Welcome to Oscar Talk.

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

Even though we’ve been neck deep in Oscat talk for a few months now, the season proper only really starts this week (advertising-wise). It makes sense, then, that we’re starting to pile on the screenings and have plenty to discuss today as a result. So, with that in mind, let’s see what’s on the docket today…

The big reveal this week was Clint Eastwood’s “J. Edgar,” which opened AFI Fest last night at the historic Chinese Theatre in Hollywood. We dig in on what has been one of a few elusive titles of the season.

Also finally popping up in LA this week was Jason Reitman’s “Young Adult.” I was at the screening, though Anne had a prior commitment, so this is just me giving my thoughts and the two of us weighing the benefits of Paramount’s “pop-up screening” strategy with the film.

Also employing a pop-up screening strategy across the country is, strangely enough,”War Horse.” We consider the meaning and impact of that, which leads to some candid discussion on the pecking order of screening schedules for press and whether that should really matter. (I think it shouldn’t, while Anne argues that it can cause petty backlash.)

Revealed earlier this week were the British Independent Film Award nominations, which were a feather in the caps of “Shame,” “Tyrannosaur” and “Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy.” We discuss.

And finally, reader questions. We address queries concerning the extended Oscar chances of “Martha Marcy May Marlene,” the re-release of “Sarah’s Key” and the category placement of the “Carnage” cast.

Have a listen to the new podcast below with a little Starship leading the way. (Why, you ask? Because its in “The Muppets,” which I loved but Anne hasn’t seen yet, therefore it was on the brain.) We go about 10 minutes longer than normal this week. If the file cuts off for you at any time, try the back-up download link at the bottom of this post. And as always, remember to subscribe to Oscar Talk via iTunes here.

“We Built This City” courtesy of Starship and Grunt Records.
“Queen Bitch” courtesy of David Bowie and RCA Records.

I wrote up Clint Eastwood’s “J. Edgar,” which just premiered at AFI Fest, last night. Anne and I will also be discussing the film in the podcast this morning. But worth pointing to this morning is a Dan Kois piece that offers up the following observation: “Clint Eastwood is overdue for a Razzie!” Well, is he? He seems to get a pass year in and year out, despite some really awful outings amid his otherwise impressive enough post-millennium renaissance. But even in the good ole’ days he put out his fair share of doozies. And yet, no Razzie to show for it! Maybe it’s mean, but hey, this is the age of snark. (Though I would argue this same piece could be written for Woody Allen. It’s the price of being prolific. They can’t all be winners, and some are outright losers.) [Grantland]

Not only has Andy Serkis signed on to a sequel to “Rise of the Planet of the Apes,” but 20th Century Fox confirms it will campaign the actor for Oscar consideration. [Deadline]

Michael Shannon on Oscar season: “If they want to throw a party, I’ll show up!.” [Vulture]

Jake Gyllenhaal, meanwhile, is showing is support for Shannon’s work in “Take Shelter.” [indieWIRE]

James Mangold looks back on “Copland” nearly 15 years later. [MTV Movies Blog]

Sasha Stone shrewdly notes studio push-back this year aimed at filtering buzz to peak at the right moment. [Awards Daily]

Allison Loring writes up Christophe Beck’s fun and bombastic score for “Tower Heist.” [Film School Rejects]

Jeff Wells continues his sight-unseen assault on “War Horse,” passing along a negative reaction (amid countless other posts knocking whatever the film might or might not be). [Hollywood Elsewhere]

David Poland sits down with “Like Crazy” star Anton Yelchin. [The Hot Blog]

I find myself coming down a number of different ways on Clint Eastwood’s “J. Edgar,” which saw its world premiere tonight as the opening film of the 25th annual AFI Fest. It’s weird, really. There are things to admire. There are things that are maddening. There are the usual caveats of a latter-day Eastwood film, and yet some indications of a departure from recent disappointments. (It’s probably my favorite of his films since “Letters from Iwo Jima.”)

At the heart of this vacillating, though, is a definitive opinion: Leonardo DiCaprio is exceptional in the title role, digging into an incredibly complex character, committing from frame one to the embodiment and maintaining that course without losing focus. It’s at times a broad portrayal of a broad persona, but I thought the actor found ways to dial it down and make the internal machinations of the man count. And I think it could very well carry him to that elusive first Oscar win.

The film itself, though, wasn’t as impressive. The problems mostly stem from a somewhat lazy, arbitrarily structured “greatest hits” screenplay from Dustin Lance Black. It’s clunky and labored, but it’s really only part of the problem.

I appreciated that Eastwood and Black were attempting a balanced portrait, but there were moments that stuck out, usually directorially, as nearly propagandistic, little things that would just take me out of the film from time to time. And they probably would have done so even if I wasn’t aware of Eastwood’s conservative politics.

Then again, maybe it’s a misread on my part. The script leaves itself a bit of an out toward the end with some straight-shooting from Armie Hammer, but, well, I don’t know. Some moments smelled funny is all I’m saying.

Anyway, speaking of Hammer, it’s worth noting his performance as Hoover’s long-time colleague, confidante and rumored lover, Clyde Tolson. On the lover bit, the film tries its hand at subtly conveying the homosexual thing (which itself stems from the word of a woman with questionable credibility), but it ultimately has a rather definitive take on it. Regardless of that, Hammer is pretty solid, particularly in later scenes following Tolson’s stroke that allow him to take the character in a whole new direction. It could bring him Best Supporting Actor recognition. We’ll see.

Judi Dench is fine if sparsely used as Hoover’s mother. More apparent throughout is Naomi Watts, as long-time personal secretary Helen Gandy. But I don’t think either will find awards traction. It’s DiCaprio and Hammer, I’d say.

One Oscar I think the film will win walking away, though, is Best Makeup. With the exception of applications on Hammer — which are jarring and just feel wrong — the aging makeup here is really good and will be a talking point for the film. I can’t imagine there being much competition. Maybe “The Iron Lady.” And, again, with the exception of Hammer at times, it’s not a hindrance to performance.

Finally, production value is exceptional across the board. Art direction, costumes, even the editing (which is forced to be a bit showy due to the script randomly jumping back and forth through time), all of it will be in the conversation.

I don’t get Eastwood’s penchant for filming in such dark hues these days, though. It’s like more light reaches his eye than the average human or something, because the camera seemed to be filming through murky water the whole time. It’s a trend for him as of late. I don’t get it.

So that’s the knee-jerk. More in the podcast tomorrow. For now, AFI Fest is off and running. Plenty going on throughout the week, all building to closing night and “The Adventures of Tintin” on November 10.

The Weinstein Company will have a busy November this year. Recently it was announced that the “My Week with Marilyn” will be released wide later in the month to capitalize on Thanksgiving audiences, while festival sensation “The Artist” finally hits the marketplace in limited release around the same time.

“Marilyn” will certainly give the company plenty to work with in the Best Actress arena, as Michelle Williams’s performance as Marilyn Monroe has been high on the buzz meter since the film’s New York Film Festival debut. But it seems they want a little more muscle in the category, as plans have been announced to re-release “Sarah’s Key” on 300 screens tomorrow in advance of its November 22 DVD/Blu-ray release.

The film features a leading performance from Kristin Scott Thomas that has been lurking on the outside of our Contenders page for the field for a few weeks now. There has always been some rumblings within that she could make a play, but this move certainly seems to indicate an aggressive attempt to re-insinuate it in the conversation, no matter how tight the lead actress field may be.

“Audiences responded to ‘Sarah’s Key’ for its great story, its emotional impact, and its historical importance,” Weinstein president of distribution Erik Lomis said in the press release. “And the power of that word-of-mouth made it one of the most successful indie releases of the summer. We know there’s an even bigger audience for the movie, and that’s why we’re re-releasing it now, in a wider pattern, and just in time for awards consideration.”

I actually hadn’t taken note of the film’s admittedly impressive $7 million haul since its July 22 release. That is an accomplishment. Can the film register as an awards player? Maybe. It certainly has the trappings, and it certainly has its champions.

The release reminds us of that, quoting National Director of the Anti-Defamation League and a Holocaust survivor Abraham H. Foxman thusly: “‘Sarah’s Key’ is much more than a Holocaust film. It is an emotional tour-de-force, a compelling Holocaust drama writ large that examines the interconnected lives of a series of unforgettable characters through time.

“Along the way we witness the worst and the best of humanity. We see in the most graphic terms the horrible and tragic choices that Jews had to make facing the Nazi onslaught. There were no good choices and whatever one decided, the price to pay was momentous and long-lasting. ‘Sarah’s Key’ is a must see for that alone.”

Lord knows the Academy loves it some Holocaust dramas. But will they spark to this one? It’s an interesting season with a lot of question marks and a lot of holes waiting to be filled, so maybe it’s a shrewd move to strike.

“Sarah’s Key” hits theaters again tomorrow, November 4. It makes its way to DVD and Blu-ray Tuesday, November 22.

Ah, Best Makeup.

I always say that this is without doubt one of the most difficult categories to predict, year in and year out. While very broad trends can be observed, every year seemingly sure things do not make the bake-off (a list of seven finalists announced before the field is narrowed down to three on nomination morning), and even when they do, there are often shocking snubs among the final nominees. Last year”s omission of “Alice in Wonderland” immediately jumps to mind, for instance.

All that having been said, some titles do seem more plausible than others. The kind of work that tends to find favor here includes extensive prosthetics, effective aging makeup, creation of monsters and transformative effects. Period films take a disproportionate share of the nominations.

I should note that the category actually recognizes makeup and hairstyling, but the latter tends to be overshadowed, notwithstanding the occasional exception (“The Young Victoria,” for example).

The category has a few favorites, such as Greg Cannom and especially last year’s winner Rick Baker, but even they are occasionally passed over for seemingly easy gets. Moreover, many newcomers are nominated every year.

I”ll also note that members of this branch, like the costume designers (though really to an even greater extent), are willing to look past a film”s overall record with the Academy when coming to its nominees. Last year, all three nominated films were the sole representatives of their films, and rare is the year when at least one of the nominees isn”t from a film with no other nominations. Then again, the nominees in 1998, 2001 and 2003 fly in the face of that. Yet another sign of this branch being unpredictable.

Bearing that in mind, I”d say “Green Lantern” might just survive the year here. The film was hardly a critical favorite, and its box office record was underwhelming compared to many of the summer blockbusters. Nevertheless, it is difficult to find much fault in the transformation of Peter Sarsgaard into the villainous Hector Hammond. It’s worth mentioning Joel Harlow won this category two years ago for “Star Trek.”

A better received summer blockbuster was “Captain America: The First Avenger.”  While the extent of the makeup in the film is not that of “Green Lantern,” this Marvel effort also features a villain — Hugo Weaving’s Red Skull — sporting a lot of prosthetics. The crew does not have much Oscar history (that I am aware of), but that may not matter. Moreover, this could be the place to honor a fairly respected summer blockbuster that did its job quite well.

On the note of summer blockbusters, it would be unwise to rule out “Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides.”  The first film in this franchise was nominated here and likely came close to winning. The third installment managed to repeat that feat despite the second not doing so. Now, the makeup on the latest — “On Stranger Tides” — was undeniably impressive and the additions of Blackbeard and the Mermaids added something new to the series. Nevertheless, much of the crew that had earlier success is not back (though Joel Harlow, having a busy year, is aboard this film as well) and, moreover, I can”t help but wonder if people are sick of this series, which was a breath of fresh air eight years ago but now has lost much of its earlier fun. Then again, maybe not.

Looking ahead, “J. Edgar” will finally unveil itself tonight at AFI Fest and I”m not sure how to read it. But no matter where the dice ultimately fall, aging Leonardo DiCaprio and company across five decades is a feat that cannot be ignored. So if this survives anywhere, I”d expect it to be here. In fact, I”d call it the frontrunner in this category. Then again, it also could go the way of many other surprising snubs even if it gets many nominations.

“The Iron lady” is Meryl Streep”s latest attempt to return to the Oscar game. I frankly have very little faith in Phyllida Lloyd to pull this off. Nevertheless, recreating the famous look of Margaret Thatcher, and then age her, does have the makings of a contender in this category, especially if Streep is heading toward nomination #17.

It may seem strange to contrast Margaret Thatcher with Marilyn Monroe but they are both characters in play for Best Actress race this year. “My Week with Marilyn” will try to make an Oscar contender not only out of Michelle Williams for her take on the original blonde bombshell, but also one out of Kenneth Branagh, who portrays Sir Laurence Olivier. The makeup frankly doesn”t look *that* transformative. Even so, the very nature of the work suggests to me it should be considered here, especially with Oscar winner Jenny Shircore on board.

If we”re looking for a smaller, serious biopic of sorts, David Cronenberg”s “A Dangerous Method” is worth watching. In addition to the unusual makeup on many of the patients, the film puts one hell of a nose on Viggo Mortensen, attempting to turn him into Sigmund Freud. Turning a famous actor into a famous person they don”t look like sometimes works (“La Vie en Rose”), but sometimes it doesn”t (“The Hours”). In any event, I”m not sure how this film will play and I”m skeptical of its chances in the big categories. Stephan Dupuis, by the way, won this category a quarter-century ago for his iconic work on Cronenberg”s “The Fly.”

“Albert Nobbs” will highlight the always makeup-reliant art of gender-bending as Glenn Close tries to return to the Oscar game after an extraordinary absence of over two decades. If she does (perhaps bringing Janet McTeer along with her), this is one of a few other places I could see the film  scoring, given that it will have to recreate 19th century Ireland, in addition to turning two female Oscar contenders into men.

Martin Scorsese’s “Hugo” has an opportunity to blend period and fantasy, something this category sometimes goes for. Several actors will be looking atypical here, which certainly helps matters. Moreover, I simply think this film could be a major player in many crafts categories. Interestingly, no Scorsese film has ever been nominated here, nor has any member of this crew (to my knowledge).

I have probably been unfairly disregarding “Anonymous” in my predictions to date. While its underwhelming reception does not surprise me, the crafts work was clearly impressive. Heike Merker and Björn Rehbein have yet to tickle the fancy of the makeup branch to date, but one never knows in this unpredictable category.

“War Horse” will have the opportunity to showcase both period and war makeup. While this isn”t an obvious recipe for a nomination, “Saving Private Ryan” was cited here, and Lois Burwell designed that film as well as this one. Moreover, this one could get caught up in a sweep (which this branch is not always immune to.)  The crew includes “equine makeup artists,” which is different but makeup nonetheless. Novelty can help. It is worth noting that Jon Henry Gordon was nominated for his period hair work on “The Young Victoria,” while Burwell won this category for “Braveheart.”

I fully expect “The Artist” to do very well across the crafts categories. Bringing its main characters back to Hollywood of the late 1920s may well provide Julie Hewett and Cydney Cornell the opportunity to become first-time nominees, especially as they need to bear in mind the importance of black-and-white in their work. If the film sweeps, that would help.

I”ve said before but I may as well say again that the December film whose awards prospects I have most difficulty reading is “The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo.”  This could just be the beginning of a cash cow series but, while awards never seem to be on Fincher”s mind, quality does. Moreover, there will be opportunities for makeup, in a typical action capacity, as well as the creation of the iconic look of the title character. So I”m reluctant to write this off yet.

I”ll end by turning to a film that marks the last chance to recognize a series I”m surprised has never turned up here: “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2.”  Now, I am not sure what is in this film that its predecessors lacked. Even so, given the unpredictability of the makeup category, and the fact that this is the last time to recognize a series that has had impressive makeup (and even more impressive hairstyling), I wouldn”t rule this out yet.

With those completely speculative musings behind me, I would nonetheless like to admit that there”s a good chance I haven”t cited at least one eventual nominee. (I sure didn”t see “Barney”s Version” coming at this point last year.)  That”s the unpredictable nature of this race. Feel free to guess what I may have missed below. Next week we”ll look to Best Sound Mixing.

“This is a bit of an odd press conference,” director Sam Mendes admitted at this morning’s swish London media gathering to cut the ribbon on production of the 23rd and latest James Bond film. “Usually at these things, you have something you can talk about.”

He wasn’t kidding. With producers Michael J. Wilson and Barbara Broccoli, plus stars Daniel Craig, Javier Bardem, Juli Dench, Naomie Harris and Berenice Marlohe, Mendes rocked up at the ballroom of Whitehall”s plush Corinthian Hotel – a venue one suspects Bond himself would choose – to tell us… well, not very much at all. Actors confirmed, but not present, include Ralph Fiennes, Albert Finney and Ben Whishaw: no surprise that Mendes”s Bond movie looks on course to be the luvviest one yet.

One journalist”s question after another was shut down with a slightly sheepish smile and a “maybe, maybe not” response. The one major nugget of information they had intended to reveal today had long been cracked open by the internet: “Introducing the world”s worst-kept secret,” Wilson said rather ruefully, as the film”s confirmed title, “Skyfall,” flashed onto the screen behind him. What does it mean? They can”t tell us, of course. It has “an emotional context,” offered Broccoli, reassuringly.

This much we also learned: the film will be shot in London, both at the legendary Pinewood Studios and on location in Whitehall, with excursions to Shanghai, Istanbul and Scotland. (Where in Scotland? “The wilds of Scotland,” Mendes promised, helpfully.) It”s not based on any existing Ian Fleming work, and it”s not a continuation of the Quantum storyline from the last two Craig-led Bond pics. Several character names aren”t being revealed: is that because avid Bond fans might recognise some of them? “They might do,” Mendes replied airily. “Then again, they might not.”

Beyond that, you could pretty much report on what was said without even attending the conference. The actors are excited. The producers are excited. Mendes is excited – though he did dryly admit, when pressed as to whether he might consider doing another entry in the series, that the answer hinges on “if I feel as excited in six months” time.” Bardem, a Bond fan from childhood, plays the villain, but in his words: “Who says a villain is a bad person?”

Little-known French stunner Marlohe stunned the room by revealing that she”s playing “a glamorous, enigmatic character called Severine” – who”da thunk it? Craig earned the biggest laugh of the press conference by curtly cutting off a hapless Swedish journo asking how he compared playing Bond to alternative action hero Mikael Blomkvist in the upcoming “The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo”: “They”re completely different,” he said without expression. Naomie Harris, playing a field agent, has discovered a taste for firing machine guns. And so on and so forth.

In other words, they”re shooting a James Bond movie. Cutely enough, today”s press conference took place 50 years to the day since then-rising star Sean Connery was announced as the star of the first Bond adaptation, “Dr. No”; when it”s released next year, “Skyfall” will mark the franchise”s golden anniversary. Perhaps in honor of the occasion, they”ve pushed the boat out a bit with an unusually high-end cast, as well as the first Oscar-winning director to steer one of these action-oriented larks. Other than that, it all sounds like business as usual, and hurrah for that: “Awards aren”t the reason you do any movie,” a sly-looking Mendes said to one journo who had asked if Oscar gold was on the cards. “They certainly not the reason you do a Bond movie.”

Nathaniel Rogers points out that Steven Spielberg’s “Close Encounters of the Third Kind” turns the arbitrary age of 34 this month. On the occasion, he put the ole’ Blu-ray in and gave it a first look in a great many years. I, too, recently revisited the film for the first time in a LONG time (as a double feature with “E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial” at the New Beverly Theater here in Los Angeles). It really is, to my mind, one of the directors top four or five efforts, and I look forward to re-watching most of his stuff soon as we’ll be dedicating a December installment of The Lists to the best he’s had to offer over the decades. [The Film Experience]

Jordan Raup rounds up a bunch of public reactions to “War Horse” via the miracle of Twitter. [The Film Stage]

Brooks Barnes profiles “J. Edgar” star Leonardo DiCaprio. [New York Times]

John Horn writes up this weekend’s big opener, “Tower Heist.” [Los Angeles Times]

The Academy brings back the laughter with Pierre Étaix (who was feted this year at Telluride and pops up in “Le Havre”). [Oscars.org]

Sasha Stone offers up a unique remembrance of the late Gil Cates based on her interactions with the man over the years. [Awards Daily]

Breaking down the explosions of Le Cinéma du Michael Bay. [Movieline]

Rob Licuria on Judy Greer’s outside shot at Best Supporting Actress recognition for her precious (and well-performed) screen time in “The Descendants.” [Gold Derby]

George Clooney on why he took his role in the film. [24 Frames]

Scott Feinberg talks to “Like Crazy” star Felicity Jones. [The Race]

Box-office analysis is a funny old business, one I find simultaneously fascinating and alienating: the line between success and failure can be as subjective as it is fine. Which is why it’s with some interest that I’ve been following the reports on the opening numbers for “The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn” in its first week of UK release: what initially appears to be good news turns out to have rather more mixed signals.

On the one hand, as The Guardian’s Charles Gant (the go-to guy for British box-office reporting, for those interested) tells it, the film’s a hit. Topping the charts with a first-week total of approximately $10.8 million (hey, we’re a small country), it’s enjoyed the biggest opening of any animated film this year. However, as Gant explains, when you factor in the money it made in previews, the film is actually tracking behind January opener “Tangled,” with the end of the UK half-term school vacation promising something of a drop-off. In other words: sure, it’s a hit. But it looks unlikely to be a phenomenon on the scale of Spielberg’s Spielbiggest.

So, why am I telling you this? Well, it does make me wonder what lies ahead for its US release in December. It’s an unusual occurrence for a blockbuster of this magnitude to give British audiences such a head start on America, and not an accidental one: with Tintin a far more familiar cultural icon in Europe than across the pond, Paramount was presumably counting on breathless advance buzz to butter up American audiences sceptical of a knickerbocker-clad Belgian boy detective. (Actually, when you put it like that, we should all be sceptical, but I digress.)

To a large extent, it’s worked: the reaction from audiences and critics (myself included) has been mostly warm. (I must, however, take a moment to mention The Guardian’s bizarre editorial vendetta against the film: in the past few weeks, they’ve run no fewer than three op-eds crucifying Steven Spielberg’s interpretation of the comic books, to go with two separate but equally negative reviews from their in-house critics. Batfans have nothing on the Tintin-heads, it seems.)

Still, the question remains: if the film isn’t a mega-hit closer to its cultural roots, will unfamiliar American audiences be any more enthusiastic? Does this merely prove that Tintin is an antiquated figure to kids in any part of the world? None of this math-talk should make much of a difference to the film’s awards hopes in the Best Animated Feature category (where its own medium remains its chief challenge), but if it’s to have any chance of crossing over to Best Picture territory — an outside possibility than some pundits have been mooting in the past few weeks — it’ll need to be more than a qualified success. For now, I’m intrigued.

A strangely jubilant atmosphere prevailed at Monday”s boozy standing lunch in central London, where this year”s British Independent Film Award nominees were read out to an invited crowd of journalists, industry pros and some of the nominees themselves. Well, perhaps not “strangely”: free Moët champagne and gourmet sliders tend to brighten the black moods of film folk, and that”s before you start throwing awards at them.

But the general air of apology and scepticism that clouds most British industry events was absent: for once, no one was complaining about what a crap year it was for UK cinema, a surprisingly routine line even in the best circumstances. Indeed, once the nominees for Best British Independent Film had been read out, conversation turned in quite the opposite direction: when the frequently filler-reliant BIFAs could assemble a slate as diverse and exciting as “Shame,” “We Need to Talk About Kevin,” “Senna” “Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy” and “Tyrannosaur,” you”d be hard-pressed to call it anything but a banner year for the industry.

That”s a line that first started getting bandied about at Venice, when “Tinker, Tailor” “Shame” and Andrea Arnold”s vastly ambitious “Wuthering Heights” all premiered on consecutive days: only “Shame” left with a major award, but the rainy little island was nonetheless the talk of the Lido for a good week. It compensated for a lower-than-usual profile at Cannes, with only “We Need To Talk About Kevin” represented for the limeys, and left empty-handed in spite of stunning reviews.

Anglophiles would have been better off at SXSW weeks before, where “Weekend” and “Kill List” quietly debuted to appreciative noises, only to become the year”s buzziest ‘true” UK indies a few months down the line. The Brits” festival presence came home to roost at last month”s London Film Festival, where “Kevin” became the first homegrown title to take the festival”s Best Film prize – in the same week it opened to sensational reviews and jaw-dropping crossover box-office.

Moreover, it”s the second surprise local hit from the festival track in as many months: in September, “Tinker, Tailor” caught pundits off-guard by topping the UK box-office for two straight weeks. And this is to say nothing of the massive commercial success of two summer sleepers: record-breaking doc “Senna” and, less prestigiously but no less delightfully, TV spinoff “The Inbetweeners Movie.” (On another note, I hear a little Britpic called “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2” also did quite well.)

So, a good year, one that suggests the mixed signals of 2010 – when “The King”s Speech” guzzled money and awards alike, just as its beneficiary, the UK Film Council, was ominously shut down by the Tory government – might be shaking out in a positive fashion. Bully for us, you say. But what impact, if any, might we smug Brits have in the awards race on the other side of the pond? Which of these contenders can survive the transatlantic sail? And if several of them do, might they eat into each other”s chances?

A few titles can be cleared immediately: “Wuthering Heights,” too chilly and foreboding even for the BIFA voters, is being held by Oscilloscope until 2012, when it will stand even less chance of wooing American awards bodies than the company”s “Meek”s Cutoff” (sort of a pictorial US equivalent) does this year. Pity poor Terence Davies”s Toronto-stamped “The Deep Blue Sea,” whose hopes of at least a BAFTA nod for Rachel Weisz”s staggering career-best performance are on life support after BIFA ignored it outright. (The season can sometimes be a short one for the minnows.) “Weekend,” one of the year”s most purely lovely films, has won over US critics by the shedload, but if it proved too small to score in the British indie circle, it”ll likely have to settle for a stack of critics” Top 10 citations as its reward. (No shame in that.)

So that whittles the UK”s Oscar roster down to “Tinker, Tailor,” “Shame,” “We Need To Talk About Kevin,” “Senna,” “Harry Potter” and, of course, the Harvey Weinstein performance triptych of “The Iron Lady,” “My Week With Marilyn” and “Coriolanus.” (For the purposes of this discussion, we”re not calling “War Horse” British, though it”ll likely find British sympathizers, given the source material.)

Few of them are exactly Academy-tailored bait in the “King”s Speech” mold, or even the “Atonement” one. Two of them will have already narrowed their focus to a single category: “Senna” looks as good as anything else for a Best Documentary nod (though it deserves editing honors too), while “Coriolanus” can take a supporting actress bid for the matchless Vanessa Redgrave to the bank.

Bar the unseen (albeit warily regarded) Thatcher biopic, only one of that motley crew, Tomas Alfredson”s elegant, profitable period spy drama, seemingly has a snowball”s chance of a Best Picture Oscar nod. When you put it like that, the situation doesn”t seem that complicated: I”ve said from the beginning that “Tinker, Tailor” will be the chief beneficiary of the fabled ‘British vote” in the Academy, riding it to a fair spread of Oscar nods, not to mention BAFTA ones out the proverbial wazoo. Its robust tally of BIFA nods (where I hear certain minor rules were relaxed for it to qualify) certainly doesn”t indicate otherwise.

But start looking at other categories, and certain potential conflicts arise – particularly in the acting races, where several cool UK outsiders are angling for attention across the pond. The consensus for some time has been that Gary Oldman”s rich but reserved anchoring performance in Alfredson”s film will finally net the veteran actor”s actor his ludicrously overdue first Oscar nod – but how much is his campaign threatened by the increasingly loud buzz for man-of-the-hour Michael Fassbender?

I initially wrote off the aggressively arthouse-oriented “Shame” as any kind of awards player after its Venice debut, but that was before Fox Searchlight cannily turned it into one of the season”s most volatile stories, extracting maximum chatter from its apparent debits (that discussion-baiting NC-17 rating) as well as its undeniable advantages (critical hoopla and a ubiquitous leading man).

It”s enough to bring me round to the idea that the amassed hype for film and Fassbender alike will coagulate into a single, year-crowning nomination for the actor – but will Oscar voters save two spots on the ballot for offbeat British actors who don”t quite play the game? Right now, I”m saying yes, but it”s a fragile situation. A similar situation, with a less optimistic outlook, exists over in the Best Actress category. Tilda Swinton, overlooked for fine work two years running and once more on stunning form in “Kevin,” is one of several dark horses hoping to pounce (yes, my horses pounce) if an indie spot becomes available on the ballot – but how much of the loyal home vote could she lose to grassroots buzz for lesser-known, but no less deserving, “Tyrannosaur” star Olivia Colman? (Meanwhile, the Academy might well decide that nominating Americans Meryl Streep and/or Michelle Williams for UK-produced films is enough of a bone to throw the Brits in that category.)

Of course, these are pie-in-the-sky questions at this stage: there”s a chance that none of these varyingly prickly films will cross over in any department, and a good year for cinema in Britain will remain, well, just that. Suddenly, it seems oddly prescient that one of “Shame””s most striking scenes features Carey Mulligan breathily crooning that iconic lyric, “If I can make it there, I”ll make it anywhere.” Start spreading the news.

(This week’s updated predictions here.)

Alright, you know the drill. Rifle off your need-to-knows and Anne and I will try to address a few for Friday’s podcast. We’ll already be covering: “Young Adult,” “J. Edgar,” the “War Horse” heartland screenings and British Independent Film Award nominations. So keep that in mind to steer away from redundancies.

LOS ANGELES – “It’s nice to just show the movie and say, ‘Here it is, hope you like it,'” Jason Reitman said to me at a party following a “pop-up” screening of his latest film “Young Adult” last night. And he’s been doing just that, in select cities across the country — Chicago, San Francisco, Minneapolis, Austin and a stop north of the border in Toronto — aiming at the kinds of fans who’ll line up for a secret screening without knowing what the film will be. And the experience seems to have invigorated him a bit.

Going into these cities, he and screenwriter Diablo Cody haven’t done the usual press commitments. No chatting with local news stations, radio shows, newspapers and college papers like you’d expect. In and out and a “hope you like it.” It’s fair to say the kind of intense press rounds he exhausted on “Up in the Air” two years ago were the last thing he wanted to do this time around, but it’s also been about setting a foundation that says, “This ain’t ‘Juno.'”

And no, “Young Adult” is not “Juno.” Not that the latter is the trifle it’s come to be considered since its 2007 release (it has its dark and emotional moments), but the latest Cody/Reitman collaboration is 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.

It’s the film Reitman says he wanted to make, the film he’s proud he was able to make, and he took a chance in saddling up to it. He had written an adaptation of Joyce Maynard’s novel “Labor Day” and was all set for it to be his next film while Paramount was seeking out directors for Cody’s script. Suddenly, though, the opportunity was there for Reitman to take a crack at it, and so he took a leap, put “Labor Day” on hold and set out to make an uncompromising dark comedy within the studio system.

And it is certainly that. These are light spoilers, but in a post-screening Q&A at the New Beverly Theater, Patton Oswalt — who is fantastic in the film and delivers a performance you might not expect out of him — noted that it’s a reminder of films like “The Conversation” or “Five Easy Pieces” (the sort that often screen at the New Bev), which were dedicated to further embedding characters into who they were at the start of the film, rather than offering a traditional Hollywood yarn with lessons learned and a dramatic arc.

“I am of the mind that assholes don’t change,” Cody said in the Q&A. “And also, people in general don’t necessarily change in the dramatic way we see them change in the third act of movies.” She then gave credit to Reitman for fighting for the integrity of that aspect of the film. (End of light spoilers.)

All of that will surely make for a catchy talking point along the press tour, but I actually think it’s overly simplifying things. “Young Adult” is ultimately a rather twisted tale of finding one’s inner worth and caring about yourself enough to move forward, and that, I think, is a significant thing for a person to learn.

Oswalt, meanwhile, has a whole theory on it being a horror film of sorts, but that’s another story for another day. For now, suffice it to say “Young Adult” is 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.

Charlize Theron gives a stellar, bitchy, biting, layered, at times moving performance. Oswalt commented to me and my colleague Drew McWeeny at the after party that he thinks this will be, more than “Monster,” the performance people will think of when they see her from here on out. And I actually think that may be the case. Unlike that film, for which she won the Oscar in 2003, Theron is exposed here, playing a vicious personality with no makeup to hide behind. It’s a quality piece of work that should bring her another Oscar nomination.

Oswalt, meanwhile, is so touching and funny and more than the mere comic relief you’d expect from the trailer. He gets a few key dramatic moments to sing and he really sticks the landing on each of them. I’ve had him chalked up for a Best Supporting Actor nomination for weeks upon weeks based merely on the early word, and I’m happy to see that vetted out after last night’s screening. If he really puts in the work, he can easily find himself in that mix. He’s so lovable on the mic and will no doubt bring the house down in Q&A after Q&A as he did last night.

Finally, also of note for one key scene is Collette Wolfe, who knocks a moment toward the end of the film right out of the park. And it’s that scene, Reitman says, that made him want to make the movie. That scene IS the movie. But I’ll say no more.

From here, the film comes off its mini-tour and enters the traditional press arena. I’m not sure how critics will respond. I kind of anticipate a great many will knock it for its lack of redemptive tissue, but I think savvy audiences will spark to its inner, dark truths. We’ll see how it plays out. But you can certainly understand why Paramount and Reitman have been particular about letting the cat out of the bag in a specific way. This is not a paradigm-fitting piece of work. Nor was it ever intended to be.

“Young Adult” opens in limited release Friday, December 9 and expands further on December 16.

Not to follow up yesterday’s round-up with yet another Pixar-themed lead story, but, alas, when it’s in the news… Yesterday John Lasseter was the recipient of the 2,453rd star awarded/bought on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. He apparently had some touching words for the late Steve Jobs, who passed away last month and was key to Pixar’s early success. I wasn’t able to attend the ceremony at the last minute, but Anne Thompson was on hand and got some nice video of the event. [Thompson on Hollywood]

Meanwhile, with that and with “Cars 2” coming to DVD/Blu-ray, John Young writes up Pixar’s top 12 movie moments. [Entertainment Weekly]

Brad Brevet offers up a guide to seven Oscar contenders to look for in November. [Rope of Silicon]

Art Directors Guild to pay tribute to the “Harry Potter” series. [Variety]

Because some UK critics didn’t like “The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn,” Phil Hoad wants to ask if Steven Spielberg has lost his mojo. [The Guardian]

It looks like Disney is taking the heartland approach to drumming up interest in the director’s “War Horse.” [Film Metro]

Alexander Payne on adapting “The Descendants” from page to screen. [24 Frames]

On the occasion of Gil Cates’s passing, Arthur Axelman recalls how he convinced the former Oscar producer to make Billy Crystal a host. [The Wrap]

Brett Ratner talks “Tower Heist” and the Oscars, among other things. [Collider]

David Poland sits down with “Midnight in Paris” producer Letty Aronson. [The Hot Blog]

I feel distinctly sad about the passing of Gil Cates, who died yesterday at the age of 77, and yet what I’m mourning isn’t precisely the sum of his career parts. A proficient, professional producer-director for screens big and small, he directed at least one fine film: “Summer Wishes, Winter Dreams,” a brittle 1973 character study for which Joanne Woodward was Oscar-robbed. (I admit I’ve never seen his “I Never Sang For My Father,” which earned nominations for Gene Hackman and Melvyn Douglas.)

And yet it’s not these perfectly credible titles that are foregrounded in his obituaries: rather, it’s the less personal but no less demanding achievement of having produced a record 14 Oscar ceremonies between 1990 and 2008. It’s those dates that resonate with me: the 1990 Academy Awards ceremony was the first one I ever watched in full, and the first one hosted by Billy Crystal, arguably the most widely beloved Oscar host of my lifetime.

Crystal’s hosting was Cates’s innovation, as were subsequent emcee choices like Whoopi Goldberg and my personal favorite, Steve Martin. (Admittedly, he was also behind the less successful ceremonies hosted by one-offs like Chris Rock and David Letterman.) Hit or strike-out, however, he’s the man chiefly responsible for shaping the Oscar experience over the last two decades: what I now think of as standard ceremony customs were, in many cases. the result of his own production tweaks.

The Academy has tried out alternative producers in recent years — Brett Ratner is the latest in a recent line that includes Adam Shankman and Bill Condon — but none, for my money, have matched the practicality and good humor of Cates’s late-1990s Oscarcasts. They may not represent the ultimate model for the ceremony, but given my generational position, they’re what I’ll always think of as the sensible standard for this gaudy affair. I’ll leave it to others to make more informed tributes — the Academy itself has released a brief statement — but I sincerely thank him for what he brought to my nascent Oscar-geek years.

In four or five weeks we’ll be closing out this year’s slate of crafts category analysis via the weekly Tech Support column with my contribution to the cause: Best Original Song. I tend to wait until the end on that because it’s best to hold off until a list of eligible contenders is announced and in place and, of course, to gauge how the tunes are used in the films in question.

But I haven’t even gotten around to assembling a decent list of possibilities until just recently. So maybe it’s time to toss that out there and maybe ask for a little help from the readership, since I’m sure plenty of you know some things about this race that I don’t.

Let’s start with a few things to get the discussion going, though. And animated films are always a good place to look. With that in mind, 20th Century Fox’s “Rio” has a trio of contenders: “Real in Rio,” “Let Me Take You to Rio” and “Hot Wings (I Wanna Party).”

Disney has a couple of possibilities from “Winnie the Pooh” (“The Backson Song” and “So Long”), three planned submissions from “The Muppets” (“Life’s a Happy Song,” “Pictures in my Head” and “Man or Muppet”), two Elton John-penned tracks from “Gnomeo & Juliet” (“Hello Hello” and “Love Builds a Garden”), one from the documentary “African Cats” (“The World I Knew”) and one from Best Picture contender “The Help” in Mary J. Blige’s “The Living Proof.”

Add all that to “Collision of Worlds” from Pixar’s “Cars 2” and it’s safe to say the studio will be pretty busy with this category this year.

Next up, there’s Chris Cornell’s “The Keeper” from September release “Machine Gun Preacher.” It’s a closing credits track (which could work against it, given voting procedures), but a good song nevertheless. (Check out my two-part interview with Cornell here and here.)

Joining Cornell on the rocker front is Sigur Rós front man Jónsi, back in the race with “Gathering Stories” from Cameron Crowe’s “We Bought a Zoo” after an initial brush with the category last year with “Sticks & Stones” from “How to Train Your Dragon.”

One of the more unique contenders in play will be the Alan Menken-penned U.S.O. number “Star Spangled Man” from “Captain America: The First Avenger.” Given its usage in the film, it could be a strong possibility for a nomination.

There are two original songs from the “Footloose” remake, as previously reported (“Fake I.D.” and “Where the River Goes”), while Sinéad O’Connor’s lovely “Lay Your Head Down” from “Albert Nobbs” (written by Glenn Close), despite being a closing credits track, could easily find its way to a nod.

Finally, Willie Nelson will be in the mix this year with “Hell and Back” (written by J. Ralph, who had a few tracks from “Wretches & Jabbers” in contention last year) from the documentary “Hell and Back Again.”

And that’s all I have on my list at the moment. But it’s an on-going project. Feel free to mention anything I should take note of. The list of eligible contenders should be revealed in mid-December and it always contains a fair share of surprises. Soon enough around these parts we should finally have the Best Original Song Contenders page up and running.

More refined discussion on all this in a month’s time.

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

Michelle Williams as Marilyn Monroe. Meryl Streep as Margaret Thatcher. Leonardo DiCaprio as J. Edgar Hoover. All of them heading to our screens in the next few weeks, all of them looking to join the long list of actors to strike Oscar gold for playing real-life figures.

It”s a list that”s grown particularly rapidly in recent years: in the past decade alone, 12 of the 20 winners in the lead acting categories have triumphed for biopics. Meanwhile, you have to go all the way back to the 1997 Oscar race to find a year where all four acting winners played fictional characters. It”s a trend that often prompts complaints from hardened Oscar-watchers like myself: it”s no less difficult to create a character from scratch than it is to embody a previously existing one, but voters don”t all seem to agree.

Still, biopic bait needn”t always be bad news: for every actor who coasts to victory for doing a superficially impressive but soulless impersonation of an iconic figure, there”s at least one other who accepts the challenge to craft a fresh, inspired character from a real-life source, and succeeds. Which is what today”s list is about: I”ve rounded up the 10 Oscar-winning biopic performances that most excitingly avoid the obvious, and most insistently stick in my memory.

As I compiled the list, two patterns immediately became clear to me: first, the scarcity of supporting performances that wound up in consideration, and second, the emphasis on relatively recent work. The former isn”t that surprising, given how it”s predominantly star turns that impress voters in biopics.

The latter, meanwhile, is evidence of how much the Academy”s preference has tilted in this direction over the years: we think of biopics as evergreen Oscar bait, but look through the list of early winners, and it”s surprising (and pleasing) how much fictional characters dominate. (Many of the biopic performances that did win, meanwhile, aren”t exactly ones for the ages: apologies, fans of “Sergeant York” and “The Story of Louis Pasteur.”)

As always, it”s a subjective business, and I myself am disappointed by some of the names I had to leave out, from George C. Scott to Marion Cotillard to Christian Bale. But them”s the breaks. Take a look at my list in our new gallery, and share your thoughts and favourites in the comments below.

Today is the deadline for animated feature contenders to submit paperwork for consideration. At 5pm PT today, to be precise. So far I’m seeing enough possibilities on the radar to warrant a full slate of five nominations, should they all qualify, that is. Meanwhile, “The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn” is set to close AFI Fest, “Puss in Boots” has just hit theaters, “Happy Feet 2” is on the way and “Arthur Christmas” is screening for press. so animation is very much at the forefront of discussion these days. We’ll see how it all shakes down. [Oscars.org]

Peter Knegt shines a light on the forthcoming Film Independent Spirit Award nominations. [indieWIRE]

Sasha Stone reports from the Savannah Film Festival where it’s all about Ellen Barkin and “Another Happy Day.” [Awards Daily]

Same writer, different outlet, this time summarizing Academy rule changes this season. [Variety]

Steve Weintraub talks to “Drive” star Albert Brooks. [Collider]

Steve Pond on the Academy’s new choice for talent producer. [The Odds]

Read Terrence Malick”s 1979 script notes from the “The Tree of Life” precursor “Qasida.” [Movieline]

Scott Feinberg talks to “The Artist” director Michel Hazanavicius. [The Race]

John Horn reports from The Envelope’s screening series and a “Descendants” Q&A. [24 Frames]

And closing out Halloween this year, io9 wraps up it’s list of the 50 scariest movies. [io9]

Sean Durkin is okay with the fact that his quiet, delicate, elegantly assembled debut feature freaks the living shit out of any number of viewers who encounter it. That”s the way the mild-mannered, genially bearded young writer-director wants it.

“I”ve read some critics describe it as a horror film, and I”m happy with that,” he says of “Martha Marcy May Marlene,” the cool, slippery psychological drama that won him a Best Director award at Sundance in January, and has been preying on the minds of US arthouse cinemagoers for the past week. “I love horror films, but I hate when they get bloody. I love the build-up, I love the fear. I got really addicted to fear when I was a child. The way I approach filmmaking, it”s a way to confront my fears. To create them is to confront them.”

“Martha Marcy May Marlene,” a time-shifting study of the attempted self-rehabilitation of Martha (first-time actress Elizabeth Olsen), a pretty, suggestible young woman recently escaped from a dangerous Catskills cult, certainly revels in build-up, teasingly withholding key details of the character”s circumstances across its broken-mirror narrative – leaving some unaddressed altogether. If the filmmaker is working through personal anxieties in this story, it”s certainly not evident in the crisp control with which he braids this material.

“It was absolutely scripted this way,” Durkin says of the film”s fragile back-and-forth structure, adding that he always had a clear idea how much information he wanted the audience to have. “I wasn”t really interested in how or why Martha arrives at the cult; that”s not what the film”s about. I didn”t want to define a character by those reasons – it”s not as if these groups particularly attract one type of person. I wanted to focus on her as a personality, and let her backstory grow from there.”

It”s left to us to infer said backstory – Durkin has it clearly mapped out in his mind, but he”s not telling. In a sense, the flip side of Martha”s story was told in his award-winning 2010 short, “Mary Last Seen,” which shares a character – Brady Corbet”s dudeishly persuasive cult member Watts – with the feature, and details his introduction of another young girl to the commune. The film may appear to be a precursor to “Martha Marcy,” but as it happens, given the protracted nature of indie pre-production, actually grew from the feature script.

“I started writing the feature script in 2007, for about two years, but it wasn”t quite ready – and besides, it”s a film that really needed to be shot in the summer,” he explains, adding that he wanted a short film, accompanying the script, to send to investors. “I wasn”t happy with the one I”d made at NYU, and wanted to do something that pertained to the new project. In doing all this research on cults for the feature, I”d found a lot of information about how such cults are built, how people physically arrive at them, and none of that was making it into ‘Martha.” So we made a short. We didn”t spend much on it, but it wound up getting into Sundance and taking on a life of its own.”

The short proved instrumental in securing investors for the feature, though an uncompromising Durkin didn”t make things easy for himself by sticking steadfastly to his scripts ambiguities, as well as his wish to have an unknown actress in the lead. He found Olsen, the previously hidden younger sister of teen-queen twins Mary-Kate and Ashley, through an open casting process. “She acts with such ease, without trying,” he enthuses. “Those amazing eyes, they tell everything. The first scene she read, something very compelling immediately started going on behind the eyes. I knew that”s where the film would lie.”

In stark contrast to Olsen, the weathered, instinct-driven experience of John Hawkes – at the time of filming, not yet an Oscar nominee for “Winter”s Bone” – was what Durkin wanted for the role of shabbily charismatic cult leader Patrick. Patrick insists Martha is special among his linen-clad harem of female followers, though the genius of Hawkes”s performance is that there”s no way of telling how often he uses this line. “That”s John”s influence, to a large extent,” Durkin nods. “It”s funny, I get asked questions about the development of that character and I can”t even remember how I initially saw him. I just passed him on to John. You kind of forget you even wrote him after a certain point.”

In addition to his apparent powers of character possession, it was Hawkes”s musicality that made a key scene fly – one where Martha (rechristened Marcy May in the commune) and Patrick forge an apparent connection over his performance of a folk ballad titled “Marcy”s Song.” The song, a cover of a melancholy Jackson C. Frank folk nugget, has become so identified with the film that many assume it”s an original: a misunderstanding that pleases Durkin.) “I wanted that feeling, because she feels like he”s written this song for her, but it actually a cover, which sums up her level of understanding,” he explains. “It”s so right, and John”s interpretation makes it even more so.”

That emphasis on misinformation is key, given that Durkin sees the entire story I being predicated on conflicting notions of untruth. “People who join such groups are told that everything in their life before they got there was a lie. They”re basically reprogrammed,” he says. “When they find out that”s a lie, they go back to their old life, but a part of them still believes that”s a lie too. So they”re stuck in between. Martha”s in survival mode, pulling whatever truth she can grab at.”

Is this uncertainty the fear that Durkin is confronting in his first feature? A long, shy pause follows, during which he considers his words carefully. “I guess I”m most afraid of conforming. Groups that conform in a blind way without understanding what”s happening to them, that terrifies me. That was a major fear of mine as a child.” He stares at his shoes for a beat, perhaps as one of the film”s most nervy, paranoia-inducing scenes runs through his mind. “Oh, and I”m always scared as hell that someone”s going to break into my apartment.”

Amid Kris’ regular weekly predictions update, you might notice something new amid the Contenders pages: our first ranking for the season of the Best Foreign Language Film submissions. Needless to say, in a category this eternally uncertain, it’s a rough list, to say the least: drawn from a vague voodoo combination of gut feeling about the films I’ve seen, hearsay about the films I haven’t, and doubtless foolhardy underestimation of the films I currently know nothing about.

The rankings will no doubt shift as I see more of the submissions, but this one category where precursor awards are really of very little help: there’s no way of logically deducing what will show up on the nine-title shortlist  that precedes the nominations in January. The fun, for me, lies in predicting two opposing concerns: which seemingly obvious favorites the voters will snub (as happens to certain high-profile entries on an annual basis), and which left-field surprises the branch’s more discerning executive committee might shoehorn onto the list. What’s this year’s “Of Gods and Men,” and what’s this year’s “Dogtooth?”

These questions swan into my mind while I was reading Mike Goodridge’s typically thoughtful analysis of the category in Screen Daily. Essentially shadowing the January shortlist by singling out 10 titles to watch in the race, he sides with several of the apparent frontrunners — Iranian critical darling “A Separation,” Lebanese audience-tickler “Where Do We Go Now?” and Polish WWII drama “In Darkness” — but also throws in a few potentially canny surprise picks.

Among them is a film I hadn’t thought to include in the upper reaches of the list: Nikita Mikhalkov’s bloated sequel to his previous Oscar-winner “Burnt By the Sun.” The selection of Mikhalkov’s film over more acclaimed Russian fare was controversial enough even to arouse protest from the head of the selection, but Goodridge senses Academy voters might not be bothered by that.

The first film won the Oscar in 1994 and although Nikita Mikhalkov”s sequel was savaged by critics when it screened in Cannes last year, I have a suspicion that Academy voters might respond far more favourably to its wartime spectacle and heart-tugging melodrama. Its Hollywoodized storytelling to which critics objected could work in its favour in this forum.

He has a point there — enough of one to persuade me put the widely panned Russian film in our top 30, though no further than that. Should Mikhalkov’s poorly received film worm its way onto the Oscar list in place of more sophisticated, challeging foreign fare like “Miss Bala,” “Le Havre” or even “Pina,” the result would be an outcry on the scale of… the one that pops up every year these categories are announced. Perhaps Goodridge is onto something.

Check out our foreign-language Contenders page here.