist”

SHOULD WIN
Best European Film: “The Artist”
Best European Director: Lars von Trier, “Melancholia”
Best European Actress: Nadezhda Markina, “Elena”
Best European Actor: Jean Dujardin, “The Artist”
Best European Screenwriter: Lars von Trier, “Melancholia”
Best European Cinematographer: Fred Kelemen, “The Turin Horse”
Best European Editor: Molly Malene Stensgaard, “Melancholia”
Best European Production Designer: Jette Lehmann, “Melancholia” 
Best European Composer: Alberto Iglesias, “The Skin I Live In”

Over at the Los Angeles Times/Envelope 24 Frames blog, Nicole Sperling has a juicy exclusive regarding this year’s Oscar telecast. It seems Brett Ratner and Don Mischer, producers of this year’s show, have hired a unique crop of comedy writers to work alongside Eddie Murphy and shake things up a bit.

Scribes tapped include: Alec Berg and David Mandel, two of the writers on Larry David’s successful HBO comedy series “Curb Your Enthusiasm”; Jeff Nathanson, who frequently works with Ratner (“Tower Heist” and the “Rush Hour” films); Ted Griffin, who was part of the team of writers on Steven Soderbergh’s “Ocean’s” franchise; and Barry Blaustein and David Sheffield, who worked with Murphy on the “Nutty Professor” series and “Saturday Night Live.”

Jon Macks, who wrote on the last 14 Oscarcasts and has extensive experience with variety show writing, from the Emmys to the Country Music Awards to “The Tonight Show with Jay Leno,” will also be on board.

It is also revealed that Ratner will bring writer/director Cameron Crowe on to work on some sort of bit.

“I”m new to this and I wanted to feel comfortable, since I have to drive this whole thing,” Ratner tells Sperling in the piece. “So I brought in guys that I have a personal relationship with and I”ve worked with before.”

I’m all for it. If you’re going to breathe new life into the show, then you REALLY need to breathe new life into it. Not half-measures. And this is the kind of team that could bring comedic spice to a show that so frequently drowns in comedic best intentions gone flat.

The 84th annual Academy Awards, by the way, go down on Sunday, February 26. Are we there yet?

I had heard murmurs about this year’s secret screening at AFI Fesst being Steven Soderbergh’s “Haywire,” starring Gina Carano. The bummer is I have to moderate a Q&A this evening, so I’ll be missing it.

But hey, if you’re in Los Angeles, you can see the film if you want! Via the press release, “Admission to ‘Haywire’ is available to AFI Fest 2011 pass holders and free tickets for the screening can be obtained at the AT&T Box Office located in suite 219 at the Hollywood and Highland Center between 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. today. Tickets are available on a first-come, first-served basis. The Rush Line will begin forming at 8:30 p.m.”

Soderbergh’s “Contagion” is already in the marketplace (and has had a pretty solid box office run). Warner Bros. has been sniffing around a few awards prospects for that film, particularly Best Original Screenplay for writer Scott Z. Burns. I think Stephen Mirrione’s film editing and the original score from Cliff Martinez deserve some consideration.

“Haywire” is set for release from Relativity Media on January 20. Maybe we’ll be talking abot its awards potential next year. Or, well, with a release date like that, maybe not.

Here is Greg Ellwood’s HitFix report on the “Haywire” festivities from this year’s Comic-Con.

Paramount finally brought Martin Scorsese’s “Hugo” before a lot of press (and a lot of guild members) in Los Angeles this afternoon. This after the film showed “unfinished” as a secret screening at the New York Film Festival last month.

Well, this print was “unfinished,” too, actually. One effects shot was still left to be rendered, and closing credits were not yet complete, but by and large, it was finished. And though it’s a flawed piece of work (stemming from a sluggish screenplay and a largely underwhelming lead performance from Asa Butterfield), I found it to be fiercely romantic and inspiringly passionate. I’ll sign off on that most days of the week.

It’s also immaculately crafted, from Dante Ferretti’s jaw-dropping production design (hello, Oscar) to Robert Richardson’s dazzling fluid master shots and foray into 3D to Sandy Powell’s precise-as-always costume design to the complex visual effects work on the piece. The film creates a world and transports you there effortlessly.

It takes a while to build steam. The screenplay isn’t all that organic and seemed to be at odds with itself, desperate to hold its final (moving) act as far away as possible for as long as possible. And Butterfield doesn’t quite settle into the character, though he certainly has moments.

But I didn’t care. I really didn’t. I so enjoyed Scorsese’s mingling of character with his own passion for filmmaking that I couldn’t be bothered with the film’s drawbacks. I was touched by the romance of the piece (expanding on some of the side characters from Brian Selznick’s graphic novel), the love of 1930s Paris and the excitement of that time and place and the reverence for a form that has come to define the man. It’s a movie about the joy of making movies, and I think anyone who’s ever tried their hand at actually doing that will react positively in some way.

Scorsese mentioned in the post-screening Q&A (moderated by Paul Thomas Anderson) that it was kind of back to square one, though, as the 3D stuff really put a wrench in his normal, refined flow. “But that was what made it fun,” he said. And truly, I think that joy shows up on the screen.

Ben Kingsley is particularly noteworthy for his performance as filmmaker Georges Méliès. The film becomes part-biopic of the man, who is a trailblazer of the cinema and whose creations expanded the limitations of what imagination could bring to the form. And Kingsley is quite moving in how he handles a man who wants to bury his glorious past as the world and tastes have moved on. Therein lies the film’s theme of film preservation, near and dear, of course, to Scorsese’s heart.

Ultimately it’s a movie about the hunger for adventure, how the movies satisfy that hunger and how rewarding sharing that gift truly is. It won’t be an Oscar powerhouse (since I know you’ve already got those questions ready). No Best Picture or Best Screenplay or anything like that (though I think Kingsley does deserve some consideration). It’ll all be relegated to the below-the-line work, I think, but I’m not really thinking about awards as I write this. I’m thinking about how happy I am that Scorsese was able to make a film like this, for himself. Warts and all, it’s of a piece with that which drives him.

One last note on the 3D. It’s used quite well. I don’t think it was really necessary for the film but at least in the hands of Scorsese it is cinematic and captivating, providing a real sense of space, clock pendulums swinging ominously into the foreground, wisps of steam floating into frame. And it really soars in a few of the longer swift exciting tracking shots.

The Q&A was largely focused on the crafts of the film, featuring Scorsese, Richardson, Ferretti, editor Thelma Schoonmaker, composer Howard Shore (there is more original music in the film than any Scorsese movie in recent memory) and visual effects supervisor Robert Legato. It was a good perspective to have, given how considerable the below-the-line effort is on the production. I was going to write something up based on their answers, but it seemed to make more sense to offer it up for you here. There aren’t any spoilers, though it’s not really a movie you can spoil, I don’t think.

Have a listen below. You can’t really hear the audience questions toward the end, though. But the answers are all clear enough. I personally liked Scorsese’s closing thoughts on the limits of the form and how we should never be confined by them. How very Méliès.

More on “Hugo” and its particulars in due time.

Welcome to Cinejabber, your weekend space to talk about whatever, whenever.

Me? I’ve been playing “Batman: Arkham City.” As in, playing it too much. I have R. Kelly’s “Batman & Robin” track “Gotham City” stuck in my head with “Gotham” replaced by “Arkham.” It’s that bad. But when you’re obsessed with the Bat, I guess it’s to be expected.

It’s a dense game. Perhaps too dense. But it’s a blast and has even sparked an interesting conversation about sexism (I don’t see it, personally, though I’ll admit it leans on a few cliches a bit too much). “Uncharted 3” is sitting on the table, waiting for its turn, and “Assassin’s Creed: Revelations” is dropping in under two weeks. Hopefully I’ll see my fiancee some over the next few months. #dork

(Here are your must-plays for November, by the way.)

Anyway, elsewhere Los Angeles press are getting our first look at “Hugo” this afternoon, after the film dropped in “unfinished” form on NYFF audiences last month. I don’t really have expectations. It’s been a tough film to really gauge sight unseen. I look forward to hearing Marty and company dish on it after the screening, though.

Speaking of Q&As, the “J. Edgar” crowd was on hand for a screening of the film and a LACMA honor for Clint Eastwood last night. I opted out. Too much Hoover in a 24-hour span. But you’ll see reports on that scattered throughout the web today, if you’re interested.

Anyway, I need to head out for “Hugo.” The floor is yours. What have you been up to?

A couple of things are unusual about the Academy Salute to Vanessa Redgrave, an AMPAS tribute evening (not to be confused with the Governors’ Awards) dedicated to the Oscar-winning British acting legend, and taking place next Sunday. For one thing, it’s being held in London, where Redgrave is currently performing on stage in a West End revival of “Driving Miss Daisy” — the first time one of these AMPAS Salutes has taken place outside the US. (Which is lucky for me: I’ve got an invite.)

Furthermore, I can’t remember the last time one of these evenings — which have in recent years been held for the likes of Malcolm McDowell, Robert Evans and the late Hal Ashby — was staged for someone already in the thick of Oscar talk that year: Redgrave is currently a Best Supporting Actress frontrunner for her tremendous performance in Ralph Fiennes’s revisionist Shakespeare adaptation “Coriolanus.” A tribute evening like this has no real bearing on the awards themselves, but this is nonetheless a nice bit of lily-gilding to kick off what promises to be a busy awards season for the veteran actress.

If nothing else, it promises to be a super evening of star-watching: Meryl Streep, Fiennes, James Earl Jones (her current “Daisy” co-star), Eileen Atkins and Redgrave’s daughter Joely Richardson will all be on hand to deliver tributes; esteemed playwright and screenwriter David Hare is hosting the event, while former AMPAS president Sid Ganis will introduce the evening. I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t excited to be going; needless to say, I’ll be bringing you a full report afterwards.

“Coriolanus,” which The Weinstein Company is opening in January after a December qualifying run, will bring a busy year for Redgrave to a rousing finish. She’s already had three films in theaters this year: the less said about “Miral” and “The Whistleblower,” the better, while weak reviews and box-office for “Anonymous” have killed off any buzz she might have had for her ripe riff on Elizabeth I.

Happily, she’s saved the best for last. it seems an eternity since I saw “Coriolanus” at the Berlinale back in February, and while elements of Fiennes’s uneven directorial debut have receded in my memory, Redgrave’s fire-breathing take on the plum character of Volumnia still burns very bright for me indeed: it’s remains the best work I’ve seen in its category all year.

For those of you who weren’t with us back then, here’s what I said in my review nearly nine months ago: 

“As the crowd staggered out of the auditorium two hours later, the name being murmured most approvingly was that of the film”s oldest and most distinguished star. And with good reason. As Volumnia, the proud, politically-minded mother of the titular Roman general, Vanessa Redgrave gives one of ‘those’ performances, an Olympian masterclass in classical acting that conjures spontaneous emotional fire upon a bed of immaculate technique.

“Just listening to the richly controlled tremors and modulations in her voice as she powers her way through a titanic final monologue – turning her son”s political persuasions through reams of exquisite language – is enough to raise hairs on the back of your hands; all too rare are the opportunities to watch our greatest actors wrestle such material on screen.

“Indeed, in recent years, Redgrave has reserved her most committed thespian efforts for the stage: as valued a supporting presence as she has been in film projects ranging from ‘Atonement’ to ‘Letters to Juliet,’ it”s safe to say she hasn”t had a big-screen showcase this generous since ‘Howards End’ nearly 20 years ago, and still, her work here outstrips that for difficulty and magnitude.

“Berlin isn”t usually the festival for such pronouncements (nor are such predictions ever wise, least of all in the dark days of February) but I”m going to make one anyway: Vanessa Redgrave will receive a 2011 Oscar nomination for Best Supporting Actress. If the performance itself weren”t enough to set a campaign in motion, the fact that ‘Coriolanus’ has just been acquired by The Weinstein Company certainly is.”

Last week, we discussed the nominations for the documentary-oriented 2011 Cinema Eye Honors, which were announced at a fun pub party in East London and included many of the year’s best docs. Basically, I like the way they do business. But one award wasn’t announced that night, and it’s a new and interesting one: the rather brilliantly named Hell Yeah Prize has been created to recognize strong films that can also claim to have made a measure of difference out in the real world.

I’m aware of, but have never seen, the inaugural recipient of the prize, the HBO Documentary Films trilogy “Paradise Lost” — the first film of which was released back in 1996, and the third of which will premiere on HBO in January. But it seems a most worthy choice of winner to christen the award: over 16 years, the long-haul project tracked the miscarriage of justice involving the West Memphis Three, a trio of teenage boys who were falsely accused and convicted of child murder, and were finally released, after serving 18 years, earlier this year. The films, directed by Joe Berlinger and Bruce Sinofsky, reportedly played a key role in raising public and media awareness of the story, and keeping the case alive.

The first part of the trilogy was acclaimed on screens big and small, winning Emmy and Peabody Awards, as well as the National Board of Review’s Best Documentary honor. This award, then, puts a nice cap on that, proving that cinema can be life as well as art.

The press release:

New York – The Cinema Eye Honors for Nonfiction Filmmaking today announced a new, periodic award called the Hell Yeah Prize, to be given to filmmakers who have created works of incredible craft and artistry that also have significant, real-world impact. The inaugural Hell Yeah Prize will be presented to Joe Berlinger and Bruce Sinofsky for their HBO Documentary Films trilogy Paradise Lost, which played a critical role in securing the release from prison of the wrongly prosecuted and convicted West Memphis Three.

The award will be presented on January 11, 2012 at the 5th Annual Cinema Eye Honors ceremony to be held at the Museum of the Moving Image in Astoria, New York. A screening of Paradise Lost 3: Purgatory will take place on January 10, also at the Museum of the Moving Image, and the film will have its HBO premiere later in January 2012.

“The mission of Cinema Eye is to prioritize outstanding artistry and craft in the field of documentary,” Cinema Eye Honors Co-Chair Esther Robinson said about the new award. “We wanted to find a way to recognize those films and filmmakers that excel at the highest levels to create great art and, as a result, also happen to affect change in the real world that is measurable. Joe and Bruce”s Paradise Lost trilogy – a two decade investigation of an outrageous case of wrongful prosecution and conviction – defines this award perfectly.”

“Joe and Bruce”s dogged determination to keep shining a light on this miscarriage of justice in Arkansas no doubt saved at least one of these young men from being put to death,” said Cinema Eye Honors Co-Chair AJ Schnack. “Their films inspired a global movement that refused to let the issue go away. The fact is that Paradise Lost 3: Purgatory truly stands on its own as one of the best films of 2011. We are honored to present this new award to these landmark filmmakers.”

“To be given the opportunity to work on a series of films that had such a tangible result as the release of the wrongfully convicted West Memphis Three from prison is enough of a reward for any filmmaker, so to be singled out for this inaugural Hell Yeah award is truly inspiring, ” said co-filmmaker Joe Berlinger.

Added Co-filmmaker Bruce Sinofsky: “We are truly grateful to the Cinema Eye Honors for providing this platform to celebrate the power of documentary filmmaking to make a difference in the world.”

The Academy has announced a list of 18 qualifying titles for this year’s Best Animated Feature Film race. Among the films on the list is Steven Spielberg’s “The Adventures of Tintin,” the sequel “Happy Feet Two” and Disney’s “Mars Needs Moms.”

Those three are significant to note because their use of performance-capture technology left many wondering whether they would make the cut. But qualifying is only half the battle. We can safely assume “Mars Needs Moms” won’t tickle the branch’s fancy, but will bias against the technology still get in the way of the other two during the nominations process if they do become eligible, specifically Spielberg’s hopeful? We’ll see.

Other films submitted include foreign language entry “Alois Nebel” and a film called “Wrinkles,” which is the one out-of-the-blue title, I guess. (This is the first I’ve heard of it.) Singapore foreign hopeful “Tatsumi” was thought to maybe be in the hunt, but I guess not.

(UPDATE: Okay, so it turns out this is the actual list of qualifying films after all, and it’s merely worded strangely. All the films on the list have been approved as animation and will qualify. The press release was worded with the “submissions” language as a caveat that films still set for qualifying runs could fall out if they don’t follow through on that. That’s all. Sorry for the confusion.)

The rest of the list has pretty much been expected for a while now, per our Contenders page. They are, via AMPAS press release:

“The Adventures of Tintin”
“Alois Nebel”
“Alvin and the Chipmunks: Chipwrecked”
“Arthur Christmas”
“Cars 2”
“A Cat in Paris”
“Chico & Rita”
“Gnomeo & Juliet”
“Happy Feet Two”
“Hoodwinked Too! Hood vs. Evil”
“Kung Fu Panda 2”
“Mars Needs Moms”
“Puss in Boots”
“Rango”
“Rio”
“The Smurfs”
“Winnie the Pooh”
“Wrinkles”

Per the press release, at least eight eligible animated features must be theatrically released in Los Angeles County within the calendar year for the Best Animated Feature Film category to be activated.

Well, no surprise here. It was revealed two months ago that Golden Globe producers had invited cheeky British comedian Ricky Gervais to host their reliably boozy shindig for a third straight year — keen, one assumes, to reignite the media fuss that greeted his polarizing performance this year, which some found hilariously irreverent and others thought overly disrespectful to the industry being celebrated that night. (I was firmly in the former camp.)

At the time, Gervais claimed he was wary of accepting the offer to three-peat, but one needn’t have been a mind-reader to know he’d inevitably relent. And so, it seems, he has: the New York Post is informed by an inside source that the deal has been made. Hurrah.

Assuming Gervais returns, it’ll be interesting next year to see how him emceeing compares to that of Eddie Murphy, who, in case you’d forgotten, is running the slightly bigger show that is the Oscars. It’s been a while since the Academy opted for a comedian with that level of bite: with Gervais’s recent run, the Globes have rather cornered the ‘funny’ market in the season’s endless procession of awards shows, and Murphy will have to be on vintage form to compete.

Gervais is arguably a more current comic than Murphy (who, despite his star billing, is rather a token presence in “Tower Heist”), but also more suited to the smaller-scale party vibe of the Globes. (Acidic satire doesn’t play terribly well in the more formal environment of the Academy Awards — just ask Chris Rock. It’s a far tougher comic balance to strike.) Anyway, as I wrote back in August, happy Gervais is apparently back on board.

Now, if someone can just find a way to make the SAG Awards fun…

It’s been a while since I’ve put up one of these. Sorry about that. It frankly keeps slipping my mind each week, but I’m glad you all have been engaging with what you’ve seen in the weekend Cinejabber posts. Today, though, a wide release is hitting and I’d love to get your feedback. I actually had a good time with Brett Ratner’s “Tower Heist.” I don’t know what else I can say but that. It’s interesting how it’s landing just right in the zeitgeist as the Occupy Wall Street movement is at a fever pitch. And it’s a nice antidote to the usual awards season flavor. If you happen to catch it this weekend, do come on back here and tell us what you thought.