According to The Hollywood Reporter’s Heat Vision blog, Steven Spielberg’s “The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn” will close out this year’s AFI Fest on November 10. The announcement is a real coup for the 25th edition of the festival, which already has Clint Eastwood’s “J. Edgar” set to open the event this Thursday night, November 3.

“Tintin” premiered in the UK last week, where it scored big at the box office but wasn’t met with thunderous critical approval. Our own Guy Lodge was a big fan of the film, however, noting that “the film”s smashing key set pieces…fully justify this technological leap of faith [of performance-capture], while also successfully adapting the distinctive flat-color textures of Hergé”s trademark ligne claire drawing style.”

Other key galas planned for AFI Fest include “Carnage,” “My Week with Marilyn,” “The Artist” (naturally) and “Shame.” As previously announced, Pedro Almodóvar will serve as Guest Artistic Director of the festival, offering up his own sidebar program of curated classics.

Also perhaps of interest to those of you on the west coast who might have an interest in the festival, via the press release (which was hot on the heels of THR’s break):

For the third consecutive year, AFI FEST will continue its unprecedented offer of free tickets to all screenings, but only the Star Patron Package and Marquee Patron Package provide reserved access to red carpet galas such as THE ADVENTURES OF TINTIN. These and other AFI FEST packages and passes – which ensure access to sold-out galas and other high-demand films and events – are on sale now at AFI.com/AFIFEST. AFI members receive a 10% discount on all festival passes. Information about AFI membership is available at AFI.com/membership. The American Film Institute is a 501(c)(3) non-profit educational and cultural organization, and packages and passes are tax-deductible to the full extent of the law.

Individual tickets to AFI FEST screenings and galas are now available online at AFI.com/AFIFEST and in person at the AT&T Box Office at the Hollywood and Highland Center in Hollywood. A limited number of tickets to sold-out films will be available online 24 hours in advance of the screening and at the AT&T Box Office the day of the screening. Rush lines for screenings begin forming one hour before the scheduled screening start times.

“The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn” is set for US release Wednesday, December 21.

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

Last night the Santa Barbara International Film Festival, along with Southern California Edison and the Santa Barbara Theater Organ Society, presented its third-annual pre-Halloween program dedicated to the screening of a silent classic with live music accompaniment. The night’s offering: F.W. Murnau’s “Nosferatu: A Symphony of Horror.”

The program launched in 2009 with “The Phantom of the Opera” and continued last year with “The Black Pirate.” And judging by the big turnout at the Arlington Theatre yesterday, it’s as popular as ever. The film was preceded by the somewhat Halloween-themed Laurel and Hardy short, “Habeas Corpus.”

There was a bit of a last-minute scare, though, as the scheduled organist was stranded back east due to the severe weather that popped up over the weekend. A savior swooped in at the last second as Santa Barbara festival director Roger Durling and company got in touch with a Burbank-based organist who, after playing his third-straight mass that morning, was happy to change it up with a silent horror film and a slapstick short.

You really have to experience live music accompaniment with a film like this at least once. I’m fortunate to have been able to have that kind of experience both in film school and at this or that event over the years, and it just adds so much texture. (Plus, this guy had to improvise his way through “Habeas Corpus.” But it didn’t really show.)

Santa Barbara, it turns out, holds a unique, if unfortunate, piece of history with Murnau. The great German director died in a car crash in the city on March 11, 1931 on what was then highway 1 but is now the busy 101 freeway. He produced better films than “Nosferatu” in his time, 1926’s “Faust” and the 1927 masterpiece “Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans” chief among them, but he’ll always be known for the haunting specter of Dracula he gave us in 1922.

Of course, he couldn’t call the film “Dracula.” He didn’t bother to get the rights to Bram Stoker’s horror novel when he set out to adapt it. “Vampire” was changed to “Nosferatu” and “Count Dracula” was change to “Count Orlock.” Upon release, Stoker’s widow sued for copyright infringement. This bankrupted Prana Film, making “Nosferatu” it’s first and last production.

All prints of the film were thought to have been destroyed as a result of the lawsuit. So we’re very fortunate that one copy had already been distributed around the world and that therefore bootlegs survived and found their way through the years so the film could be studied and appreciated for the hallmark of German Expressionism that it is.

Werner Herzog remade the film in 1979 as “Nosferatu the Vampyre,” with Klaus Kinski in the titular role. That’s a film I absolutely adore, with it’s visual homages and, in many instances, direct recreations (the ominous ship coming into harbor leaps to mind).

The making of Murnau’s film was dramatized (to say the least) in 2000 with E. Elias Merhige’s “Shadow of the Vampire.” It was nominated for Best Makeup at the Academy Awards, as well as Best Supporting Actor, for Willem Dafoe, who portrayed actor Max Schreck (the gangly star of “Nosferatu”). John Malkovich portrayed Murnau. I can’t believe it’s been 11 years since that film; I haven’t seen it since release.

Another bit of trivia, if you weren’t aware: Tim Burton named Christopher Walken’s character in “Batman Returns,” Max Shreck (no “c”), as an homage to the film and star.

Anyway, a great, festive time at the movies. Any similar Halloween experiences from over the years you want to share?

It’s been quiet. You might say too quiet.

Mid-to-late-October, those thin moments just after the New York Film Festival concludes and a number of the fall festival staples segue to the London Film Festival, it’s always a bit of a lull. Call it the calm before the storm if you want, but I don’t even really see much of a storm on the horizon. Just some heat lightning, maybe.

The season will show further signs of life this week as both Jason Reitman’s “Young Adult” and Clint Eastwood’s “J. Edgar” finally screen for LA-based press. The former has been playing for as long as possible on the outside, building steam and word-of-mouth initially in Minnesota (where the film is set — first “reviewed” by the Minneapolis Star Tribune in a blog entry of less than 200 words accompanied by a whopping four comments) and then adjacent to the Austin Film Festival as one of a few “pop-up” screenings held around the country.

It’s an interesting strategy for a film that doesn’t appear on the outside to need a grassroots campaign to drum up excitement, but perhaps that says something about the un-“Juno”-ness of the project. Reitman and Paramount may still be feeling the sting from peaking early with 2009’s “Up in the Air” in the fall festival circuit, so one can only imagine this is an attempt to draw things out.

“J. Edgar,” meanwhile, is set to screen for most on November 4, the day AFTER its world premiere at this year’s AFI Fest. The reasoning is Eastwood’s planned acceptance of a LACMA honor with cast in attendance. It’s a great way to present a feel-good vibe and screening environment for a film which has registered reactions on both sides of the quality scale. But it’s still a bit of keep-away with the film’s November 9 release date looming less than two weeks away. (Eastwood runs the show on his films, so it’s somewhat out of WB’s hands with this stuff.)

Eastwood has found his champions as of late, as he always does. Die-hard supporters from the old days, whether Peter Bart or Todd McCarthy or Richard Schickel, always rally to his aid, even when he doesn’t exactly have the goods. So it makes sense that Bart, for instance, was one of the individuals hand-picked to get a look at the film’s first screening of note at the Carmel Film Festival (Eastwood’s backyard) recently.

If there’s a take-away here, I don’t really know what it is. It takes all kinds. Studios shift their strategies every year and it’s always a bunch of heads coming together to decide on the best course of action.

Elsewhere, for instance, we’ve seen The Weinstein Company bring Michel Hazanavicius’s “The Artist” to any festival that will have the film (and generally walk away with whatever audience award might be available). Meanwhile, the distributor held on to “My Week with Marilyn” for an exclusive New York Film Festival look-see to give it an aroma of freshness amid films like “Carnage” and “The Descendants” that had already started their festival marches prior to hitting the Big Apple.

Also looking to find a foothold while the talk swirled around a number of the year’s other contenders was Paramount again, dropping an unfinished “Hugo” on NYFF audiences and getting mostly appreciative reactions. It helps to make people feel special by putting them in an exclusive room, naturally. The film will be ready for further scrutiny within the week, but I think the goal was met: people were talking about it, however briefly.

Focus is letting the “Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy” cat out of the bag more and more now as a bunch of screenings have been set, this after a tiny pair of US screenings on the occasion of the film’s UK premiere last month. The aim there is to direct as much of the reaction as possible to the December 9 release date. The film opened strongly overseas but it could easily be lost in the fray on these shores.

Meanwhile, films like “Midnight in Paris,” “The Help” and “Moneyball” have already opened, have their supporters and present strong cases to maintain their stay. They’re waiting for the season to show them something, while other possibilities like “The Tree of Life” and “The Ides of March,” which have marks against them, are waiting for any sign of weakness so they can capitalize.

Some films have been in the edit bay. “The Iron Lady,” for instance, should be closing in on a final cut. And “Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close” is in the final stages, too. Who knows on “War Horse,” but it nevertheless finds itself in the unenviable position of being an anticipated (sight-unseen) awards beast. Long-lead screenings should be happening shortly. And things are perhaps quietest around Cameron Crowe’s “We Bought a Zoo.” A not-so-great trailer and a bunch of tongue-in-cheek discussion about it vis a vis recent news out of Ohio is all there is to chew on.

And then there is “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo,” seemingly out of the hands of Sony publicity as director David Fincher again disavows the traditional marketing process in favor of “hip” and “cool” and viral and whatnot. I’ve said it here before: I dig it — as a fan. I’m just not sure what the impact of that process will be on a larger audience. But, again, it takes all kinds. And like the other December entries, we won’t know whether the film is a contender or not for a few more weeks.

So on those, we wait, as this next wave of revelations prepares for its close up.

Guys like me, we suck the air out of these proceedings. The mouth-breathing expectation, the “show me” spirit, the anticipatory atmosphere we establish, admittedly, it’s unhealthy. And I don’t envy publicists who have to navigate those waters and find the right course and trajectory for their product. But when you aim for the awards circuit, you make your bed. So with November right around the corner, the end of the year beckons all the more. What do you have in store for us?

Oh, and Happy Halloween.

The Contenders section has been newly tidied this week. The sidebar predictions reflect those changes.

The British Independent Film Awards are essentially the across-the-pond equivalent of the Spirit Awards, but they seem to grow in profile every year as a slightly hipper alternative to (and bellwether of) the BAFTAs. Though limited to UK indies, their parameters are broad enough to include the bulk of the year’s buzzy British titles.

Last year, for example, they were all over “The King’s Speech,” and took flak in some quarters for honoring such a relatively mainstream title; similarly, one of this year’s leading nominees, local box-office phenomenon “Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy” is less independent, both in status and in spirit, than several of its competitors.

But no matter: together with Steve McQueen’s “Shame” and Paddy Considine’s debut feature “Tyrannosaur,” Tomas Alfredson’s star-studded John le Carré adaptation leads an exceptionally fine crop of BIFA nominees, one that testifies to a remarkable year for UK cinema. The three films scored seven nods apiece; close behind, with six each, are Lynne Ramsay’s London Film Festival champ “We Need to Talk About Kevin” and Ben Wheatley’s future cult item “Kill List.”

(More analysis, and a full list of nominees, after the jump.)

The latter film performed well above expectations, scoring bids for its director and all three of its stars, but fell just short in the top race. Taking its place, in a rare instance of crossover recognition, is Asif Kapadia’s hit doc “Senna,” which also scored (obviously) in the Best Documentary category, with a third, and particularly well-earned, technical bid for its editing.      

The performance categories, meanwhile, are stacked with notable names, many of them already in the awards conversation Stateside: it’s no surprise to see Michael Fassbender, Gary Oldman, Tilda Swinton, Vanessa Redgrave, Carey Mulligan (winner of the last two Best Actress BIFAs, incidentally), Ezra Miller and Tom Hardy in the list, while underdog Olivia Colman’s growing fan club can rejoice in her first official mention of the season.

On a less obvious note, I’m particularly delighted to see Brendan Gleeson, whose worn-in comic turn in “The Guard” I was bigging up back in the summer, recognised (along with his film’s freshman writer-director John Michael McDonagh); also pleasing is that BIFA voters crossed national lines to acknowledge the wonderful work of Mia Wasikowska in “Jane Eyre” — the film’s lone nomination.

Still, “Jane Eyre” performed better than another recent Brontë adaptation: Andrea Arnold won big at the BIFAs two years ago with “Fish Tank,” but her aggressively auteurist take on “Wuthering Heights” was one of the day’s most notable snubs, scoring not a single nomination — not even for Robbie Ryan’s extraordinary, Venice-laurelled lensing. Arnold’s film has been divisive enough that its poor showing here doesn’t come as a shock — it’s harder, however, to explain the complete absence from the list of Terence Davies’s well-received comeback feature “The Deep Blue Sea.”

At the very least, Rachel Weisz’s stunning career-best performance should have been a shoo-in for a place in the thin Best Actress category. She can take comfort, however, in knowing that she’s not the highest-profile lady frozen out in the category: for all her Oscar buzz, Michelle Williams was blanked by BIFA voters, as indeed was everyone involved in “My Week With Marilyn.”

Admittedly, this is a pretty small deal for the likes of Weisz and Williams. I’m far more disappointed for a genuine British indie that could use the recognition far more. Andrew Haigh’s exquisite gay romantic drama “Weekend” scored nods for Best Production and Best Newcomer for actor Tom Cullen, but that’s the least it deserved: writer-director Haigh and co-star Chris New could be forgiven for feeling a little hard done by. To be fair, that there wasn’t more room on the list for such films shows what a strong year it’s been for higher-profile British independents: there are certainly worse things to complain about.

The British Independent Film Awards will take place on December 4, with the the winners determined by a jury of 14 industry and media luminaries. The full list of nominations is below.

Best British Independent Film
“Senna”
“Shame”
“Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy”
“Tyrannosaur”
“We Need to Talk About Kevin”

Best Director
Ben Wheatley, “Kill List”
Steve McQueen, “Shame”
Tomas Alfredson, “Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy”
Paddy Considine, “Tyrannosaur”
Lynne Ramsay, “We Need to Talk About Kevin”

Best Actress
MyAnna Buring, “Kill List”
Olivia Colman, “Tyrannosaur”
Rebecca Hall, “The Awakening”
Tilda Swinton, “We Need to Talk About Kevin”
Mia Wasikowska, “Jane Eyre”

Best Actor
Michael Fassbender, “Shame”
Brendan Gleeson, “The Guard”
Neil Maskell, “Kill List”
Peter Mullan, “Tyrannosaur”
Gary Oldman, “Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy”

Best Supporting Actress
Kathy Burke, “Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy”
Sally Hawkins, “Submarine”
Felicity Jones, “Albatross” 
Carey Mulligan, “Shame”
Vanessa Redgrave, “Coriolanus”

Best Supporting Actor
Benedict Cumberbatch, “Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy”
Tom Hardy, “Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy”
Eddie Marsan, “Tyrannosaur”
Ezra Miller, “We Need to Talk About Kevin”
Michael Smiley, “Kill List”

Best Screenplay 
John Michael McDonagh, “The Guard”
Ben Wheatley and Amy Jump, “Kill List”
Abi Morgan and Steve McQueen, “Shame”
Richard Ayoade, “Submarine”
Lynne Ramsay and Rory Kinnear, “We Need to Talk About Kevin”

Best Foreign Independent Film
“Animal Kingdom”
“Drive”
“Pina”
“A Separation”
“The Skin I Live In”

Best Documentary
“Hell and Back Again”
“Life in a Day”
“Project Nim”
“Senna”
“TT3D: Closer to the Edge”

Best Debut Director
Joe Cornish, “Attack the Block”
Ralph Fiennes, “Coriolanus”
John Michael McDonagh, “The Guard”
Richard Ayoade, “Submarine”
Paddy Considine, “Tyrannosaur”

Most Promising Newcomer
John Boyega, “Attack the Block”
Tom Cullen, “Weekend”
Jessica Brown Findlay, “Albatross”
Yasmin Paige, “Submarine”
Craig Roberts, “Submarine”

Best Technical Achievement
Chris King and Gregers Sall (editing), “Senna”
Sean Bobbitt (cinematography), “Shame”
Joe Walker (editing), “Shame”
Maria Djurkovic (production design), “Tinker Tailor, Soldier, Spy”
Seamus McGarvey (cinematography), “We Need to Talk About Kevin” 

Best Achievement in Production
“Kill List”
“Tyrannosaur”
“Weekend”
“Wild Bill”
“You Instead”

Best British Short
“Chalk”
“Love at First Sight”
“0507”
“Rite”
“Rough Skin”

Raindance Award
“Acts of Godfrey”
“Black Pond”
“Hollow”
“Leaving Baghdad”
“A Thousand Kisses Deep”

Way back on Independence Day I settled on what I anticipated the narrative of the 2011 Oscar season to be: The Year of the Beard. Steven Spielberg is as prolific as ever, and across media, working feverishly both as director (“War Horse” and “The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn”) and producer (“Transformers: Dark of the Moon” and “Super 8” among others) on the big screen, while helping to usher things to the small screen, too, like “Falling Skies” and “Terra Nova.” And he’s hard at work in Virginia right now on next year’s “Lincoln.” Michael Cieply at the New York Times has caught up with this line of reasoning, it seems, and comes at it from the angle of Spielberg coveting recognition as an artist above a commercial player. [New York Times]

Jeff Wells, meanwhile, wants The Beard to take more commercial risks if he’s to be taken seriously in the artistic realm. [Hollywood Elsewhere]

Speaking of “Tintin,” Jamie Bell talks about his experience working with Spielberg on the film. [Huffington Post]

Steve Pond gets the goods on how the song and score for “Albert Nobbs” came to be. [The Odds]

The economies of style: How Ryan Gosling, George Clooney and Philip Seymour Hoffman mastered the art of the understated suit in “The Ides of March.” [The Guardian]

Speaking of Clooney, here’s yet another piece about his double-dipping 2011. [Hollywood Reporter]

Greg Ellwood reports on that James Cameron/”Titanic 3D” event Friday. [Awards Campaign]

Josh Horowitz talks to “Anonymous” star Rhys Ifans. [MTV Movies Blog]

It’s Halloween, so a good time for Mayukh Sen to defend Linda Blair’s performance in “The Exorcist,” often reduced to “lying there caked in makeup” by some. [The Film Experience]

“Iron Man 3” heads to my back yard, North Carolina, and will pump $80 million into the local economy. [WWAY]

When I spoke to Sony Classics honcho Michael Barker at this year’s Telluride Film Festival, he told me, “Watch out for Jodie Foster.” We were talking about the lead actress category at the time, and Roman Polanski’s “Carnage” had just played the Venice fest. He was high on her chances and feeling invigorated by reactions to her showy turn in the film.

Well, things change in an Oscar season. According to screening literature recently placed at the studio’s official site, not only will Foster actually be campaigned in the supporting actress category, but so will co-star Kate Winslet. Additionally, the other actors in the film’s quartet — Christoph Waltz and John C. Reilly — will be campaigned for supporting actor, taking the entire cast out of lead contention.

This, I think, is a smart way to go. The Best Actress race is already filling up and seems to have little room for movement between seven or eight serious possibilities. Meanwhile, the film’s best shot at a nomination is probably for Christoph Waltz’s smarmy lawyer (the character portrayed by Jeff Daniels on Broadway). And in a category that has a lot of wiggle room, I think he becomes a real possibility now.

I wasn’t a big fan of Polanski’s film or Foster’s performance, which I found to be way too broad. She will fare better in supporting actress than in lead, but I don’t know how far she’ll get. Nevertheless, again, I see the logic and think it’s a smart play.

Not as smart, in my opinion, is gunning for a Best Actress nomination for Keira Knightley’s histrionic performance in David Cronenberg’s “A Dangerous Method.” For reasons mentioned above, Knightley is likely to face a tougher road to a nod than she would have in supporting. I imagine the move has something to do with the fact that the studio has performances from Marion Cotillard, Jessica Chastain and now Jodie Foster, among others, to promote for supporting, with nothing to work with in lead.

Well, that’s not entirely true. There is Vera Farmiga in “Higher Ground.” And I suppose either Leila Hatami or Sareh Bayat could be campaigned for their wonderful work in “A Separation” (which is set for release within the year as opposed to the usual tactic of holding foreign films for the following year). But as far as viable options, there isn’t anything beyond Knightley or Foster, and so they’ve made their call as to which goes where.

These decisions aren’t up to the studios exclusively, mind you. Personal publicity for the talent has to sign off on any such move, and sometimes, they’ll even end up working against the best interests of a contender in order to get the spotlight of a higher profile campaign. I’m not at all insinuating that’s what’s going on here, I’m just saying if you have beef with the decision, it’s not just the studio who is implicated.

So, with that in mind, what do you say to this? These films haven’t been released yet but maybe some of you have caught them at this or that festival. Any thoughts?

(These changes will be reflected in Monday’s chart update.)

Welcome to Cinejabber, your weekly place to babble on about this or that to your heart’s content.

It was a short week for me as I was out of town last weekend and didn’t get to the usual Monday column, but that will be back on track next week. It’s a holiday weekend, and I’m looking forward to just keeping it low key in the house with some scary movies.

On that front, I was watching Stanley Kubrick’s “The Shining” last night, still for me one of the greatest thrillers ever conceived directorially. It struck me while watching it — probably because of yesterday morning’s “Titanic 3D” presentation — that, while I’m aware it’s sacrilege, “The Shining” would be all the more stunning with a quality 3D conversion. Hear me out. Kubrick always worked with a dramatic depth of field, but that film in particular plays with foreground/background in ways that are already unsettling in two dimensions. Imagine further immersion. Just thinking out loud.

Anyway, elsewhere this weekend I happened upon this featurette for the upcoming “Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol,” which features mad man Tom Cruise scaling, flinging around and running down the face of the Burj Khalifa in Dubai like he was Spider-Man. Fearless. And I can’t believe the insurance people let him do it! I’m stoked for the film, but stuff like this just puts a smile on my face. I just love that guy.

Anyway, that’s all I really have to get you going, but the floor is yours. Open thread. Have at it.

This afternoon director James Cameron and producer Jon Landau showed an 18-minute, 8-scene preview of the 3D post-conversion work they’ve been up to on 1997’s “Titanic” to press on the Paramount lot in Hollywood. The idea is to re-release the film next year, mostly on 3D screens, but in good ole’ fashioned 2D here and there as well, and the experience is meant to reinvigorate the spirit of seeing the film in the theater (while Paramount, no doubt, is seeing lots of dollar signs in the wake of “The Lion King 3D”).

The footage was extraordinary. It is without a doubt the best post-converted 3D we’ve seen on a film to date, but that’s largely because the effort is being put into it. So often these days post-conversion is meant to be a cash grab, with little consideration given to the overall effect, issues of light levels in projector lamps, etc. But Cameron is being a stickler for that, and the elbow grease shows. It looked just like the film was actually shot in 3D.

Greg Ellwood (who actually worked on the film’s publicity team way back when) will be reporting on the event and Cameron’s comments on the project over at Awards Campaign in due time, but here I thought maybe we’d look back to the Oscars of March 23, 1998, when the film tied the record for Oscar wins with 11 after tying the record for nominations at 14, and ask: did it deserve all those awards?

This particular ceremony was kind of significant for me because it was the first year I really sat down and paid attention to the Oscars and what won. I had seen enough to have an educated opinion on what I thought should win, and indeed, I was annoyed at the juggernaut as the night progressed (especially after being casually aware of a similar near-sweep the year before for “The English Patient”).

But let me be clear. I don’t consider myself a “Titanic” hater by any stretch. It’s a fantastic piece of filmmaking and a vital part of cinema history at that. Have beef with the dialogue or what have you, whatever. I think it’s a touching story told on an epic canvas and isn’t nearly the embarrassment so many people have claimed it to be over the years.

With that in mind, I actually find it difficult to argue with a great many of the Oscars the film won. But let’s take a look:

BEST PICTURE

The nominees alongside “Titanic” were “As Good As It Gets,” “The Full Monty,” “Good Will Hunting” and “L.A. Confidential.” You’ll find no argument from me here. “L.A. Confidential” was the better film and deserved to win the award. But “Gattaca” being the best film of the year for me, I would chalk that up as a “should have been here.”

BEST DIRECTOR

Cameron bested Peter Cattaneo (“The Full Monty”), Gus Van Sant (“Good Will Hunting”), Curtis Hanson (“L.A. Confidential”) and Atom Egoyan (“The Sweet Hereafter”) here. And, again, I think Hanson should have taken the prize, but what Cameron did was exceptional and, to paraphrase Billy Zane in the film, you can be blasé about a lot of things but not pulling off a film like “Titanic.” I think Paul Thomas Anderson should have been in the mix, however, for “Boogie Nights,” and I might actually have handed him the award if he were.

BEST ART DIRECTION

Here the film beat out fellow Best Picture nominee “L.A. Confidential,” as well as “Gattaca” (its only nomination that year), “Kundun” and “Men in Black.” And let’s face it. The film was a marvel of design, so “Titanic” deserved this one walking away.

BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY

The other nominees were “Amistad,” “Kundun,” “L.A. Confidential” and “The Wings of the Dove.” And really, I don’t think it was a very strong year for the category. The noir touch of Dante Spinotti on Hanson’s film is wonderful, but this might have been a toss-up for me between Roger Deakins’s collaboration with Martin Scorsese on “Kundun” and Russell Carpenter’s work on Cameron’s film, likely with the former coming out on top. Though I’d have liked to have seen Slawomir Idziak’s icy cool hues from “Gattaca” or Robert Elswit’s masterful mix of extended takes on “Boogie Nights” in play.

BEST COSTUME DESIGN

Here the film was up against “Amistad,” “Kundun,” “Oscar and Lucinda” and “The Wings of the Dove,” and while much respect ought to be paid to Dante Ferretti’s colorful threads in “Kundun,” it’s kind of another no-brainer for “Titanic.” The balance of upstairs/downstairs wardrobe was precise and exceptional across the board.

BEST FILM EDITING

Another tough one to argue against, especially given the final, riveting sequence. The length of the film might be a knock against it here, but it’s never particularly been a film that felt bloated. The other nominees were “Air Force One,” “As Good As It Gets,” “Good Will Hunting” and “L.A. Confidential,” but I think James Haygood and Sally Menke probably should have been here for “The Game” and “Jackie Brown,” respectively.

BEST MUSIC (ORIGINAL DRAMATIC SCORE)

Here’s a place where “L.A. Confidential” was robbed outright. Jerry Goldsmith’s work on that film, with its subtle ode to Bernard Herrmann and “On the Waterfront,” was one of the late, great composer’s finest accomplishments. Naturally, though, James Horner’s massive, epic, sweeping work was bound to win, and it has an emotional impact on the viewer, so I don’t want to hate on it. But it should have been Goldsmith. The other nominees were “Amistad,” “Good Will Hunting” and “Kundun” (from Philip Glass, also perhaps more deserving). But I should say, without question (in my mind), the best score of the year — one of the best scores of all time, in fact — was Michael Nyman’s GORGEOUS work on “Gattaca.” Alas, he wasn’t even nominated.

BEST ORIGINAL SONG

Ugh. “My Heart Will Go On” was just about everywhere that year. When it was all said and done, if I ever saw Celine Dion again, it would have been too soon. The tune beat out “Go the Distance” from Disney’s “Hercules,” “How Do I Live” from “Con Air,” “Journey to the Past” from another animated effort, “Anastasia,” and the real deserving winner, Elliott Smith’s haunting “Miss Misery” from “Good Will Hunting.”

BEST SOUND

It’s difficult to deny “Titanic” its wins in the sound categories (particularly below in Best Sound Effects Editing, as it was then known). In Best Sound (now known as Best Sound Mixing), it faced off with “Air Force One,” “Con Air,” “Contact” and “L.A. Confidential.” Kind of an easy call.

BEST SOUND EFFECTS EDITING

This one it deserved walking away. “Titanic” was up against “Face/Off” and “The Fifth Element.” The soundscape of the film in its final hour was just so crucial to the experience, particularly the implementation of sound effects and the aural qualities of the ship being defeated by the icy depths of the north Atlantic.

BEST VISUAL EFFECTS

Again, tough to argue. It was an innovative moment for cinema and the recreation of such an iconic moment in the world’s history was absolutely flawless. Fellow nominees “The Lost World: Jurassic Park” and “Starship Troopers” never had a chance, but I was always surprised “Men in Black” didn’t show up as a nominee here. It probably should have.

So there you have it. I would have given the film a somewhat more modest six statues as opposed to 11. The three films that slowed the steam-roller a bit that year were “As Good As It Gets” (which won Best Actress for Helen Hunt over Kate Winslet), “L.A. Confidential” (for which Kim Basinger beat out Gloria Stuart in Best Supporting Actress) and “Men in Black” (which took the makeup trophy out from under the period detail of the film).

Six years later “The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King” would again tie the record for wins with 11 statues of its own, but “Titanic” still shares the record for nominations with just one other film: “All About Eve.” Will that number, 14 tips of the hat, ever be contested? For a time, the film’s domestic and worldwide box office record seemed unattainable… until Cameron decided to make another movie, that is. So nothing is impossible. But it goes without saying, love it or hate it, “Titanic” will always mark a significant chapter in the Academy’s history book.

What are your thoughts on the “Titanic”‘s Oscar haul all those years ago? Have your say in the comments section below!

It’s funny how the zeitgeist can be tapped with this film or that. Recently much has been said and written about Bennett Miller’s “Moneyball,” which appears to be a snapshot of the here and now in its example of being forced to do more with less, the advantage of the rich over the poor and the necessity for ingenuity to find a path to the finish line. And of course George Clooney’s “The Ides of March” speaks explicitly to corruption in politics, even if it is more a yarn about human nature than a political morality play.

However, a trio of films seem to be stumbling right into the here and now in unique ways this month, too. Two of them hit theaters today, the other a week from today.

Andrew Niccol’s “In Time” and Brett Ratner’s “Tower Heist” first got me thinking along these lines. The haves/have-nots nature of the narratives really find resonance at a time when the Occupy Wall Street movement is at a fever pitch. In the case of the former, Niccol spins a science-fiction yarn about a future where time is currency. We’re able to turn off the aging gene and, for the right price, you can live forever. And one key line from the film used in trailers and TV spots really speaks the cause of the down-trodden in metaphor: “No one should be immortal, even if just one person has to die.”

Ratner’s film, meanwhile, was clearly conceived with current building economic realities in mind, but it’s really just lucking into the white hot boiling point of these realities by hitting theaters in a week. An action comedy hinging on a sort of modern Robin Hood heist, the film takes Wall Street to task and presents a hero willing to make a serious sacrifice to right the wrongs of the upper class.

The flip side of this, though, is Roland Emmerich’s “Anonymous.” On its face, this tale built around the Shakespearean authorship question doesn’t appear to speak to today’s concerns. But around the issue of doubting Shakespeare’s works as written by his own pen has always come the ugly accusation of classism. The idea that a lower class playwright couldn’t have been “the soul of the age,” as the works are referred to in the film, isn’t exactly the kind of thing people want to hear right now, if they’re looking hard enough into the film — which is conceived with a heavy dose of intended melodrama — to see this unfortunate timing note, that is.

It’s left to be seen how the zeitgeist will be reflected in this year’s Oscar race. Last year, “The Social Network” could only ride that train so far. But while these films, particularly “In Time” and “Tower Heist,” aren’t likely to tickle the awards season’s fancy, they nevertheless represent the collective artistic reflection of a time and a place, and therefore will always be of a piece — regardless of perceived quality — with the environment into which they were released.

A few months ago it was announced that Oprah Winfrey, James Earl Jones and makeup artist Dick Smith would be the recipients of Honorary Oscars this year. The awards will be handed out at the Governors Awards on November 12.

This year, however, the Academy has put a spin on the event (which was transitioned to a satellite ceremony two years ago after the awards were previously handed out on the annual Oscar telecast). Pete Hammond reports that there will be an accompanying “Governors Awards Film Series” at the Academy’s Samuel Goldwyn Theatre, set for November 9-11, showcasing the recipients’ most significant film accomplishments.

Each night will be dedicated to a different honoree. Wednesday, November 9, a newly restored digital version of the director’s cut of William Friedkin’s “The Exorcist” will be screened, featuring Dick Smith’s transformative, terrifying work on a young Linda Blair. Thursday, November 10 will be all about Oprah Winfrey’s star-making, Oscar-nominated turn in Steven Spielberg’s “The Color Purple,” while Friday, November 11 will be dedicated to James Earl Jones and his performance in “The Great White Hope,” the only film to land him an Oscar nod.

There will also be accompanying special guests at each event with remarks on the honorees’ impact on the medium. Rick Baker, Owen Roizman, Phillip Noyce, Courtney B. Vance and Margaret Avery are scheduled to attend.

This, it goes without saying, is a wonderful idea. It shines an even brighter light on a ceremony many think was ghettoized by being disconnected from the Oscar telecast and it obviously embosses the mission of the Academy: praising and immortalizing the cinema.

Details on the series can be found at the Academy’s official website. The events will be open to the general public and tickets will go on sale November 1.

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.

We’re in the dog days of late October, those pre-November moments when the lull is palpable and we’re waiting for the next films and moments to step out into the spotlight for us to chew on and devour. So it was kinda/sorta tough to come up with a rundown worth discussing this week, but we tried. So, let’s see what’s on the docket today…

The “news” of the week, though it really wasn’t news, given that we were expecting it, was the NC-17 rated extended to Steve McQueen’s “Shame.” We discuss the MPAA, whether it was warranted rating and what it means for Oscar. (NOTE: I said “distributors” but I meant “exhibitors.”)

There was a lot of documentary talk this week, with the International Documentary Association and Cinema Eye Honors handing out their list of nominees. We use it as a springboard into what we do know about the documentary feature category so far.

Then there are the films releasing this weekend. The limited players include “Anonymous” and “Like Crazy” while the wider releases include “The Rum Diary” and “In Time.” We discuss.

And finally, reader questions. This week we address queries about the likelihood of actors receiving multiple Oscars to one actor, the very tight top tier of the lead actress category and what films are likely to become the critical darlings along the circuit this year.

Have a listen to the new podcast below with the trailer for “The Rum Diary” leading the way. If the file cuts off for you at any time, try the back-up download link at the bottom of this post. And as always, remember to subscribe to Oscar Talk via iTunes here.

“The Rum Diary” trailer courtesy of FilmDistrict.
“It’s a Shame” courtesy of The Spinners and V.I.P. Records.

It’s that time of year again. The pumpkins are carved, the classic horror is primed, another “Saw” movie is — wait, we’ve been spared those now. But with Halloween right around the corner, it’s time to pick out your costumes. What of 2011’s crop of films has inspired get-ups? Naturally everyone who thinks they’re hip will be sporting Ryan Gosling’s “Drive” jacket, so that will be passé on arrival. How about a bridesmaid dress from “Bridesmaids?” Or get 11 of your closest friends together for your very own human centipede? And what about a beaver puppet like Mel Gibson sports in, well, “The Beaver?” Jen Yamato has a few other suggestions. [Movieline]

Or you could go with Lisbeth Salander, which would be easy enough, given H&M’s new clothing line inspired by the character’s garb. [/Film]

Diablo Cody is totally freaked out by pre-mature Oscar talk on “Young Adult.” It’s okay. Maybe we’re all wrong. [24 Frames]

Jack Giroux sits down with “Martha Marcy May Marlene” star John Hawkes. [Film School Rejects]

The Academy has decided not to announce the Best Picture nominees in alphabetical order this year. So no mid-announcement epiphanies this time around! [Awards Daily]

The Academy celebrates the 40th anniversary of Peter Bogdanovich’s “The Last Picture Show.” [Oscars.org]

David Poland on a season of darker-themed movies. [Movie City News]

Michael Phillips chats with “Anonymous” director Roland Emmerich. [Chicago Tribune]

Anne Thompson, meanwhile, talks to the film’s screenwriter, John Orloff. [Thompson on Hollywood]

The family of Philip K. Dick sues for “The Adjustment Bureau” film royalties. [Hollywood, Esq.]

Just one day after the Cinema Eye Honors documentary nominations were announced at a cheery London pub party, the rather more solemn International Documentary Association has weighed in with their own nods. It’s a less playful list — no mention for Justin Bieber this time, I’m afraid — and one that pointedly omits several of the year’s most prominent docs: “Senna,” “The Arbor” and “The Interrupters,” among others, are all conspicuous by their absence. Not having seen most of the IDA’s choices, I’m in no position to say whether they’re being discerning or wilful.

The IDA’s only overlap with Cinema Eye in the top category is Chilean veteran director Patricio Guzmán’s “Nostalgia for the Light,” a fused meditation on astronomy and Pinochet-era politics that won the Best Documentary prize at last year’s European Film Awards. It’s certainly one of the year’s most critically beloved documentaries, but I suspect it may yet prove a tough sell to the Academy.

In the short category, “Minka,” which also scored a nod from Cinema Eye and may be a title to file for future reference. Meanwhile, 2010 Oscar nominees “Poster Girl” and “The Warriors of Qiugang” resurface here. Check out the full list of IDA nominees after the jump.

Best Feature
“Better This World”
“How to Die in Oregon”
“Nostalgia for the Light”
“The Redemption of General Butt Naked”
“The Tiniest Place”

Best Short
“Broken Doors”
“Maya Deren’s Sink”
“Minka”
“Poster Girl”
“The Warriors of Qiugang”

Best Limited Series
“Boomtown”
“If God is Willing and Da Creek Don’t Rise”
“Michael Feinstein’s American Songbook”
“The National Parks Project”
“On Series”

Best Continuing Series
“30 for 30”
“American Experience”
“The Passionate Eye”
“POV”  
“Vanguard”

David L. Wolper Student Documentary Awards
“Guañape Sur”
“Heart-Quake”
“River of Victory”
“Smoke Songs”
“Transit”

IDA Humanitas Award
“The Carrier”
“How to Die in Oregon”
“The Learning”
“Position Among the Stars”
“The Tiniest Place”

ABC News Videosource Award
“The Green Wave”
“Michael Feinstein’s American Songbook Ep. 2: Best Band in the Land”
“The Pruitt-Igoe Myth”
“The Most Dangerous Man in America: Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers”
“Reagan”

Something like 20 years ago, screenwriter John Orloff happened upon an episode of PBS’s “Frontline” about the authorship question surrounding the works of William Shakespeare. It was something he had never heard before, so, in those antiquated days of pre-internet, he took to the library for a little research.

There weren’t a lot of books out at the time dedicated to the issue. He didn’t then and he doesn’t now have a definitive idea of who might have written the plays attributed to Shakespeare, even though the film bearing his own signature, “Anonymous,” props up the Oxfordian theory (that Edward de Vere penned them). But Orloff is, if nothing else, certainly a believer that Shakespeare wasn’t the guy.

“I think it’s more about education and life experience, not class,” he says. “To me, it’s not that a man from a lower class could not achieve all of this. Ben Jonson was from a lower class. So was Marlowe. So were most playwrights of the time. But the difference between those people and Shakespeare is they were educated. And to me, it comes down to education and personal experience. And they”re kind of separate.”

The argument, of course, made by non-believers for years and years, is that the author of Shakespeare’s works would have had to be able to read Latin, Greek, French, Italian and Spanish, given the source materials of a number of the plays and the lack of translations for many of them. And Shakespeare may or may not have even gone to grammar school, Orloff says, but that’s a guess because the assumption is he must have had some sort of schooling.

“We can prove he didn’t go to university because there were only two universities at the time, Cambridge and Oxford,” he says. “And there’s no record of him going there. But there are records of Marlowe going there and other playwrights of the time. And then you get into the very specific knowledge that Shakespeare had to have had, like sailing, or the law, or falconry, or tennis, all of these upper class things. And you know, four U.S. Supreme Court Justices don’t think the evidence is there to say that Shakespeare wrote the plays. Walt Whitman believed this. Sigmund Freud believed this. Mark Twain wrote a book about why he didn”t think Shakespeare wrote the plays. This is not crazy time.

“One of the things that’s kind of interesting about Shakespeare scholarship is it’s a very organic thing, because we don’t know anything. And so people just sort of guess. It’s an evolving story, Shakespeare’s life, because we only know like 20 real facts and everything else is guesswork. And the amount of guesses that have come down to us as truth, it’s really kind of weird.”

And all of that, really, is just background for the story Orloff wanted to tell. He wasn’t interested in proving or disproving anything with a screenplay. That’s a documentary, he says. To him, “Anonymous” wasn’t even expressly about the authorship question (though the op-ed sections of countless newspapers this week nevertheless have scholars and authors up in arms and pulling their hair out at the possibility of the film setting back the generally agreed-upon belief that Shakespeare WAS the guy).

Rather, the authorship issue was a setting more so than a theme. For him, the film was about the power of the written word, and, more precisely, the power of ideas.

“Ideas are more powerful than might,” he says. “And I think that’s an incredibly timeless theme.”

The original incarnation of the script was more like “Amadeus,” he says, a tale of jealousy between de Vere, Shakespeare and Ben Jonson, a triangle and a devil’s bargain. The script might have found some real traction, but then 1998’s “Shakespeare in Love” came along and Orloff’s work was pretty much dead on arrival with potential buyers.

But it became a calling card of sorts for him and got him into Tom Hanks’s office, which led to a job writing on HBO’s “Band of Brothers” television series and later the Angelina Jolie-starrer “A Mighty Heart” and Zack Snyder’s animated film “Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga’Hoole.”

Disaster director Roland Emmerich, however, had an interest in it all those years ago. Orloff met with the filmmaker, famous for blockbuster entertainments more so than Elizabethan period pieces, and Emmerich really wanted to make it. But he had a number of ideas that upped the intrigue and melodrama to an extent that made Orloff realize that the way into the material was to make it a Shakespearean, née, Greek tragedy.

“He went off and made another movie and came back having done all this research on his own and he really is the one that sort of injected the whole succession issue,” Orloff says. “You know, who was going to be the next king? The Prince Tutor Theory. I’m not sure I believe that, but whether it’s historically true or not, I thought it was dramatically fantastic.”

Upping the stakes to a “16th Century melodrama,” as Orloff calls it, began to inform a number of other creative choices. Particularly, the Shakespeare character in the film.

“We made him a little broader, a little sillier than maybe he was before,” he says. “Because he suddenly became the fool, the sort of stock Shakespearean fool who also is very wise at the same time. Like the fool in ‘Lear’ is really the one who, let”s just say manages to be on top or, you know, he is the wisest. He somehow navigates all of this treachery and is on top. That”s a very Shakespearean thing.”

Orloff’s script was smaller in scale before Emmerich came on board, too, he says. “It was more about censorship and jealously and a little bit more of a character study than it is now,” he says. “And when Roland came and we talked about it, it suddenly became a political thriller, which necessitated opening it up and talking about London larger and the effect that these plays were having on a larger canvas than what I originally had.”

The “Independence Day” director upped the production ante, bringing his deft touch with CGI into the fold. Pretty much any exterior in the film is a soundstage with green screen, Orloff says. And yet it’s seamless. Emmerich also employed digital photography for the film, which is already being considered one of the most beautiful implementations of the technology on a feature thus far.

“I think the thing that”s really interesting about the film for me, just as a viewer, is I”m not sure any period movie has been made quite this way,” Orloff says. “Like the degree of green screen is – it”s just unheard of for a period piece. Occasionally they”ll do a money shot, like in ‘Titanic,’ you know? They”ll have the money shot of the Titanic or in ‘Gladiator,’ that was one of the early period movies that had CGI in it, but it was just a couple of long shots of Rome or whatever. In this movie every other shot, pretty much any exterior you see in the movie with the exception of one road or any theater, it”s fake.”

From here, Orloff moves on to his next big, just-announced project, Bryan Singer’s feature film version of “Battlestar Galactica,” which he is excited about mainly because it gives him the chance to write in the science-fiction genre he loves so much. Though judging by reaction to the ideas proposed in “Anonymous,” you’d think he was being outlandish enough as it is.

With the film’s release imminent, Orloff is very aware of the stir it’s causing, as it did when it premiered at the Toronto Film Festival in September. And naturally, being a questioner of Shakespeare’s authorship for so long, he has had plenty of time to digest and consider what makes people so angry about the notion, whether at dinner parties in idle conversation or now surrounding his work on “Anonymous.” And it boils down, for him, to a sense of loss.

“I think people subconsciously, it”s almost as though you”re attacking their entire education,” he says. “Because you”re sort of saying, ‘Hey, you were taught all this stuff in school and I don”t think it”s really true.’  And people get defensive about it. And I think in addition to that, Shakespeare in particular is like this one figure that we all have a common experience with. We don”t all read ‘Catcher in the Rye,’ but pretty much you”re forced to read some Shakespeare.

“And people who consider themselves more educated, they take their Shakespeare seriously. I don”t know why. Because I keep on saying to people, if we make the exact same movie and everywhere we said the word ‘William Shakespeare’ we put in the words ‘Thomas Decker,’ who was another playwright in the 16th Century and have the exact same story, nobody would care. They wouldn’t be mortally offended. Luckily, though, the film is mostly getting well-received, even if they think the premise is ludicrous. Because the film stands on its own.”

“Anonymous” opens in limited release Friday, October 28.

Alright, you know the drill. Rifle off your need-to-knows and Anne and I will address as many as possible. Make ’em good! Oh, and FYI, try not to write a dissertation. Make it short and sweet. We don’t need a lifetime of background. We have to read these on the air, after all. Now, hit me!

Film editing is often difficult to judge because we never know what was left out of a feature. That said, the editors play an absolutely pivotal role in filmmaking: setting the pace and length of a film, giving it structure and flow, juxtaposition of imagery, the essence of what makes filmmaking a unique art form.

Last week I commented on how the costume designers are known for their willingness to look beyond a film”s quality, and how it is received in other categories, in choosing their nominees. I cannot grant the same compliment to the editors.

More than any other crafts category, the Best Film Editing nominees are overwhelmingly drawn from the Best Picture contenders. Prior to the expansion of that category to 10 nominees, usually three-to-five of the editing nods came out of the big race (2005 through 2007 being notable exceptions). In the last two years, all of the nominees were Best Picture nominees as well, given the widened field.

Otherwise, this category tends to like action films, war films and musicals as all grant the editor a chance to highlight his or her work. (This is in spite of the fact that I usually admire the sort of editing you don”t notice.)  The branch appears not to be as insular as many other branches, frequently welcoming new nominees to the club.

That said, I”m going to begin my analysis with a contender who is most certainly not new to the game: Michael Kahn, Steven Spielberg”s longtime editing collaborator. This year, the duo are working together on “War Horse.” Assuming the film is the Best Picture contender we all suspect it will be, I”d be shocked if it missed here – Best Picture contender + war + horse + Kahn = favorite.

“War Horse,” I should add, is not Kahn”s only “horse” in this year”s race. He is also responsible for cutting Spielberg”s “The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn.” This film too will feature action and suspense and may very well be a major December blockbuster. It”s not impossible that Kahn could end up a double nominee this year, regardless of this one being considered part of the animated pack.

“The Ides of March””s Stephen Mirrione won this category 11 years ago for Steven Soderbergh”s “Traffic,” another political ensemble. George Clooney”s latest effort has been praised as an effective political thriller. While Mirrione was not nominated for Clooney”s “Good Night, and Good Luck.,” he was likely extremely close. So will he return this year? I”d say that depends upon whether “The Ides of March” ends up in the upper echelon of Best Picture contenders. If it does, I certainly expect Mirrione to be among the top contenders in this category. If not, however, I see other films in the suspense and action genres likely taking precedence.

Like Kahn, Mirrione has two films in competition this year as he also pieced together the latest Soderbergh ensemble, “Contagion.” The film did well at the box office but I don”t expect it to make much of an awards run. Even so, it”s worth noting that this is the sort of film that if it were to score anywhere it could garner an editing nomination and, in any event, could help Mirrione receive a nomination for “The Ides of March.”

Claire Simpson won this category a quarter century ago for “Platoon” and managed her second nomination six years ago for “The Constant Gardener.” She”ll likely have an opportunity to prominently display her skills again this year on Stephen Daldry”s “Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close,” where the pacing and changes of venue will be important to the film”s success (and reportedly “plays with colorful editing”). Should this become a major Best Picture contender, I expect Simpson to be firmly in the race.

Another Best Picture hopeful clearly in the thick of this race is Michel Hazanavicius”s “The Artist.” Anne-Sophie Bion will have to keep people transfixed on a fairly simple plot told through an extremely old style of filmmaking. While the editing is not necessarily going to be the most attention-drawing, I”m predicting this film for a lot of nominations and it seems a very strong possibility that this will come along.

“J. Edgar” remains low on the buzz front despite getting closer and closer to release. That concerns me. That said, it will take us through several decades in its title character”s life, not an easy feat for an editor. Joel Cox has been nominated for both of Clint Eastwood”s Best Picture winners, taking the gold for “Unforgiven.” Gary Roach, his co-editor on this project, has never been nominated. The mixed bag of signals leads me to believe this film”s potential here is ultimately tied to whether it will be in the upper tier of Best Picture contenders.

“Moneyball””s fans and reviews might keep it in the Best Picture hunt until the bitter end. It cannot be denied that the pace set by Christopher Tellefsen”s editing was key to making the film interesting and reasonably suspenseful. It could well lead to a nomination depending on the extent to which AMPAS embraces the film.

Kevin Tent likely came close to a nomination seven years ago with “Sideways.” This year, he is once again working with Alexander Payne, on “The Descendants.” This doesn”t naturally seem like an editing showcase. Indeed, comedies can see trouble finding room in this race. Even so, I expect the film to get at least three, perhaps four or five, nominations in the big categories. In that event, it would be foolish not to consider it here.

Another film with vocal fans is Terrence Malick”s “The Tree of Life.” Hank Corwin, Jay Rabinowitz, Daniel Rezende (nominated for “City of God”), Billy Weber (nominated for “The Thin Red Line” and “Top Gun”) and Mark Yoshikawa all shared duty on this title. The editing was absolutely crucial to the film, given the massive amounts of footage to draw from, and the way shots were contrasted with each other was often brilliant. But is it the sort of work that the branch would like? And how much will the film catch fire this awards season? These are questions to which I genuinely do not know the answer, so I”ll be keenly interested in seeing how it fares along the way.

In the realm of more traditional suspense, I wouldn”t rule out Dino Jonsäter for “Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy.” I strongly suspect Gary Oldman will earn his long overdue first nomination for this feature. I”m of the inclination that he will likely be a Richard Jenkins in “The Visitor”-style sole nominee for his film. But he could bring a few nominations with him. In the age of 10 potential Best Picture nominations, a nod in the big category is not out of the realm of possibility either. If that occurs, a nod for an effective, suspense-building and novel-cutting editing job is very possible.

Every so often, a summer blockbuster comes through in this category. While I doubt it will occur this year, if it did, I would look to Conrad Buff IV and Mark Goldblatt for “Rise of the Planet of the Apes.” Buff won this category for “Titanic” and was nominated with Goldblatt for “Terminator 2: Judgment Day.” If this film is remembered in year-end top 10 lists and gets a push from its studio (both big ifs but still possible), a nomination may be in the cards.

Another fantasy title is “Hugo,” Martin Scorsese”s adaptation of Brian Selznick”s popular novel. It sounds like a ripe opportunity for editing. Toss in the great Thelma Schoonmaker and the odds must only increase. Its biggest downside is the uncertain extent of how it will play to the Academy and how well it will be received by critics and the public. We”ll be finding out shortly.

Albert Brooks may well make an Oscar run for Nicolas Winding Refn”s “Drive.” If the film scores at all beyond Brooks (and even that is not assured), Matthew Newman”s editing could find a home here. There are some riveting scenes with undeniably important pacing.

I”ll end with a film that I feel could buck the trend I cited at the beginning about Best Picture contenders reigning supreme in this category: David Fincher”s “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.” I have no idea if it will find a home in the major categories but even if it doesn”t it certainly has the potential to be a highly suspenseful and successful hit. If that is the case, I”d expect a nomination here. Kirk Baxter and Angus Wall won this category last year for Fincher”s “The Social Network” (having earned their first nomination two years prior for “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button”). A follow-up trip to the Kodak seems appropriate, no?

It may be surprising to know we”re now half-way through analyzing the crafts categories!  Next week, I turn to the unpredictable world of Best Makeup.

What are your thoughts on the film editing category? Have your say in the comments section below!

Okay, this is not Oscar related. At all. In the slightest. Though maybe it should be. I’m in the tank for “Beavis and Butt-Head.” Always have been. Always will be. So you can bet I’ll be parked in front of the tube tonight when MTV finally brings the dummy duo back for a new wave of original programming. I’ve been stoked ever since the announcement was made. And the material that has been released so far, well, it has me in the aisles. And I’ll probably even check out the new show that will follow, “Good Vibes.” It’s nice that the network is at least testing the waters of stuff that isn’t wall-to-wall reality programming. With that in mind, Kimberly Potts offers up 14 great Beavis and Butt-Head moments to welcome them back. [The Box]

HitFix’s own Alan Sepinwall, meanwhile, favorably reviews the return. [What’s Alan Watching?]

In honor of “Anonymous,” five reimaginings of Shakespearean classics with today’s auteurs. [Movieline]

David Poland sits down with the film’s director, Roland Emmerich. [The Hot Blog]

“The King’s Speech” screenwriter David Seidler to keynote 2011 Nicholl Fellowships presentation. [Oscars.org]

The fetching new poster for London fest award winner “We Need to Talk About Kevin.” [Awards Campaign]

Steven Spielberg talks smack about “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.” [Empire]

Glenn Close to be feted at Palm Springs fest. [Variety]

Anton Yelchin tells Eric Kohn that “Like Crazy” awakened a desire to finance indies of his own. [indieWIRE]

Eddie Murphy is forced to make it clear what has been clear since the night of the 2008 Oscars (unless you’re out for sensationalized headlines, of course): he didn’t leave the show in a huff due to losing Best Supporting Actor. [Rolling Stone]

Sasha Stone gets passionate about NC-17 and Oscar. [Awards Daily]

So, today is the final day of the London Film Festival — as well as the final day of Sandra Hebron’s long-running tenure as the festival’s artistic director. (She’ll be missed, but having met her feisty replacement, former Sydney fest director Clare Stewart, on a couple of occasions, I’m not at all nervous about the LFF’s future.) The mammoth 16-day affair draws to a close tonight with the UK premiere of Terence Davies’s “The Deep Blue Sea,” which I saw last month and will review soon — after the critical hiding dealt out to already-forgotten opener “360,” this second Rachel Weisz starrer will end proceedings on a much higher note.

I’ll be at the lavish-looking closing party tonight, though the more exclusive ticket — one I didn’t have — was to last night’s festival awards ceremony, where four competitive prizes were presented, as well as BFI Fellowships for David Cronenberg and Ralph Fiennes. The biggest news of the night, however, was the festival’s still-young Best Film award going for the first time to a British production — Lynne Ramsay’s “We Need To Talk About Kevin.”

As regular readers will know, I couldn’t be more on board with this choice: I was stunned by Ramsay’s daring adaptation of the Lionel Shriver bestseller in Cannes, and thought it easily the best of the nine films shortlisted for the LFF prize. Among the films it beat: “The Artist,” “Shame” and “The Descendants.”

As I’ve said before, however, that shortlist needs to get more adventurous in future editions of the festival: the heavy emphasis on gala premieres means that lame ducks like “360” and “Trishna” get to compete for the award, while smaller festival favorites like “Miss Bala” and “I Wish” don’t — meaning the award still retains a somewhat decorative quality. 

Still, that’s not the fault of the jury — which included, among others, John Madden, Gillian Anderson and Asif Kapadia — who deserve credit for picking one of the bravest options on the narrow list, thereby giving one of the year’s best films its first piece of awards hardware. Founded in 2009, the Best Film trophy has previously gone to “A Prophet” and “How I Ended This Summer”; with “Kevin” joining them, this award has yet to put a foot wrong in the final result.

In another well-received choice, the festival’s Grierson Award for Best Documentary went to Werner Herzog’s latest, “Into the Abyss: A Tale of Death, A Tale of Life.” Thanks to schedule conflicts, I haven’t seen the film myself yet, but given his glowing reaction at Telluride, I’m sure Kris would approve of this win.

I must confess to having a slight issue, however, with the winner of the Sutherland Award for first-time filmmakers: Argentinian director Paolo Giorgelli’s gentle, quietly romantic road movie “Las Acacias” also netted the Camera d’Or at Cannes, and while it’s a perfectly lovely debut, I fear this modest, conventional film is now at risk of seeming somewhat over-rewarded. It certainly doesn’t fit the Sutherland Award’s stated brief of recognising the festival’s “most original and imaginative feature debut”: when you consider that more striking films like “Snowtown” and “Without” were in the running, this carries the air of a compromise choice. (Meanwhile, we never did find out why “Martha Marcy May Marlene” wasn’t even on the shortlist. Oh well.)

Out of kindness to a still-forming actress, I won’t comment too much on the decision to award Best British Newcomer to first-timer Candese Reid for the ropey urban drama “Junkhearts.” I will say, however, that Tom Cullen and Chris New, the breakout stars of “Weekend” (still my film of the fest, for what it’s worth), can count themselves thoroughly short-changed here. Perhaps the jury simply opted out of choosing between them.

Back to “Kevin,” though. Whether or not the LFF prize gets the ball rolling for further awards attention, it’s the cherry on top of a remarkable week for Ramsay’s film. Despite a tough-sell premise and forbidding arthouse credentials, “Kevin” has crossed over spectacularly in the UK market, surpassing all expectations with an opening-weekend gross of nearly $790,000 on a little over 100 screens, its average exceeding that of fellow new opener “Contagion.” (The Guardian has the figures here.)

That may have been helped by a divisive marketing campaign that played up the film’s genre elements (complete with crass “Mummy’s little monster” tagline) and eschewing artful graphics for crammed blocks of critics’ quotes. Many, including Ramsay herself, were unhappy with this less-than-pretty approach, but it seems to have paid off. It’ll be interesting, then, to see how “Kevin” eventually fares in the US, where the Ramsay-approved campaign has been far more elegant and arthouse-oriented. (As it happens, Greg Ellwood featured the film’s gorgeous new US one-sheet here.)

To recap, the full list of LFF winners:

Best Film: “We Need To Talk About Kevin,” Lynne Ramsay

Sutherland Award – Debut Feature: “Las Acacias,” Paolo Giorgelli

Grierson Award – Documentary: “Into the Abyss: A Tale of Death, A Tale of Life,” Werner Herzog

Best British Newcomer: Candese Reid, “Junkhearts”